Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.

    I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order nor participate in debate.

    We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

     Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the government party. I am ready to receive motions for the chair.

    Mr. Clerk, I would like to nominate Peter Schiefke for chair.

    It has been moved by Ms. Koutrakis that Peter Schiefke be elected as chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    Mr. Clerk, I'm wondering, did you see my hand up? It was up before Mrs. Koutrakis's hand went up.

    No, I'm sorry. I didn't. Whoever jumped on their mike first got my attention.

    I raised my hand to be polite and was waiting for you to let me speak, because I was going to do exactly what Mrs. Koutrakis did.

    Okay. I do apologize.

    Mr. Clerk, my apologies to my esteemed colleague.

     I did not realize that. I didn't see him in the room and there was a pause, and I thought I would help. I don't have a problem with Mr. Iacono being the one nominating Mr. Schiefke.

    Well, the issue is that I cannot receive any other type of motion or entertain points of order, so here we are.

     We have a motion on the floor from Ms. Koutrakis that Mr. Peter Schiefke be elected as chair of the committee.

    Are there any other motions? Seeing none, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021, I will now proceed to a recorded division unless there is consent to adopt the motion.

     Seeing consent, I declare the motion carried and Mr. Schiefke duly elected chair of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    Honourable members, thank you for placing your confidence in me. I am pleased to serve as your committee chair.

    Before we get started, I'd like to take a moment to thank the honourable member Vance Badawey for the outstanding job he did chairing this committee during the 43rd Parliament. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the five returning members of the committee for their outstanding work during the 42nd and 43rd parliaments. Well done.

    Colleagues, before we move on to some housekeeping notes that I have to read, if you're in agreement, I'd like to ask the clerk to proceed with the election of the vice-chairs. Do I have agreement?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice‑chair must be a member of the official opposition.

    I am now prepared to receive motions for the election of the first vice‑chair.

    I'd like to nominate Melissa Lantsman as the vice-chair.

    It has been moved by MP Marilyn Gladu that Melissa Lantsman be elected as first vice-chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions? Seeing none, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, November 25, 2021, I will now proceed to a recorded division unless there is consent to adopt the motion.

     Seeing consent, I declare the motion carried and Melissa Lantsman duly elected as first vice-chair of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice‑chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition.

    I am now prepared to receive motions for the election of the second vice‑chair.

     Mr. Clerk, I'd like to nominate Mr. Barsalou-Duval to be the second vice-chair of the committee.

    It has been moved by Mr. Bachrach that Mr. Barsalou‑Duval be elected as second vice‑chair of the committee.

    Are there any further motions?

    Pursuant to the House Order of Thursday, November 25, 2021, I will now proceed to a recorded division, unless I have the unanimous consent of the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval duly elected second vice‑chair of the committee.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Clerk.

    Honourable members, welcome to the first meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

    Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House Order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

    Regarding the speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether participating virtually or in person.

     I would like to take this opportunity to remind all participants to this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

    The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website.

    Given the ongoing pandemic and in light of the recommendations from public health authorities as well as the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on October 19, 2021, to remain healthy and safe, the following is recommended for all those attending the meeting in person.

     Anyone with symptoms should participate by Zoom and not attend the meeting in person.

    Everyone must maintain a two-metre physical distance, whether seated or standing.

     Everyone must wear a non-medical mask when circulating in the room. It is recommended in the strongest possible terms that members wear their masks at all times, including when seated. Non-medical masks, which provide better clarity over cloth masks, are available in the room.

    Everyone present must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer at the room entrance. Committee rooms are cleaned before and after each meeting. To maintain this, everyone is encouraged to clean surfaces such as the desk, chair, and microphone with the provided disinfectant wipes when vacating or taking a seat.

    As the chair, I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting, and I thank members in advance for their co-operation.

    I would now suggest as the next order of business that the committee now proceed to considering our routine motions.

    Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Congratulations on your election. I truly look forward to working with you and all our colleagues on this very important committee.

    In the interest of time, I was wondering if we could go ahead and adopt the routine motions as circulated by the clerk to all the members before this meeting, rather than go one by one.

    Colleagues, do we have unanimous consent to adopt them in one bulk?

    Mr. Chair, can we go one by one, please?

    We do not have unanimous consent. We can definitely go one by one.

    Ms. Koutrakis, would you be kind enough to go through them one by one, please?

    Further to the motion entitled Analyst Services, I move the following:

    Sorry, this is just a point of clarification before I continue. Is there appetite amongst the committee members for me to go through all the clauses and we take the vote at the end, or do we want to do a vote after each item I read out?

