Transport Committee on May 2nd, 2016

[Peter Wallis]

I've looked at it, and I've given the legislation the widest, most beneficent reading. As I said at the outset this legislation gives Air Canada the opportunity to continue to carry out maintenance in the three centres identified in the legislation, in the three provinces now identified in the legislation, but it does not restrict Air Canada from taking the opportunity to move into world markets to get some maintenance done in other parts of the world where it's to their cost advantage to do so.

I think the legislation as it's written will create circumstances for those who are concerned about the loss of maintenance jobs to be less concerned. Line maintenance is still going to continue. I'm sure a wide range of maintenance services will continue to be provided by Air Canada in those locations and locations across Canada.

I read that legislation in the widest and most beneficent way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I'm going to have to call an end to our witnesses and thank them both very much for their testimony today. We appreciate very much your taking the time and sharing your tremendous knowledge with the committee.

We have committee business coming up for the remaining five minutes of our meeting.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think you will find if you check with the clerk I submitted a motion last week that I would like to bring to the committee's attention.

I don't know if you would like me to proceed with reading the motion now, or should we give everyone time to get it out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I believe everybody has received the motion.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

That's the one that went out?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Yes, it's the same motion.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Did you change it?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No, I'm not that sneaky.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'd like to go in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sikand has suggested we go in camera.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All those in favour?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

If you go in camera, I won't have a chance to say a single word. This motion directly affects my rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

What is the wish of the committee? All those in favour of going in camera?

It's not going in camera.

Everyone has Mr. Fraser's motion. I'm concerned about time; another committee is coming in here at 5:30.

We have a motion before us. Ms. May has asked to speak to this motion. In order for Ms. May to speak to it, someone on the committee needs to give her their time. Is there someone on the committee who is prepared to give Ms. May their two minutes or so to be able to speak to the motion?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Chair, I am going to donate my two minutes to Ms. May.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Boulerice. I am very honoured that you have given me your speaking time.

I've been through this before and I've had a very difficult experience since fall 2013 when an identical motion to this one was pushed through every committee by the previous Conservative majority for the sole purpose of depriving me of my right to put forward substantive amendments to legislation at report stage.

A brief history to this is that in the past all members of Parliament could put forward amendments at report stage, either substantive or deletions. In 1999 the Reform Party used their opportunity at report stage to put forward about 700 amendments, most of them trivial and deleterious, to slow down adoption of the Nisga'a Treaty. As a result of that misuse of report stage, a new procedure was adopted by the majority Liberal government at the time—it took a couple of years to make the change—that members of Parliament who'd had the right at committee to make substantive amendments could not make them later at report stage.

This created only one group of MPs who still had the right to make amendments at report stage: members of Parliament whose parties have fewer than 12 MPs. They did not have the right to sit in committee as a member of a standing committee: members of the Green Party such as me, the Bloc, or any Independent MPs. We were the only ones left who had the right to put forward substantive amendments at report stage because we weren't members of committee.

This was an invention of the previous Conservative majority, because they, as a majority party, disliked even one MP being able to bring forward substantive amendments at report stage.

While it looks on the face of it as though it's giving new rights or new opportunities to members of Parliament who are not in recognized parties of more than 12 MPs, it is in fact removing rights from smaller parties, discriminating against MPs such as me who have precious few rights in this place as it is. I would urge and beg you not to pass this motion. This will mean that I'll be coming to your committee at every clause-by-clause and I will be allowed to speak to my amendments for 60 seconds, if history is any guide; not allowed to respond if people suggest friendly amendments; not allowed to explain; not allowed to vote; and certainly not allowed to bring forward a substantive amendment at report stage.

Report stage happens only once, once a day. Clause-by-clause can happen simultaneously in many committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. May. My apologies, but we are tight for time given the fact there is another committee coming right in behind us, so we have to vacate the room.

We have a motion before us from Mr. Fraser.

Is there any further debate?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you all very much.

Meeting adjourned.