Evidence of meeting #60 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 letter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Would you like to speak about the point of order, Mrs. Block?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Chair, if there is a point of order, could we ask the clerk to rule on what happens when there is a motion on the floor? That is probably where we're going. As soon as a motion is introduced on the floor, what happens? Do we go back to questioning, or does this motion have to be dealt with before we can continue—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Are we dealing with a motion or are we dealing with a letter? What are we doing?
He's all over the place—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Badawey, let me answer, please.
First, we discuss the point of order; we are no longer discussing the motion. We are discussing the point of order, which takes precedence over the debate.
The purpose of the point of order was to find out whether others had questions to ask the witnesses. It's a point of order, so we do not need to vote on it, I should think.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Second, you had a question. That's exactly what I was about to ask at the same time as you. I wanted to ask whether we had the consent of all the committee members to allow the witnesses to leave. If the committee does not consent, it is because the members have questions. We will therefore ask the witnesses to stay. That's exactly what I was getting at.
Do those present want to have the witnesses stay until 12:30 p.m., as was planned, or to excuse them?
Mrs. Block, you have the floor.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
My question for the clerk would be, because Mr. Rayes has moved a motion during his questioning time and now there is a motion on the table, do we have to deal with the motion before we resume our questioning of the witnesses?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
The answer is yes. We must first take care of the point of order and then the motion. Then, we can come back to the debate.
The question that Mr. Badawey and I are asking is this. Do we want to excuse the witnesses, yes or no? Is their agreement to excuse the witnesses? No?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Just for clarification then, we're not going to excuse the witnesses for the next five minutes. Mr. Rayes is going to be speaking to his motion. Then the witnesses will leave at 12:30, at the appointed time they were scheduled to do so, and no more questions will be asked anyway.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
May I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
Yes, it is unfortunate that a member on that side has taken up the time for us to ask the witnesses questions, which was the plan in the first place, so what I would suggest is that Mr. Rayes may want to wait until after 12:30 to bring up his commentary, as well as his motion, as well as his concerns with the letter, and allow us to continue where we started with the witnesses; hence the reason for the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.
Mr. Rayes, you may defend your motion.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you.
I apologize to the witnesses, although this will allow them to understand a bit what is currently happening in Parliament.
I would like to say to my fellow member on the other side that what is regrettable is the chair's decision to send a letter dated tomorrow, but sent yesterday, in the name of an independent committee.
I would like the committee to adopt this motion, which asks that we write to the Standing Committee on Finance. This is what is asked at the end of the motion: that our committee write a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance to ask for more—
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the motion is not receivable because it refers to a date that was two days ago.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
The clerk, whom I consulted, said that the second part of the motion, the part without a date, was in order. Moreover, when Mr. Rayes began discussing the request to amend the motion regarding the dates, I told him that it was impossible to change a motion he had already proposed. However, there is a part of the motion that is in order, and that is the decision I made after speaking with the clerk.
Mr. Hardie, you have the floor.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
On a point of order, don't we need to have agreement to split the motion?
12:25 p.m.
A voice
He's speaking to half of it.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
No one has asked us to do it. We are still debating the motion. Mr. Hardie, if you wish to propose this amendment, you can do so when your turn comes. For the moment, the mover is still proposing the motion.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
May 18th, 2017 / 12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
The second part of the motion, which, in my opinion, is still very valid and which I would like the committee to support, proposes that our committee write a letter to the Standing Committee on Finance to request that more time be dedicated to the study of the Infrastructure Bank of Canada. In reality, this directly contradicts the chair's decision to send, on our behalf, a letter yesterday—a letter dated tomorrow, I might add—stating that the committee has no amendments or recommendations on this issue.
With respect to this letter to the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to remind the committee of this:
The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities recommends that your Committee permit more time to study the design and implications of the proposed Infrastructure Bank by removing Part 4, Division 18, and other references to that Bank, from the rest of Bill C-44.
In reality, it's about splitting Bill C-44 to remove the part concerning the Infrastructure Bank of Canada.
I would like to point out that it is not sufficient to examine an issue this important, which affects all Canadian taxpayers, for an hour and a half. Important questions were asked concerning the interests of this bank, the real benefits relative to other existing financing options, and even the evidence supporting its creation.
In order to believe in the merits of the proposed bank, we must be able to further examine the issue. I remind you that we are talking about money belonging to all Canadians, which is not to be taken lightly. We are talking about $35 billion that will line the pockets of businesses, investors, and firms. Who will incur the risks associated with this money? Canadians will.
As someone representing Canadians, I find what is happening unacceptable. An attempt was made to muzzle us by stating, on our behalf, that there were no recommendations to be made. To imagine for a second that we would not make a single recommendation in the report on the study the committee is currently undertaking, one would have had to be oblivious to everything that was said during the question and comment period and to what the witnesses who came here told us. I am speechless. It is the first time that I see such a situation. I am furious. We are talking about our fellow citizens. We were elected to gain their trust.
An attempt is being made to put one over on us, as they say. This is too big. It's like trying to push a train through a mouse hole and thinking that we wouldn't notice. A letter dated tomorrow—because that's the deadline—was sent yesterday on our behalf. I'm not sure whether you realize. It said that we would have the opportunity to have our say, but that's false.
I do not know how we will deal with this, but it is clear to me that we must, at the very least, contact the members of the Standing Committee on Finance and ask them to give us more time to study the issue so that we can get to the bottom of it. If this bank is to be created, it will not be because the Liberals used their majority in the House to push it through under our noses, unbeknownst to Canadians. What we are experiencing is completely ridiculous.
I hope that the government members will at least be embarrassed by this situation and agree to this motion so that we can have more time, especially because we have a letter speaking on our behalf.
I don't know how to react to all of this. I sincerely hope that everyone will agree and that members across the table will support this motion. We would then have more time to ask questions, as we should, and to make recommendations so that the government can make the best decision possible, without smuggling this under our noses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Thank you, Mr. Rayes.
Mr. Aubin is requesting the floor. However, as it is 12:30 p.m. and we asked the witnesses to stay until then, I will now thank them for being here and answering our questions.
Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.