Transport Committee on June 16th, 2022

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

That's very much putting them on the spot. They were brave enough to come in person.

Voices

Oh, oh!

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach, and thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I conferred with the clerk. The witnesses are not here to debate the motion, so unfortunately they cannot be a part of this discussion. It's among the members themselves.

With that, I will continue with the debate on Ms. Koutrakis's amendment.

We will go to Mr. Chahal, who will be followed by Ms. Lantsman, Ms. Koutrakis and Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Thank you, Chair.

To debate Ms. Koutrakis's amendment, let me read out the motion as amended, so that everybody can be clear on what is being asked for and I can add my further comments on it:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), an order of this committee do issue for a copy of public health advice and scientific modelling in support of the decision to maintain existing public health measures received by the Minister of Transport relating to the decision to issue on June 1, 2022, the Interim Order for Civil Aviation Respecting Requirements Related to Vaccination Due to COVID-19.

I believe the amendment to the motion as proposed is a good one, because public health advice and scientific modelling to support the decision-making of public health measures are extremely important. In the province of Alberta, I've seen many decisions made over COVID and all the challenges we've faced over the last number of years that did not follow public health advice and the scientific modelling that was being presented.

That provided tremendous challenges, colleagues. You may have seen that our Conservative premier said last year that we were going to have the “best summer ever”, and proclaimed it publicly on and around Canada Day. I can tell you, folks, that it was not the best summer ever.

Following, as Ms. Koutrakis has advised here, public health—

June 16th, 2022 / 4:55 p.m.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd just like to redirect the member back to the amendment at hand. Certainly, if he wants to debate bad decisions that particular leaders have made, I would point him right to his own Prime Minister. However, if he sticks to the point of the amendment, I think that would help speed things along a little.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

I would ask that all members try to address, as best as possible, the amendment or the motion at hand.

Mr. Chahal, the floor is yours.

Liberal

George Chahal Liberal Calgary Skyview, AB

Thank you, Chair.

To my colleague, Mr. Jeneroux, it's actually directly applicable to me, as an Albertan and a Calgarian, in relation to all the lives that were lost due to some of the poor public health decisions that were made and the advice that was not followed by public health. In terms of scientific modelling, many doctors came forward at the time, asking us to take further action and bring forward further public health measures to protect Canadians.

Over the last year, we had a significant conversation on that in Alberta, where I'm from. I was a councillor with the City of Calgary at that time. Ms. Koutrakis's amendment here is clear: “public health advice and scientific modelling in support of”. I remember on city council at the time conversations in which we asked the province to provide that scientific modelling. I think it would have been great if our municipality and others at the time had had the scientific modelling to support the decision-making process.

That's why I think this amendment that Ms. Koutrakis has brought forward, asking for that, is extremely relevant to the debate today. It's what we should be looking at—making decisions, having a conversation, and having the documents, with the scientific modelling, that can help support the decisions that are being made. I would also like to add that on the decisions recently made by the Minister of Transport, he would have looked at this important information and consulted even many of the folks here today, and others, prior to making the decision.

I think Ms. Koutrakis's amendment is quite appropriate at this time. I think it's quite relevant. I hope all my colleagues here can support her amendment.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Chahal.

Before I move on, Ms. Koutrakis, could you kindly send your amendment to the clerk so that we can circulate it, please?

Before I turn it over to Ms. Lantsman for her remarks, I want to respect the time of the witnesses who are joining us.

Based on the list of speakers I currently have before me, it doesn't look like we're going to be able to get to your testimony today. I apologize for that, but we have to deal with the business before us right now, which is the motion that has been presented before the committee.

I would kindly ask you to now log off. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for the time you have given us today. Thank you very much.

Ms. Koutrakis is sending that out to the clerk—thank you very much—so I will ask Ms. Lantsman to take the floor.

Conservative

Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Do you know what? I'm glad that Canadians are able to see members of the government trying to put this committee into closed doors, into secret conversations, because that is all we've seen when we've demanded public health advice.

We have asked consistently for the public health advice that has led to the decisions on airport testing and mandates. Time and time again, we get the same answers. I can name you at least 15 occasions where the minister, the parliamentary secretary or members of the government have said, “We are following the expert advice.” Even the president of PHAC told carriers and airports that they would remove testing from airports in January.

