Transport Committee on June 16th, 2022

[Cédric Taquet, Committee Clerk]

I would ask the clerk of the committee, maybe, to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could you make a ruling on what Mr. Barsalou-Duval just shared?

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, could you repeat what you just said to the clerk?

Thank you.

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

Standing Order 116(2)(a) states that proposals may be made to limit the time for debate on motions or amendments. I would just like to know if the proposal I made applies in this context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

This is a dilatory motion. They already tried that. They can try it again.

It's a dilatory motion, so are you going to adjourn debate or are you going to let it continue, period? There is nothing in between.

[The Clerk]

Could I just jump in there, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

I believe there is a standing order that applies. It's to prevent chairs from arbitrarily ending meetings without the consent of a committee and whatnot, and that would not technically apply in this situation.

In this situation, we have certain resource limitations that are beyond anyone's control here. Our interpretation crew is going to be up against its two-hour cap, and unless we bring in another entire crew—and we would need the whips' approval to do that—and not only the interpretation crew but MMS and all the other services, we will have to adjourn at that time.

My advice to you, Mr. Chair, is that it's not applicable in this situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you would like to move that the members of this committee may not speak more than twice to the amendment or motion. Is that correct?

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

Yes, that was what I proposed. I found that people had had ample opportunity to express themselves thus far, so I made the proposal in an effort to get to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

All right.

Mr. Clerk, what Mr. Barsalou-Duval was asking for was to make it so that all members would be able to speak only twice on any amendment or on the motion itself. He referenced Standing Order 116, if I'm not mistaken, and he's looking for a ruling from you on whether or not that applies here, Mr. Clerk.

I'm sorry, but we can't hear you. I don't know why.

[The Clerk]

I'm sorry. My microphone had just stopped working.

Can you hear me now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, we can hear you.

[The Clerk]

As I was attempting to say before, I can offer only advice. I don't rule on anything, so it would be just my advice to you, as chair, that I do not believe this standing order applies in a situation in which we would need to adjourn due to lack of resources.

If the committee wanted to set a limit on the number of interventions by members and set a time limit on itself, it could of course do that, but that in itself would be a debatable motion. That's something you would need to set up in advance. You can't just move it without debate and have it voted on right away.

At present we are debating the amendment of Ms. Koutrakis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk. That was very helpful.

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

I'm not entirely convinced, but I'm not equipped right now to answer to that. Perhaps we will have an opportunity to explore this further at another time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

All right.

We will now resume debate on Ms. Koutrakis's amendment.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor. Then we will go to Mr. Rogers, Ms. Koutrakis and Mr. Bachrach.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to highlight that one of the opposing colleagues was saying that my collegue Vance was looking at the witnesses. I'd like to point out that right now, I'm not looking at any witnesses, but I am looking at a show. I'm part of a show that we are being injected into.

I'm very happy that my colleagues across are satisfied that Canadians are watching us. I think what Canadians need to know is how contradictory my colleagues across from the Conservative Party are.

When we do something, you question it. When we don't do something, you question it as well.

When we refer to scientific and medical facts to justify our health measures or the travel restrictions we have made in order to save Canadians' lives, what do you do? You question them.

When we come out with all of the programs to help Canadians get through this pandemic, to get by and to relieve some of their financial burdens, what do you do? You question them again.

You accused us of indebting Canadians and future generations, because we were helping Canadians survive this pandemic. You then said that everything we were doing to help Canadians financially was not enough, and more had to be done.

One day, we are indebting Canadians. The next day, we're not doing enough.

I don't know which foot you guys want to dance on.

When we refer to scientific results, you question and challenge them. When we don't mention scientific results in decisions we take, you highlight that we've taken decisions and have not made any reference to any scientific results.

I'd like you to tell Canadians what game you're playing.

The bottom line here is this: You are simply never satisfied with what we do, because you don't care about Canadians, but you care about making this meeting a political show. We had witnesses who were present and who could have highlighted what is happening in airports today. This is what Canadians are interested in knowing.

What are we going to do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Iacono. I have a point of order by Mr. Bachrach. Bear with me for a second.

Yes, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, can you clarify whether it's parliamentary to impugn other members by saying they don't care about Canadians? It seems out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I will take that under advisement.

Mr. Iacono, please continue.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to answer that. It's in one of the opposing parties' earlier comments. You can go and read the blues. He was making reference to the Prime Minister along the same lines.

I haven't made reference to anybody in particular. I'm talking about the opposing party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono. Please continue.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I should tell Canadians who are listening to go and look at my colleagues opposite. Look at their Twitter and Facebook pages and see what comments they make about today's activity in this committee. They're playing politics, instead of getting down to business and figuring out how we're going to help Canadians get by.

It's no joke. I want to raise that we are hurting ourselves. We're not solving anything. There's no political gain to be made here, because Canadians see very clearly what is happening.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours.