Evidence of meeting #124 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was passengers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
If we can talk about the substance of it, I don't think we're that far away. Then we can effectively figure out the way forward in terms of procedure.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
Mr. Bachrach, we've noted the changes you've proposed.
Next we have Mr. Muys followed by Mr. Lawrence once again and Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Muys, the floor is yours.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To the discussion about adding the voice of passengers to this study, that absolutely makes sense. To the discussion of the wording, as a point of clarification, we should indicate “no less than two hours”, or some sort of measure of time, as is indicated for the other proposed witnesses.
I want to speak as well to the second half of the motion, about the ongoing issue of travel chaos in Canada.
In the three years I have been on the committee, we've seen this time and time again. Mr. Chair, it's kind of like the movie Groundhog Day. We had the travel chaos in December of 2022 and an emergency meeting in January 2023. In fact, in that emergency meeting, we heard from Via Rail, the then CEO and the then customer care person. We heard about lessons learned. We heard about water and food and all these things. However, these questions arise again. We had travel chaos and an emergency meeting in 2022 and 2023.
We also had an emergency meeting in the summer of 2022 about chaos at the airports. In this committee, we've had other discussions on the chaos at the airports. I recall reading the display board at Toronto Pearson Airport on a sunny day in April when it was 15° outside, and the first 14 flights of the day were all delayed. Obviously this is an ongoing issue that merits further discussion. The trains aren't running on time. The planes certainly aren't running on time. There's chaos at the airports. Canadians are paying the price, and Canadians deserve answers. I think this merits further discussion, so I fully support the second half of this motion.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.
Next we'll turn the floor back over to you, Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I believe there are three issues currently up for debate or discussion. Two of them are relatively easy fixes. The third one we'll weigh into. Unfortunately, though, I suspect the math is against me.
The first one, of course, is on passengers. We are agreeable to that. We would add that it be a separate meeting and for no less than two hours. I think that's more or less what Mrs. Romanado wanted.
The second one is fine, Mr. Bachrach. What we would do is this: Instead of saying “no food, no water”, we would suggest “limited food and water”. That would be consistent with what Via Rail has told us and what the media reports are. That solves two of the three issues.
With regard to the third issue, I don't believe this is foretelling what's going to be happening in the report. In fact, I think it's just laying the groundwork of what has already occurred. I think it's fair to say—and I think even Mr. Bachrach would agree—that the Liberal government has had nine years of travel chaos, and we're just sort of setting the foundation for our report. What's in here is of no debate. In part b), we have people stranded for 18 hours over Christmas, which happened in my riding, so I can tell you most assuredly that it happened; “40% of Via trains were late in 2023”—that's of no debate—“and Via paid out $11 million”. That's from VIA Rail itself. None of that will be changed by the report.
Finally, the other parts are also from reports and are of no debate either. They're just reality. I think setting the foundation with condemnation of the federal government's failure to maintain and sustain reliable passenger transportation is only reasonable.
With regard to the final part that Mr. Bachrach said with respect to bus transportation—which has also affected my riding, I might add, and I think is an excellent issue—I would be pleased to have that added as well, if that means gaining his support for having this condemnation. I'm hoping that we'll have the Bloc and the NDP on board.
Mr. Chair, especially as a new person here, I don't mean to step out of turn, but I would maybe suggest that we canvass the NDP and the Bloc. If they want to join us in condemning the Liberal government, they're welcome to do that. If not, we're willing to carry forward with the motion with the other two changes that we've agreed to.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
Next we have Mr. Drouin, and then we'll try, if there's nobody else on the speaking list, to get to these subamendments, amendments and so forth.
Mr. Drouin, the floor is yours.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As Mrs. Romanado clearly explained, we agree with the gist of the motion, which is the way passengers were treated. I don't think any government can guarantee that rail transportation be 100% perfect.
I was reading an article that said in France this year, passengers were stuck for eight hours without water, food, electricity or toilets. In Canada, we have to make decisions, because the situation is unacceptable. I myself was stuck on a train for eight hours. Fortunately, I had food and everything I needed. Obviously, the passengers are the ones who have suffered from this situation, and I think it is important to focus on them.
The second part of the motion strays a bit from what is important. The heart of the matter is specifically the incident that occurred on the Labour Day weekend. Let's leave it at that. The committee will be able to draw its conclusions once it has heard the testimony. If the members of the committee want to condemn the government, they will be able to do so. I'm not a regular member of the committee, but the permanent members will be able to do that.
