Transport Committee on May 18th, 2017

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chair, our apologies to the witnesses, and I would ask them to stay a little longer, if they can. We have some more questions.

Would they be willing to stay a little longer?

[Michael Ferguson]

We are at the pleasure of the committee, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Luc Berthold]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

I want to tell the witnesses how much we appreciate their being so understanding.

We will continue with Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Barely ten minutes ago, I was complimenting my fellow committee members on our non-partisanship research. I admit that now, we will have to perform miracles to maintain our non-partisan approach. The content of this letter, and especially all of the confusion it brought, has left me baffled as well.

At the same time, sadly, I will say that I am not surprised. It seems that this approach comes from the top. In the House, we are debating a bill that has not yet been approved and most certainly has not received royal assent. In the meantime, in the backrooms, the hiring process for employees and the future direction of this bank are being discussed. What the government is trying to do is becoming ever more obvious. This letter is, in my opinion, another example of arrogance—I have no other word for it, so I apologize for the harshness, but that is the only word that comes to mind—of a majority government that knows that, in the end, it will get its wish because it has a majority.

Instead of obeying the democratic rules of our Parliament and making sure that everyone, in the House as well as in committee, can express their views on important topics, thus allowing the voices of Canadians all across the country to be heard, this government seems to work in a bulldozer fashion. The situation is totally unacceptable.

I want to believe that the date on the letter is a mistake; I want to believe it. I would tell you that, for the good of our democracy, if my Liberal counterparts told me that the letter was not sent and that it was a simple dating error, I would almost believe it, because this manner of doing things is so absurd to me. I hope we will be able to find a solution. It seems to me that the proposal put forward by Mr. Rayes makes total sense.

We are talking about an important measure. I would even say that it's about a revolution in the way we do things and in the way we invest in infrastructure. Notwithstanding this letter and the quagmire in which we find ourselves currently, the fact that the committee was given so little time to examine the project constitutes, for all intents and purposes, a form of contempt for members and our role as the voice of Canadians. It is totally unacceptable that the committee was not permitted to properly examine the issue and that it was imposed in such a bulldozer fashion.

It is therefore with pleasure that I will support Mr. Rayes' motion calling for more time or, rather, calling on our committee to write to the Standing Committee on Finance to ask for more time. You see that we are putting on kid gloves to do something that should be a right, and not a privilege. It is the role of the opposition to ask questions, and thank God, in our democratic system, the people also elect members of the opposition to demand accountability from the government. That is the first responsibility of both opposition parties: to make sure the government, regardless of its political stripe, is accountable for its decisions and respects the democratic process that allows us to show this accountability.

Currently, the government is pushing the envelope on arrogance even further by eliminating the responsibility of the opposition and taking away our right to speak and even our right to propose amendments. We know very well that when we propose an amendment in committee, we must have solid arguments to change the government's mind and shift the pendulum. It's our role, it's our responsibility, to develop solid arguments to show a) and b), in point form, our position. It does happen that the government faces the facts with well-supported arguments. However, when we don't even have the opportunity to propose an amendment, which could very well be rejected by a majority Liberal government, as allowed by the rule book, I will say that we are no longer following the rules of the House at all.

Allow me of making an analogy between hockey and our current situation: we are at the Stanley Cup finals and it's the third period, there is still no score. But there are no longer any referees on the ice.

I think it is your responsibility, Mr. Chair, to ensure that we have the required time to discuss this motion, which you have indeed done well.

I hope that I have shown, with these arguments, the necessity of following the process, regardless of the outcome and the results of the amendments we wish to submit.

I will end it here for now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Aubin.

Mrs. Block, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess I need some clarification. I know that when this legislation, these clauses, were referred to our committee, there were motions to add additional time to the meeting, which were perhaps not tabled, but I would venture to state that as with any other piece of legislation that may be referred to this committee, it is understood that the committee would undertake a study of the legislation, hear from witnesses, and then contemplate any amendments that any member might want to make to those clauses that were referred to committee.

