:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members.
[Translation]
I'm pleased to appear before you today to speak about the three Transport Canada statutes that are proposed for amendment under the Budget Implementation Act.
[English]
With me today is Kash Ram, director general of motor vehicle safety; Mrs. Kim Benjamin, director of road safety programs, which is in support; and Mr. Michel Leclerc, the director of regulatory affairs coordination.
[Translation]
These proposed amendments flow from Regulatory Cooperation Council action plan commitments that were made in December 2011. Eleven of the Regulatory Cooperation Council's initial 29 initiatives under the Joint Action Plan fell under the transportation team.
To complete implementation of the Motor Vehicle Safety, Transportation of Dangerous Goods and Railway Safety action plans requires that we make these legislative amendments.
[English]
As members of this committee know, the Regulatory Cooperation Council's long-term objective is to develop systemic mechanisms that eliminate regulatory obstacles between Canada and the United States
[Translation]
Regulatory inconsistencies can cost money on both sides of the border because the need to comply with two set of regulations is simply not effective when economies are as integrated as Canada's and the United States'. The standards are often identical but expressed as divergent regulatory requirements and manufacturing and distribution costs are passed on to consumers.
[English]
Synchronizing the policy development and enactment phases of our respective regulatory processes will lead to mutually supportive and beneficial regulatory frameworks and promote economic growth, job creation and benefits to consumers and businesses.
Canadian and U.S. stakeholders consulted in the fall of 2013 expressed overwhelming positive support for the Regulatory Cooperation Council's initiative. They were particularly supportive of efforts to institutionalize cooperation and remove impediments to speedy alignment when widespread consensus existed.
Accordingly, these legislative amendments are being proposed to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act.
[Translation]
The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, along with the associated regulations and standards, is the pillar that supports the Motor Vehicle Safety Program in Canada. It regulates the manufacture and importation of motor vehicles and of new tires and equipment used to restrain children and disabled persons inside the vehicle.
The proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act directly support two of the Regulatory Cooperation Council work plan items, as well as the overall objectives of the initiative. These proposed amendments are designed to remove barriers and align vehicle safety regimes, where appropriate, between Canada and the U.S. They are intended to reduce red tape and increase efficiency, while enhancing the safety of Canadians.
[English]
These amendments fall into four categories: rule-making; importation; safety, which deals with compliance and enforcement; and information gathering
With respect to rule-making, modified regulation-making provisions will facilitate more efficient ongoing alignment with the U.S. and other international safety standards in those instances where the Government of Canada determines it is appropriate. These proposed changes will allow the Canada motor vehicle safety regime to keep pace with emerging technology in a more efficient manner.
Changes to the importation provisions will allow the importation of vehicles and equipment where it is deemed that the U.S. safety standard achieves the safety outcome required in Canada. They will also remove other importation irritants while continuing to protect the safety of the public.
[Translation]
Changes to the compliance and enforcement provisions will more closely align the Canadian and U.S. regimes, while continuing to protect and serve Canadians.
[English]
By improving the ability of Transport Canada to obtain and distribute information related to vehicle safety, it will help keep Canadians informed of issues related to vehicle safety and will enable the government to make better informed policy and regulatory decisions.
[Translation]
These proposed changes to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act will ensure the safety of vehicles sold to Canadians in a manner that recognizes the integrated nature of the North American auto market.They will reduce industry compliance burdens where appropriate, and respect public expectations of similar safety oversight regimes.
Let us now move on to the two other acts, which are
[English]
the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
[Translation]
The amendments to the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, are identical and modernize legislative provisions that date back to the earlier 1980s, prior to the Canadian government's adoption of the first-ever federal regulatory policy in 1986.
[English]
Members will know that the current versions of the 1986 policy, the cabinet directive on regulatory management, still requires that notice be given of proposed regulations in the Canada Gazette, part I, before they are finally enacted, even in a case where the enabling legislation is silent on the matter. In light of this, it makes sense to apply the same cabinet directive standards as those applied to most other federal regulations with respect to prepublication.
Thank you very much. We would be happy to answer your questions.
:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, and committee members.