     At the end is good.

    Ms. Koutrakis, please read them all out. We'll vote at the end.

    Very good. I therefore move the following:

    Thank you.

     Thank you very much, Ms. Koutrakis.

    Are there any questions, comments or debate?

    Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Could you please tell me how many members will sit on the subcommittee? The routine motion I have here doesn't say. Ms. Koutrakis probably mentioned it earlier, but I must have missed it.

    That's a good question. The clerk is telling me that it's five members, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Mr. Bachrach.

     Regarding the list of routine motions that Ms. Koutrakis read out, I think those are the ones on which there is general agreement. I have some additions that I'd like to bring forward for discussion. I wonder if we should vote on the first set and then have that discussion separately or whether you'd like me to bring those motions forward at this point.

     Is there unanimous consent to adopt these motions as is and then move on to others?

    (Motions agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Bachrach, as I see no other hands up, did you want to proceed with your motions?

    The first routine motion I'd like to bring forward for consideration is one that I believe we passed in the last Parliament. It relates to televised appearances of ministers. The wording of the motion is very simple:

    (Motion agreed to)

    Mr. Chair, I have one more motion here. This relates to in camera meetings, and again, it is similar to a motion that was adopted in the last Parliament. It reads:

     Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

    Are there any other questions or comments?

    Go ahead, Ms. Koutrakis.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Perhaps we should vote on that motion.

    We are going to discuss it.

    Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Like last time when this was presented, I can't support this. There's a reason we go in camera for certain items. That's to protect employees, human resources, legal situations, legal discussions and proprietary situations of a lot of different companies that give testimony. It's with respect to that, as well as other situations, such as a negotiation between a union and a company that might come up and we might have to discuss it as a committee.

    By the way, I'm not a fan of in camera meetings and I like to see everything out in the open, but it's not up to me in situations such as that. It's with all due respect to those witnesses who come, give testimony, and actually trust that the process won't disclose a lot of what they don't want to disclose in terms of, as I mentioned earlier, those things that should be held in confidence.

    That said, in camera meetings are appropriate. They should only be taking place when those things are being infringed upon, such as HR negotiations or legal.

    I think Mr. Bachrach, as a former mayor, will be fully aware of that in terms of what municipal acts in different provinces entail, and again, it's with all due respect to those people we deal with.

    Unfortunately, Taylor, I won't be able to support this.

     Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

    Mr. Bachrach.

     Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Badawey, I appreciate what he's saying. I believe item (d) accommodates the type of situation that he has brought up. If we're in a situation as a committee where there is some sort of sensitive topic that deserves a confidential treatment, the committee can choose to go in camera by unanimous consent. The members of the committee can use their discretion in terms of the public interest, maximizing transparency.

    What we don't want to see is in camera meetings used to discuss matters that may be difficult for some members to talk about in the public realm but are in the public interest to have the public see our discussions and hear our questioning, and so on.

    I think these clauses accommodate the kind of situation that Mr. Badawey has indicated. Certainly coming from local government in British Columbia I know there are very strict provisions for the circumstances in which local governments can go in camera. We should have similar parameters for our committee so that those in camera meetings aren't misused.

     Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

    Mr. Badawey.

    I appreciate those comments. However, there are two points I want to make. One is that the key words are “unanimous consent”, and not all the time do we have the luxury of gaining unanimous consent.

    The second point goes to your point about item (d). If in fact item (d) covers everything, there's really no need to pass this motion. It's somewhat redundant. Again, unfortunately, Taylor, I just can't support this.

     Mr. Iacono.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Just to add to my colleague Mr. Badawey, if we can go about it by deciding on a case-by-case basis, that would be more appropriate. I too do not accept this motion.

     Are there any further comments or questions?

    Yes, Mr. Bachrach.

    Mr. Chair, just very briefly, I appreciate that we're of two minds about this and certainly respect the views that my colleagues have brought forward. Perhaps you or the clerk could clarify how the decision to go in camera on a topic would be made.

    Mr. Iacono has suggested that it be done on a case-by-case basis, and I have no problem with that. It's more a question of, at whose discretion does the committee go in camera?

     Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

    Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

    Mr. Clerk, correct me if I'm wrong, but going to Mr. Bachrach's motion, the appropriate part of the motion is unanimous consent in terms of a motion coming forward. If a case-by-case basis mechanism were to be followed, would it not just take unanimous consent by the committee to, therefore, go to the theme of what Mr. Bachrach is asking for in his motion?

    We're going to turn to Mr. Bachrach to explain this one, if he can.