The motion refers to Canadian airlines. I don't know if you travelled in 2022, but it was chaotic all over the world. The chaos wasn't just at Pearson; it was everywhere. I myself was stuck on planes. Again this year, flights were cancelled outside Canada. We could bring up a ton of examples, but we have to focus on the heart of the matter, which is the incident that occurred on train 622. The committee will be able to draw its conclusions once it has heard the testimony. That is why I will be supporting Mrs. Romanado's amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Drouin.
I think we have some pretty good suggestions here. What we'll do first is to go to a vote, if there's nobody left on the speaking list with regard to the subamendment put forward by Mr. Bachrach, which I believe was to change “no food, no water” to “limited food and water”. I think we're all clear on that. We'll go to a vote on that.
Mr. Bachrach, I'll turn it over to you to confirm that first before we go to a vote.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There's the question of washrooms as well. It says “a period of no electricity, washrooms or air conditioning”. I think that's accurate and tracks with what I heard from Via. I'm happy with “limited food and water”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you for clarifying and confirming, Mr. Bachrach.
I'll turn it over to our clerk for a vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will now go to a vote on the amendments proposed by Ms. Romanado. Before we do that, I just want to confirm that all of our members joining us virtually have received the revisions sent by the clerk. I believe they were sent out about 10 or 15 minutes ago.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Before we go to that vote, if we could have just a two-minute break so I could chat with my team, that would be great.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We'll suspend for two minutes and then we'll come back to vote on the amendments proposed by Ms. Romanado.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order. We are now discussing the amendments put forward by Ms. Romanado. On those, Mr. Lawrence's hand is up.
Mr. Lawrence, you said you wanted to add something or make a modification.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you.
Maybe I'll just give a little context, and then we'll get to the subamendment that I want to move.
The Conservatives are 100% in agreement that we should have passengers as witnesses. We want to vote for that. We obviously feel differently with respect to how some members of the committee feel about the condemnation of the Liberal government and about travel chaos. What we would propose is a subamendment that would remove the removal, as it were, of the condemnation in paragraphs b) and c). The previous amendment would be to include just the passengers as witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
I understand what you're trying to do and the reasoning behind it. However, we're in a situation in which we have the amendments put forward by Ms. Romanado. From a procedural standpoint, we need to be voting on those, and if they fail, then we can go back to a discussion and propose more amendments. However, we do have those amendments on the table, and removing that part would actually change the amendment that was put forward by Ms. Romanado.
Mr. Berthold, go ahead.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I'll just jump in quickly. I don't want to get into a big procedural debate, but let me make a bit of an argument.
The amendment proposed by Mrs. Romanado contains several elements. It is perfectly normal for us to want to withdraw part of the amendment by moving a subamendment before adopting the amendment. The passengers and the second part of the amendment are two completely different issues. If the proposed subamendment substantially changed the entire amendment, I would agree with you that we first have to vote on Mrs. Romanado's amendment.
However, since these are two completely different issues and we want to vote for Mrs. Romanado's amendment on the condition that this part be removed—it's a bit like what we did in the case of “limited food and water”—I think we can move my colleague Mr. Lawrence's subamendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
I've confirmed with the clerk that it is something that is allowable, because it's not removing everything in Mrs. Romanado's amendment. We can have a subamendment put forward to remove a portion of Mrs. Romanado's amendment. Now we'll begin the discussion on that.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Drouin.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, just to clarify, it's not just removing a portion of Mrs. Romanado's amendment. It's removing 90%, I would argue, of Ms. Romanado's amendment. If I look at the text and the words, it's removing almost 99.9% of the amendment. I would argue that it's removing the spirit of the amendment of Mrs. Romanado.
I'm just trying to understand the advice you gave to us at first, which was that we had to vote it down, or after that, when the amendment was proposed.... Why has your ruling changed from your first ruling to your second?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Let me confer with the clerk, please....
We will go to a vote on the subamendment proposed by Mr. Lawrence, which is essentially to remove, I believe—
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I would like just two seconds on that before we go to the vote on the subamendment. I want to get in one point in just 30 seconds—not even that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I've been quite lenient on this. I want to go to a vote on this. I think everybody knows where they stand on it. I'm going to go to a vote.
Just to be clear, we're voting on removing the third aspect of the amendments put forward by Mrs. Romanado. She spoke to the inclusion of passengers. She spoke to including the request for the letter. She spoke to removing certain aspects of the motion as put forward by Mr. Lawrence. We're currently voting on whether or not to remove those aspects that Mrs. Romanado requested be removed.
Are we all on the same page? Okay.
I'll turn the floor over to you, Madam Clerk.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, everyone. We will now go to a vote on the amendments as proposed by Ms. Romanado. For that, I will turn the floor over to you, Madam—