Evidence of meeting #137 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Witnesses, I want to thank you very much for contributing to this very important study and for giving us your time so generously.
Those of you joining online can now log off.
Ms. Mercier‑Blais, thank you again for your time. You're welcome to stay if you like. Otherwise, you can leave with your family, including little Elliot.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lawrence, I'll turn the floor over to you.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
As a compromise, I propose that we set the study at four meetings, with the ability to extend it to six if the majority of the committee believes it's necessary.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
I don't see hands up, so I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the comments.
I think six has been our standard as a committee. The Conservative Party did, I believe, back-to-back studies with two meetings for Lake Erie and four for airline competition. We did a Liberal study of six meetings on rural airlines. The six meetings are in keeping with that and with the spirit of fairness that this committee is so well known for.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Bachrach, you and I are friends, and I feel like I'm being taken advantage of here, but we have a study coming up—we'll be following you—and we hope that this courtesy will be extended there. We are good with the last answer.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't object to there being six meetings this time, but I would like to point out to committee members that none of the studies proposed so far by the Bloc Québécois to this committee have been granted six meetings. In the future, I would be most grateful to benefit from the same generosity shown to other members of the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the last word on this.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to move a motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Officially, I think we're all in favour of the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Is there an objection to the motion put forward by Mr. Bachrach?
(Motion agreed to)
Thank you.
Mr. Lauzon, you now have the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Here is the motion I'm proposing in both official languages. It's on a topic that we've been discussing recently, that is very important:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Government of Canada made a commitment to prioritize Indigenous relations and reconciliation, and following the discussions of reports of the Fort Chipewyan Metis Nation and the contaminated Transport Canada Dock, the committee invite the following witnesses: (a) Transport Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada officials; (b) Members of the Athabasca Chipewyan Métis Nation; and (c) Toxicology experts and the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. That the committee hold at minimum two meetings and report its findings to the House.
You will receive the English and French versions of the motion by email.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
I think there was a discussion about not doing a full report but doing a letter, because there are only two meetings.
Ms. Gosselin, can you explain the difference between the two and give us an idea of what that would look like?
Geneviève Gosselin Committee Researcher
Well, there are other possibilities besides a report. To draft a report, you always have to follow a process. Because this committee conducts numerous studies, sometimes there's a bit of a lag between the end of a study and the publication of the report.
There are various options that other committees use quite regularly.
For example, the chair can write a letter on behalf of the committee.
Another option is to produce what's called a mini-report. It is published on the committee's website. There are several examples of this. This type of report—which has the same value as a normal report, but is only about one page long—summarizes what the committee heard and makes two or three recommendations, at most. Parties can also submit dissenting reports. Since mini-reports are much shorter, the time frames are too, as there's no need to wait for all the testimony to be translated. This type of report can therefore be submitted within one to two weeks of the last meeting on the study.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you to the committee analysts.
Personally, I would encourage moving quickly. After all, it's two meetings, not six. We could draft a mini-report, but I would prefer a formal letter. It would be published on our site, so it would be publicly available at the same time. That would allow us to react quickly to the situation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Just so you know, this will not alter the normal rotation for studies.
This will take place after the rotation that we currently have is concluded, which means that Mr. Bachrach's study will go next, and this will come after that.
Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I think the Conservatives have been exceedingly accommodating, so I come at this with a bit of frustration. I can understand agreeing to take on the study, but to have an issue of this significance and not include the ministers would be an embarrassment, quite frankly. We would need, at a minimum, to include the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Indigenous Affairs.
This is a significant issue. We're happy to get to it quickly because we realize that it's important. We're pushing back our own study to make this one happen. We're more than willing to do that because Conservatives see this as incredibly important and something we need to get to the bottom of.
I cannot, in good conscience, be anywhere near supporting this, quite frankly. To have ministry officials there, who might say, “This isn't our call; this is a political call”, and not have the ministers is beyond the pale and ridiculous.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with my colleague, Mr. Lawrence, that this is a really important study. There are a few things I want to say.
First of all, there has been some discussion about whether this belongs at the environment committee or at transport. It feels like we're coming around to the idea of transport being the home for this study. I'm in agreement with that.
There are some other versions of this motion floating around out there. A version that I'm looking at involves some edits that would make the witnesses more specific and would change the wording slightly. I'm happy to propose an amendment accordingly.
I want to deal with the matter that Mr. Lawrence brought up. In reflecting on it, I think this is going to be a study of the committee, not a study put forward by any party. It's one we would take on outside of our usual rotation. That reflects its importance.
Given that Mr. Lawrence was so generous in agreeing to six meetings for the study I proposed, I would be in agreement with moving this two-meeting study up as soon as possible so that we can deal with it immediately following the study on recreational boating.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.
Are there any thoughts or comments on that?
Mr. Lauzon has the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
When I moved this motion, my intention was to follow the planned order. I don't want to undermine my colleagues who were here before me and who worked to move motions.
The analysts and the clerk can confirm this, but as far I understand, a motion has already been moved by the Liberals, and we have to debate it before speaking to this motion.
According to the list of motions, one has already been moved, right?