Evidence of meeting #95 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 funding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I guess we're on the amendment to the motion.
I'm comfortable with the amendment. I understand the amendment is to strike the word “emergency” and to simply have it read “That the committee undertake a study of no less than three meetings.” I'm comfortable with that amendment, whenever we vote on it.
I strongly support the motion, whether it's amended or not. I think it's important that we study this issue. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has pronounced on this twice. There was a study last fall, and one last week, and I think it's clear that we need more information, in particular because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated so. I think it's pretty important that we undertake this study and do it some time before we adjourn for the summer.
NDP
Brigitte Sansoucy NDP Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
I simply want to understand properly.
If we amend the motion, this will not change the fact that if we want to make recommendations by June 2018, at the latest, we will have to begin this study very soon. We must not delay beginning the study, even if we remove the word “emergency” from the motion. Do I understand correctly? Even if we remove the word “emergency”, we will begin the study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Madame Sansoucy, I have already looked at the calendar. If we are going to delay the autonomous vehicles, we'll do it two weeks from next week. I'm suggesting that with the support of the committee, we start on autonomous vehicles on April 16, as soon as we come back—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
—because I recognize it's important for everyone. We would start that immediately.
I'll work out the number of meetings that we can manage to do this, possibly up to the time when we would leave for the trip, providing the trip gets approved. That would give us sufficient meetings, and then we can continue on.
Would that be all right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Oh, sorry, Mr. Liepert.
We're still in the open session, by the way. We've never gone in camera.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Yes.
Was there only one change, just striking “emergency”? I thought I heard you say something about future delays.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It was to strike the words “any future delays”. The reason—and I expect there's probably some disagreement as to my position on this—was that the language, to me, suggests there has been some delay that's serious enough to include in the motion. I don't necessarily see that being the case, so I wanted to frame it as a forward-looking one, rather than building an assumption into the motion.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
It just doesn't make sense. Read what that line would say after your proposed amendment, because—
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
What I was hoping it would say is “in order to prevent delays”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay. We have to vote on the amendment first.
All those in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
You indicated that next week we will do the two meetings on automated and connected vehicles.
We're still in the open session, so we're going to do what we're doing. With respect to the ocean war graves, our analyst has suggested that if I were to write to Global Affairs Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard in regard to the ocean war graves, we might be able to solicit a bit more information for their report.
Do I have the permission of the committee to send letters out seeking that information?
I've suggested to the analysts that they have until we come back from Vancouver, if the trip is approved, to do that report, so they're not under pressure.
Have I missed anything?
If we go until April 29, that would give us five meetings on infrastructure. Would that be satisfactory to everybody? That's a lot of meetings on infrastructure. Is that all right?
