Evidence of meeting #48 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 study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay. I think we should just go forward with one meeting and assess at the end of that who else we need to hear from. That is my suggestion. Is that all right?
If we need a second meeting, or a third, then the flexibility is here within the committee to do so if the committee members decide that they've heard other information that requires additional meetings.
Otherwise, we're all on the same page on this issue.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's fine.
If we can get started and adjust our game plan if necessary, that's fine. The key to me is that we should do something. To get the ball rolling with a meeting is fine by me. If we decide after that meeting that we need more, I'm okay with that.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Would agreement on holding one to two meetings on the topic make it the next item on our agenda, or could we study it when appropriate?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
No, because it will have to fit in with all of the other things we have on our agenda.
When we come back we'll be dealing with the NPA study. We'll have to fit this in when we can, because we have other things that take priority.
Bill S-2 is the next thing coming to us that we need to discuss, so I'm not quite sure when we will fit this in.
We have plenty of time, so we can hold off, I believe, until the appropriate time when we need to get that information.
Okay, that takes care of that.
Is everybody okay then with the direction we're taking with the Bratina motion?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, perhaps we could ask the researchers to find out who the federal health stakeholders are in the various departments, agencies, and organizations and provide the information to all the members. That would speed up the process even more. The committee would have a list of potential witnesses and could then decide on its preferences.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's a great suggestion.
We will move on to the next item of committee business, which is Bill S-2, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. It hasn't been referred to us yet, and based on information I was able to get, the earliest we would have it before the committee is possibly March 20, or even later.
We still don't have it, but when we get it, we need to discuss that. We had informally talked about three meetings. The Senate held three meetings on Bill S-2. If we continue to move forward with three meetings as we had previously talked about, is that acceptable to the committee at this particular time?
Ms. Block.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
This was a piece of legislation that was introduced by the Conservatives towards the end of the last Parliament. We did not have the opportunity to look at it in Parliament. I recognize that it's gone through the Senate. They've held three meetings to look at it. I would recommend that we schedule four meetings, plus a meeting for clause-by-clause. There's a fairly lengthy amendment that's been made by the Senate to this bill, and I think there could be other amendments that we as a committee will want to take a look at.
I would recommend that we schedule four meetings. The recall of five million vehicles in the last year probably warrants us taking a really good look at this piece of this legislation to make sure that it's addressing the things that we think are important when it comes to vehicle safety. I recommend that four meetings be put on the agenda, plus a meeting for clause-by-clause. Again, as we roll through this study, we can always get this done in a shorter period of time, but in terms of trying to find the time, especially as we're bumping up against the end of this parliamentary session, I think we'd want to have a clear ability to deal with this legislation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Yes, with four meetings to take a look at the legislation, and then the last meeting to go through clause-by-clause and any amendments that may come from our study or review.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Going back to the approach I took that I just criticized a moment ago, when I'm trying to figure out who would come to this, unless we wanted to bring in more people who are going to bring very similar messaging, I could only come up with essentially two meetings, plus the clause-by-clause. Even then, for the clause-by-clause, as I picture it in my mind, we could do it in one hour of the meeting. When I thought about the different groups, I had essentially two and a half meetings.
Just to let you know where my head is at, I was thinking of having manufacturers here, which are obviously going to want to have a presence; dealers, in light of the proposed amendment; some group that would speak to the safety issue, which is what this bill is all about; and, the minister and departmental officials. That's who I saw coming up.
Are there groups that wouldn't be captured in those kinds of themes?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, I would suggest that I'm not totally clear yet on what consumer groups we might want to invite to bring us their testimony. I think the Auditor General would be another individual we would put on our list. Again, perhaps we need the time to take a look at the list of witnesses that's going to be put forward and then determine the number of meetings, but I'm in favour of scheduling at least four meetings for the study on this legislation.
How many meetings did we set aside for the review of Bill C-10?
Okay. We set aside four meetings for that, and there was one clause. That was a change to one clause, and we used up the time to do that.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
This is a fairly simple one, very much based on safety, and you're familiar with it from before. It's my understanding that it's the same bill that was submitted by your government. The only concern is the amendment that has been placed there.
Monsieur Aubin.