My name is Thao Pham. I'm the assistant deputy minister for the federal Montreal bridges with Infrastructure Canada. Joining me this morning are Marc Brazeau, director general of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence with Infrastructure Canada, and Nicholas Wilkshire, who is the senior counsel with Justice Canada.
Thank you for the opportunity to give you an overview of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence act. As you probably know, based on an engineering expert report that was produced in 2010, the existing Champlain Bridge in Montreal was found to be at the end of its useful life. Following the recommendations of a pre-feasibility study, the Government of Canada announced on October 5, 2011, that it will replace the existing bridge. In December 2013 the Government of Canada announced that the construction of the new bridge for the St. Lawrence will be accelerated and the new bridge will be in service in 2018.
The Government of Canada also announced that the bridge will be built through a public-private partnership. A business case showed that a public-private partnership approach will deliver better value for money for taxpayers and will guarantee that the project is delivered on time and on budget.
In the context of the accelerated timeline for the new bridge, this act will ensure that the authorities required for the implementation of all aspects of the bridge are in place. The new bridge for the St. Lawrence act will provide as much legal certainty as possible in order to avoid delays due to different legal interpretations, or the potential charge of premiums by bidders to account for areas of uncertainty.
[Translation]
In short, the main objective of the New Bridge for the St. Lawrence Act is to provide the certainty and approvals required so that the project can be completed without delays.
[English]
The key legislative provisions of this proposed act include the following.
First, the act will designate the minister to be appointed by the Governor in Council to be the minister responsible for the administration of this act. The act will also declare the new bridge for the St. Lawrence River project to be for the general advantage of Canada, thereby making it a federal structure. Given the fact that the new bridge for the St. Lawrence will be an intraprovincial bridge, this project could be considered as provincial work. This clause therefore ensures that the Government of Canada has the jurisdiction and control over the bridge, as opposed to the province, which could otherwise have jurisdiction over a provincial work.
The act will also authorize the minister responsible to enter into any agreement relating to the bridge or related work with any person or with the Government of Quebec or any political subdivision of that government, for example, the municipalities within the Quebec province. Examples of these agreements include relocation of public utilities, exchange of information, and all of the collaboration necessary for the preparation work.
The act will provide the minister responsible with the authority to fix tolls and collect tolls on the new bridge through regulations. The act will provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with the authority to enter into an agreement with a third party, in this case a private partner, as the operator for the design, construction, and operation of the bridge.
It is the intention to get all of the approvals for this project. However, given that we don't yet know all of the possible permits that might be required, there is a clause in this act that provides the Governor in Council authority to exempt the project from some federal permits if it is deemed in the public interest to do so. In that case, the exemption would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. So it would be an ad hoc exemption.
Finally, the act exempts the project from the application of the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act. The intention of these exemptions is again to avoid legal uncertainties and duplication with respect to which legislation might apply to the new bridge.
Although the Bridges Act will not apply to this project, the public-private partnership agreement will contain very specific and stringent clauses and high performance standards with respect to the commissioning and inspection of the new bridge. With respect to the User Fees Act, given the unique feature of this project, it was determined that the fixing of tolls would be done through ministerial regulations.
That concludes my presentation, Mr. Chair. We would be more than happy to answer your questions.
Thank you.
:
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to get on the record that the witness that we put forward was Minister , who did not show here today, for whatever reason. For any Canadians watching, he did not show here to defend these changes.
Therefore, I will ask what I can of our good public servants, public officials, who, as you rightly point out, cannot speak for politicians. The politicians should be here, Mr. Chairman. The minister should be here to defend these changes, but let's see what we can get from the witnesses. How about that?
Let's just get it on the record, Mr. Chairman, for Canadians who are watching. This is another power grab by cabinet, which wants to make sure that it controls what Canadians see or do not see within a 30- or 90-day window before a regulation is passed.
Let's move on, if we can, to the bridge question.
Madam Pham, you gave a good, very quick synopsis. Pre-feasibility, you said, was done. In 2011 they announced a new bridge. In 2013 construction was accelerated. In 2018—you repeated today what the minister repeated the last time he bothered to show up here—the bridge will be in service. It'll be ready to roll, says , by 2018.
Now that's a very, very tall order and story for Canadians to believe. We don't even have a private sector partner yet on this bridge, do we?
