Evidence of meeting #88 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 project.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Iacono.
Next, we'll go to Dr. Lewis. The floor is yours.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Thank you.
First, I just want to say that I do believe that Via Rail is at least a quasi-Crown corporation, so I wouldn't see it as a private entity. Even if it were a private entity, I think it's perfectly within the committee's scope to request documents. If the company does not wish to provide that information, it can easily cite an objection of proprietary information or whatever reason for which it's choosing not to provide it.
However, I caution this committee that these are taxpayer dollars. In the quest for transparency, it is essential that taxpayers know how these funds are being spent, especially since the projections have been changed so many times and we are in such a precarious situation with respect to our infrastructure and our finances within this country. I think that taxpayers have the right to know what is happening, and in the spirit of transparency, I think that it's perfectly legitimate to request these documents.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.
Now I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Strahl.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you.
I just want to follow up on Dr. Lewis's comments.
As members of Parliament and as committees, we have rights outlined in Bosc and Gagnon, which very clearly indicates that we have the right to request.... The production of papers is an absolute right of the House and its committees, so the suggestion that we are doing anything inappropriate or nefarious by requesting documents from entities that are funded by tax dollars for the benefit of.... You know, this project is for the benefit of Canadians. Thus far, all of the studies done on this project have been funded by taxpayer dollars. We heard today what some of the amounts are. We're approaching $30 million in fees for consulting work on this project.
I think Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion is completely in order. Any attempt to water it down is a political choice; it's not a procedural necessity. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear that we have this right and that we can exercise it if we choose to do so.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There has been a bit of a recurring conversation about the production of documents. My understanding is that committees do have the power to order documents without redaction and that the power is absolute. At the same time, all of us as committee members recognize the importance of not compromising certain types of information, including proprietary commercial information.
Perhaps the compromise we can reach is that, as other committees have done, we ask for the documents be produced and discussed at an in camera meeting of the committee and we ask the House to provide some legal resources to advise the committee on which aspects of the information might be commercially sensitive or proprietary. Based on that, we'd decide which aspects of the information could be properly discussed in a public realm.
That would be my preference, because our experience has been that, when you ask for documents and accept some level of redaction, typically the level of redaction that comes back is pretty severe. Sometimes there's more black than white, and it could be hard to know what exactly is behind all the redaction. That would be my preference.
While I have the floor, Mr. Chair, and seeing the time, I would like to take a brief moment to speak to another matter. It won't take me very long. I think most Canadians were disgusted to learn about several recent incidents involving the mistreatment of air passengers who are people living with disabilities and who experienced some horrific treatment on board Air Canada flights.
In light of those events, in light of those circumstances, I would like to put on notice the following motion:
That, given multiple recent reports of persons with disabilities facing discrimination and unacceptable treatment while travelling with Canadian airlines, and that Air Canada admitted it violated Canadian disability regulations—
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
This is out of order, Mr. Chair.
You can't move a motion while we're discussing another motion.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
I just conferred with the clerk. Mr. Bachrach is just giving a notice of motion, so I'm letting him proceed with that.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I'll just start from the top. Given how important this matter is and how egregious these incidents were, this is a matter that concerns all Canadians. It will only take me a moment.
I hereby put on notice the following motion:
That, given multiple recent reports of persons with disabilities facing discrimination and unacceptable treatment while travelling with Canadian airlines, and that Air Canada admitted it violated Canadian disability regulations;
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertake a study on the state of accessible transportation for persons with disabilities on Canadian airlines and the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations;
That the committee invite the Minister of Transport, the CEOs of Air Canada and WestJet, the Auditor General of Canada, experts and other stakeholders;
That the committee hold a minimum of three meetings and report its findings and recommendations to the House; and
That the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
The notice has been received.
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now has the floor.
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the arguments of my colleagues around the table. There seems to be no opposition to the first motion, which concerns Transport Canada. We could take care of this motion right away and at least we could move forward.
With respect to the second motion, my colleague Mr. Bachrach's suggestion that we get to see the documents without them being made public at first may be a good solution. I don't know what my other colleagues around the table think of that.
We may have other possible solutions for not making information about private businesses public when it could be sensitive while this project is being carried out.
