Evidence of meeting #1 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was toyota.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I was just going to say that not only did Mr. Volpe miss a great opportunity with Toyota, but you missed a great opportunity with Transport Canada yesterday. I know your assistant was there, but certainly you would have heard, in relation to the jurisdiction of the minister and the department, what they can and can't do with product recalls. That's why I'm suggesting that at this stage the minister is probably not involved. Once you have the opportunity to listen to Transport Canada and Toyota, you might come to a different conclusion. Certainly I would have suggested that you do both before that, along with high-speed rail.
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, this is one of my reasons for suggesting that we ask the Transport Canada officials to meet with us on Thursday. I am even suggesting that this meeting be televised, just like the meeting with the Toyota people.
Before accusing the minister, we should perhaps give Transport Canada a chance to provide a good public explanation on how things work and what the differences are between the United States and Canada so that the people understand. It is very simple. If it is the minister's fault, we are going to attack him, but if it is not his fault... I do not want us to impugn motives before we have all the information.
This is why I suggest that we meet with Transport Canada on Thursday, with Toyota on Tuesday, and, after that, we will see.
I want our approach to be balanced. It always has been and I would like it to stay that way.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you, everyone, for your input.
With that, we'll adjourn this meeting and break into a subcommittee.
Mr. Jean.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I'd much rather have the decision made about Toyota right now, in the committee of the whole, because then we don't have to come back and adopt the subcommittee agenda. We've already had a full discussion of it. Why can't we at least set the agenda in the full committee for Thursday and Tuesday?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
In light of that, would it be appropriate that I move my motion formally, then, and we generate discussion around it?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We have to deal with Mr. Volpe's motion first, as it came in first.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If we want to deal with that as a committee of the whole, or if we want to deal with it as the subcommittee....
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
We've already talked to it and discussed it as a whole.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
It's only on a rare occasion that I disagree with Mr. Jean, so I will take full advantage of the rarity and disagree with him.
I think the reason we spent the last 10 minutes going around the table was simply to establish--if I can recall the word--the “principle” of actually debating this in subcommittee with an interest of going forward for next week. It was to give the steering committee a sense of where everybody was at, not to make the decision in full committee, because we needed to do that in a fulsome discussion in steering.
Now, I didn't want to pre-empt that from taking place, but if Mr. Watson is going to be directed into a position where he would want his motion read, debated, and then voted upon right now, before we go into steering, then I guess we're going to have to engage in a fulsome debate on the motion that preceded his, which would of course be mine.
In the spirit of cooperation, I'm going to take Mr. Watson's reflection as an indication that all of us have heard sufficiently on the principle of that motion and can go immediately into steering committee to discuss the mechanics of what to do next week, and indeed what to do Thursday.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
First, I want it on the record that I do not direct Mr. Watson to do anything. I don't think anybody else does either--except possibly his wife.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I do want to make sure that we.... After we have the subcommittee, we have to go into the committee of the whole to adopt the subcommittee's agenda anyway, so why not just deal with it now? We've already discussed it fully, both ways.
We know that we quite frankly do not want your proposal at this stage, Mr. Volpe. Instead, like Mr. Watson's motion, let's deal with it, have a vote on it, set the agenda for the next two days, and then have the steering committee go in and talk about what's going to happen after that. It seems to make a lot of sense to me.
I would like to have the motions moved at this time and dealt with by the committee of the whole. I think that's the consensus of most of the members.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Are there any comments?
Are you prepared to speak to the motion, Mr. Volpe?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Without having to consider Mr. Watson's motions, let's begin by making the appropriate logistical preparations to have officials from Toyota. We haven't discussed which ones, so I think that's something the steering committee could do on Tuesday. Mr. Laframboise has indicated that perhaps we can go a little bit further and start alerting transport officials to appear here as well. I don't have any problem with that.
The only other consideration--and I think the steering committee can deal with it--is whether we would do it jointly or individually. If we are already going to be dealing with the principle of having transport officials and Toyota officials--we haven't determined which ones yet--I don't have any problem with that, and I don't think my colleagues, at least from the Liberal Party, have any problem with that.
Where I didn't hear agreement in principle was on whether the Minister of Transport would also appear at those hearings, not necessarily on Tuesday but perhaps on Thursday.
If I hear there's a sense we should do that as well, then we can proceed. We don't even have to vote on this.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Mr. Laframboise already suggested that we have Toyota and that we have Transport Canada--and I've named two officials who have said they're prepared to come here--and then decide at that stage whether or not the minister should be brought in for questions. Let's deal with it on that basis, and let's move forward with it and invite the industry.
We've also heard direct evidence from the clerk that we can't have a joint meeting but that we can invite them to participate with us. Why don't we do that--invite them to participate with us, and if they want to do so, they can do so? But in the meantime, we should get on with Canada's business.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
May I make the suggestion that perhaps we not remove Mr. Volpe's motion but table it for now and address Mr. Watson's motion? Mr. Watson's motion does state that we would be calling relevant witnesses for testimony, including officials from Transport Canada and Toyota. The subcommittee could determine who those officials would be, and I think that would satisfy both sides. We could also even make a subamendment to Mr. Watson's motion whereby we would invite industry committee members to attend and participate if they chose to.
Are you okay with that, Jeff? That way we've kind of resolved Mr. Volpe's issue as far as getting them involved in the debate goes, and then if we need to go further, we can.
Mr. Watson.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have just a couple of thoughts. I'm certainly open to members participating. In terms of where this study fits, though, I don't want this committee to lose its pre-eminence, because I think appropriately the study should be with the transport committee, but if industry members want to participate or be here, that's fine. I'm certainly open to some language that way.
With respect to where I was going with my motion in terms of attendance, obviously we would want Toyota officials.
If you'll recall, Mr. Chair, I did send a letter to you specifically talking about Transport Canada's road safety division and the defects investigation unit, which would be a good starting point at the very least. As I said earlier in my comments, if the committee decides it needs to do more than that, then fine, the committee can make that determination. But I think for the purposes of planning, if we're going to address the issue, it might be sufficient to get officials prepared to come next week.
So I would be prepared to move my motion. I don't know if somebody would have to add some language to it, through a friendly amendment, to have members of the industry committee participate with us. I'm not sure how you'd phrase that, but I'd be open to that for sure.