12:25 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I just want to give the committee an idea of the witnesses we already intend to propose—the list is not comprehensive, mind you. Of course, it's imperative that we hear from the Auditor General, as well as the minister. Those two witnesses alone will take up one meeting.
We also want to hear from manufacturers, consumers, dealers, and various independent stakeholders and experts. If we can manage to deal with all that in three meetings and do the clause-by-clause study, that would make us one of the fastest-moving committees ever.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I was going to suggest that we're a younger, more dynamic, and faster-working committee than maybe some are and we think we would be able to do that in three meetings—maybe four—but I had better not go there.
Mr. Hardie.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
I think the investment of a little time to really figure out what problem we're trying to solve with this legislation would be useful. It would confer additional powers on the minister, which from all I've heard wouldn't be exercised that often. Are we dealing with a systemic issue here where recalls aren't happening or being supported appropriately by the manufacturers? I think that's definitely worth a look. Again, public confidence and consumer protection are key here.
There's the side issue of the relationship between auto manufacturers and the dealers. I would resist the temptation to get high-centred on that issue, because you could spend a lot of time listening to a whole bunch of people telling you exactly the same thing. But the first consideration—why we need this in the first place—is worth a good look.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We'll go ahead with four meetings. That would be the intent and the planning, we'd do it in four meetings. If for some reason it requires a fifth, I think the committee is open and flexible. That will be on Bill S-2. If we can include clause-by-clause, great, but let's see what the interest is, the witness lists and so on.
Before I forget, we have an informal meeting request from a delegation from Indonesia for a meeting with us on May 2. This would be an additional meeting to our regular committee meeting. Is there interest in the committee meeting with this delegation?
Ms. Block.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, I looked at the focus of the meeting, and I would put forward that it falls within the same thinking I presented around Mr. Bratina's bill. It seemed to me that they wanted to focus on issues of water security, water management, and that sort of thing. While I know that's an important issue, it is something that in Canada falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and municipalities. I'm not sure if there's anything else they would like to discuss with us as a transportation committee, unless it's about navigation, and I'm not sure where they were going in their request.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
This wonderful name, “transportation, infrastructure and communities”, frankly can be applied to absolutely everything that goes on in our whole country. If we were to respond to everything, we would never have time to get any other work done. I'll suggest that they meet with some other folks besides this committee if that's the desire of the committee.
We still have the issue that Mr. Aubin raised and that we wanted to look at on aviation safety. I don't know how many weeks we have between now and the end of June, but the suggestion is that the next one we would start would be the aviation study. Is that what everybody wants? It's been on the books for a while. We have seven weeks, maybe nine. We'll start with the aviation study. We've heard discussion about this passenger bill of rights and how that would work with an aviation study. As to the rights of our consumers out there to safe travel, it somehow seems tied together.
Mr. Aubin.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I just have a comment on the airline passenger bill of rights. Since the bill is coming from the minister, I imagine that whenever he does bring it forward, it will land in this committee's lap.
To my mind, there is no reason to tie the two issues together, especially since the one I proposed has to do with aviation safety, which isn't really the case for the passenger bill of rights. I want to give you an idea of the safety considerations that could be directly linked to a potential aviation disaster. These are factors the committee does or could look at: pilot certification; the amount of flying time, particularly for transcontinental flights; cabin air quality; the ratio of crew members to passengers; lasers; cosmic radiation; toxic fumes; and inspector training. All of those elements are directly linked to our ability to make aviation as safe as possible, not only for workers, but also for all air passengers. If possible, I would like to limit our study to safety considerations and spend the appropriate amount of time examining them.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Madam Chair, I would just like to support Mr. Aubin in his intervention in terms of wanting to keep our study on aviation safety separate—I think that's what I'm hearing—from the bill of rights. I think we should be able to move into that aviation study. As Mr. Aubin pointed out, when the minister tables the legislation, when it's debated and it comes to us in regard to the passenger bill of rights, then I think that's when we can take a look at that.
I would really encourage us as a committee to move forward on our aviation study. This was agreed to in December. I think there was even an amendment to the motion, and it was supported by everybody here. I think we need to move forward with those things that we as a committee have identified as being a priority.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Just so I'm clear on the suggestion, this is completely separate and apart from the passenger bill of rights?
