Transport Committee on Feb. 25th, 2020

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I didn't know that the minister had been called for the 737 MAX study, but that makes sense since this is a hot issue and rather important. However, if we do the study on the 737 MAX and question the minister at the same time that we address his mandate letter, I think we won't have enough time to talk about it. That is a lot of time. I wonder if we can come up with another solution.

I understand that you wanted to avoid calling the minister too many times because it is too hard to coordinate with his schedule. If we asked questions on the 737 MAX and on the budget that day, but took two hours instead of one and we addressed the mandate letter of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities another time, we would have a full hour to study each of these topics. I'm just tossing out an idea. I haven't talked to anyone about it.

Is that something that might work out? The important thing to me is that we do not cut into the time allotted for the study on the mandate letter. I think that we will have a lot of questions to ask because the mandate letter has a rather broad scope.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Is there a member who wants to answer that question?

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

We're willing to work with the opposition, but if his appearance with respect to the Max 8.... I guess we'd be open for that to be broader, but again, given his schedule and the number of issues that are currently in crisis mode on his plate at the moment, perhaps a regular one-hour appearance with respect to the Boeing Max 8 could be broadened, and questions could be asked with respect to the supplementary estimates.

The minister's schedule is very tight. Given the number of questions I fielded in question period on Friday, I know that his office is busy. He's engaged actively and heavily with respect to not only this file but many others, most critically the rail blockades at the moment. I think that two appearances in a very short period of time is reasonable, and we can work within those two hours to meet what the opposition is looking to achieve. However, again, it has to be done.... We're on a break week next week, and this is being done in rapid succession.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

We could ask the minister if he is available on March 10. That would be the best thing to do to try to speed things up here. We set a date for the study, March 10, but have yet to call witnesses for that date. We could ask the minister to come then and we could also talk about the supplementary estimates.

Again, I took the time to carefully read the ministers' mandate letters. There are so many different aspects and important files that we would need two hours with each minister. These are things that Canadians are concerned about, whether we are talking about climate change, infrastructure or transport. I think that one hour per minister is not too much to ask. If anyone here had a question about the supplementary estimates and absolutely wanted a response, they could ask their question then. After all, the time belongs to each parliamentarian.

With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, it is not the committee's job to manage the minister's schedule. Our colleagues around the table are not here to manage the ministers' agendas. As we keep hearing in response to our questions in the House of Commons, the committees are free and independent from the government's agenda. Here, it is up to us to decide whether it is reasonable to set aside two hours for both ministers. I sincerely think it is. Then we could ask the ministers to come back to talk about the supplementary estimates, even if that means getting Mr. Garneau to come just once to also talk about the study. That would be the best solution.

I really want us to talk about the ministerial mandate letters. I can't ask that we postpone the study of the mandate letter of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to another meeting, although I appreciate the suggestion. There are so many things we want to talk about when it comes to infrastructure that I cannot go in that direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

The challenge, Mr. Berthold, is time. We already have witnesses scheduled for the 10th. We have witnesses, including Mr. Garneau, for the aircraft certification process on the 12th. Then we have the families on the 24th.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

That's what we have scheduled. Basically when you look at what you're speaking of now, trying to find time to try to squeeze this in, you see it's is going to be challenging, especially if you want to get to the estimates before the 12th.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

To my knowledge, we don't have a deadline for our current study on the 737 MAX. There's nothing stopping us from pushing back the March 10 meeting. We are not constrained by any sort of deadline.

Earlier, the witnesses talked about how long the process has been and they indicated that there is still a lot of work ahead concerning certification. Accordingly, I don't think it there is any urgency for holding a meeting on the 737 MAX on March 10. We have all the latitude we need as a committee to reasonably accomplish all of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's interesting. A couple of days ago we heard that we're here to get to work, and Mr Davidson banged on the table and said this study is urgent and we need to get to work and how dare we Liberals take one extra meeting to try to figure out the schedule.

If only someone had mentioned the supplementary estimates at that point in the meeting, if only there was a member who brought that up as an issue.... But this was the priority of the Conservative Party. Tables were slammed, outrage was feigned and now they are saying, “Whoa. This is not our priority. Let's slow down. Let's calm down and do something else.”

I appreciate that in camera we have a.... I guess we're still public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

We're still public.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Continue. That's fine. I really like what you are doing right now.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I have nothing to hide with respect to that issue. It's something that I've brought up before. It's something that you demanded was a priority a couple of days ago. Now it isn't a priority. Now we can hold off on this study to squeeze in something else, even though the minister is available.

The minister will be here, and the minister will appear on the study that you said was the number one priority and that we need to get to work on.

How dare the government members try to suggest that we plan our schedule and take an extra meeting to ensure that all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed: That's what happened last week. We find ourselves here now with the Conservatives asking the exact opposite.

We appreciate that was priority. The ministers will be here. The minister will be scheduled with respect to the 737 Max. Let's take advantage of what we have, the witnesses we've scheduled and their time, and move that forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

We are past 5:30 p.m.

We can adjourn or we can deal with this. I will leave it to the pleasure of the committee.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I propose to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

All right. We are going to adjourn. Thank you.