Transport Committee on Feb. 7th, 2017

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Okay.

I will go ahead and move my motion at today's committee meeting:

That the committee not consider any briefs received for its study on the Navigation Protection Act as evidence until which time it can be determined whether any of the organizations that submitted briefs received funding from the Government of Canada to support the production of these briefs.

I want to speak to my motion.

First, Madam Chair, let me state that I am not suggesting through this motion that this committee paid for the production of the briefs that were submitted, nor am I suggesting that there was anything inappropriate by witnesses who applied for participant funding to provide feedback to Transport Canada as part of their consultation process. I want to make those two things clear.

There is no doubt in my mind that neither this committee nor the House of Commons did in any way pay for the production of these briefs. It is my contention that many of these briefs were solicited by Transport Canada, and their production was a least partially funded by Transport Canada and other agencies and departments of the Government of Canada.

Transport Canada's website advertises this committee's study on the Navigation Protection Act and encourages people and organizations to submit their views to the committee in the form of briefs. Having been a member here for some time, I will note that it is unusual for a government department to be encouraging organizations to send briefs to a parliamentary committee. Transport Canada should accept the briefs and consider them as evidence as part of their consultation on the legislation we will be seeing later this year.

As I stated at our last meeting, it is not for Transport Canada to determine what witnesses the committee hears. That is our role as members of the committee.

Transport Canada's website notes that:

A participant funding program was open to applications between August 23 and September 23, 2016, and funding has since been allocated to support participation in this phase of the review.

The phase of the review that is being referred to is this committee's study on the Navigation Protection Act. Transport Canada approved funding for organizations to participate in this phase of the review. My office has gone through every submission that the committee received. I won't go through every one of them today, but suffice it to say that of the submissions received at least 22 of them make reference to, first, being asked to make a request for participant funding, second, waiting for participant funding from Transport Canada to make their submission, and third, not immediately receiving the funding they were approved for or that the deadline to submit briefs to this committee was too soon after the date they received participant funding.

Now I'm going to try to read the names of these different first nations groups appropriately.

The NunatuKavut Community Council noted in their brief submitted to this committee that:

NCC was invited to participate in the NPA Review process, and to submit a request for participant funding. We received confirmation of participant funding only on November 4, 2016, and we were asked to make a submission to this committee by November 30, 2016. The level of funding was significantly less than requested.

The brief submitted to this committee by the Musqueam Indian Band noted that:

As of yet, participant funding has only been partially disbursed to Indigenous groups. Therefore, through no fault of our own, we are not in a position to submit our views despite fast-approaching deadlines. The confusing and entangled funding and engagement processes (both of which have been unilaterally created by the federal Crown) undermine our ability to participate meaningfully. We expect the appropriate time and resources to provide meaningful review and comments.

The brief submitted to this committee by the Mushkegowuk Council notes that they “only received approval from Canada for funding to begin work in relation to these submissions on November 15, 2016”.

The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke noted in it's brief that “funding for this review was limited and only approved on November 14th, 2016”.

The Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn noted in its brief that they were:

...invited to participate in this process, and to submit a request for participant funding. Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn only received confirmation of their participant funding on November 17, 2016, and was asked to make a submission to this committee by November 30, 2016. The level of funding was significantly less than requested, and work could only commence on the date of confirmation of funding.

The Southern Chiefs' Organization noted in their brief that they were informed on December 7 that they had received $16,500. For comparison's sake, this committee budgeted $16,300 for its entire study of the NPA.

Madam Chair, I could go on with examples, as I've mentioned earlier, from these briefs of organizations that submitted briefs to this committee contingent on receiving funding from the Government of Canada to do so. If Transport Canada disburses participant funding for groups to submit briefs to this committee, then witnesses, I would assert, are being paid for their submissions to this committee. This is not right. A parliamentary committee does not pay for testimony.

To be clear, that the minister through Transport Canada is conducting his own consultations on the Navigation Protection Act is not a problem. That there is a fund for participants to provide their comments to the minister through Transport Canada is not the issue. That these processes are happening parallel to one another is not the issue.

The issue here is that Transport Canada, on its website, has muddied the waters by advising organizations and individuals that the funding program has since been allocated to support participation in this phase of the review that, again, I would suggest, is the committee study, which is why so many of those who applied refer to the committee, its study, and the timeline for receiving their funding. Again, I will state that it is not for the minister through Transport Canada to determine who this committee hears from and what form the testimony should take through their own set of questions.