I feel for you, Ms. Pham, because in 2006 when this government took power, they were forewarned in all the briefing documents that were transferred to PMO, PCO, and each respective industry that this bridge was a big problem. In fact, in 2011, they were given a secret briefing note that said the bridge “was in 'poor condition' and required 'comprehensive strengthening and other repairs' to avoid jeopardizing public safety.”
You're telling us you're going to build a $3 billion to $5 billion bridge in three years after a private sector partner is chosen. Can you tell us whether you have done any analysis or examination of the distributive effects? That is, once this government puts a toll on this bridge, which is the busiest bridge in Canada and one of the most important for our economy, what will the effects be? What analysis have you done to show the effects on other bridges, on public transit, and on other roadways in the Montreal area?
:
Thank you to our officials for appearing today as we look into clauses in the budget implementation act, Bill , that apply to matters of substance to this committee, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
The Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council is an initiative created out of the beyond the border agreement between our Prime Minister and President Obama back in 2011. The goal, obviously, of the RCC, which has, I believe, 29 different regulatory cooperation initiatives under the council, has been to engage not only government but also business and other stakeholders in ways to improve harmonization on matters that would be largely administrative in nature, some regulatory in nature, to achieve enhanced economic cooperation and competitiveness and to do so in a way that doesn't sacrifice safety. I think the public has to understand that this is also the important goal here.
I understand, from the industry's perspective—I come out of the auto industry; I worked on the assembly line at Chrysler prior to being elected to Parliament—Canada represents about 9% of the North American vehicle market. Regulatory differences or unique standards, be they in fuel economy or other areas, require corporate decisions about whether products can be offered in a particular market, whether or not they're likely to abate the cost of these changes in different segments of the North American market, or whether or not they have an entire North American market to abate the cost of regulatory forced improvements in their production.
First, from the government's perspective, why should we be concerned with harmonization of safety standards? Second, is it only to align with U.S. standards, or are there cases where the U.S. should be aligning with our standards? Third, is the U.S. considering any type of similar regulatory change to allow their system to be nimbler, for the same purpose that we're seeking?
:
Mr. Chairman, I will talk generally about rule harmonization and the challenges we have overall.
In all domains—it's not just transportation of dangerous goods by rail; it's also in the marine world and in the aviation world—we try to have the highest possible level of standards. In both the marine and aviation domains, we're dealing with international organizations, the International Maritime Organization and the ICAO, the latter located in Montreal. With these organizations, we have the chance to develop international standards that are adopted across numerous nations. The IMO has 169 members.
When it comes to TDG, transportation of dangerous goods, and rail, we are in the context of North American standards, and it requires a significant amount of dialogue with the U.S., in particular. On a continuous basis, we try to influence the U.S. regulators, but bear in mind that we're dealing with quite a giant and we need significant support at the highest level. The RCC does that particular work for us.
Working with our counterparts on both sides of the border on specific items of harmonization helps us level the types of requirements that we get and also looks at best practices on both sides of the border. They have been fairly beneficial so far, and we'd like to continue with these aspects.
:
Mr. Chair, we did an assessment, comparing the traditional method with respect to the P3 methodology. The studies and the analysis have shown that the P3 would generate better value for Canadian taxpayers. We are expected to have cost savings in the order of 5%, to I think it is 18% of the project costs.
The P3 advantage, first of all, is that because the private partner will enter into a contractual agreement with the government, there will be very strict and stringent clauses and conditions with respect to meeting the timeline and the budget as well. Otherwise, there will be penalties for the private partner. Therefore, there is an incentive for the private partner to meet that timeline.
The other thing is that for an infrastructure of this scale and magnitude, the P3 will also give us the advantage of ensuring that at the end of the concession period, and throughout that period, the maintenance and operation of the major infrastructure will meet high standards; otherwise, there will be penalties. The Government of Canada can withhold payments as well. Therefore, having a private partner build, maintain, and operate an infrastructure of this scale is certainly an advantage in terms of making sure that at the end of the contractual period the infrastructure is given back to the government in very good shape.
:
Certainly. I will speak generally and then ask my colleagues Marc Brazeau and Nicholas Wilkshire to add to my answer.
