Transport Committee on Feb. 22nd, 2016

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

It seems there's a lot happening. I'd like to speak to Ms. Duncan's amendment and perhaps touch on a theme that's a bit broader.

One of the things I'm cognizant of is that the most precious resource that I believe we have as a committee is time. It's hard to get all of us in the same room, and I'd like to be very efficient in our activities.

There seems to be an air of general agreement on the themes we're touching on, and I actually quite like some of the specifics mentioned in the different notices of motion we've received. One of the ways that it might be more effective to deal with the language in order to make sure we don't get lost in the weeds on a particular issue is, for example, with regard to the study of fatigue in rail safety, to perhaps agree to the main motion. Then, on the motion that you put forward properly with notice, we can say that we adopt the motion as part of the formal study on rail safety. I'm very nervous about getting caught up in 10 different issues and doing independent studies of each, which may cause us to lose track of the greater issue of rail safety. Also, we may miss out on other issues that, through our interviews of witnesses, we may discover to be equally important.

I'd propose, perhaps for a discussion before I put forward a motion to amend, that we agree on the language put forward, on those four categories, and then deal with the specific motions on fatigue as part of the formal study on rail safety and so on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Watts.

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

On that point, because these categories are broad-based and I'm thinking the intention was an overall framework, we do have a number of motions. Is it the intent to put those motions underneath each of these categories? If that's the case, we can do that all at once, I would expect.

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

Madam Chair, that was precisely the intention. It was to create some categories into which the motions we've received so far—and likely will receive—can find a home, not get lost, and be brought up. I believe an effort to calendarize our approach is sound.

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

Speaking to the amendment, we're only picking some of those motions, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That's right.

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

I'm wondering if the motions that have been put thus far are slotted under each one of those categories. I would expect that as we move forward, others will be added as well, as you were saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Next is Mr. Berthold, and then Ms. Block, Ms. Duncan, and Ms. Block.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just give the witnesses a few moments to put in their earpieces. It won't be long.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could you give us all a moment, Mr. Berthold?

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

I'd just like to acknowledge the interpreters who are with us today. It's important to highlight the tremendous job they do. I've seen their skills in action at every meeting I've attended since I've been at the House of Commons. My sincere thanks to them.

Madam Chair, I think we're heading in the right direction, given that we're starting to clarify our intentions under each of the broad categories.

Our goal is to take action and to be able to say what we're going to do Wednesday. The idea is to be able to have discussions and set to work quickly on a given topic. But, as it is, even the motion doesn't get us working on a topic.

With all due respect to Mr. Hardie, there's a lot involved here. We are talking about including the motions. We could decide to include the motions put thus far within each of the categories and prioritize them, in accordance with the priorities of all the parties represented here, of course. That way, we would be able to get things going quickly.

Mr. Hardie, I would also point out that I'm a bit uncomfortable with the last part of the motion. It's always been my understanding that it's the committee's job to decide on the topics it deals with and the agenda. We can't give the chair carte blanche. In any case, she would have to bring it all back to the committee to have us approve the whole agenda. If we were to drop that part of the motion and move forward with specific topics, we could finally make some progress. I think people expect us to examine specific topics, so we need to stop chasing our tails.

Motions were put forward for very specific reasons. So let's include them and adopt a motion setting out the specific topics, in accordance with our priorities. Then we could finally get to work. I think that's how all the parliamentarians here today would like to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Duncan is next, and then Ms. Block.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

I'm in an awkward position. We can't talk about what happened in the subcommittee, even though most of the people in the room on that side were at that meeting anyway.

I have a level of discomfort with spending more time or having witnesses in to talk in general about rail safety. The reason for that discomfort is that this committee and many other committees struck by Transport Canada have already done extensive reviews and have already identified problems with rail safety.

As a result of those previous reviews, two of the topics I raised have been identified as areas requiring more expedited action. That was why I came forward with the specific topics. Yes, they fall under rail safety, but I am not favourable to bringing in a number of witnesses to talk to us vaguely about railway safety. That's what troubles me.

I'm glad that Mr. Hardie likes the general area of the topics, and that's encouraging. I have looked at reports that have been done previously, including the ACRS report, and I have heard from the teamsters. I did provide copies—in fact, I have additional copies here in French and English—and I think Mr. Hardie might also have had a chance to meet with the teamsters on their concern with the automated movement of locomotives.

It troubles me because we now know that the estimates have been referred to us. We are hopeful that the Emerson report will be tabled sooner rather than later, and we think that possibly some of the budget may well come to us, probably a fair bit, if we get infrastructure referred to us. My concern is that further and further down the line those issues, which have been brought to my attention by concerned Canadians, are not going to be acted on quickly.

If I could have the confidence that the members, after voting on this motion, will move expeditiously to look at other specific motions that we have sent around, and if we could vote on whether or not we will move forward and which of those we will review quickly, I'd be willing to remove that part of my amendment and simply keep the last part of the amendment, which we seem to have some unanimity with on this side.