Finally, it is not in the spirit of Parliament that committees would function in this manner.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Ms. Block.

Again, just to clarify, yes, we approved a budget of $16,300 for our Navigation Protection Act study. We spent $1,910.76 for video conferences, $1,518.81 for travel, and $128.85 for committee meals, for a total amount of $3,558.42.

To reiterate, the committee only paid reasonable travel costs incurred by the witnesses. We did not pay any group, individual, or community to compile or research their testimony. When we ask groups to give us comments and testimony, they are certainly free to submit whatever they choose. How ever they went about preparing that is totally and entirely up to them.

The participant funding program has been around for many governments and is used often. As an example, it is used for FCM or other areas when the department is looking for comments on legislation and so on. It is something that has been around.

On the first nations in particular, the reason we're doing this review ourselves—and the other two committees—is because of the fact that the indigenous community and the Senate report refer to the fact that there was insufficient opportunity for the indigenous communities to be able to participate and to comment. They did not have the resources in many ways to do that.

We have Mr. Fraser first, then Mr. Badawey.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the explanation behind the motion, Kelly.

My point of view is that we have good evidence and we should use it. I don't have a problem with the way the funding for the departmental consultation took place. I would have a problem if they withheld the funding until the report was compiled and there was some suggestion that they were trying to buy certain testimony, but that is not what happened here.

If we apply the same logic that you laid out for the “muddying the waters” argument, we could never invite the Federation of Canadian Municipalities here. If it received funding on how to plan for asset management in municipalities, and then gained expertise, I want to hear that expertise if it comes to testify.

If we have reservations about the quality of the evidence in these briefs, that's another thing. I expect the answer would be no, but I'd gladly entertain a motion to bring those witnesses in here to testify in person. We can cross-examine on the quality of the evidence, but I think we've spent a good chunk of time on this study, so I don't think that's where we want to go.

I have a real concern here, and I think it paints a terrible picture. If I put myself in the shoes of a first nations person who took the time to prepare evidence that did make its way to this committee, and I look back at the process of the changes to the Navigation Protection Act, I will see that in the 2007 to 2009 period when there was a study by the TRAN committee in which there were no witnesses from first nations.

When I look at the briefs that were submitted to the committee during that time, I think there were 28, and not one of them was from a first nations community. When it actually came to a debate in the House, it was part of omnibus budget legislation, and a lot of the comments I heard around this had to do with there not being sufficient time for the issues to come to light. Now, by design or by accident, if we were to support this motion, again, we would be largely excluding evidence of first nations communities on an issue that is of extraordinary importance to first nations.

If I were one of the groups putting evidence forward, I would feel that it is being implied that my behaviour is unethical or that my evidence is being buried because it's disagreed with. You went to great lengths to explain that this is not the case, but the consequence of this motion is going to communicate that very strongly to our community members from first nations, and for that reason I can't support it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey and then Ms. Block.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I don't have to reiterate Mr. Fraser's comments. I think he stated very well the reasons why this funding was made available.

As you said, Madam Chair, it's not a new concept. It is used to allow those folks without deep pockets to participate in these issues and to give their testimony with respect to how it affects them in their different jurisdictions throughout the nation.

Let's be clear; they never had that opportunity the last time. Although Ms. Block explained the process that we're embarking on today, I think I have to be clear in bringing that back to when it was actually decided upon previously, by the previous government. These folks never did have a chance and were never encouraged to have a chance with respect to the funding being made available to them to participate in the process that then became legislation.

We went beyond inviting groups, inviting different organizations, including the aboriginal communities across the nation, to participate in this very exercise, and as Mr. Fraser stated, that's very important, because, obviously, they have an extreme interest in the NPA and we want to hear about that interest. We want to hear how it is now affecting them and how it is going to affect them. We have to be very clear on that.

I'm not going to get into a lot of the other thoughts I had in my mind with respect to why the funding of these individuals was being asked about. I'm sure those thoughts did not have to do with it being a tainted report because we're paying them, and Ms. Block made very clear that's not the case. I appreciate those comments, because honestly that's where I thought you were going when you actually introduced it at the last meeting in a closed session.