The first example is that normally ministers do have authority to enter into agreements within their purview. In this case, for the minister responsible for the bridge we have included provisions to ensure that there is absolutely no doubt that the minister has the authority to enter into agreements with various parties, such as the province, municipalities, and other organizations, to ensure that we have all of the agreements in place to prepare all of the work necessary for the construction of the bridge. Again this provides certainty.
There are other examples as well with respect to the authority for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to award contracts. Then again, given the fact that the Minister of Public Works has the authority under the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, but given that this project is built as a bridge, there might be interpretation that it does not constitute a public work per se under the other act.
Those are the areas in which this bill would provide clarity.
Marc.
I am particularly interested in the Railway Safety Act and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1992.
Mr. Roussel, section 50(1) of the Railway Safety Act currently sets out that regulations shall be published at least 90 days before their proposed effective date. For the residents in my riding, I want to specify that these regulations are for the standards for building rail facilities, deductibles for roads, exemptions for railway works, safety, security, crossings, activities other than railway operations that could compromise rail safety, information custody and retention, as well as safety management systems.
The Budget Implementation Act is aimed at removing this 90-day period, set out in section 50(1). By the way, it is quite strange to see this kind of provision in a budget implementation act.
Earlier, my Liberal colleague was able to get you to say that the act will give the minister more discretionary authority. You said it was in case of emergency, in cases such as the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. However, the Minister of Transport currently has the authority to impose emergency measures under the Railway Safety Act and to adopt protective measures under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.
What will this change? Why does the minister need even more discretion when there are already provisions in place to allow him to take emergency measures?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
Thank you, witnesses, for enlightening us on some of the legislation.
I noted the basic issue relating to the notice period of up to 90 days. I think I heard you say that the proposed changes are at the discretion of cabinet but only if they are deemed very significant, so there are some pre-conditions.
Before a matter gets to cabinet, are there processes in place that would allow not only for consultation with the various stakeholders, but are there also processes within the different departments that look at all the various options that eventually bring the matter before cabinet with recommendations or what should or shouldn't be done?
:
Under the federal regulatory process, departments, at the outset, when they're getting ready to do a regulation, go through what's called a triage of the proposal. During that process they examine the environmental, economic, and social impacts. On the basis of pre-established criteria, that indicates to the regulatory department the extent to which the cost benefit should be done. For example, it identifies the major areas of risk.
It also determines the level of significance of the regulations. If you had a very low-impact regulation, and the example we heard before is if, for example, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations identified an inconsistency between the English and the French, if that kind of amendment comes forward, there's little point in prepublishing it for 90 days for a mandatory prepublication period since it's really corrective in nature. Whereas, we talked about the example of the DOT-111 cars; that is definitely a significant regulation and one that would be prepublished.
The length of time it would be prepublished in the future, under the cabinet directive, would be determined by the significance of the proposal. In fact, cabinet could elect to prepublish something for more than 90 days. They could say that they want this out there for six months, and they want people to really have a good look at this.
But not all regulations are equal. Many of them are merely administrative in nature. People wouldn't even look at them twice in the Canada Gazette , part I, but there are criteria to determine that in the regulatory process.
Mr. Chair, one of the things that we don't see when we remove this provision is that the Minister of Transport, for example, can recommend one of two things to the Governor in Council. She can recommend that something be exempted from prepublication, but at the same time, she can recommend that it be prepublished. If she deems it significant from a safety and security standpoint or for any other reason, she has the option of recommending that, but in the end, it's at cabinet's discretion whether something is prepublished. The greater the significance, the more likely it is that something will be prepublished.
I just wanted to add something else, Mr. Chair. The vast majority of enabling federal legislation does not have mandatory prepublication as part of its provision. We still have prepublication when the case is appropriate.
There are, in fact, the standing consultation committees on both sides of the border, where we're often dealing with the same issues. The department will put out notices sometimes in newspapers, sometimes in the Canada Gazette , part I, that it is launching a process to study regulations. There are formal consultations that have to occur. They have to be documented. Our Treasury Board Secretariat analysts are very stringent when they screen the material we send them for approval by the Governor in Council.
It's very important for ministers to understand what the pros and cons of each regulatory initiative are. They want to know who's for it, who's against it. We would not succeed in getting a regulation enacted by the Governor in Council if we didn't pass all these tests beforehand. The regulatory process is intrinsically very challenging.
