Evidence of meeting #43 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
What a show you're putting on! It's quite the drama.
You're confused. I could find many other suitable adjectives. It's odd that you have forgotten so quickly what you did and how you acted when we were conducting this study. Have you forgotten your behaviour? Have you forgotten what you said and what you required of the witnesses who appeared before us? You had them come and meet with us a second time. So act like parliamentarians.
During the study, why didn't you act like parliamentarians? Why didn't you ask—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, the hon. member is attributing motives to me, which is completely unethical, about what I could have done, about our role as parliamentarians. I ask him to please withdraw his remarks.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Madam Chair, I will not withdraw my remarks. I was alluding to facts.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I will leave it up to Mr. Iacono whether or not he withdraws his remarks, but I would at least like him to make a distinction between the different parties. I don't think we all acted in the same way, if I understand what he is saying and what he is referring to without actually saying it.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My comments are directed at the Conservative Party, not the New Democratic—
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Yes.
Witnesses appeared before us during the study. During that meeting, the Conservatives used all kinds of ways to try to slow the work. It was a filibuster. Two witnesses from western Canada had to appear before us again so that we could hear what they had to say. These were witnesses we had not heard from before.
We are criticized and told that we must act like parliamentarians. I think we need to check the “blues”—
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
—that we have to read the meeting transcripts and verify how we acted.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Chair, the witnesses did not have to come back to appear before us because the discussion was held by videoconference.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
The witnesses had to come to appear by videoconference. They did not come in person, but they travelled twice. Why were they summoned to appear by videoconference twice? What happened the first time they appeared before us? What procedure did you initiate?
Knowing that we received these witnesses at the scheduled time, why didn't we ask them questions then? Why do we now have to take the time to make all kinds of comments and insinuations?
I think this is a real drama being played out. If we want to act like parliamentarians, we have to be a little more serious when we are doing the study. I think we need to be when the witnesses appear before us and ask questions at the appropriate time.
And now we're going to rule out 256 briefs?
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Obviously this has become heated. I think it was heated at different moments throughout the course of the study. Despite the fact that there have been some heated exchanges this morning, we should all be able to respect each other and expect that we are all trying to promote the interests of Canadians and our constituents, in this party and all parties. That said, I understand some of the frustrations that have come out to date.
As we wrap up this meeting with only a few moments to go, we have a motion on the floor to exclude 256 briefs that were submitted until such time as.... I forget the language in the specific motion. We have a motion that the committee not consider briefs for its study until it can be determined whether those organizations received funding. We've heard different arguments about the creeping influence of the executive and counter-arguments about the impact it will have on the ability of first nations—who have not had their fair say—to testify.
In the interests of completing the debate before our time expires today, I move that the question be now put.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
All right.
We're just moving that we vote on Ms. Block's motion.
We have that on the table. We have four minutes left.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Do you still have people on the list to speak?