Evidence of meeting #1 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I would add my voice, Mr. Chair, to those calling for a timely appearance. It's something that should be prioritized and can probably be dealt with without the added step of going to the subcommittee for discussion.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Okay.
We do have a motion before us. It was presented to us. It is appropriate to bring it to the next committee meeting and vote on it there—that is, to not vote on it today but at the next meeting. Of course, we can move forward from there with respect to the committee's pleasure in this regard.
Mr. Bittle, and then Mr. Berthold.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Again, just in looking at it, I'm not sure how this committee operated, but for the committees that I was on—Justice and PROC—no request that a minister appear was rejected. I think there was always an understanding that we'd work within the minister's schedule.
I'm not saying that this is something that should be delayed till June or trying to delay it, but to say specifically that it needs to happen on February 27 may not work if the ministers are not here. That was my only request: to adjourn it either until the next meeting or to the subcommittee, so that we can get the ministers' schedules and actually work this out so the ministers are available.
Again, I know that Mr. Garneau has worked hard with this committee in the past and did not in the past refuse any opposition requests to meet. He has always been open and willing to speak with members of the opposition. I think it's reasonable to go back and check his schedule rather than to say “appear on this date”, when he is unavailable to do so, because then we're back into wrangling when we're actually agreeing that it's perfectly reasonable for the minister to be here. Let's just find a date that works for everyone.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
I was going to ask for unanimous consent to pass both motions right away. I understand from what Mr. Bittle said that it probably won't be possible to get it. In light of that, I'm still going to ask for unanimous consent of the committee members to adopt the two motions as they were tabled a few moments ago. Otherwise, we'll talk about them again at the next meeting on Thursday.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
At this moment, we have the routine motions and the Doherty motion going forward to the subcommittee. I'm understanding now that you want this motion to come up on Thursday. You have given due notice—that's proper notice—and you can move the motion. You do have the ability to move that motion on Thursday. It would then be up to the pleasure of the committee to—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Yes, but I asked for unanimous consent to talk about it today. If they don't want to, that's fine.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Okay. I'll ask for that, but I think I've read between the lines on this one. I was just trying to get to the point. Do I have unanimous consent?
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Again, Mr. Berthold, that brings it back to Thursday, and if it's the pleasure of the committee, we can decide to deal with it on Thursday.
Is there any further business? I'm making an assumption that the next meeting is going to be on Thursday. I apologize for that. Is that assumption correct?
Mr. Doherty, you mentioned that earlier.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I did. If it fits with everybody's schedule, that was the assumption we had as well.
I just want to offer this. If it's at all possible, can the subcommittee meet tomorrow or at their earliest convenience? That's offline for everyone.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Yes.
Am I able, Madam Clerk, to ask for five minutes so we can suspend? Thank you.
Oh, do I get a gavel too? This is pretty cool. I haven't had one of these in a while.
4:05 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
We will reconvene.
We've had some dialogue with our respective camps, so I'm sure that people on both sides have something to discuss here.
Mr. Doherty, you have the floor. Then we'll have any questions or comments.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
With respect to the comments regarding the whips' agreement, or the offices' agreement, I think that was specifically with regard to those committees that are dealing with NAFTA, or CUSMA. It was my understanding that there was no agreement that it was for all committees carte blanche. The message we got is that we're here to work, so let's get to work.
What I would like to propose, Mr. Chair, is that the subcommittee meet at our earliest convenience. I know what my schedule is and I can move things to make it work with yours and with others' schedules. I would suggest that on Thursday at the very least we meet as a committee, for at the very least an hour, to get things under way. We had motions that came before us and I think it will allow us to set the ground rules so that when next Tuesday hits, we're ready to hit the ground rolling.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
Are there questions or comments?
Mr. Bittle.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I appreciate Mr. Doherty's comments. In speaking with our officials from the whip's office, this has been Parliament-wide in terms of what the committees have been doing, not just the ones studying NAFTA and CUSMA.
In terms of scheduling a meeting for tomorrow, members have meetings and whatnot, and I don't know that it's.... I don't think there's much disagreement on what happens next. The subcommittee can meet on Thursday during the regularly scheduled time of this committee. Committee members have that blocked off. Those members who are on the subcommittee can meet. That's easily done.
We can move forward based on that. I don't think there has been any disagreement in terms of what is proposed. We haven't put up any fight, but I think that's reasonable to expect so that members will be able to attend. They'll be able to meet, sit and do their work. Members on this committee have other committees; they have other parliamentary business to attend to. To schedule a meeting at the last minute just because, when there is an open slot.... There was an agreement between the whips that there be only one meeting. I think it would be useful to use that time on Thursday to set the agenda, to get everyone together and to do it at a time when members on our side are available.
I appreciate that Mr. Doherty is free, but he has not canvassed our side on whether we are free, whether we're available to meet and whether the chair is available. Also, this isn't a crisis, especially since I believe we're in consensus on what happens next. We just have to get down to the nitty-gritty of what we're doing next in terms of witnesses and whatnot. Those witnesses have to be contacted. The ministers' offices will be canvassed.
It's great that you want to get going, but the clerk can't wave a magic wand and have witnesses here on Tuesday because we've pushed up the agenda one day further. Let's respect the members' schedules and their ability to be here and meet during our regularly scheduled time. In terms of the orders and the schedule that we have, I don't know that the Conservatives have established a rationale to do this, especially considering that we can't necessarily hit the ground running on Tuesday. I don't think that's fair to the clerk either.
Let's do this and let's do it reasonably, especially since all parties have committed their support publicly to the next study. I can speak for the Minister of Transport. He's more than willing to come and speak to whatever issue exists, but let's look at his schedule. Perhaps February 27 works. Perhaps an earlier day works.
That might be a more useful way to address the committee business so that we can give more time to the clerk to set the witnesses, get them here, and get the lineup of witnesses that everyone wants so we can do a proper study, rather than rushing through. I don't think that's what the Conservatives want. I think they want a proper study—I hope.
I know that I want a proper study in terms of talking to the experts on the subject and to Transport Canada officials, but these things don't.... I know that Mr. Doherty has been here before. It's not his first rodeo. Doing a proper study requires us to have a little bit of patience. This is something that needs to be done and needs to be looked at, but why are we going to rush into it and do it badly?
If there are witnesses who can't attend, or whatever the case is, let's abide by the agreement. There's no reason, no rationale, for putting the whips' agreement aside, and even putting the whips' agreement aside, let's meet on the Thursday. Let's use that date for the subcommittee, get the agenda set, consult with the ministers' calendars, both at Infrastructure and Transport, and see what the schedule looks like, especially if it is.... Perhaps it's better to have the ministers go first and move this forward.
Let's use the time that we have, the time that's scheduled. Let's do this properly. We can respect the whips' agreement and move forward from there, especially as there isn't any disagreement as to what happens next.
I propose that we use the time and use the subcommittee. It's a much better way to set things out and give us an idea of what we're going to look at, even beyond a study of the Max 8, and really have a good sense of what comes forward, including meetings with the ministers. Supplementary estimates were just introduced today. Those will have to be addressed in the near future as well.
I really don't see the rationale.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I can see how this committee is going to go. We have, with all due respect to Mr. Bittle, the parliamentary secretary doing a lot of the talking for the government side—
4:25 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor] critic.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
—as opposed to the critic, I guess. There you go. Touché.
4:25 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, nobody was suggesting that we would have witnesses on Thursday. It was merely being suggested for the sake of time—you and I and the rest of the committee are here to work this week—that we meet as a subcommittee, at our earliest convenience, to chart the course as to what we have in front of us today. Then on Thursday, as a committee, whether for an hour, whether for two hours, or whatever we have in terms of time, we get our own house in order. It's not to call witnesses for that day but rather to come and report back to the committee on what we as a subcommittee deliberated on and came forward with. That would give us a fresh opportunity the following week, which is next week, to really hit the ground running.
It is Thursday when we...again, taking what Mr. Bittle has offered, that perhaps some people may have already made plans. I think the best thing we could do would be to offer, through the clerks, to see whether there is an opportunity for us to have a meeting as a committee to get our house in order after our subcommittee meeting tomorrow.