Transport Committee on Oct. 13th, 2020

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If I recall the debate that we had last time we considered the routine motions, item d) was added on to address the concern that there might be situations arising that were not covered under the first three points, and which the committee agrees unanimously should be considered in camera. The intent of this motion is to err on the side of transparency, which I know is a value that everyone on this committee holds. What we don't want is the in camera provisions to be used for the consideration of testimony that might be embarrassing or that for some reason members might not want to have in a public meeting.

If what Mr. Bittle is suggesting is that we remove item d) so that unanimous consent is not a part of the motion, I think that would be fine. It does make the motion more limiting. Then for us to go in camera, an item would have to follow one of the first three criteria.

If I understand where he's coming from, I would be happy to remove item d).

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

Just to go further, this isn't necessarily a motion that I've seen before in other committees. It's not necessarily a bad thing that we haven't seen it before in other committees, and it doesn't necessarily make it valid. I think if we are going to have this motion, item d) should remain in it. I guess I'm questioning the necessity for the motion. Especially with the government in the minority, there's very little that would cause us to worry that the members of the governing party might be trying to silence a particular debate.

I guess I would be opposed to an amendment to the motion as a whole. I'm questioning the necessity for the motion in its entirety. In my experience, even when we held a majority, there was a lack of a desire to push things into an in camera debate, and the idea that the committee was a good arbiter of what that was at any given time.... That's just from my experience, and I'm putting it out there.

I'd like to hear from the other opposition parties and their thoughts on it. If they want it, I'm not going to move to amend it any further, but I guess I question the rationale for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Go ahead, Mrs. Kusie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you.

I lean towards having it. It states in the motion that it's always debatable and amendable. I absolutely agree with my NDP colleague that whatever we do should be in support of transparency within the committee. I would prefer to see the motion remain, and I would prefer to see it remain in the format that exists, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mrs. Kusie.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the clerk for some information. If we do not pass this motion, how would things work by default? Would it be up to the chair of the committee to choose whether or not meetings are held in camera?

[The Clerk]

Thank you for your question.

Without this motion, a majority of committee members would decide if the meeting is to be conducted in public or in camera. As it stands at present, you need unanimous consent.

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

I am comfortable with the motion too. I feel that the principle that meetings be held in public by default is helpful. It seems quite logical to me. So far, I have not heard an argument that persuades me to the contrary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Are there any further questions or comments on the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any further questions or comments on the—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have two more, if you will.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The first one is:

That whenever a Minister appears before the Committee, every effort be made to ensure that the meeting is televised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any questions or comments on that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My final motion is:

That all requests to appear before the Committee be distributed to the Committee members; and that all briefing materials submitted to the clerk be distributed to the committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Are there any questions or comments on that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any other comments or questions about the routine motions?

We'll move on.

Thanks, everybody. That was very good.

Mr. Sidhu, you had your hand up earlier. You wanted to speak.

Mr. Sidhu, the floor is yours.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Congratulations to you and the vice-chairs.

I'm not sure how my colleagues will want to proceed. I'm ready to present my motion, but I'm not sure....

I watched other committees this morning, for example, the indigenous affairs committee, and they referred to subcommittees. Before I present my motion, I want to hear what my colleagues have to say before I go forward with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Sidhu. I'm going to get to that in a second.

I do want to mention a few words before we begin, to ensure an orderly meeting.

As you probably already know, if you have a motion to move, please unmute yourself and state that you would like to move a motion, as you have throughout this meeting. You may also raise a point of order at any time during the meeting by unmuting yourself and stating that you have a point of order.

Once a motion is moved or a point of order is raised, please use the “raise hand” function to indicate that you wish to be included on the speakers list. I will be keeping an eye on that. To do that, click on “participants” at the bottom of your screen and press the “raise hand” function.

Finally, the motion adopted by the House on September 23 provides, “except for those decided unanimously or ‘on division’, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote”. Therefore, once a motion or an amendment is moved and there is no more debate, I will ask if there are any objections. If you object, please again unmute and say so, and I will then ask the clerk to proceed with a recorded vote.

I'll go back to Mr. Sidhu's comments and ask for the committee's thoughts on how to move forward, whether it be by accepting motions here at this meeting, as we move forward past this point, or by giving notice of motions and moving them over to a subcommittee to discuss there. We did that the last time around and it worked quite effectively—sometimes. For the most part, it allowed the committee as the whole to really deal with the meat and the bones, so to speak. We could do this or have debate on the motions we may be entertaining today.

I'm going to ask those here today to raise their hands so we can discuss that.

By the way, please bear with me here, folks, because when I look at the speakers list, it doesn't give me a cue; it just shows me hands. If I happen to pick somebody who had a hand up before someone else, I apologize.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

When the committee met for those first meetings, a number of motions were introduced without notice and this caught some people off guard. My preference moving forward would be that we give adequate notice for motions, as per the routine motions we passed, and that the motions then be sent to the subcommittee for prioritization. I know that last time there were numerous motions committing us to studies, and we only got through, I believe, the first one. I'm sure almost every member of this committee has a few in their back pocket, as I do. Maybe we could provide notice at this meeting and then get the subcommittee together at the earliest opportunity. That would be a good way to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. I'll take that as a motion.

Are there any questions on it?

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

I would say that I basically agree with my NPD colleague's comment that turned into a motion. The subcommittee should be meeting so that we save time. Then we won't have to waste time discussing the priority of the motions.

On the other hand, it would actually be helpful if we could introduce them all now, because we are all here and it's not yet 5:30 p.m. I feel that a number of our colleagues have already prepared motions, as have I. I would be curious to find out what my colleagues want to propose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Are there any further questions on Mr. Bachrach's motion?

There being none, all those in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, and thank you for your intervention, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

We're going to go along the line of the motion and of course the thoughts given in the intervention by Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I'll go back to Mr. Sidhu first. He had his hand up.

As we put those forward, the intent is not to debate but to give notice, I guess, for lack of a better word, of what the intentions are going to be. With that, the full motion and/or a formalized motion can be presented to the clerk. The clerk can then pass that on to the subcommittee, and we can move from there.

Mr. Sidhu.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Chair, on a point of order—my apologies——do we need to raise our hand for each motion we're presenting, or do we present the total sum of the motions we've prepared when we have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I would say get right to it and present all the motions. Then we can go from there.