All this committee is asking for, on behalf of all Canadians, is to know that the half-measures that were announced just days ago by this government to remove some of the restrictions from airports, and certainly not all of them.... Why have they othered an entire segment of the Canadian population? Why, for so long, did they not allow four or five million people to travel domestically? Why are the quarantine rules inconsistent with the rules we have in this country, where we have to quarantine for 14 days but, if you have a COVID infection, there are some provinces where it is five days?

It's June. It's almost July, and we still have not seen any evidence from the government.

Now we see an amendment to a motion that allows the government to continue to say what it has been saying all along: “Something, something, we rely on the experts.” We have not seen any expert testimony.

I'm glad Canadians are able to see this conversation open in committee, that they're able to see members of the government filibuster this motion to the point that this committee meeting will be over and they still will not have provided the public health advice that has led to the decisions that are causing the chaos in our airports, which, earlier in this meeting, they said have nothing to do with the government. This government's abdication of responsibility around airports is something Canadians should be able to see. I'm glad we're discussing it in committee.

We don't support this amendment. We support the original motion that would require the government to table at this committee the public health advice that has led to its decision-making. Every Canadian has been asking for it. Every parliamentarian has been asking for it. To this day we have not seen it.

I think Canadians deserve that. I think this committee deserves that. I think Parliament deserves that. I think there's been enough of this filibustering. Allow this motion to carry.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Ms. Lantsman.

On the list I currently have Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval, followed by Mr. Badawey and then Mr. Iacono and Mr. Rogers.

We will turn it over to you, Ms. Koutrakis. The floor is yours.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm really happy to hear my colleague Ms. Lantsman's comments that she likes that Canadians can see the hard work that our government has been doing and continues to do to make sure they and their families and our economy have always been kept safe.

The number one issue for our government has been, from day one, since the COVID pandemic, first and foremost, the safety of all Canadians, the safety of our transportation system, the safety of our employees, and the safety of all Canadians and our economy.

Mr. Chair, the reason for my amendment to the main motion by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley is that I think it would allow for the main motion to pass. I proposed striking the words about ordering the sharing of “all relevant documents” and replacing that with the following formulation, “a copy of public health advice and scientific modelling in support of the decision to maintain existing public health measures”.

Mr. Chair, my rationale for the amendment is the following. I wish to focus on what I think is the key question. The key question is this: Is there a public health justification to maintain certain health measures in place for air travel at this time? If so, what is this justification?

I proposed striking the formulation “all relevant documents”, as what is or is not relevant is open to interpretation. I think narrowing the focus like this will prevent a fishing expedition. We've seen this time and time again in various committees, where, instead of working on the real, important issues, committee time is wasted to make partisan or political points and is just used as a fishing expedition.

Colleagues, we have often seen in recent years prolonged deadlocks in committees, including this committee, over a so‑called motion to produce written documents. This often turns into lengthy, time‑consuming debates about what information should or should not be presented. That inevitably ends up attracting the law clerk, which generally takes up a lot of time. The purpose of this amendment is to avoid such a situation. I think this committee has done a good job, and I don't want us to get bogged down in a prolonged procedural battle.

Parliamentarians, including those on this side of the table, want information. They want to ask questions and get answers to those questions. I understand that, and I recognize that it is perfectly legitimate. I also recognize that every government, regardless of political affiliation, must protect certain types of information for reasons that most members of the House understand: legally or commercially sensitive information that could be damaging if made public has to be protected. We also need to preserve space around the cabinet table and in ministers' offices to have those frank discussions. Similarly, individual MPs need a certain degree of privacy and space to discuss matters with their caucus members, staff, and so on.

It's also important for members to consider that governments not only have to consider the implications of a particular motion on the production of documents, but they must also absolutely pay attention to all the information that is produced in writing in order to avoid any misinformation or misunderstandings that could be detrimental to business and the good work that the government and the departments have done to date.

Thank you.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

5:05 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank my colleague for moving the motion before us, which I find very relevant. It's too bad we don't have the opportunity to discuss it because we haven't dealt with the parliamentary secretary's amendment yet.

Let me explain why I prefer the proposed motion to the amendment. The purpose of the motion is to find out what scientific public health advice the government used to make its decision. Not so long ago, we asked ourselves this question. A few days ago, when the government announced that it would put an end to random testing, we wondered whether that was a good thing or not. However, there is no data to help us determine that.