    Essentially, the committee would be permitted to go in camera to consider a draft report, attend briefings concerning national security, consider lists of witnesses and for any other reason with the unanimous consent of the members of the committee.

    It allows us to go in camera for any reason, as long as we all agree that it warrants going in camera. What it prevents is the use of in camera to discuss things that may be publicly sensitive, but are not issues that, for legal or other reasons, should be held held in camera.

    Does that make sense, Mr. Chair?

    I'm just looking to see whether there are any hands raised by colleagues who have any further questions or comments on this particular motion.

    Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

    I have a few questions about procedure. When Mr. Bachrach asked the clerk a question earlier, we didn't get an answer.

    If we don't adopt this motion, how will the decision to move in camera be made? Will the chair decide, or will the decision be made some other way?

    This is turning out to be quite complicated.

    In essence, the clerk would be in a situation where he would have to speak to this. It would, perhaps, be seen as him either defending it or moving in favour of it.

     We're deferring more to Mr. Bachrach to try to speak to how exactly the committee would proceed with voting if we were to find ourselves in that situation. This is a question that's been posed by our colleague Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

    The question is how we would procedurally go about going in camera if this motion passed. Is that correct , Mr. Chair?

    If I understand, that was a question from the clerk.

    That was actually a question from Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

    He'd like to know what the procedure would be if we found ourselves in that situation.

    I will ask Mr. Barsalou‑Duval to clarify his question.

    My question was for the clerk. If we don't adopt this motion, how will the decision to move in camera be made? Who will decide? Will the committee have a say in the decision to move in camera?

    I'm sorry for the confusion. I believe the question was about what happens with questions that are taken while you're in camera under the provisions of this motion. That is very tricky, because we'd be recording names and whatnot, which is counter to how we do things in camera.

    However, if you're talking about a regular meeting without this motion, if one were to go in camera, we'd simply require a motion. It's a dilatory motion, so you can move it off the floor at any time and you just take a vote. There's no debate; there's a vote right away on whether to go in camera.

    Conversely, the chair can also call for a meeting to begin in camera. If the committee does not agree to that, the very first thing the committee would do at the beginning of that in camera meeting is move to go public. There would be no debate; you'd take a vote and go public, if that was the will of the committee.

    Does that answer your question, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval?

    Yes. Thank you very much.

    Thank you.

    Are there any other questions or comments?

    We're going to do a recorded division.

     (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: Are there any other motions that colleagues would like to present?

    I have Mr. Bachrach.

    Mr. Chair, I was going to bring forward a third one regarding witness allocation. This is a motion that other committees have passed, but I thought maybe I would just speak to the spirit and see if we can get general agreement from you and from the committee.

    I believe it was our practice in the last Parliament when we had a two-hour witness panel that each party would have a witness from their submitted lists appear so that we had a diversity of witnesses on each panel. Other committees have chosen to codify that with a routine motion.

     I'm not sure that's necessary, but perhaps, Mr. Chair, you and Mr. Clerk could indicate whether that would be your intent and if we could have that as a practice. I think that would suffice, and I would not bring forward a formal motion.

     I'd like to get the thoughts of our members on this. Are there any questions or comments?

    I have Ms. Gladu.

    Yes, as a former chair, I would say that while it is great to have diversity of thought—and when witnesses are submitted there's a number of them, depending on the representation—you can't always schedule the witnesses when you want to schedule them, because they are not available.

     I would say that if we took the intent that we would have diversity of thought and a mix of the witnesses, that would be a great way to proceed, but I wouldn't fall on that sword if there are scheduling issues.

     Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

    Are there any other questions or comments?

    Mr. Bachrach, I would just add my comments on this.

     As chair, I will do my very best to ensure that all members have their voices heard, and that's with regard to the witnesses we invite to appear before this committee, but by putting ourselves in a situation where, as Ms. Gladu pointed out, in some cases it's very difficult to get the witnesses we want, we kind of pigeonhole ourselves into that situation. As chair, I'm going to make every effort with the clerk to ensure there is representation from all parties when we have witnesses appear.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. That works for me.

    With that, I'll end my comments on routine motions. Thanks for entertaining them.

     Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

    Are there any other motions that colleagues would like to put forward?

    Seeing none, could I get a motion to adjourn from one of my fine esteemed colleagues?

    I move to adjourn.

     Mr. Badawey moves to adjourn. All in favour?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I will simply add “merry Christmas” for those of you who will be celebrating.

     I wish you a safe, happy and prosperous new year. All the best, everyone.

    Thank you, everyone.