Transport Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'll just go back. For the 17 years that I've been here, ministers.... When I was a minister, you came, and you also had the officials with you to add additional information. It doesn't matter who's in the government: the minister comes with various officials—and I'm sure Ms. Duncan is aware of that—so that the committee can get the maximum amount of information they want on a particular issue.

The suggestion that Mr. Hardie is making is about time, probably, because there are only so many meetings between now and June. If the departmental officials came as well for at least some of your questions and then come back at a later date, would that be helpful at all, Mr. Hardie?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Well, I suppose that if the officials came with the minister by pre-arrangement or prior arrangement, there would certainly an opportunity that something could be substantially addressed. I don't know how deep this issue actually is. Certainly it would get on our agenda more quickly, because we're going to be seeing ministers before we have a chance to dive into some of the other issues. I presume it wouldn't preclude keeping the issue alive and then bringing officials in a little bit later on to get into more depth, if that's required.

Again, this is simply an amendment to expedite the discussion and get something going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

I'll speak just one more time to this.

I think that actually we keep it alive by not linking it to the minister's visit. If we have some questions about Marine Atlantic and ferry services in Atlantic Canada, or if something comes up about tanker traffic or marine safety on the west coast, those questions can certainly be asked when the minister is here, but I don't want to say that this motion is simply to be addressed when the minister is here. I see it staying on the books, parked for whenever we may want to discuss it down the road if our questions haven't been satisfied through whatever may come up when the minister appears before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are you suggesting that at this time you want to leave the motion tabled until a later date, or do you want us to vote on your motion now?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

There's an amendment, so it sounds to me as though we have to vote on the amendment. It's not a friendly amendment at this point in time, but at least then we have some direction to work with when it comes to setting up the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have an amendment by Mr. Hardie. Once you get into a vote, you have to vote. All members know that. Any comments you wish to make before I call a vote have to be made beforehand, because once the vote has been called, there is no further discussion.

Go ahead, Ms. Watts.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Briefly, I'm not going to support the amendment, only because there are many questions that everybody may have of the minister. I certainly wouldn't want to dedicate it to just one topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie is next. Then we're going to call the vote.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'd be prepared to withdraw the amendment, simply on the basis that it's probably going to come up anyway and would be dealt with subsequently, so this is simply sand in the gears.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

That's a friendly decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll now vote on Ms. Block's motion:

That the Committee invite officials from Transport Canada to appear in front of the Committee to discuss Marine Atlantic.

(Motion agreed to)

The second motion reads:

That the Committee invite representatives from the Marine Safety Division of Transport Canada to appear in front of the Committee to discuss maritime traffic safety on Canada's west coast.

(Motion agreed to)

Go ahead, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have circulated several more motions that I would like to table.

First of all, I'd like a point of clarification from you, Madam Chair. I did circulate a motion for this committee to review the Emerson report, the report that was required under the Canada Transportation Act.

I'm not sure, given that we've agreed to review it, if I need to retable that motion or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If you would like to retable it, please go ahead right now.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

If we have already agreed to it, I don't think it's necessary to retable that motion.

I have two others. The second motion dealing with rail safety is the one I've circulated to you. As well, the clerk could distribute copies of a report from the teamsters that I've brought for all committee members. The teamsters have been trying to make this report available to all committee members. It's related to my motion, which reads:

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.

I'm advised that Canadian Pacific has served notice to rail workers that they are expanding the unregulated use of remote control locomotive systems to 13 major communities, including Calgary, Toronto, Winnipeg, and many other cities.

There is an issue that these devices be used by “qualified operators”, which is not defined in regulation, and there is no prescribed identification or training standard for these officers who are using these remote control devices. Some 405 incidents have been reported by the Transportation Safety Board relating to these remote control devices in the last decade. Of the 20 incidents since September of last year, 10 involved dangerous commodities.

The Americans are apparently concerned with this issue as well. They have commissioned reviews and they are moving forward with potential new regulations to ensure these devices are used in a safe manner.

My motion is to simply bring in the appropriate witnesses, which would obviously include the Transportation Safety Board, possibly Transport Canada, the rail companies, and some representatives of the workers. We would hear about the issue, and then we could decide if we have any recommendations that we would want to make.

That's my motion. I think it could be a pretty discrete review. It would be a maximum of two meetings. Potentially it could be done in one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

In keeping with the approach earlier, I had the chance to chat with at least one railroad about this issue, and it is interesting.

To slot it into the first motion we adopted, I'd propose an amendment that adds the language, “as part of the committee's formal study on rail safety”.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's a friendly amendment, and I accept that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All those in favour of Ms. Duncan's motion as amended, please signify.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a second motion that I would like to table. This issue has been brought to my attention just recently. The motion is:

That the Committee undertake a review of northern infrastructure challenges and opportunities, including as outlined in the report, Recommendations on Northern Infrastructure to Support Economic Development, issued January 2016 by the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board.

I would think that would clearly fit within our first topic, infrastructure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is the motion you are referring to the one that was circulated this morning, Ms. Duncan?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think it's inappropriate to move that motion today, unless you have unanimous consent.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Can I not move a motion on the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No. You have 48 hours. We're entertaining the other motions you put on the table because you gave us sufficient notice. Prior notice of 48 hours is required.