Obviously I am going to speak about the Champlain Bridge because my riding borders highway 10. It is a main artery. Given the increase in population and urban sprawl in the Greater Montreal area, traffic problems are not going to lessen over the coming years. This is a serious problem that needs attending to.
We were told that the opposition members are not being very optimistic. Unfortunately it is the people, the public, who are not feeling very optimistic. In fact, Minister Lebel and the federal government go into their areas and impose a project that they do not feel they have been adequately consulted on. I am thinking here of elected municipal members, the Government of Quebec and the business sector.
In terms of consultation with the Quebec government, both for the new one and the previous one, the situation does not appear to have improved. It is apparently very problematic. A study published last week referred to effects on traffic in the region, on other bridges that do not all fall under federal responsibility. These will be quite serious impacts, especially if you take into account the factors I mentioned earlier. One of those factors is the increase in the population in our area, in the Chambly basin.
The report is quite practical; it provides real numbers. In response to a question from one of my colleagues, you said you still only had preliminary results, of a kind.
Have you seen this report from the Quebec government? If not, have you had discussions with the people concerned about the best way to manage the situation at the regional level?
Bridge-related issues should not be dealt with in a vacuum, but rather within a regional context. Unfortunately it does not appear that the latter is being considered at this point.
:
There are two parts to your question.
In terms of the first part, I would like to point out that to date there have been 200 meetings with various partners, including representatives of the Quebec government, the municipalities, the cities of Brossard, Longueuil and Montreal, as well as with private partners such as the chambers of commerce. We continue to hold these meetings on a weekly basis. With respect to the Government of Quebec, we have had about one hundred meetings that our colleagues from the Quebec Ministry of Transport, the Agence métropolitaine de transport and the Société québécoise des infrastructures participated in. So there has been an exchange of information from the very beginning and we will continue in that fashion.
In terms of your question about the study that was published in newspapers this week, we were never made aware of an official report about this having been published by the Quebec Ministry of Transport. I can, however, assure you that we are working closely with the Quebec Ministry of Transport and the Agence métropolitaine de transport on the exchange of data for the purposes of projections.
As I indicated earlier, according to the data at the time, it was estimated that traffic on the Champlain Bridge would vary from 40,000 to 60,000 vehicles per day. However, these are not exact data. What we did was based on that data. We installed counters and stations in order to truly assess the current state of traffic on the bridge. That means we can refine projections about regional traffic with our partners—
:
I apologize for interrupting you but my time is limited.
It is all very well to assess current traffic on the Champlain Bridge, however what is important is to understand regional effects. That is what people are concerned about. Some of my constituents work in Montreal. If the federal government comes into our riding and upsets regional dynamics, given how this will affect other bridges, there is going to be a serious traffic problem.
Besides assessing traffic on the Champlain Bridge, do you intend on determining how tolls will affect other bridges that are not necessarily under your authority? Has that been a part of your discussions?
I have heard a lot about meetings that have taken place. Of course, I believe what you are telling us but if there have been so many meetings, how do you explain the degree of dissatisfaction amongst the stakeholders? Neither the business sector nor elected officials appear to be satisfied with your department's receptiveness, unfortunately.
:
The Regulatory Cooperation Council was set up by the two heads of state, Mr. Harper and Mr. Obama, as you know, in early 2011. It has borne a lot of fruit. It has been reported on in budget 2014, specifically with regard to the alignment of auto standards between Canada and the U.S. That was a good endorsement, I think, of the work we've done in concert with our U.S. colleagues.
The idea is to work on sharing projects where it makes sense, where there's mutual intent, to jointly develop new standards and take them through to fruition. In other areas where each side looks at the other and sees something that it would like to pursue, then that side can unilaterally try to align with the other side.
A good example would be the auto theft immobilization systems, which has been an existing standard in Canada since 2007. The U.S. examined our standard, found that they would like to emulate us, and about a year ago they in fact proposed a regulation to harmonize with the Canadian standard. They have also indicated an interest in the Canadian rear underride standard for the trailers that are drawn by tractor units. They have indicated a significant interest in looking at our due diligence and potentially aligning with us. They have mentioned a few other areas as well.