Having said all of that, I think we're moving in the right direction. I think we've heard from a lot of different witnesses, moving forward now, about bringing this legislation back to the table in an amended fashion, and along with that I think a lot of the folks who were most affected by this legislation, those from the aboriginal community, have now had a chance to participate. With that, I hope that we will move forward with an all-inclusive process that obviously puts proper legislation forward, more inclusive legislation, and therefore, addresses a lot of the issues and of course the concerns that a lot of folks throughout the nation did in fact have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I just want to follow up on a couple of points. The first is around something that Mr. Fraser pointed out when he used the example of FCM.

I absolutely agree that it doesn't matter whether a witness has received participant funding to provide some sort of feedback to a department, on any given question that they are being asked, and for us then to invite them to committee so that we as committee members can ask questions of them. That, to me, is like two different sets of testimony. One is what's being considered by the department based on the specific questions that they were asking. The other is what committee members from all parties would potentially ask, which perhaps would be very different questions from those asked by the department.

I would never preclude a witness who has participated in another parallel study from being a witness to this committee just because they received participant funding. My concern, and I think I've laid it out, is that we are receiving briefs from another study as though this committee heard from those witnesses.

Now, I have been in committees before where, if there are other studies available, a motion is made to also look at the testimony from another study. I think that's most appropriate. But to presume that the study this committee is conducting on the Navigation Protection Act and the consultation process that was undertaken by the minister through Transport Canada are one and the same—that's where my issue lies.

I believe that this committee, due to the very composition of it, with members from all parties sitting on it, would perhaps ask very different questions of witnesses than would a government department, or even the minister's office. This is where I am highlighting that I do not believe that the briefs that were received as a result of the consultation process called for by the Minister of Transport should just automatically become part of the testimony that this committee is hearing. Yes, there are communities that receive participant funding and they were responding to a specific consultation process by the Department of Transport.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Just to clarify, the....

Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Berthold. Go ahead.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to give a little refresher for the people who are listening to us now.

The study on the Navigation Protection Act was undertaken by our committee as a result of a letter we received from Minister Garneau. In that letter, he was strongly encouraging the committee to review the decisions made by the previous government under the Navigation Protection Act. He was sort of urging us to adopt his initial premise on the matter. The minister strongly encouraged the committee to undertake that study. Clearly, it has been undertaken with the support of the government members.

The opposition did not decide the timeframe for listening to witnesses and the date by which the report had to be completed. We received the agenda, and we accepted it because that's how it was submitted. We never set a final date for hearing from witnesses. It's not up to the official opposition to set the date. It is important to point it out. If more time had been needed to hear from First Nations, that would have been complicated.

As you know, Madam Chair, we have tried a number of times to hear the testimony of First Nations for this study, but it did not always work.

Transport Canada refused a few times to confirm whether formal hearings and consultations would be held on the review of the Navigation Protection Act. We have often asked questions about that. We were told that people can submit their comments, but that Transport Canada would hold no official consultations.

When Deputy Minister Keenan came to meet with us, we were told about a letter that he had sent to Marilyn Slett, Chief of the Heiltsuk First Nation. The letter confirms two or three things. It is worthwhile reading, Madam Chair.

At our meeting, you indicated that your organization had applied to Transport Canada for participant funding, in addition to asking the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to appear as a witness for the review of the Navigation Protection Act. You were concerned that you did not receive a positive response.

I have looked into the issue and discovered that the department had received a request for participant funding from both the Coastal First Nations and the Heiltsuk First Nation.

There was considerable interest in the participant funding program and the department received many more requests for funding than expected. As a result, it took more time than anticipated to complete the evaluation process. Please know that we are nearing completion and we will respond to the funding requests from your organizations by November 18, 2016.

... That said, we will contact and encourage the committee to listen to what the Coastal First Nations and the Hiltsuk First Nation have to say. A member from your organization could still take the opportunity to reiterate your interest in giving testimony before the committee. The committee's contact information is at...

And the letter goes on.

Madam Chair, my colleague has just identified an interference between the legislative and executive powers. Our parliamentary committee is independent. However, since the beginning, we have felt the government's intrusion in our work.

I have rarely seen a deputy minister encourage groups to participate in a study in committee to obtain their support, while they are supposedly holding their own consultations on the same topic. We must admit that there is a confusion of roles. As a committee, it is our role to point it out so that we can avoid similar situations in the future.

