Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vote.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
The amendment reads:
That a report from such study be concluded by the end of the April 3 meeting and be tabled in the House of Commons immediately thereafter.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Thank you.
I would have a subamendment to that. That subamendment is that it would terminate after the date. And it would eliminate the tabling in the House of Commons portion.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Okay.
For the record, will you read it exactly how you want it entered?
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Delete the reference that the report would be tabled in the House.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
There's been a subamendment to Ms. Chow's motion that would basically eliminate the portion that states that it shall be reported to the House.
10 a.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
If this committee is to be relevant, then what we do here really should have an impact on the whole matter. If not, this is just an exercise in delay and in giving the workers a chance to vent, but it would go absolutely nowhere.
Any study or any motions of any substance should be reported to the House of Commons. If it's not reported to the House of Commons, why have a standing committee for transport? Why have a wet sponge to take all the energy from the workers and what we learn from Air Canada representatives and also the report I heard the minister is going to draft? We should take all of that information and present it to the House of Commons. There's nothing to be ashamed of.
Once it's reported to the House of Commons, other members of Parliament may want to comment on it. There might be a concurrence motion so that at the end of the day there would be a three-hour debate. It would be clear where the House of Commons stood, and other members of Parliament would have the opportunity to comment on this matter, which is of huge significance. It's the lives of thousands of workers, and it has an impact on Winnipeg, Montreal, and Mississauga.
I hope that what we do would be tabled in the House of Commons.
10 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, in light of the amendments proposed by the government members, it is clear that they are trying to protect the minister. They probably don't want him to come because he is afraid to come.
In addition, the fact that there is no mention of a timeframe means that they are just trying to buy time. The Aveos workers and the Air Canada people need to know that this government simply wants to buy time and sweep things under the rug.
I ask for a vote and I am going to vote against those amendments.
10 a.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The minister himself stated yesterday that he was referring the matter to this committee. So for this committee not to report it back to the House of Commons kind of means that the minister himself was not truthful when he said to the House yesterday that this matter was being referred to this committee. It apparently is here, but it's not here. That it's not going to be reported back to the House makes no sense to me.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, there was no referral from the House to this committee to study the issue. But more to the point, let me follow what's going on here.
10 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
No. He's asked the committee if they would look at it, but there's no referral from the House. It's a procedural difference. It's a huge one, as a matter of fact.
Let me understand this. The opposition, first of all, says we shouldn't have hearings, that the minister just needs to do something about it. They didn't even want the hearings in the first place. Now that hearings, or the discussion of possible hearings, on this issue are on the table, I find it an odd position that they don't think they're necessary.
But now we're talking about hearings. I can tell you the House isn't waiting on the results of possible hearings, judging by the opposition in question period yesterday. They don't need a report from a committee. Presumably they felt earlier they didn't even need hearings. They're pursuing the debate there.
This really is an effort by the opposition to delay debate on the budget that is coming down. They want to tie up the House in other issues that way.
I think we can do exactly what we need to do, which is schedule hearings, hear from the important witnesses. To comply with the legislation at hand, Air Canada has to give a public account in terms of its plan of action. That's the main purpose of potential hearings.
I don't think that necessarily requires a report back to the House of Commons. We need to get them on the public record. The parties are going to continue to debate this issue in the broader House, whether or not there's a report from the committee.
