Transport Committee on May 30th, 2017

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Excuse me.

The minister has, in fact, taken the time in the past few months since our last dialogue on this issue to have dialogue and consultation with the stakeholders. We're now at a point at which he now feels it's time, after that dialogue and consultation, to bring forward Bill C-49. The House leader has indicated that she would like to introduce it to the House for second reading in a timely fashion.

This, Madam Chairman, simply goes to this committee, as well as Ms. Block's interest in dealing with this issue, and we feel the same way. I'm proposing that we have a choice. We can stay on the schedule we have in place in terms of our time frame coming into this session and going into the new session in the fall, which would then put us back into the December, if not January, time frame.

What I'm attempting to do is expedite the time frame to hear the concerns of the stakeholders and to bring this forward sooner, coming back from our summer constituency time a week earlier. I believe we're supposed to be back in the House September 16 or 18, so we would be cutting that constituency time by one week— coming back to Ottawa one week earlier to get back to work. Doing this would expedite Bill C-49 and alleviate some of the concerns that are being raised by stakeholders such as the farmers on the Prairies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I don't think anyone asked the minister to wait until June to begin the study of the bill in the House. It's a long and meaty bill. Bill C-49 is clearly an omnibus bill: there's something in it for everyone, including measures on grain transportation.

I think the committee members have done excellent work. We have gotten things done and responded quickly. The delay between the two should not be laid at the committee's feet. We would never do anything to delay the implementation of the measures in Bill C-30.

These people have been waiting, and once again, I would point out that it wasn't the committee that decided to wait until June to bring forward the bill. It's unfortunate; the government could have chosen another approach.

I would also like to hear what my fellow member and vice chair of the committee has to say about the situation. Here we are, in full committee, studying motions on committee business and other issues we need to talk about. We often find out about things at the last minute, however, so we don't have time to prepare or respond. Yet again, today, the schedule has been changed a few times.

As vice-chairs of the committee, not only were we elected by our peers, but we are also paid extra by the House to hold subcommittee meetings precisely to discuss scheduling and suggestions of this nature.

After the subcommittee meets, we are able to consult our colleagues about the committee's upcoming work—at least, that's what I would do. It would certainly be a better idea if we were to proceed that way more often, Madam Chair. It would give us an opportunity to learn about these types of intentions sooner and to find some common ground even before beginning our work with the entire committee present. The committee would run a lot more smoothly that way.

Using the subcommittee would also prevent situations like the one involving Mr. Rayes' request to resume debate on his motion. The subcommittee could've discussed it and realized that it wasn't possible. We could have done things the right way. It's unfortunate that we didn't.

When everything is going fine, we don't need to meet, but I think we need to talk and meet more often so as not to bring in witnesses unnecessarily or be caught off guard by proposals like this one at the last minute.

Mr. Badawey's suggestion that the committee meet when the House is not sitting didn't come out of nowhere. I think you talked about it amongst yourselves. The government party is aware of the idea, and you are getting ready to vote on it.

I'd like to hear what my colleague has to say. I think the subcommittee could help because it could resolve issues like these and ensure that the committee's proceedings ran smoothly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have Mr. Badawey, and then Mr. Aubin.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Once again, I apologize for being repetitive. We've heard loud and clear the concerns of the farmers. We've been hearing them for past year and a half, going back to when we discussed this issue in the first place and dealt with it last year. Here we are, ready to deal with it again.

The minister has had a great dialogue and consultation with the stakeholders. We've heard loud and clear the concerns raised, especially by Saskatchewan farmers. The Saskatchewan farmers have brought their concerns to our attention, through their MPs, through, I'm sure, the new Leader of the Opposition, as well as through our MPs, including those on this committee.

Grain farmers do, in fact, want long-term certainty. This is what we're trying to put in place with this bill. With that, what I'm asking of the committee is for it to ensure that the rights of farmers are a priority, and therefore to deal with this issue sooner rather than later.

Yes, we can meet. I'm available all summer, quite frankly. Some might not want to hear that, but this is something that's a priority. If, in fact, we have to meet during the summer, if in fact we come back a week earlier, prior to the rising of the House in September, so be it.

Once again, I want to reiterate, Madam Chair, that grain farmers do want long-term certainty, and they want their rights to be a priority. This is, in fact, our intent. This is, in fact, what my recommendation is, to bring that forward for those very reasons.

Again, on Bill C-49, the intent is to bring it to the House for second reading, and therefore for us not to have to deal with it upon the rise of the House in September, and then have it go into December and possibly even the new year's timeline, which was proposed originally.

We can, in fact, if we start work earlier, deal with this earlier, and then have that certainty brought forward in an expeditious manner. That, quite frankly, is what I'm requesting, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are you doing that by a motion?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

No, I'm proposing it for discussion right now. I don't think it should have to be put forward as a motion.

We've heard loud and clear from around the table that, again, and I'll simply cite Ms. Block's own comments in the House, that grain farmers want exactly what I'm saying. Grain farmers want long-term certainty. It's up to us to focus on bringing that and the rights of the farmers forward as a priority.

In fact, the opposition has quite clearly stated so in the House. I'm sure they're still of the same opinion, and we agree: let's bring that forward. Hopefully we can deal with this sooner rather than later.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to raise two issues.

