Evidence of meeting #2 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.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I think you can have an asterisk with “subject to change”.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
Because I'm new, I have a technical question. Surely the request for witnesses is limited time-wise, is it not? When we start to study this, a notice goes out. Who are the witnesses going to be? We look at the list. It isn't an ongoing process, is it? Is it not a two-week process or timeline by which witnesses are decided on? I need to understand that. Surely we would know quite quickly how many witnesses we would have, and we could therefore plan at that time how many sessions we'd need. It's really a question for the clerk.
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
It's a chicken-and-egg situation. Either the list can be provided to us ahead of time and then we can try to organize how many meetings would be required, or we would determine ahead of time the number of meetings, and then you would provide witnesses to fill those meetings. It can be done either way. I've seen it done both ways. It usually depends on the will of the committee.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
I was going to go back to an earlier comment I made about how these are proposed resolutions as a work plan for the committee, subject to change. It comes back to taking each of these, prioritizing, and then deciding what we're going to do first, second, third and so on. We could also, at that point in time, once we've prioritized, start to determine a tentative schedule for the next number of weeks and which studies we'd like to do. Based on that, we may bring back to the entire committee a suggestion as to whether we do four, five, or six, at that point in time.
I don't know if we need to make the decision today on each of these. I think the number of meetings, six, is based on a generic number that we use for a lot of studies we do, particularly if they're broad in scope. I'd propose that we just leave "as is" these resolutions regarding the number of meetings, and that the committee decide as we go forward, the subcommittee and then the entire committee. If we want to make changes or suggestions as we move along, we certainly can do that.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
February 20th, 2020 / 4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
I agree with Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I 100% agree with the gentleman across the way.
When you determine the day, the number of meetings per study, it gives us some direction on how much time we need to give. It's such a broad study. As my colleague was saying, we should leave it as it is and the subcommittee's going to decide later on. We don't need to get into the nitty-gritty now. Leave it as it is and then the subcommittee can decide later on. We're not held to six meetings. It could take five. It could take four and a half. We don't know. If we're not getting to a solution, we might extend it. It depends on the quality of the witnesses.
I'd say to leave it as it is and then we can decide.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Thank you, Mr. Sidhu.
Let's just take the next step now and turn the page.
First off, I heard a lot of amendments, but I will bring forward as an amendment what Mr. Davidson said with respect to all of these—to put “subject to change” after an asterisk. Is everybody okay with that?
Mr. Bittle, go ahead.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
As a process thing, since we have the power to change regardless, do we really have to put it in there? The committee can—
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scot Davidson Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Well, what have we been talking about for half an hour? It's unbelievable.
4:15 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
A voice
Leave it as it is.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Leave it as it is, okay. We're fine.
Back to that motion, no amendments.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Moving to the next motion, Mr. Rogers. I don't think it's necessary to read it.
Mr. Rogers, you're moving that motion.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey
Yes, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)...”
Are there any questions or comments on that motion?
Mr. Doherty.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I have a comment on it.
I just want to speak to the importance of a study of this. I am from a rural area with connectivity issues and severe gaps in our wireless. I mentioned earlier that I attended to a car accident on the weekend. The radios of our emergency services personnel would not work, nor did we have cell service there. This is a study that I think is a very important, and I support it.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON
I'm very supportive and incredibly interested in this piece. Even in my riding of Markham—Stouffville, being on the greenbelt and the Oak Ridges Moraine, there are amazing gaps in connectivity. Obviously it affects rural areas, but it affects those that have urban core and then surrounding rural areas.