We really must make a distinction between consultations conducted by a department and by a parliamentary committee. Those are two completely different ways of communicating with the government. We must not allow any interference between the two. It is parliamentarians' privilege to be able to question witnesses. They will say things to parliamentarians that they might not say to the executive power, and vice versa. That is why it is very important to know for a fact whether or not Transport Canada funded people to testify for our study.

We must send a clear message to Transport Canada: when a committee studies an issue, it's the committee's business, not Transport Canada's.

We have repeatedly asked whether, yes or no, Transport Canada funded those groups for the preparation of those submissions. That's the question that needs to be answered today. Has the Department of Transport, yes or no, funded groups so that they could appear before us? That has nothing to do with the groups' positions and opinions, which are very interesting and relevant. As part of our study, we want to have access to the testimony from First Nations. However, we must shed light on what transpired and on the interference in the process. That's what we must denounce.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to be very clear on this because I think to some extent we have to realize that for Mr. Berthold, Ms. Block, and Mr. Rayes for that matter, we all come from the same background. We're all former mayors. We all come from a background where we bring in information, we learn from those that are affected by different issues, and we respond accordingly. We implement, we execute, and we move on to the next issue.

I find this to be the same thing. Although with the federal government, sometimes it's extremely frustrating when we have to play the politics of it, and/or the different administrating, and of course, legislating and hearing from witnesses. I'm not too concerned with who hears from who. What I'm more concerned with is what they bring to the table. Whether it comes through Transport Canada or whether it comes through a department to me is irrelevant. It's valuable information. It's here before us. We can take it or we can leave it. That's my first point.

My second point is the fact that we had these witnesses show up to our meetings. You have had the opportunity to ask many of these witnesses from these different groups the questions that you're speaking of asking them. They weren't asked.

Here we are, as Mr. Fraser said, at a point in time where we want to move forward on something that is, I believe, in the best interests of Canada. I think and I would hope and I would respect the fact that you're all looking for the same outcomes because, even though we're on different sides of the table, even though, as you mentioned, Mr. Berthold, you're the opposition and we're the government, that is irrelevant. The bottom line here is that we're trying to move forward in the best interests of this nation. That's what we're trying to do. If you want to debate that, that's fine and that's fair. However, at the end of the day that is our attempt.

Coming to the issue at hand, regardless of where that information that helps us do that comes from, if it comes from a department or it comes from anybody for that matter, if it lands on our desks, it's a good thing. As Canada, we would try to encourage that participation regardless of where it comes from. They're participating. That's the main thing. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Quite frankly, it was something that didn't happen last time around when this was tabled.

I applaud that direction. I also applaud where the committee is going. I would only expect that all members of this committee would have the right thoughts in mind to get to the right outcomes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Your turn, Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I go back to, basically, the definition of a stakeholder. A stakeholder is somebody with a material interest in a decision by an authority—in this case the government. I found it astounding that, first of all, only 28 briefs were heard in the consultation for the changes that were made, yet we have attracted 256 briefs, specifically from a group that wasn't heard from, wasn't even represented in the 28. There are first nations all over the country who were clearly concerned about what was going on and what was snuck through in a very large and cumbersome omnibus bill. I think it's the failure of process, in the first instance, that has led to this situation.

Most people who submitted to this committee did so directly. In fact, I'm told that none of these submissions came from the ministry to us. They were basically repurposed by the people who, in some cases, had prepared them for the ministry's consultation, but in fact, in that process of repurposing them, in many cases they had made some adjustments to the testimony so that it would be pertinent to the questions we were asking.

The notion that somehow we have to prove that the payment for information somehow biased the material that we got, first of all, is quite insulting to the people who made it. Secondly, I guess we would turn that on its head and ask what evidence there is that they were biased. That would be interesting to hear.

Generally speaking, the idea of taking information, asking for the capacity to provide informed information, evidence-based information that will have an impact on decisions or at least recommendations out of this committee, that's not a bad thing. In a previous session, we just had an example where one of our witnesses cited a white paper that he did, and we asked for it. He's going to repurpose that. There's ample evidence that this sort of thing is seen as quite necessary, especially when we want to hear what people have to say.

Some people viewing or witnessing this might get the impression that this isn't about process; this is about not wanting to hear what stakeholders, who had such a material interest in the original decision, have to say. I hope that's not the case, because what these people have to say is vitally important to them and to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Go ahead, Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would first like to say that I am truly very happy that this discussion is public. I think it is important for us to be able to hear all the views on the matter. I must admit that I have some difficulty with Mr. Badawey's allusions, for instance when he says that his hope is that everyone around the table has the best interests of Canada at heart. That's not something that should even be brought up. We are all working and we have all been elected in our ridings with that goal. I think we are working from the heart with dedication and in the best interests of the people we serve. So let's dispose of that point.