The first has to do with how the committee functions.

With all due respect, Madam Chair, as much as I appreciate the miracles you have managed to work since I've been on the committee, I must say that our sense of collegiality seems to be slowly slipping away. It fades every time we meet.

Clearly, I think that if proper subcommittee meetings were held more often, it would help ease some of the tension we're seeing. I'm not trying to force anything on you, but that is what I would strongly suggest. I think the committee should favour that approach.

It would probably also help us iron out the bulk of our work plans and thus avoid surprises and frustrating situations like this morning's, not to mention what happened at a meeting you unfortunately weren't at, Madam Chair. I think that's one solution that would help the committee get back to its former self.

As for possibly having to work on Bill C-49 in the summer, I would simply say that, if we must, we must. That was never the issue. The argument is that farmers are a priority, and I agree with that. In terms of the measures in Bill C-30, keep in mind that the priority according to farmers—the message they were championing—was that they would be happy to see the measures made permanent. I'm having a hard time, then, wrapping my head around how the government party can claim this is an absolute priority that we need to deal with as quickly as possible, when it opted to insert the measures into an omnibus bill. I'm well aware that this isn't the right place to debate the matter, but I would just point out that, if this is indeed a priority, one solution would be to take the measures out of the mammoth bill that is Bill C-49. That way, the committee could study the measures in a timely manner and make everyone happy.

Instead, the government is trying to fast-track consideration of an omnibus bill that affects just about every sector of transportation, including grain transportation, which has a direct impact on farmers.

Truth be told, Bill C-49 could be divided into a number of bills. Even though the government has absolutely no intention of doing this, it seems to me that, if it wanted to give priority treatment to farmers, the best option would be to extract the provisions from Bill C-49 related to Bill C-30 . It could then make Bill C-30 the priority and refer it to our committee. That way, we could deal with the matter expeditiously while following through on the government's wish to prioritize farmers and deliver the support they are expecting from us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Aubin. I appreciate that.

We still have to discuss our drafting instructions for our aviation study. If it's the wish of the two vice-chairs to have a subcommittee meeting to discuss it, I just note that we stopped doing so because we couldn't get our schedules working. We were able to agree to add additional meetings for the aviation study and on infrastructure. So we have been functioning reasonably well.

My staff will reach out to my two vice-chairs, and we can have a further discussion as far as committee business is concerned. I would appreciate it if we could all manage to find the time to do that. My staff will be contacting your staff this afternoon to find an hour so that we can start to plan our future agenda, giving consideration to the comments on Bill C-49.

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

I'd like to get on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We do have to give some direction and instructions to our folks here. We have one more meeting on the aviation study, and we would like to get a report tabled on that study, if possible, before the House rises.

Would the committee like to see all of the briefs submitted in response to the aviation study put on our transportation website? Is there agreement to post all of the briefs the committee has received?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We've done that with other studies. So my office will be contacting yours.

Ms. Block.

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

Given that we have at least another hour to hear from witnesses on the aviation safety study, and the sense of urgency that Mr. Badawey has highlighted in dealing with Bill C-49, I'm wondering if we could postpone the drafting instructions. We do have 20 minutes left to discuss my colleague's suggestion to carve out the measures in Bill C-49 to deal with that legislation in a much more timely way. We could discuss that for the remainder of the time today and figure out if that is something that could be done, and then seek to provide drafting instructions on the aviation safety study after we've heard from the final witnesses on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Well, we are scheduled to go back to finalizing our drafting instructions on Thursday, but the analysts have a fairly detailed amount of work in front of them for us to try to get this study. People keep talking in the media about Parliament being prorogued. I would not want to see us lose the good work that we've done on this aviation study if that were to happen.

We are going to have discussions on future business with the two vice-chairs. Whether or not the government is prepared to carve out something or another is something that I will have to ask it and get feedback on. My immediate understanding is that it's not possible, but I will be very accurate and get back to you on that when I have had that meeting—hopefully very soon—with the two vice-chairs.

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

Just in follow-up to that, is it the will of the committee to make a request of the minister and the government to carve out those measure that are creating a sense of urgency for us in looking at Bill C-49? Is it the will of the committee to ask for that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I don't know that yet. Let me go to my next speaker, and then we can get back to that.

Mr. Iacono.

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

He's quiet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let me just suspend for a second.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.

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

Yes, Madam Chair, my comments are on the drafting instructions. I want to concentrate on giving a heads-up to the analysts to start getting the report ready.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would you please speak to that?

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

During our discussions on air safety, numerous subjects kept being repeated and highlighted, with the witnesses providing substantial examples. My colleagues agreed that the main subjects that were repeated during our study were the following: fatigue, training, inspections, the security management system, and security at airports.

Madam Chair, if you permit me, I would like to elaborate a bit more on each subject in order to guide the analysts.

With respect to fatigue, I'd say highlight and acknowledge that we had two different concerns expressed by the witnesses, that the proposition of Transport Canada be based on scientific evidence and that the primary concern should be safety, and that the proposed one-size-fits-all approach worries some transporters.

On training, we heard from a variety of witnesses that training, whether for pilots, inspectors, or specialized workers in the aerospace industry, is key—

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

Point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is that a point of order, Mr. Berthold?