In any event, I feel the intention is very clear: This is about obtaining information about the costs. I think everyone stands to benefit from it.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
November 8th, 2023 / 9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Thanks, Chair.
I've lost my train of thought with all the different motions coming forward. We seem to be going all over the place here.
On Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion, the only part that concerns me is the redaction piece when we talk about no redactions. I'm not going to repeat all the points that some of the other members of the committee have already expressed with regard to commercial sensitivity and divulging what could be very private information going into that...already involved in that process. For that reason, I cannot support that particular motion, unless we have an amendment to remove that phrase from the motion.
On the other motion that was just introduced, I'll have a comment later on as we get an opportunity to debate or talk about that particular motion, because I was interested in what was just proposed and I think it's probably one of the motions that I'd be very interested in supporting.
On Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion, that's my biggest concern. Unless we do an amendment and remove that term around redaction, I will have difficulty trying to support that kind of motion.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair. I'm sure some other members have their own perspective on this.
Thank you.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers.
I have Mr. Hardie, followed by Mr. Muys and Mr. Strahl.
Go ahead, Mr. Hardie.
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am a visitor here, but I was on this committee from 2015 to 2019, and between me and Mr. Iacono we made such a mess of things that they told me to go someplace else—
9:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
—but here I am again.
My background involves many years of working with Metro Vancouver's transportation authority, TransLink, where we introduced commuter rail. As well, we built some very large capital projects, including the Canada Line, which is a subway, basically, that runs from the Vancouver airport to downtown Vancouver.
When I look at Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion, I'm concerned that we're just going to be fixating on cost without really understanding what's behind the cost. I'm not sure how many consortia are bidding on this. You mentioned “design, build and operate”. I don't know if it's a full DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—because if that is the case, then you're dealing with the spreading of risk, especially to the private partner, which is one of the reasons why you go for a P3.
The number itself, the cost, doesn't necessarily reveal all that you need to know. If the proposal right now is for high-frequency rail and you're looking for a cost on high-speed rail, there will be some significant differences.
Mr. Robitaille, I believe you mentioned that the current design would have some sharing of rail line capacity with freight, and you're not going to operate high-speed rail on track that's been beaten to death by heavy-duty freight cars. That would mean, among other things, probably having to build a dedicated rail link all the way through, and then you have to deal with issues like grade separation, crossings, etc., which impose additional costs.
The thing is, depending on the design the proponent is bringing forward, you're going to get a variety of cost estimates, and without understanding what's behind the cost estimates, you're shopping by price alone, which isn't necessarily going to produce the kind of result you're looking for, unless you know the design attributes. You might be looking at a BMW model versus a Volkswagen model, but the BMW model might actually in the long run.... Particularly when you're dealing with the long-term operating and maintenance, building something more expensive off the top can sometimes save you money in the long run.
These are all aspects of this that need to be considered above and beyond the bottom line cost. Without that additional perspective and context, asking for cost alone is really not going to be terribly revealing or terribly useful.
If I were permanently on this committee, I'd probably have a lot more to say, having been in these discussions all along, but just the high-level stuff and the experience that I have had in the past suggest that this motion—I have an analogy that always gets me in trouble so I'm not going to go there—doesn't reveal enough to actually make a very good decision after just looking at the cost that's revealed on a particular project.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Hardie.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Muys, who will be followed by Mr. Strahl, Mr. Badawey, Mr. Iacono, Ms. Koutrakis, Mr. Bachrach and Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Muys, the floor is yours.
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
I would simply note that on the Via Rail website, under the “Governance & Ethics” section, they say that Via Rail believes in “openness and transparency” and they are “essential to building trusted relationships with customers, partners, and the public” in general. There you go: “openness and transparency” without any redaction and without the chorus of excuses.
9:20 p.m.
Liberal
9:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
In seeing the speakers list and the time, I think it's fairly clear what's afoot here.
I would simply go back to Mr. Bachrach's original comments that there are ways to address the concerns around redactions without giving the government or its Crown corporations the ability to redact what they wish to redact. If there are to be redactions, they should be made by legal counsel, who have a different lens and who want to get the information out that is safe to release. Those decisions can be made by House of Commons legal services. We can get that advice.
