Evidence of meeting #2 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
My amendment would be to the part about infrastructure. It is that in studying infrastructure, our first study would be that the committee undertake a review of northern infrastructure challenges and opportunities, including, as outlined in the report, the recommendations on northern infrastructure to support economic development, as issued January 2016 by the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board.
I understand everyone has been sent that in English and French.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Sorry, you haven't tabled it; you gave notice for it. You're moving that motion as an amendment to Mr. Hardie's motion.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
That's correct. It's an amendment.
That would be my first amendment to Mr. Hardie's motion.
My second one would be on rail safety:
That the Committee undertake a review of potential safety issues related to use by rail companies of remote control devices to move locomotives and to assemble trains.
On the second part of that, I don't know if you want me to read into the record the full other motion, but I could read it into the record. It reads, “In October 2012, the advisory council on railway safety, the ACRS, struck a working group to examine concerns that inadequate action had been taken to address fatigue management despite a series of inquiries—for example, into the 2008 Hinton train collision killing 23 people—and studies—”
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
No. Well, I just asked if you wanted me to read the full thing.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I don't think you need to read the full thing. Does the committee feel Ms. Duncan needs to read the whole thing into the record?
Ms. Watts.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Just procedurally—and I don't know, and this is why I'm asking the question—if a motion is not tabled in due course, then how can we make an amendment to an existing motion that's on the table when it hasn't gone to the clerk—or does it matter?
3:45 p.m.
The Clerk
Amendments to motions can be made on the fly. No notice need be given of an amendment, and if a member can shape the bits of a motion of which they have previously been given notice into an amendment that remains within the scope of the original motion, then it's in order.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I will be happy to make that discrete, since everybody has received my prior motion.
The second part to my amendment on the discussion of rail safety, then, would be:
That the Committee undertake an examination of measures taken or identified as necessary by Transport Canada to address the outstanding concerns with fatigue management with implications for rail safety.
What I would also like to do is strike the last part of Mr. Hardie's motion. My comment on that is that I think it appropriate that the committee members themselves, with the assistance of the clerk and the analyst and the chair, focus in on exactly what we'll be examining and who the appropriate witnesses are.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, with respect to the amendments proposed, I presume this is what we're speaking to now. Was that a motion?
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
It was an amendment to your motion, so at this moment you have the floor, Mr. Hardie. You can speak to both the motion that you've placed and to the amendment that Ms. Duncan has placed.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to back up and really look at some of the principles we're trying to operate under here. Based on the number of motions that have come forward, it's very clear that there's a broad range of issues that people wish to cover. From that I certainly took, and I believe my colleagues certainly took, the feeling that there was a clear desire to really focus on things on which we could make a measurable difference by coming up with a decision or a result on a study rather than to have broad-brush studies that perhaps led to not very many clear places. I believe this is reflected in all of the motions we've seen brought forward so far, including those by the member opposite. At this point in time I would argue that although there is that focus, there are other very meritorious motions on the floor that should also be considered for attention in the proper course of the committee's work.
In addition, I think one of the other principles we discussed was balance. We have transportation and we have infrastructure. Obviously, we need to attend to both of them. There was a general desire, particularly in the early stages, to ensure that we had the appropriate background from the ministries responsible, and with minister and staff available. This speaks against going directly into some, but not all, of the motions brought forward until we have an opportunity to get our wheels under us and move forward.
The other matter is that we have supplementary estimates coming forward, which will consume some time. While I don't disagree with the member's motions and the notion on which she'd like to go forward, I don't think we should necessarily lock ourselves into that right off the bat, before we actually have a chance to go through the preliminaries that this committee needs to go through, particularly with the ministers, when we hear from them and talk about their mandate letter. Then, given the range of motions that we have in front of us now, we should not lose any of them, but we should have a discussion as to where we should start.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to speak to the amendment that has been put forward.
We would agree that the last statement of this motion may be somewhat inappropriate when you think about the work of the committee and what we are charging you as the chair as well as the clerk with doing, which is much of the work that we should be doing around this table in terms of providing the clerk with names of witnesses we would like to have come forward. Those would be the resources that are being referred to.
We should also be establishing plans and schedules. This committee should be sitting down and looking at a calendar and asking what the priorities are that we want to look at and looking at the days that we have in between break weeks. Also, we should look at some of the other things that are on the calendar, such as the budget and the estimates, and then figure out what makes sense to tackle within the time frames we have in between break weeks, even going beyond when the budget is presented.
I would agree with Ms. Duncan in terms of that last statement. I don't know if removing that part of the motion was part of her amendment, but I think doing so would be appropriate, because that really is the work of the committee to do. We will provide direction to the clerk through the chair in terms of how to make it happen, so to speak, once we've determined the calendar.