Evidence of meeting #65 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 meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to get some clarification. With this motion, as well as the witnesses who are already lined up, as well as the amendment that was moved, how many witnesses are we now requiring? With some rough math, I'm thinking we're at 18 being proposed, plus you may have additional ones who are not actually on this list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
As well as, I believe, what Monsieur Barsalou-Duval had put forward, which is supported....
The Clerk
In the four names added by Mr. Barsalou-Duval, there is actually one name that is already involved in the motion of Ms. Lewis.
In total it will be—
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I think I counted eight in the motion. I didn't know how many Mr....
Liberal
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Okay. That will be 15. We have two here today. How many are on screen? There are two more, so that's 19. If we're extending the names, then I would think that, for equity, the Liberals, and the NDP, if they have additional witnesses, would be able to put forward additional names. I would assume that's the process in which the committee operates in terms of inviting witnesses.
With some rough math, we're at 19.
You have approximately four witnesses per meeting, so taking that into account, and the fact that on Thursday the availability wasn't there, and also taking into account that if the minister is reinvited, usually that is a stand-alone hour, or whatnot. That's generally the practice. The committee can determine however they want, so let's take away half a meeting for witnesses. Now you have approximately 20 to potentially 25 to 30 more witnesses for a study that OGGO has spent 12 meetings on.
Does anybody know how many witnesses, in those 12 meetings, OGGO called? Maybe not offhand—that might not be a fair question—but I think that would be a good question to answer.
Let's say we're at about 20 to 25 witnesses. We have maybe eight committee meetings left. I'm just trying to figure out if this is going to be the priority study of the committee. With about 30 more witnesses potentially, 12 meetings at OGGO.... If we look at having the same kind of spectrum that OGGO had, 12 more meetings for this committee to study it, and always taking into account taxpayers' value of committee work, we see potentially 24 meetings on this, and we only have eight more meetings, maybe more, given timing and witness scheduling.
This study would essentially eat up the remainder of this session, with the exception of maybe Thursday, since there's already been another study confirmed. Again, the motion is to summon these witnesses—it's not a request. If that motion passes, we would be potentially, again, in fairness, adding on the appropriate number of Liberal witnesses, which we'd put forward. We have the potential of eating up the rest of this committee's time on this study.
Is that a generally fair assessment, given those numbers?
I just think the committee should understand. Twenty witnesses summoned, plus give or take, plus Liberal witnesses for, like, fairness—eight, potentially.... My math on how many meetings, give or take, because I think we don't have a day for.... There are two Fridays of committee time that are going to be eaten up for conventions, so I don't know if resources will be redistributed for committees overall. I'm saying eight as a safe number, but give or take.
With this number of witnesses, at four witnesses, roughly, minus half a meeting for a minister, if that should happen—usually half a meeting if there are officials—so that's a full meeting, we're at.... This is the entirety of this committee's schedule. I just think that's a fair thing to put on the table before we vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thanks very much, Ms. O'Connell.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Bachrach.
I want to ask that we all consider whether or not this discussion will go on much longer. If it does, out of respect for the witnesses perhaps we will let the witnesses go for the day. I just want to put that in the minds of members. It's not my decision to make. I wanted to put that out there.
Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do think that's something we should address, as it's coming up to the top of the hour. My hope would be that we could proceed with testimony for the second hour.
My desire would be to vote on the motion and the amendment proposed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
I'm going to hazard a second amendment, and I'll ask you, Mr. Chair, if it's in order at this time. I would ask that we amend the motion to include, “(c) and that the study comprise a total of four meetings”.
This would require all parties to prioritize their witness lists, put forward their most important witnesses and allow the committee to conclude its work on the study in a timely way. We've talked about a lot of very important topics at this committee and have allocated only four or five meetings to those topics and then concluded with a report.
There are huge swaths of Canada that lack passenger bus service, yet how many days of witnesses did we hear from on that issue?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, it was four. I just think it's a reasonable amount of time. We've already lost one meeting. We have witnesses here today, and my desire would be that we complete the study in a timely way. I'll make that amendment and look forward to voting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Just for clarification on the four meetings, would those be above and beyond the meeting we're having today and the meeting we've booked on Tuesday? The second point would be, how many maximum will we have at each meeting? You can have four meetings with 10 witnesses at each meeting, or are we putting a cap at, for example, four, five or six, which would give us a number of 24 or 20 in total?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm agnostic on the number of witnesses at meetings. My preference would be that we schedule as many as possible, and we have two panels of three to five witnesses per panel. We've done that in the past. I think we should act efficiently, try to get the information that Canadians deserve and then move on to our other work.
Liberal
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I want to get to the witnesses as well, but on this procedurally, I just think.... At the finance committee, we used to have six or seven witnesses per hour, and it's really difficult. You have witnesses there who don't get a single question in a round. I'm proposing that perhaps.... I actually support the idea of capping the number of meetings as well, as then every party will have to prioritize witnesses. If we're into the 30-witness range, potentially, I think there has to be a prioritization.
The committee has already agreed to do this study for four meetings, so I don't have a problem with that. It's the getting out of control and the taking over of committee business for a study that's already had 12 meetings, so I propose that we move this to a subcommittee meeting where members can determine the appropriateness or the procedural functioning of a four-meeting.... This is one and this eats into that, but these are witnesses who were listed. Then, for the remainder of three meetings, you need a prioritization in terms of whether you want six witnesses, knowing that you probably won't be able to get questions to all of them.
It allows us to move on with this meeting, and you can, most appropriately, Mr. Chair, between you, the clerk and representatives from all parties, determine that prioritization of witnesses, as well as that fairness for each party to have their number of witnesses in a fashion that actually makes the meetings have a point to them, where you're going to have enough time to question every witness. I would propose, because I think it's important, that we work on that discussion at a subcommittee meeting where we can really iron out those details, and then we can move on with this meeting.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Just briefly, I would note that the original motion called for at least four meetings. We envisioned that this might go longer. We did the same with Mr. Chahal's infrastructure adaptation study. We said that it would be at least four meetings. We envisioned at the time that this might require a little bit more, which is why we worded it that way.
If this were simply about a witness list, perhaps we could take it to subcommittee. This is about a summons, though. We are talking about summoning witnesses here. I don't know that we can take that off-line because then that would happen Thursday. At best, we take time out of the Thursday meeting. I think the risk, then, becomes that we lose that Tuesday meeting if we don't deal with this now. It's 11:59, and I'd like to give an hour to this panel.
I just raise those two points. In the original motion we dealt with timing, and I worry that, if we don't pass this now, we will end up in a similar spot where we don't have witnesses for a future meeting.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Since this is the motion that I've put forth, I'm going to ask that, if there are no other comments, we proceed to voting on the motion.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I have a point of order.
While I appreciate the attempt to vote on the motion, we've actually had two amendments, so we would actually have to deal with each amendment first. We've all been speaking to everything, but realistically we should be speaking to one amendment at a time and then voting. We can't actually shut down debate on a motion that has been amended three times, including by the mover herself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
I believe that the amendment put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval—and I just conferred with the clerk on this—was a friendly amendment. I believe it was even supported by Mr. Bachrach, so I think we don't have to deal with that one. We do, however, have to deal with the amendment proposed by Ms. O'Connell, which we'll deal with first, followed by the amendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach for four meetings.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'd like to refine mine a little bit to reflect the conversation we just had, if you welcome that.