Yes.
Evidence of meeting #48 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #48 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
When I look at the proposed length of meetings as compared to, say, our rail safety study, which I think had four meetings—I may be mistaken, but I think it was four—I assumed that the aviation study would include a piece about the passenger bill of rights as well.
I've met with a handful of groups who have expressed different aviation safety concerns that I think are important, and I'm happy to hear them, but I'm concerned about taking on an awful lot here. I don't want our committee to be bogged down. I do want to give proper attention to aviation safety, but I thought six meetings would have been enough to cover certainly the passenger bill of rights as well as the other safety concerns.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Well, with a lot of respect for my colleague along the way, the assumption that we could fold a passenger bill of rights into a study when the motion put forward by my colleague didn't include a passenger bill of rights was probably not the best assumption to make, especially when we supported that we would undertake a study on aviation safety.
There was much discussion. There was a motion. There was an amendment to this. The amendment was simply that the chair be empowered to coordinate the schedule and the resources required to execute this request. In the spirit of the acceptance of Mr. Aubin's motion and the only amendment coming forward that the chair be empowered, I think we should continue to look at these two items separately, especially since the minister has announced he's doing this. It's something that will land on this table when he presents it.
Let's move on with our aviation study and then see what he puts forward as a passenger bill of rights.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Obviously, I agree completely with Ms. Block. In an effort to be as accommodating as possible, I can see only one area where the air passenger bill of rights and the aviation study could overlap: they could have witnesses in common. It is conceivable that we may wish to hear from some of the same witnesses in both studies. In the event that the minister brings the bill forward while we are working on the aviation safety study, I would be amenable to some sort of linkage. In other words, we would agree to adding meetings to the aviation study in order to ask witnesses questions on both topics, provided that doing so does not cut the initial study short. I don't think we should sacrifice the time we want to spend on aviation safety.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay.
Not seeing any further comments, we will go forward.
We had designated the six meetings. If there is, as Mr. Aubin says, some overlap through some of the witnesses, then so be it.
All right? Everybody's all right with that? Okay.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I just want to make sure that we are not altering the name of the aviation safety study to tie in the passenger bills of rights.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We're down for six meetings.
Is that still your desire, Mr. Aubin, to have the six meetings?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Everybody should start submitting their witnesses for that.
Is there anything else we need to discuss?
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, taking into account the current report, can you tell me when the committee can expect to begin the study? I'd like to get a sense of the situation as far as witnesses go.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
April 4, possibly. We'll have to get back to you because we have to sort out some of these other things, but we will as soon as we can get things organized, get our witnesses list in, and get witnesses lined up.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
What I gather is that we could start the study on the 23rd. We will work towards that, and we will have at least six meetings, as per the committee's timetable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We also have the main estimates and the supply that are going to be coming to us. We have Bill S-2 coming to us.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I understand; we won't be adding anything else, aside from the documents from the House we are required to study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I think we have enough. I look to the committee. Please don't go adding anything more or we'll have to work all summer in order to be on top of it all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
From our end, we're not adding anything more onto the agenda.
Ms. Block.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Having said that, I know you've seen two motions that I've put on notice.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
The first is that the committee invite the Minister of Finance to discuss the sale of Canada's federally owned airports. I know we don't have the 48 hours, but I wanted to raise that. I think that will be something that is being foreshadowed.
The second is that the committee invite the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to discuss the positive and negative impacts of the new federal carbon pricing strategy on the transportation sector. Should we end up with some time, I just wanted to raise those two as being very important motions to consider.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you for giving us notice.
Now, we have one other one, the smart communities and infrastructure. Mr. Rayes should be here for this. Where do we go with that? Do we want the analysts to do a summary for us? Do we want to hold back and have some further meetings on smart communities and infrastructure later on when we have an opportunity in our schedule? What is the desire of the committee when it comes to the smart cities?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I have a procedural question, first, for the analyst, or the clerk I suppose. If we did a summary of the evidence, essentially, I do not think we have enough of a robust study to really make well-thought-out recommendations at this stage, but it's a very interesting, topical thing that is worth promoting. If we were to do a summary of the evidence, or a summary report, and send a copy to the minister, would we be able to pick up a study if we decided later on, and use the same evidence?