Evidence of meeting #55 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 safety.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
So he wants to deal with it now. Let's now put a motion forward to adjourn debate please.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Badawey has presented a motion to adjourn the debate on Mr. Aubin's motion. Does anyone wish to speak on Mr. Badawey's motion?
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I simply want to say that time is pressing, because the study on aviation safety is coming to an end. This motion is entirely on topic. I don't wish to adjourn the debate, but I would like us to vote.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Thank you.
Mr. Badawey moves that we end the debate on Mr. Robert Aubin's motion.
(Motion agreed to)
I must now call the vote on Mr. Aubin's motion, which reads as follows:
That the committee invite the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Marc Garneau, to testify as part of the study on aviation safety.
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
I recognize Mr. Badawey, but I must give the floor to Mr. Aubin.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
The vote has taken place, and I suppose I may now use my speaking time.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Through you to the clerk, we went through two processes here with two motions where I put together a motion to adjourn debate. I understand that when you adjourn debate, after you vote on adjourning debate, under that process or regulation, it then moves on to the next agenda item. I guess the interpretation is, is the next item the motion that was introduced, or is the next item what is on the actual agenda before us, presented to us before the meeting?
I don't need an answer now, but if I would like to have that clarified. After the last motion by Mr. Clement, I had expected that we would move on to the next agenda item, and that would then take place at the next meeting to vote for that motion. Obviously it was ruled by you that the next agenda item was the motion that was placed on the table. If we could have clarification on that, I'd appreciate it.
Under the dilatory motions, it does state that, when you move to adjourn, this temporarily suspends debate under way on a motion. If the motion is carried, debate on the motion ceases, and the committee moves on to the next agenda item. The motion has been adjourned and can no longer be brought up for the remainder of the meeting. I need clarification on that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Badawey, I agree with you. In fact I intended to ask for clarifications on this point so that we can do things correctly the next time. We heard a first opinion, but I think it is worthwhile to ask the clerk to give us an answer on this question, which I consider pertinent, at our next meeting.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Tony Clement Conservative Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabour the point. I respect the honourable member's intervention. I would only say that, when I heard him intervene with his motion, I took his meaning to be that he wanted to go directly to a vote without further debate. If that was not his intention, it's very simple in the future to be more clear—clearer for my simple mind—so we have no disagreements in the future on this point.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Clement and Mr. Badawey, with all due respect, I have heard what you said. We have asked for clarification on this very relevant issue, and we will wait for an answer.
As you mentioned, we don't have much time. With everyone's consent, I would like to allow Mr. Aubin to use the rest of his speaking time.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Just to clarify, Mr. Chairman, if I may, the motion was very clear to adjourn debate.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
The clerk will provide a clarification to us later. I think it is relevant for the future functioning of the committee, since it could happen again.
Mr. Aubin, you have five minutes left.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first questions are for you, Mr. McKeogh.
The passage in your presentation where you say that pilots do not have enough hand flying experience also surprised me. I have a series of questions with regard to that.
First of all, is there a fundamental difference between training on a simulator and real in-flight training?
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants
Yes. You're asking if there's a real overlap of 100% between simulator flying and actual flying of the aircraft.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
No, my question was the other way around. I wanted to know whether the two types of training, that is to say training on a simulator and hands-on flying, are of equal value. Would it not be more appropriate to provide more hands-on flying training for pilots?
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants
Yes, hands-on flying, as we call it, is much more important. Even if simulators have evolved a lot recently, there are things that leave something to be desired in certain areas.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you.
Unfortunately, you had to be interrupted in your opening statement when you were providing a list of things you would like to see added to training. You started by saying that lectures should be more numerous, but I would like you to tell us more about the other suggestions you were going to make.
12:10 p.m.
President, Canadian Aviation Safety Consultants
Very well. May I continue in English?