As in the case of all motions, the issue with the motion before us is that, when we are debating it, it is difficult to be two moves ahead the way you do in chess to plan the victory. I fully understand the procedure that Mrs. Block's motion is trying to safeguard. I have to say that the committee's autonomy is sacrosanct to me. The rules governing the way we operate have not been established by chance. They are the result of many years of experience and I think there would have to be a serious reason for us to call them into question or to circumvent them.

It is also true that it is important for the committee to hear the viewpoints expressed in the few dozen briefs submitted that are the subject of this motion. Having read a number of them, I see that many of them clearly express similar opinions or visions. So I think it is important that, even if we are just voting on the wording of the motion, we can perhaps open and expand the discussion to the possibility of what happens next.

If we were to vote in favour of Mrs. Block's motion, would we have to stop our work right now? I think a way to come to an agreement would be to agree collegially that we extend our work by one or two meetings and that we mutually agree on the representatives we want to hear from. If we agreed not only on the number of additional witnesses that we want to hear to ensure that their viewpoints are included in our study, but also on the representatives we choose to hear from, I think we could bring together all those viewpoints in a study that, let's not forget, is not complete.

In a nutshell, the idea is not to reopen the study that we have already done because it is not completed at this very moment. I would even say that it is a unique feature of our committee to have two, three or four studies on the go at the same time. So I don't see a problem with continuing the work, without dragging things on indefinitely, just to be sure that the viewpoints contained in the submitted briefs, which will be disregarded by Mrs. Block's motion, can be reflected in our study on this bill.

I basically agree with Mrs. Block. The committee's autonomy is sacrosanct and essential. So let's hope that we'll get a clear and specific answer about whether or not the department granted funding for the production of the briefs, which would close the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Rayes.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to make a brief comment.

I was also surprised to hear Mr. Badawey's comments, which are a veiled suggestion that we may not be working in the interest of Canadians. I think it's very clear that we are working in their interest.

As for the somewhat moralizing tone about how to proceed, I don't think the Liberal Party can teach anyone any lessons about how to work. The committee has work to do. The department has work to do. The Minister also has advisors who are quite familiar with how each organization works. I think it was done voluntarily. There was an intention. Rather than trying to dump responsibility on a motion that, I think, is entirely legitimate in the circumstances, especially given the remarks of the witnesses themselves, we should show some humility here.

Personally, I think Mr. Aubin's proposal is very interesting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the input from all of the members around the table. I want to reinforce the comments made by colleagues Mr. Berthold and Mr. Aubin in terms of the autonomy of this committee.

If this motion has brought us to this conversation, that is exactly what was intended. This truly is about the autonomy of the committee to do its work, free from intervention from the minister or the department. If you read the motion, it is very clear that it doesn't preclude an action that comes out of it. It is to have the conversation so that we understand what is actually happening when a committee is conducting a study, and another part of government, the executive branch of government, is doing something parallel to it and it's deemed that the work they are doing then will become part of the committee's work. I think that distinction needs to be maintained and kept.

I want to reiterate that the fact that the Minister of Transport has decided to conduct consultations on the Navigation Protection Act is not an issue. He's well within his mandate to do that, and it his right to do that as a minister. That there is participant funding provided for witnesses to participate in these kinds of studies is not an issue.

You've pointed out yourself, as has Mr. Badawey, that this participant funding has been available for a long time, to any number of organizations that want to participate but don't have the means to do so. I believe that when we look at the correspondence we've received from various organizations, when we look at their call for us to delay our study, that there was confusion around what exactly they were applying for through Transport Canada and the work of this committee.

I think it's that confusion, and the muddying of the waters that has transpired as a result, that I am trying to address through this motion, and the autonomy of the committee, as Mr. Aubin has pointed out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just want to be clear here. The motion reads:

That the committee not consider any briefs...for its study on the Navigation Protection Act as evidence until which time it can be determined whether any of the organizations that submitted briefs received funding from the Government of Canada to support the production of these briefs.

