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.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
A point of order, Madam Chair, did we not have to dispense with the first motion?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
We voted on my amendment, or was that taken as friendly?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
In keeping with the theme of trying to slot things under the initial motion, I think we can probably do the same exercise with this and the other motions that may come forward by amending the motion by adding the words “as part of the committee's formal study on infrastructure”. Is that similarly friendly?
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Are there any other motions that have been tabled?
Go ahead, Ms. Duncan.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Yes, I would like to table my motion, Madam Chair, the motion that I put forward. I have material that I can share in relation to it.
On the first one, do you want me to read it into the record? It's the one dealing with—
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Do you want me to read the whole...? I'll just put forward my motion—
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
The motion reads:
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.
4:25 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Okay. The reason I brought it forward is that it's been brought to my attention in doing research, after being appointed as critic into this committee, that a good number of attempts to examine this issue have reached a deadlock. My understanding is that the matter was considered by the working group from ACRS, and they didn't reach any agreement. The matter was referred over to the minister, and then there was a change of government.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Could you elaborate on “ACRS”, so that everybody knows who you're referring to?
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
I'll read it all out. ACRS is the advisory council on railway safety. A working group of that government organization was struck specifically to try to resolve the issue of fatigue management.
The Transportation Safety Board has identified fatigue management in just about every serious derailment and accident in the last while. That certainly includes the Hinton disaster way back 30 years ago, and certainly Lac-Mégantic, and I think the recent incident in British Columbia. A directive just for that part of British Columbia was issued by the Transportation Safety Board.
Therefore, it looks to me like a mounting issue. The teamsters I met with, as I think a number of you have, are raising that as one of their two priorities. We'd like to have consideration of some action that could be taken by the government.
That's my first motion.
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, I would just like to make sure of something. To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to the motion. In fact, I'd like to add my motion to the same motion to make sure that we hear from Transportation Safety Board of Canada representatives, given all the insight they have. They identified a myriad of causes that contributed to the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Any steps we can take towards rail safety will help to prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Just to make sure the committee hears from the people at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada and to make things easier, I would add the same wording that the others added, at the beginning.
as part of the subject.
The amendment would include both elements since we are all in favour of that addition.