The government also announced that vaccination would no longer be required to travel by plane or train. Personally, I have no problem with that, but, once again, there is no data to support this decision. It gives us the impression that the government is making decisions on the back of a napkin. If they could give us that data, it would tell us whether these decisions are good or not.

Given the way passport applications are managed and the huge lineups at airports, one has to wonder whether the government has done things right. We have good reason to want to know more about how decisions are made and on what basis the government has made them.

I'm very much in favour of the motion, but I am a bit disappointed with the amendment that was proposed, because it's not intended to request all relevant documents, but only those that support the government's decision. There may be documents that don't support the government's decision, but they wouldn't be sent to us, so we wouldn't have all the information.

I find it strange that such an amendment comes from the government side, Mr. Chair. Even though I wasn't a member of Parliament during the Harper government, I remember the media decrying on a daily basis how obscure the government was and how it wasn't giving people the information they were entitled to expect.

I'm very disappointed to see that this kind of filibustering is going on or that amendments are being proposed that weaken a motion to the point where it loses its meaning.

In closing, I would like to point out that I had another motion that I would have liked to discuss today. It's almost 5:15 p.m., and we will soon be 45 minutes into this discussion.

I'm sorry about that, because it would have been interesting to have information on other issues that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities could have come and talked to us about, such as bilateral infrastructure agreements with the provinces, which he decided not to honour. There is also a motion to provide documentation and exchanges that support this decision. That's another request for information that would be very relevant.

If the government side would stop filibustering, we could pass these motions. If it weren't for the famous filibuster, we'd have been able to ask the witnesses questions today.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I find it interesting that Ms. Lantsman and Mr. Barsalou-Duval are sitting here talking about filibustering. We could have had this dealt with two meetings ago with Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion, when we had the minister here and the questions could have been asked. Done.

With Mr. Bachrach, today, all the witnesses are here, PHAC was here, and you could have asked the questions. Done. But no, that's not happening. My question is, why? What is the agenda behind this? I think we all recognize that, just by following Mr. Bachrach's Twitter account.

We talk about the possibility of even a study. If there was some sincerity behind this, maybe a study would be warranted. Then we could get some of these answers that Mr. Bachrach is looking for. Again, thought, that could have been dealt with today. PHAC was here. Why weren't those questions asked? It's not filibustering; it's making a point.

I'm happy, actually, that all Canadians, as Ms. Lantsman said, are watching today, to see the games that are being played here when we're actually trying to get work done. Hence, the study that we're doing right now. Hence, the questions that could have been asked today. Hence, the questions that could have been asked weeks ago when the minister was here, when that motion was first dropped on us.

I ask the opposition to come clean in what their agenda actually is and tell that to Canadians who are watching today. This committee has been working very effectively in the last seven or eight months since we got back, very effectively. We've been getting some work done. We have reports going to the House. We've all been working together, parking the politics, parking the partisanship and getting some great work done. It's unfortunate that we have pivoted, or turned on a dime to where we're going today.

Again, though, I have to say to Mr. Bachrach, with the amendment that we are debating right now, and actually to the point you made earlier, there really isn't a difference. It's just trying to move it forward—trying to give you what you want—and then giving us the ability to deal with and get back to the important work that we have within the next two meetings before we rise for the summer. Otherwise, we're debating it. It's not filibustering. It's making points, debate, and then hopefully coming to a conclusion that will in fact be a direction this committee can take. Of course, we can follow that up by dealing with Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion.

I want to make the point, Mr. Chairman, after a lot of the mud that's been tossed over the table, in particular by Ms. Lantsman and others: Don't throw a stone in a glass house.

We're doing good work here, guys. Let's continue to do that work. We don't have to play politics.

Again, I'll reiterate, and I apologize for repeating myself: We had the minister here, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. Those questions could have been asked. Your motion could have been dealt with.

Mr. Bachrach, we had the team here today. PHAC was here. You could have asked them those questions. You could have had your answers and therefore your tweets for tonight ready to go, but here we are, playing games. It's unfortunate. It really is unfortunate when, once again, we have work to do. As some of your colleagues say here in the province of Ontario, let's get it done.

Conservative

Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB

You can tweet about it on your Twitter account.

Liberal

Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON

I don't tweet about stuff like this. This is work. It's getting our sleeves rolled up and getting it done. This is unfortunate. I'm very disappointed. I really am. I am very disappointed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Yes, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Bloc

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that we limit ourselves to two interventions on the amendment and two interventions on the proposal, and then go to a vote.