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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Are we going to have something to look at—because you want us to vote on those right now?
February 18th, 2020 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, in fairness to all who are here and just receiving this motion, which would change the routine motions, I would offer that perhaps each party, each group, be allowed to take this back and review it for the next 48 hours and then we can discuss it at our next meeting.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you.
Are there any questions or comments on that? Is there consensus on that?
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
That's fine. Let's do that. We'll have this back for the next meeting, and, by the way, just to get this on your minds, I'm going to ask at the end of this meeting when you guys want to have the next meeting.
Before we get there, I'm going to ask for any other business.
Mr. Doherty.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Are we on new business? Is that where we're at? We're past the routine motions?
Mr. Chair, we have, possibly coming up in the days, weeks and months ahead, the recertification of the 737 Max. Therefore, I would like to table a motion that this be one of the very first studies this committee endeavours to have. It has impacted Canadians from all across our country. It is an issue that we should be seized with.
Therefore, Mr. Chair, I would like to read into the record and table the following motion:
That, the committee undertake a study of four meetings in regard to Transport Canada’s aircraft certification process, including, but not limited to, the nature of Transport Canada’s relationship to the Federal Aviation Administration and other certifying bodies, as well as the role of airplane manufacturers in the certification process.
In the spirit of collaboration and fairness, I will get my colleague from Quebec to read this in French, if we are all right with that. It is in both English and French, by the way.
Are we good? Everybody is good. All right.
We have copies for all.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
Are there questions or comments on this?
Mr. Bittle.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
We support this as something that Parliament should be looking into. The only suggestion I have is that the subcommittee meet and start this. Obviously this is an item that should be prioritized. We will support this publicly, and perhaps the subcommittee can meet to go through the agenda and determine if four meetings is enough, or whether there should be fewer or more, and who the witnesses will be. That could be done to perhaps streamline the approach to what we're going to be looking at in the near future beyond this—but we're supportive of this study.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you.
Are there any further comments?
I'll take that as consensus that this is the motion.
3:55 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I have a question about procedure.
Will the proposed motion be handled in the same way as my colleague's previous motion? We did not receive it 48 hours in advance. Are we going to deal with this motion at the next committee meeting? I'm trying to find out if that's the way it works or if there's something that might prevent this.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
The quick answer is yes, we can, but I think what Mr. Bittle is asking for is that it actually go to the subcommittee. I'm sure there is going to be some discussion at the subcommittee with respect to queuing up the motions that are going to be coming forward for discussion and debate at this committee.
The motion that was brought forward by Mr. Bachrach had to do with routine proceedings—the in camera proceedings, the quorum as well as the questioning of ministers and the requests to appear, which are motions we just spoke about and passed. That would amend those motions, which we can then discuss at the next meeting. That way the 48 hours is being given.
With respect to the other motions that Mr. Doherty brought forward, and I'm sure other members may bring forward in the future, we can bring those to the subcommittee, queue them up, and come back with a motion. Then we can have a set of directions, for lack of a better word, that the committee is going to embark on.
Go ahead.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, following my colleague's comments, I think the question is whether we are referring this to the subcommittee for further discussion, after which it would come back to the main committee for ratification, or are we passing it and then sending it? Procedurally speaking, it would be good to have some clarity.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We're simply sending it to the subcommittee. Then perhaps just for clarity and for the purpose of the minutes, we could have some sort of motion to that effect just so that we're all on the same page.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
We have a choice. Either it won't be in the minutes at all or, as you stated, we can simply have a comment by Mr. Bittle, for example, with his direction of sending it to the subcommittee. We can have that as a motion. That's fine.
Mr. Bittle. No?
Mr. Doherty.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, I understand that our colleagues are new to committee work, and what have you. With all due respect, the routine motions are essentially standing orders for committees. What's been put forth is essentially how committees operate. Our colleague is suggesting that maybe we change our “standing orders”, if we can, which deserves a little bit more of a discussion.
I would agree with my colleague across the way, Mr. Bittle, that this is something that we could perhaps do at subcommittee as well and talk about the routine motions that our colleague Mr. Bachrach tabled. Perhaps don't mark this in the calendar, as these are comments that I wouldn't like entered into it, but our colleague Mr. Bittle is correct in saying that it is the subcommittee that sets the agenda moving forward. I accept his comments. I agree that as we move forward, it would be the subcommittee that sets not only the way this committee sets out, but our agenda as well as we move forward.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Great. Thank you, Mr. Doherty.
I will accept that as a motion to formalize. I'm reading that the members want something more formalized, so I'll read that as a motion.
Are there any questions or comments on that motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Is there any further business?
Mr. Berthold.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to advise members of the committee that I submitted two motions to the clerk before 4 p.m. to meet the deadlines we just talked about. The first motion is to invite the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Marc Garneau, to a meeting by February 27 to discuss his mandate letter, and the second motion is to invite the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Hon. Catherine McKenna, to a meeting to discuss her mandate letter as well, by February 27. We can discuss this at Thursday's meeting to meet the deadline, or the committee may deal with it immediately if it wishes.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Berthold.
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Bittle.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I guess my only comment is that it would probably be good to again put it to the subcommittee so that we can also check the ministers' schedules. I know that they do have to appear. The supplementary estimates are up, and the ministers do have to appear here regardless of that fact.
I know, as the members who have been here before know, that Minister Garneau is more than happy to appear, and would just have to check his schedule to make sure he's here. His willingness to appear before the committee is long-standing. I just can't speak to it if I don't have his schedule.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Are there any questions or comments on that?
Mr. Berthold, go ahead.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I do not agree that we should send this motion to the subcommittee. I would like it to be dealt with. Then we will dispose of it at the next meeting. I think the government has been slow to call the committees to meet. It has been a long time since the ministers have had their mandate letters and this meeting could have been organized long ago. I do not want the meetings on mandate letters to be overshadowed by the meetings on supplementary estimates. It is important that we have meetings dealing exclusively with mandate letters. That is why I do not want this motion to be referred to the subcommittee and I want it to be dealt with quickly.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I just want to speak in support of my colleague Mr. Berthold. The mandate letter is a very important element in the mandate of ministers, because it outlines the instructions given to them by the Prime Minister.
So I think it would be natural for us to have them come to the committee so that we have an opportunity to discuss this with them, given that part of our job is to monitor what they do. I don't think we need to postpone a discussion on this for very long or to do a great deal of thinking on this subject.