If that is truly the concern, Mr. Bachrach has provided the template that has been used before to address that. If this is simply a way to postpone this motion so that this does not come out, or to leave it to the entities that would have an interest in redacting based on their own preference as to what is revealed, I think that's a mistake. I think we wouldn't be doing our job.
I would go back to what Mr. Bachrach proposed. If we want to consider the documents in camera and if we want to have legal advice given to us by House of Commons lawyers, not by lawyers who are going to redact first and ask questions later, I think this is the way we should go about this. Anything else starts to look like there is something to hide and there's a facilitation of that. Certainly I don't think we want to have the reputation, as a committee, that we're going to allow that.
Let's go with Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion as amended by Mr. Bachrach.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I'm really trying to make this work because I agree with it, quite frankly. As I said to Mr. Barsalou-Duval earlier, this has to happen anyway. This is the job of the committee as this project is going to unfold. I agree with what Mr. Strahl just said. I don't agree with Mr. Muys, but that's another story altogether, which we'll discuss in the future.
I'll say this. There's no question that Via Rail wants to be open and transparent, but the law is the law when it comes to proprietary information.
The second part of it is that, as we look forward to the cost estimates, as I mentioned earlier, my interest is not only in this project but also in the implications the costs are going to have on other projects that are going to support this project. We all recognize the fact—we had this discussion with the members of the team before the meeting started—that when we put high-speed and/or high-frequency rail in place, we're going to see a lot of other cost implications with other methods of transportation that will complement this project. We're going to see more costs, for example, with municipal transit. Look at the Province of Ontario with Metrolinx. There are services, locally and regionally, that are going to complement this project. Therefore, they should have costs attributed to them. It's not just the federal government. It's going to be attached to local, municipal, regional, provincial and, in some jurisdictions throughout the country, even private.
I appreciate where Mr. Barsalou-Duval is going because, at the end of the day, we do want to put in place an overall umbrella transportation and logistics strategy, which this is going to be a part of. As well, with that strategy, there is going to be a cost, which this is going to be a part of, so I get it.
From the business side, let's put aside the politics, put aside the partisanship, and let's just deal with the business of government. That's what this is about, and I support that. It's just a matter of showing respect to our partners vis-à-vis proprietary. Just to get a bit granular on that, we do have to take into consideration what's actually in the contracts that are going out to the folks who are going to be part of this project and what can be released publicly. That's business.
At the end of the day, we have to show that respect, with respect to the contracts that are going out. The second layer is with the proprietary considerations based on who gets those contracts. The third layer is our due diligence, our fiduciary responsibility, as the project proceeds, with respect to the costs attached to it. That is business.
Once again, let's put the politics and the partisanship aside and deal with the business.
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, I thank you for that.
Having said that, on the next part, which goes to the amendment that Mr. Bachrach has attached to this motion, I think that's a great idea. I'll take it a step further. Instead of doing it after the fact, we should possibly consider doing it before the fact.
Why don't we ask for that in camera meeting at our next meeting? We could ask those very questions in terms of what can be considered proprietary versus assuming that, as Mr. Strahl said, we can actually ask for this information and get it—which I don't agree with, by the way. Some of those companies, whether we subpoena them or not, legally don't have to give out proprietary information. I could be wrong, and I stand to be corrected, but I think we should at least validate that at our next meeting and ask some of those questions—unless, Mr. Chairman, you will allow me to ask these questions of the witnesses right now, which in fact we could have done half an hour ago. We probably could have received a lot of the information contained within this motion based on the witnesses, the folks who are doing the project, who are here tonight.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'm going to ask for your guidance. Would it be appropriate for me to ask the witnesses the question with respect to the proprietary commercial aspects of it, as well as what may be in the contracts that they can divulge that may prevent us from getting some of this information and therefore it would have to be redacted?
9:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Unfortunately, colleagues, I was just informed by the clerk that we have a two-hour hard stop for services, so I'm going to have to adjourn the meeting. We've reached our two-hour mark.
Have a wonderful break. I look forward to seeing you on the Monday we return.
Have safe travels home everyone. If not, I'll see you in the House tomorrow.