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
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It might build some consensus based on the comments. I believe that if we worded the amendment as the following, “That the study comprise a total of four meetings, excluding the May 2 meeting, with a maximum of six witnesses per meeting”, that would address the concern that we've already eaten up a meeting and the concern that, if we have 12 witnesses per meeting, we're not going to do them justice. My hope is that we could come together around that and move on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I'm looking around and seeing some nodding heads.
Ms. O'Connell.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you.
While I appreciate the attempt to clarify, the “excluding” part is concerning. This is what we already agreed to as a committee, the four meetings. That's going to change again the makeup.... I would like to see the amendment that the Bloc made in terms of those additional witnesses.
There's no opportunity clarified in this motion for the Liberals to put forward their appropriate witnesses. If we're just adding names from the floor, that's not how committees put forward witnesses—keeping in mind that we always do it with a proportionality based on seats. To leave this meeting here today without the opportunity for us to move forward with names is not how things are done. That is why I suggested that it go to the subcommittee, where there's an opportunity to see all the lists—all the priorities.
I think it's not realistic to have 20 to 30 people. Even if you want four meetings moving forward, you'll have panels where there are people summoned who will not have questions in a one-hour panel. What happens on days where there are no witnesses available? I think the clerk already spoke to some where, on the dates that witnesses were offered, they weren't available, but they were willing to appear. You're now getting into a situation of how many meetings this will go into. Will you have panels of six people and a panel of one person if there isn't availability on a certain date?
I think that making this substantive committee decision in terms of how a meeting will look based on witnesses is really the job of the subcommittee. There isn't an ability for the Liberals on the floor to bring forward names to respect proportionality of witnesses. I don't think that's how this committee should get into....
The Conservatives moved a motion, but now we're adding amendments, adding additional names without the ability to also do that ourselves. We're limiting it to another four meetings without the ability to have that discussion around how we would fit in that many witnesses in four meetings. I don't think it's realistic. I was willing to move on with this meeting for the sake of the witnesses who are here, but I'm not prepared to be rushed through a motion without being able to put forward our witnesses and our perspectives on what functions well.
I'd like to discuss each amendment as they move forward, so right now, I'm discussing the amendment by Mr. Bachrach.
I'm concerned that we are moving to four meetings excluding this one, which is the wording. I think it should be four “in addition to”, but I get it. We're making up motions as we go. Again, there's no opportunity.... Usually we have motions with “additional witnesses must be provided by this date or that date”. I'm concerned, procedurally, with how this is going, so I'd like to speak to each amendment moving forward.
I'll stop here. As I said, I was prepared to move forward with these witnesses, but I also think that having witnesses here and drafting motions on the fly is why we don't do that. That's why we have a subcommittee to work out these details. If members don't want to move in that direction, then I think we're going to have to get into the nitty-gritty, and that's going to take as much time as it's going to take.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.
Mr. Bachrach, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Bachrach has the floor.
He will be followed by Mr. Badawey, then Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
My concern is that, if we go to a subcommittee, we're going to eat up more time and it's going to land back here anyway. My desire, if it's at all possible, is that....
Maybe folks around the table can just tug their ear if they plan to talk out the clock. If that's the case, then we can adjourn and go on to better things with our day.
The intention here is to nail this down, empower the clerk to move forward on the administrative side of things and then get to a place where we're actually asking witnesses questions. We've had lots of panels. We have a two-hour meeting. We have three witnesses per panel. That's six witnesses per meeting. Some of the witnesses don't get questions. That may be because their testimony is either complete or doesn't prompt members to ask them any questions. I don't think that's the end of the world.
To Ms. O'Connell's point about how witnesses are brought forward, parties have submitted lists to the clerk before in order of priority. The clerk has started at the top of the list and invited the witnesses. We have a limited number of meetings. Once all those spots are filled up, then that's the study.
My desire is to get to a point where we have some certainty around the length of the study. I think the wording “in addition to” is more clear than the wording I proposed on the fly. I'm happy to accept that as a friendly-ish amendment.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's as friendly as she gets; that's right.
My desire is to vote on this thing so that we can hear from Mr. Cory and Mr. Duguay and hopefully have some testimony at this meeting.
We have four more meetings. Let's talk about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, talk about McKinsey and then put forward a report and move on to another topic.
Liberal
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There's a lot to think about. I do have some concerns with respect to the direction that this is all going in. There has to be a level of fairness here where, if we're going to start summoning people, we have that opportunity to do so, and of course really nail down that list that we might in fact be doing that with.
I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that we maybe take a breath here and ask for a five- or 10-minute suspension just so that we can discuss with our teams the direction we'd prefer to take.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, could we get a written copy of the witnesses submitted by Mr. Barsalou-Duval? I didn't write them out, and I just want to know who they are. Perhaps we could take a break and get those names so that we can actually discuss the contents of the amendments on the floor.
I appreciate that amendments can happen on the floor—I have no issue with that—but I would like to see those names to see what I'm actually voting on.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Colleagues, I think it might be a good idea for us to convene on the sidelines to try to work this out and perhaps avoid a lengthy discussion on this and also a subcommittee meeting.
With that, I will adjourn for 10 minutes. Hopefully, we'll come back to the table with something that we can all vote on and possibly move on to the witnesses.
Actually, that's a discussion.... They're here for two hours. If we come back in 10 minutes, it will be 12:20. If we vote by 12:25, we'd still have 35 minutes of witness testimony.
Does it still make sense, colleagues?
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Just as a point of clarification, we're suspending and not adjourning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
I believe that there have been discussions and that we have come to some form of consensus.
I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Bachrach, to read the revised version that we hope to be able to vote on.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, the revised amendment is that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “Thursday, May 11, 2023”, the following:
c) That the study comprise a total of four meetings in addition to the May 2 meeting, with a maximum of six witnesses per meeting.
The intention here would be that, once we've set those parameters, we defer this discussion to a subcommittee meeting where the parties can discuss the prioritization of witnesses and the precise list of witnesses who would be appearing at those meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.
We've all heard the revised amendment, so let's have a vote.
(Amendment agreed to)
We can now move....
Yes, go ahead, Mr. Badawey.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
As part of that amendment, are we adjourning debate to go to a subcommittee meeting?
That wasn't in the motion. Okay, we'll go with that.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Procedurally, Mr. Chair, because this is an amendment and not a stand-alone motion, I think we have to deal with the other amendment and the main motion as amended.