It's been stated today that they have, that groups often receive funding. It is the norm. Simply put, they may not have the wherewithal to fund their participation in any issue—including, by the way, the FCM, which submits briefs to us on most issues.

Having said that, we have to understand the magnitude of the briefs that are asked, through the motion, not to be allowed. There are 256 briefs, 142 of which had funding. There was the opportunity for questions to be asked of the witnesses when they were here, some of which were part of that process.

I want to be very clear to Mr. Aubin's comments. There are no illusions. This is very simple. Ms. Block is attempting to block 256 briefs from this committee's attempt to make a more inclusive decision based on many organizations, many cities, many communities throughout the nation. The 256 communities that are affected by the Navigation Protection Act are being asked to stand down. That is not right. No illusions, that is simply not right.

We are stating that we should include these briefs as part of this process, once again, to make it more inclusive versus exclusive, which was the fact the last time this was brought to the table by the previous government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Monsieur Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since I can't play two moves ahead, I'm always tempted to find a solution. It's a friendly proposed amendment that is almost in the form of a question to Mrs. Block, who appears to have identified the briefs that are under contention, implying that many others are not being challenged.

So would it be a reasonable accommodation or amendment to replace the words “That the committee not consider any briefs” with “not consider any briefs that are under contention”? So some of the briefs would be in order and others would not for the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I feel a little weird right now. I represent the citizens of Mégantic—L'Érable as best I can. I do it for the good of my riding, the province and all of Canada. I don't think what I have said here today is any different. My work now is doing exactly that: representing the interests of Canadians.

In my opinion, the outcome that Mr. Badawey wants to bring to the debate shows a lack of respect. We are currently trying to determine whether the legislative and administrative powers should be allowed to intermingle in this way and give the administration the capacity to influence the work of parliamentarians to such an extent.

I'm sort of surprised that we aren't rather indignant about this today. That's where we should be directing our indignation. If there hasn't been any interference and funding in relation to briefs, Transport Canada has to confirm it. The subject will then be closed, and we won't speak of it anymore. We want to know if this has happened. If it hasn't, we want to tell departments not to do this, since it's a matter for parliamentarians. It is important to keep a very clear boundary between administrative work, departmental offices, and parliamentary committees.

If it is the will of the committee, which is composed mostly of representatives of the government party, to continue the study and to hear the problematic testimony, it must be proposed, and we will follow. At least we will have the opportunity, as parliamentarians, to ask people questions and find out what they have to say. If we want to know why their studies need to be funded, we will ask the witnesses those questions.

The official opposition doesn't think it's urgent to conduct this study on the Navigation Protection Act. Legislation is already in place, and most witnesses have said before this committee that it hasn't caused them any problems to date. I want to make it clear that continuing this study and hearing witnesses isn't a problem. We want to hear what people have to say about the revision of the Navigation Protection Act.

However, that isn't the issue. The issue with the motion is whether we will let any department fund groups that are going to say what the department in question thinks. That's what we don't know. If the groups are present, we could ask them. I'm concerned when I see a deputy minister strongly urge groups to submit briefs to this committee when there is no clear consultation exercise at Transport Canada.

That's the point we're trying to discuss today, despite all of my colleague's attempts to paint us as people with political interests on this issue. That isn't the case. The only interest I'm defending today is that of Canadians and the people I represent, who expect that, as members of Parliament, we are doing everything we can to separate the administrative and parliamentary areas. That's how our system is. If, as members of Parliament, we don't defend this when we feel that breaches are forming, who will?

No member of the public will stand up and say that the rights of parliamentarians are being violated. The big, well-funded machine that has the money will decide on all the witnesses. Every time the government wants to pass legislation, it will be the departments that will designate who will appear as witnesses.

Can we just avoid that, ask whether or not this happened, issue a warning and stop painting us as people who don't care about Canadians?

As I said before, this is a unique opportunity. If it is the will of the committee, we can hear from the witnesses, invite them to appear and continue the study. We will then take the time to discuss with the people who sent us briefs. We have received more than 200 since the end of the study, and 70 of them came from indigenous communities. Most of the others were circular letters from the Council of Canadians.

So perhaps we don't need to hear from everyone who submitted a brief. We could have the Council for Canadians again so that they can come and explain their campaign. We can hear from representatives from indigenous communities.

To say that we don't want to hear from witnesses, I think there is a huge disconnect. That's not what is at stake here today. What is at stake is the autonomy and independence of the committee.