Transport Committee on June 16th, 2022

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks, colleagues.

Given that we've had this motion for quite some time, and given the government's inability to take any responsibility for what is happening in our airports and our travel sector with regard to measures, it's important to have this tabled in committee and to take this with.... From our side, this will be our one round of support for this motion. We've been asking the government repeatedly, in all kinds of forums, to provide health data for its decision-making. It hasn't done so. I think the committee deserves an answer on that, as do all Canadians.

From our side, I think that will be it. We support the motion. I hope not to see members opposite filibuster this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lantsman.

Next is Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Mr. Badawey.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm wondering if my colleagues on the committee would entertain an amendment to this motion. I propose that the motion, as amended, would read as follows:

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

We have an amendment on the floor. Does anyone want to speak to the amendment as proposed by Ms. Koutrakis?

Mr. Bachrach, I'll turn it over to you.

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

I don't have the amendment in front of me, but it seems to me that there is a substantive change to the wording.

I wouldn't mind hearing from my colleague what her intention is in making this amendment, because it seems very similar to the current wording in front of us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Koutrakis, if it's okay with Mr. Badawey, I'll turn it back over to you.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, we're removing “all relevant documents containing” and adding “public health advice and scientific modelling in support of the decision to maintain existing public health measures”.

I think what is important with the motion here is to ensure that we provide our colleague and the committee and all Canadians any information that the public health advice and scientific modelling was showing us to make the decisions that were made. That should be the most important point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

I think the questions that are being asked, and the questions that have been asked over the past week, are really around the timing. It seems that, all of a sudden, there was a decision to suspend the mandate without an explanation of what changed. What I'm interested in knowing is what advice was provided to the minister, and when, to indicate that something had changed in the presentation of the virus, and in the strategy and the epidemiology, that warranted the extension of the mandate.

I want to avoid getting to a place where we simply get general documents explaining how vaccines work and that kind of thing, and make it specific to when the Public Health Agency of Canada started telling the minister that the domestic air travel mandate may no longer be appropriate given the current context. We ended up in a very strange situation in which, when we asked the government in the House of Commons to explain why certain measures were still in place, the government stonewalled us. Government members said they trusted public health. We then asked public health, and they said it's up to the politicians. It goes back and forth like this.

I think it's pretty clear to most Canadians that the way it's supposed to work is the public health officials provide the advice to the government, and then the government takes action. We're interested in when the public health officials first started advising the government that these specific measures were no longer effective and could safely be suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Badawey, before going to Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Badawey, thanks for your patience.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to call a point of order. I'm trying to keep this clean and consistent with how we've operated as a committee for the last several years.

We had planned, once again, on going into committee business to discuss this issue. Obviously, members know that when we go into committee business, it's a closed session discussion, especially with some of the sensitivities we might be discussing, like human resources, etc.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would put a motion forward, since we didn't need unanimous consent—which, quite frankly, I disagree with, but that's a discussion for another day—to go into a closed session and into committee business, as was originally planned. I would see you at five o'clock.

Mr. Chairman, I would put that forward as a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The first thing we have to do is deal with the amendment proposed by Ms. Koutrakis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk. We have Mike, the clerk, who's joining us virtually and would like to say something very quickly.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michael MacPherson]

The motion to move directly in camera would supersede that. We could take a vote on that right away, to see whether or not the committee moves in camera.

If that were to occur, and we had a positive decision, we'd have to send out all new Zoom links to the members who are participating via Zoom, and we would excuse the witnesses from the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

Keep in mind, colleagues, that this is a motion that will determine whether or not we keep the witnesses on with us or not. Please keep that in mind when you're considering this motion.

I'll turn it over to you for the vote on that, Mr. Clerk.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I believe that in previous meetings, when we've ended up in a spot like this and it looked like we might not finish our discussion in the next 20 minutes to half an hour, we've allowed the witnesses to go and have just recognized that we're probably not going to get to additional rounds of questioning.

It sounded like you were characterizing it as though, if this motion doesn't pass, the witnesses have to stick out the rest of the meeting. I don't think that's the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No. I'm sorry, Mr. Bachrach. That wasn't my intent. If anything, if this doesn't pass, I'm still going to end up asking the witnesses to log off. If I see it go any further, I don't want to waste their time.

I'm going to turn it over to the clerk now for the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us back to Ms. Koutrakis to speak to her amendment.

We'll have Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Mr. Badawey and then Mr. Chahal.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask for a vote, please, on my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There are still hands up, Ms. Koutrakis, to speak to your amendment. Unfortunately, I can't call a vote on your amendment until no hands are up.

Right now, I have Mr. Badawey, followed by Mr. Chahal. They are still on the speakers list.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we going to proceed and have the witnesses endure this debate, or are we going to dismiss the witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's a good question, Mr. Rogers.

I was going to wait until it reached a certain period of time to see whether or not we could resolve this as a committee and then resume the business with the witnesses. I'll give it a little longer, and if I see that we unfortunately haven't resolved this, then I'll ask the witnesses to kindly log off.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Seeing that we're going to be staying in an open session, it actually might, to some extent, be a more robust discussion.

My question is for a clarification that I would ask either of you, Mr. Chairman, or the clerk. We have the witnesses here with us. We're going to be debating a motion by the NDP member, and now that we're in open session, it may be of benefit to ask the witnesses some questions that pertain to the NDP motion.

I'd like to ask the clerk if we can have this robust discussion and debate the motion with some input from those who are in the business and can really give us an idea of how credible this motion would in fact be in terms of how we move forward. As many of us know, there has been a decision made on this issue already this week. I don't think the timing is an issue, besides the politics of it. I get that. Other than that, with the decision being made and the mandates lifted, I'm not sure what will actually come out of this besides a few tweets and some social media for the member.

With that, I would ask, would members be allowed to get more information to then make a proper decision on this motion? Would it be allowed for us to ask some of the witnesses we have here with us some questions that would pertain to this motion, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I'm going to defer to the clerk on this one. Just give me one minute.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if I can add to that, too, I think that on the NDP member's questions and some of the comments that he was making in clarification with respect to the amendment, the witnesses here can add a great deal to those questions that are being asked, as well as the information coming out of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I appreciate where my colleague, Mr. Badawey, is trying to take this. He keeps looking at the witnesses from CATSA. I don't think they have any relevance to this motion.

It's more the witnesses from the Public Health Agency of Canada that would relate to the advice—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Right, but I'm looking at whoever's in the room. It's hard to look at the people on the screens to—