I want to be clear about my level of discomfort in the need to move forward. There have already been many general studies on rail safety that identified the critical issues. I don't think we'd be well advised to start all over on that again and start examining what the issues might be.

We'll wait and hear what the other members have to say, but if that's the case, I'd be amenable, after we vote on this motion to move into the specifics, to deleting that part of my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I don't know when it's appropriate to hand to you a calendar that takes us to the end of April. It's pretty blank, except for perhaps a couple of meeting dates between now and the end of March. It's in English and French, and I'd be happy to circulate it to all members so we can begin to look at the days that we have between now and then.

We have one meeting and then we go to break week. Then we have the ministers and then we go to a break week. Then we have two meetings, and then have two break weeks.

We have three meeting days before we go to the two-week break. It takes us to the first week in April. If there's a plan for this coming Wednesday to call departmental officials in on something, those are likely the only people who are going to be able to appear before this committee at short notice.

I think if I could—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I think it might be advisable to hold that until we have dealt with the.... I appreciate it as the chair and I welcome that assistance. At the end of the day, we're all talking about the same issues. We're quite specific about issues to do with rail safety and infrastructure; it's just that we can't seem to get over getting a calendar together when we seem to be a fair group of people.

I have Mr. Hardie down next, and then we should get on with what we're doing.

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

Madam Chair, perhaps there's an opportunity here, and certainly the comfort of all members is called for.

We do have a number of motions that have been put forward. I think there's been some notion that if it was demonstrated that each of those motions had a home in this framework, it would provide some comfort that could perhaps ensure everybody's issues are on the table and have not been discarded. I would presume at the appropriate time each one of those motions could be moved and dealt with accordingly.

I'll speak personally: it's not in my interest to see them go away. If there's a mechanism we can use to give them a home within this framework, then we can turn to the necessities facing us in terms of meeting with ministers and the estimates and all the rest, and then deal with the calendar. We can pick the ones that require more immediate attention and move on them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie is suggesting that if this motion were adopted, he would be favourable to members tabling their motions today one by one. Specifically, they would be part of this work plan.

Does that sound like something that the committee would be in favour of?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Does that mean, then, that I will remove the first part of my amendment, but retain the third part? I would remove “That the Chair in consultation with Committee staff and members”, this last clause, because there is general consensus on this side of the table that they want that part removed.

I'm willing to remove my specific recommendations for infrastructure and rail safety for the purposes of voting on the motion, but I wish to retain that part about removing the final clause of Mr. Hardie's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just so we've very clear, we're finally getting somewhere, maybe.

We are referring to “That the Chair in consultation with committee staff and members”. That's the part you're talking about. You'd be deleting that whole part at the end. It would be “That the committee undertake the studies into the following matters”.

Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Madam Chair, the motion very clearly states that “the Chair, in consultation with Committee staff and members, establish and coordinate appropriate resources….” It's very clear that the chair is not the one making the decisions but that she must consult the committee. I think it's time to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

Just to ensure that everybody is clear here with the amendment that is on the floor from Ms. Duncan, her amendment is that we delete the final paragraph. We would need to vote on that amendment first and then vote on the motion.

We have an amendment by Ms. Duncan. Does everyone understand the amendment?

Mr. Berthold.

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

Madam Chair, I have a question about the amendment. It says that “the Chair…establish and coordinate appropriate resources, plans and schedules to accomplish the aforementioned….”

If we adopt that motion, will the clerk of the committee have the authority to act in response to a simple request from the chair? It doesn't specify whether the committee members would be consulted here. The wording leaves a lot of questions unanswered, so I have a lot to say about it this afternoon.

The amendment involves legal processes and committee expenditures. It says that the committee's agenda would be established by the chair without any committee members being consulted. That's what troubles me about the amendment, Madam Chair. I'm trying to be constructive, here. I don't want us to relive the past. We are on the verge of agreeing on how to proceed. We shouldn't vote hastily and, once again, break any agreements that are about to be reached.

I would sincerely ask the government party to think about its request for a vote. I would ask my colleague to immediately withdraw his request for a vote so that the committee can come to an agreement on the matter.

I don't believe that you, Madam Chair, are at ease with the vast authority that the motion would give you, either. In all sincerity, this really troubles me. I've talked with other people, and they have never seen a motion like this at any committee. It would set a precedent that I don't think any of us wants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Can I clarify what I, as the chair, view here? It says that the chair, in consultation with committee staff and members, establish and coordinate appropriate resources, plans, and schedules, together with the analysts, after consulting with members of the committee as to their priorities.

I need to clarify how I see this. I would consult with all of you as to your priorities to start tackling first, second, third, or whatever. Then I would prepare a plan, together with the analysts. The appropriate resources would be recommended through the analysts' plans and schedules, which Ms. Block has already put together for us to accomplish the aforementioned. Then it comes back to the committee for adoption. That would be the work plan put forward after consulting all of you and the analysts.

Mr. Sikand, you have the floor.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I believe everyone's had an opportunity to have their say, so if I could, I'd like to continue with a motion to adjourn debate on this amendment.