Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2018

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

How long would that be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's two hours for the two panels.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Two hours takes up the whole meeting. When do we get to approve the documentation that goes back to the chair? Is that something...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It would simply be a letter back to finance saying that we did look at those clauses in particular and we are making the following recommendations, or we're sending it back with no amendments suggested. People can go to finance and make suggested changes directly, if they choose, as well.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

When do we get the time to discuss that, though?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

That has to be part of the three hours we have in total.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

How can we actually have a recommendation back to finance, when we only have three hours and they're already all taken up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I am suggesting maybe we can have.... It depends on how many witnesses everybody submits as well.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Chair, how can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We can do it in two and a half hours.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

That's not the point I'm trying to stress. We will be hearing witnesses. When do we actually compile what we've heard and make a recommendation based on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are you suggesting that you'd like to add another hour onto it?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

No, I think we have to add another meeting.

Again, if I follow it step by step, we have witnesses on Tuesday. I'm assuming we have analysts who are going to try to give us something back on.... I don't know what this letter to the chair of finance is going to look like, and I don't know how we can prepare it in half an hour after we hear the witnesses. That's virtually meaningless.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

In trying to see if there's an opportunity for additional time, I can suggest it for the next meeting on the 8th—next Thursday. We have the Parliamentary Budget Officer coming in. It was easier to add an hour on to make a three-hour meeting and not disrupt the Parliamentary Budget Officer coming, because we have been waiting for that for some time, as well.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I'm thinking out loud here without discussing this with my colleagues. If we were to add another hour next Thursday, and at that hour something was put in front of us that said that this is what we heard and this is what we recommend to finance, I'd be a lot more comfortable with that. I don't know how we would prepare the other outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

The other is simply to acknowledge that we've done a hearing and—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I see no point in that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll have Mr. Hardie and then Ms. Block.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have just a couple of thoughts.

We could probably deal with the Transport Canada input or discussion with them in half an hour, and leave two and a half hours to spend with witnesses. I like the idea, then, of adding some time subsequently to consider what we're going to send back to finance.

I'd also recommend that we ask the Transport Canada people to be here in the room to hear what the witnesses have to say, rather than just coming in for their slot. I think that will build a context and make that part of the meeting more efficient.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to support my colleagues. I think what I am hearing is a recommendation to add some time.

Perhaps during my intervention you could clarify for us how long the Parliamentary Budget Officer is going to be with us on Thursday. Was that going to be the full two hours? Typically, I think, when legislation is referred—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We're having the Parliamentary Budget Officer for two hours, and then we'll go back to airport noise.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Typically, when a committee is reviewing legislation, you do a study of that legislation. You have time in between for each of the parties to determine whether they want to make amendments to that legislation. They then come back and propose them during clause-by-clause.

I think you're suggesting that after we've heard what we need to hear on Tuesday it's incumbent upon each party to submit amendments to the finance committee. If that's the process that's in place, then we probably don't need to come back on Thursday. If we wanted to come back and share the amendments that we wanted to put forward and see if there is any agreement on that, then we need some time on Thursday to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Following this discussion, any of us can submit amendments directly to finance for consideration prior to clause-by-clause. We can acknowledge the fact that we had a three-hour session or whatever, and refer it back with or without amendments. There is the possibility that we could take that second hour from airport noise on November 8 if there was something that we wanted to submit to finance—not to take away from the PBO's presentation—but we would have to do it no later than November 8.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will be brief because Mr. Liepert said a lot of things that I agree with.

Personally, I think that, on one hand, there is definite interest in the committee doing this study. On the other, there is obviously also some discomfort with taking part in what is a bit of a charade. We are working on the biggest budget bill in history and want to get it passed in two weeks, with the committee studying it for three hours from start to finish. In other words, there would be hearings and a report. If that is truly the proposed order of business, I am withdrawing because I do not want to be party to that charade.

I am really interested in the substance of the matter, and it takes a certain amount of time to consider it. It would be rather absurd for the committee to send a letter, saying that we have held a three-hour meeting on the matter, but that we do not have any recommendations because we did not have time to come to an agreement.

Moreover, that would diminish our work. If we do not agree on a certain number of recommendations at the end of a discussion, if certain parties also send their own recommendations, that's fine, it is part of the game and the way things are done.

If, however, we have just three hours to consider the matter, and then send a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance, saying simply that we met for three hours and have nothing to say, I repeat that it would be a charade and, in that case, I no longer wish to continue.

If, on the other hand, we find the time that is needed, the amount of time that we seem to be freeing up, I am on board.