I would say that there's no impact on safety. Each country has its sovereign ability under the RCC, as announced by the Prime Minister and the President a few years ago, to align where it makes sense. But in areas where there are unique domestic requirements, each country will continue to pursue standards and develop those standards for the domestic needs.
:
There are a couple of things, Mr. Chair. A number of assertions have been made by the witnesses in response to Conservative questioning that are a little bit astonishing.
Mr. Ram, you're quoted as saying that safety is your first priority. I believe you mean that. The problem is that when Canadians look at the numbers, in the public accounts, 2012-13, road safety has been cut 5.5%; marine safety has been cut 25%; aviation has been cut 11%; VIA Rail has been cut 15%. That's an astonishing statement. I believe you have to say what you have to say, but the government isn't putting its money where its mouth is.
Mr. Leclerc, you repeat ad nauseam that this is just a technical amendment, that the vast majority of regulations do not require prepublication. If I were to stop any municipal leader or city councillor in a municipality where trains run through with dozens, if not hundreds, of cars with dangerous goods on the back of them, and I told them that we were making these amendments because it was about a technical amendment to bring things up to speed with others, I think, in response to your claim that the majority of regulations don't require prepublication, most people would answer with the question, “So what?”
We've seen a 31,000% increase in oil by rail. We could have a million barrels a day of excess capacity by 2024 if every pipeline in Canada is used to the fullest extent. That's all going on rail, or perhaps even by truck.
Ms. Pham, if I could go to your last testimony on the bridge, what will the toll be, per car, to use that bridge on a daily basis?
:
It's okay. You either have the answer or you don't. I understand; you're in the middle of assessing that.
One of the Conservative MPs asked the question, how have we managed to accelerate that timeframe? Let's just take a look at the timeframe.
You started a team in January 2014. The government has known since its election in 2006 that there's a serious problem. It took five years for the government to announce there would be a new bridge. During that time they found the time to go find a former CFL football player, put him in the Senate, then bring him to the bridge, have him announce his candidacy for a local seat, promise $120 million to fix the bridge, and then when he lost his seat, put him back in the Senate.
There have been games played with this bridge now for five, six, seven years.
You're in a tough spot. I understand and respect that. You pulled together a team on January 1. You really can't tell us what the flow will be, what the rate will be, what the distributive effects will be on other bridges, on transit, on roadways, can you? You're not in a position to tell us that, yet you are still running to market for a $3 billion to $5 billion public-private partnership.
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Why don't we have these numbers done first?
:
I would like to thank my colleague.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My question is also about the bridge. I hope I misunderstood your answer to my colleague earlier. Can you please confirm that you are undertaking a study in order to understand what the impact on traffic in the West Island will be if there is going to be a toll on one bridge only?
The Honoré-Mercier Bridge is a problem with respect to traffic. Every day at the Saint-Pierre interchange, there are hours of traffic. It takes 20 minutes to get to downtown from the West Island, but when there is traffic, it takes an hour and a half. Having a toll on only one bridge will create a terrible situation for West Island residents.
Can you tell me if you have a plan dealing with that situation, and, if so, what is it? Could you please give me concrete and specific information on that?
:
Mr. Chairman, I will answer in general terms, and then I'll ask Mr. Brazeau to add to my answers.
The first one is looking at the toll rates in the greater Montreal area. Two autoroutes, the 25 and the 30, are toll roads. We are looking at the way the toll system is working there, and how the rate was established.
With respect to the second part of your question on revenues, the Government of Canada will retain all the risks relating to revenue. That means we will make payments to the private partner, but the private partner will not assume the risk based on volume.
With that, I'm going to turn to Marc so he can add to the answer.
:
If I don't hear a motion to move there, Mr. McGuinty....
For Thursday, the meeting on liability was recommended in the report. I know that anybody who's at that meeting will get that. We're still waiting for some responses. We've had three people decline for that day. Lloyd's, Western Canadian Shippers Coalition, and the Insurance Bureau of Canada have confirmed. We have the Canadian Transportation Agency, and during the meeting, we had confirmation from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM.
With that, I'd entertain a motion to accept the report.
That's moved by Mr. Watson. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Mr. McGuinty, did you have a comment?