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.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The meeting is called to order. This is the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. This is our second meeting. I welcome you all here today.
Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, I'd like to move that the committee undertake studies into the following matters during this session—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Hardie, one moment. I have to deal with one other part of business before I open the floor. I have to report back from the subcommittee that I have nothing to report from our subcommittee meeting.
Now that this report is done, I can refer to Mr. Hardie.
Is it something to do with the previous...?
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Yes. Sorry, I wasn't there. I was in the House. I understand there was a meeting. Can you elaborate a bit on that?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We had our steering committee last Wednesday from 3:30 to 5:30 and discussed issues in camera. This means we cannot discuss anything pertaining to the meeting we had last week. Nothing that was discussed at the in camera meeting is to be shared with anyone else.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I have a subsequent question. I understand what in camera means. We've all been around the block here as mayors or whatever, but what are the criteria? I know there has been this move for openness and transparency, so I'm curious about what is public and what goes in camera and is not shared with the public.
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Bartholomew Chaplin
One has to use veiled speech. One can speak from one's own point of view—of hypotheticals, of what one might have liked to see come out from the meeting—but when it comes to the actual events, especially what was not decided or what was up for debate, generally you're not allowed to disclose it. Of course, whatever is actually decided will be reflected in the minutes
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Thanks. That wasn't my question. I get that. I was a mayor for a decade, so I get what in camera means.
What are the criteria that determine what's not to be public information? I know as a former mayor that it was any legal opinion, personnel issues, or confidences disclosed in a criminal matter.
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk
It's all those and more. It's everything.
3:35 p.m.
The Clerk
If it happened in camera—
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I understand. I'm just trying to determine what the criteria are. What you're saying is there are no criteria.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
It's at the call of the chair. It has been used in the past when an informal working group was put together. They would go in camera, and so on, but it doesn't have to happen.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
My point of order is this: are we going to have six Liberals at every committee meeting?
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We will have the appropriate committee members as agreed upon by the committee. It's not our committee. It's the standard for all of the—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Madam Chair, I move:
That the Committee undertake studies into the following matters during this session: infrastructure, rail safety, the Emerson report and unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) regulations; and
That the Chair, in consultation with Committee staff and members, establish and coordinate appropriate resources, plans and schedules to accomplish the aforementioned, in addition to matters referred directly to the Committee by the House.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
February 22nd, 2016 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to say that the official opposition definitely agreed with the comments you made at our very first meeting regarding the importance of consensus and working respectfully together to advance the needs of Canadians, specifically in the area of transport and infrastructure. Accordingly, I think that in principle we're willing to accept the Liberal motion that's been presented by Mr. Hardie.
As a starting point for our discussions as a committee, as we plan future business, we've also introduced a number of motions. I think the motion made by Mr. Hardie has encapsulated some of the motions that we've made, and we know that they do touch on very important issues for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I think we should carefully consider all of the above as part of the motion.
After the last meeting that I was at, I was asked if we would be prepared to present some suggestions on how we might move forward and look at a calendar and start to actually plan, so I took the liberty of putting a calendar out there and would suggest that one of the things that we would be perfectly happy to support, for the next three meetings—it will take us to the end of March and all the way up to when the budget is presented—would be looking at rail safety and any issues that have been raised through the motions of our colleagues in regard to rail safety.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Thank you very much.
I'm a little bit troubled with the second part of the motion. I can't reveal all the details of what went on in the subcommittee, but all the members have received my proposed motions. It's no secret that a number of us have put forward a number of suggestions, particularly under the topic of rail safety and infrastructure, and I continue not to be comfortable with simply voting on whether this committee will study infrastructure. Clearly we're going to study infrastructure, and it's fairly evident, probably, that we'll also look at rail safety, because that's under the mandate of the minister.
What I would feel more comfortable with is if you'd be open to my amending this motion. We did discuss that those are the general areas where we might see priorities coming forward, but I have some discomfort with then spending more committee meetings talking about what we would talk about under infrastructure and safety. I agree with what you said previously, Madam Chair, that what we would really like to do is to find some distinct topics that we could review in a shorter period of time and maybe come to some conclusions and recommendations to present to the government.
I have a real problem with a broad-based look at infrastructure and rail safety, and I am also not comfortable with simply leaving the specific aspects of what we'd look at to the chair. I think that should also be up to the committee, so rather than going through this motion and then going back to all the specific motions, I think one way we could expedite this process is if I could put forward a couple of ideas as amendments to the motion that is before us right now.
Those two amendments would be as follows. First of all, under the topic of infrastructure, I would like to recommend that we consider a report that has recently been brought forward to the government by....
Oh, procedurally I have to just table the amendment and then explain it.