Thanks, Mr. Chair.
This is an issue of concern for us, as it is for many Canadians. However, I believe the House of Commons already has some of this information in its possession, including the resignation letter. As Mr. Bittle—Dr. Bittle, rather—was saying....
We're just bugging you now, Chris. I'm sorry.
As he mentioned earlier, this committee has a long-standing practice of ensuring that each party has the ability to bring forward a study in turn. I know not every committee has that practice. If we wish to abandon the practice, I suppose that can be done at any time. It's certainly not in the Standing Orders. However, it has led to a committee that is more convivial and collaborative than most. I've certainly appreciated it, having been on the committee for four years. Last time certain members tried to double-stack studies on topics of interest for their party, there were protestations from Mr. Strahl that this was contrary to our practice as a committee, and I backed him up on that. Eventually, we got back to the practice we had. I'm happy to pursue this study, but I would note that we just finished a study on Lynx Air, which was a Conservative study.
Perhaps I'll ask Madam Clerk, through you, Mr. Chair, what the next study is that this committee plans to undertake. I understand that we have a work plan, and time is ticking down prior to the summer recess. With that information, we could decide where this falls. I'm more than happy to study this.
I would also note that this is a topic of study at the industry committee. The industry committee has already held several meetings on this topic. While there may be a desire to have every committee preoccupied with this issue, I think we can efficiently get answers for Canadians utilizing the committee that is most relevant to the issue at hand. The simple fact that she was appointed to and then resigned from the board of the Infrastructure Bank seems a bit of a tenuous connection to the mandate of our committee, which is infrastructure and transportation.
I represent a rural community. Air travel to rural Canada and northwest British Columbia is a matter of urgent concern for the people I represent, who are paying as much as $1,200 to fly between northern B.C. communities and Vancouver. This is unaffordable for many families. They want to see greater competition, lower prices and more affordability in the air sector. That's the topic we're trying to get to the bottom of today. It's something that might not be of urgent concern to urban Canadians—the folks in the big metropolitan centres who are served by several if not dozens of airlines—but it really matters to small places and to Canada's north. I'm hoping the recommendations from this report can push the government in a direction that results in better affordability for those areas.
We don't have that many meetings left before the summer break. I'm hoping that at some of our future meetings we'll hear from the witnesses I put forward, including the mayors of northwest B.C. communities. I'd love to hear from some of the smaller airlines that have tried to compete in these smaller markets and have had to exit for various reasons, so we can better understand what those reasons are.
I didn't vote to adjourn debate. I think there's a version of this that I can get on board with. That would be to carve off the piece about a study and deal with that issue at a future business meeting when we talk about the work plan for the committee. I think that's a fair approach. Simply ordering the production of the resignation letter, “a comprehensive and detailed summary of the projects and funds” and “any internal communications” is certainly relevant. As I mentioned, some of that information is already in the possession of the House of Commons.
I would move, Mr. Chair, that we amend the motion by removing all words after “her resignation from the board”.