It is my understanding that we heard from witnesses, the meeting was adjourned, and there was absolutely no opportunity to bring forward amendments. In fact, there was no attempt made to even discuss whether or not there would be any amendments coming forward from any of the members of the committee. I think that in itself is egregious when we're dealing with a piece of legislation that's been referred to us. Perhaps there is not an understanding that we look at the legislation, hear from witnesses, and then seek to understand whether or not anybody at the table believes there should be an amendment.

I recognize there was an unwillingness to lengthen the study. It was felt that all we needed was two hours to study this issue which, as my colleague has pointed out, is worth $35 billion with many, many questions surrounding it. That first point is one that really does need to be remedied.

The second point would be that this letter, obviously dated for tomorrow, was not copied to any of the members of the committee. I did not see this letter until I got here today. To make the statement that we had no recommendations or suggested amendments when there was no opportunity to do so is a further offence, as is to not send the letter to the committee.

The chair has stated that she has invited committee members to contact the parliamentary counsel, but we were not made aware that this was even within our purview. I was not at the meeting on Tuesday. I'm a member of the committee, but I did not receive this letter to know that I needed to do that by tomorrow.

Those are the three points I would make. I'm not sure how we remedy this situation, but I certainly want to get my comments on the record. I have to agree with Mr. Aubin that unfortunately, this is yet another indication of the government's attempt to control what's happening in committees and to ram through legislation that it doesn't really want to take the time to understand or to hear from witnesses and opposition parties on as to whether or not there need to be changes made.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll end there.

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

Thank you, Mrs. Block.

Mr. Fraser, you have the floor.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate where members of the opposition are coming from, and I do admit that there's some ambiguity, specifically with the date here. I'd like to suggest that this is not some grand scheme or anything intentional. Like you, Ms. Block, I was not familiar with this letter before today.

I think the paragraph that seemed to give Monsieur Rayes some real concern was the one about the committee's not having recommendations. I think that could be taken to mean that the chair hasn't received them. We had set aside a meeting because of the time constraint to get this to the finance committee for the 19th to deal with it. I assume the chair has included language to that effect, because she didn't receive recommendations on behalf of the committee.

If members of the opposition do have proposed amendments, I would encourage them to send them to the parliamentary counsel and legislative clerk, as is outlined in the final paragraph.

I know this is a contentious piece of legislation. We've heard witnesses here. We've had the minister here. We've debated the infrastructure bank specifically for one full day in the House as the result of an opposition motion, and it's come up a number of times over the course of the debate on BillC-44.

Although there may be disagreement, and I understand there is disagreement, I've heard evidence in our committee and argument in the House that convinces me that this infrastructure bank belongs in the budget implementation act, and I'm personally supportive of it.

Although there is a procedural difficulty with the dates in Mr. Rayes' motion, the motion is a request to add time to conduct the study. I personally don't feel that extra time is necessary because I feel we have on the table what we need to satisfy me that this is a good idea that is going to help the communities I represent.

I do appreciate that this is a point of disagreement, but I would ask, as a sign of good faith, that we don't take this letter to be some piece of malfeasance by our ordinary chair because I sincerely do not believe that was her intention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I simply move to adjourn the debate.

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

Thank you.

As I have learned from last time: we must immediately put the motion to adjourn to a vote.

(Motion agreed to.)

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

Normally, after a motion to adjourn is adopted, we move on to the next issue on our agenda. We currently have two options. It's not exactly standard to the agenda, according to the convening notice, but that will be up to the committee to decide. The period given to witnesses was supposed to end at 12:30 p.m., and we were supposed to be in closed proceedings since then. Logically, the next item on the agenda is to proceed, behind closed doors, to the instructions for the drafting of the project report. However, as we have asked the witnesses to stay, I cannot give priority to one element or another. I will therefore let the Committee members decide on the next step.

Mr. Badawey raised his hand first, then Mr. Rayes.

You have the floor, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It has been 20 minutes, so I would like to now carry on with what we started, with questions for the witnesses. I believe you have the speaking order—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

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

There is a point of order, Mr. Badawey.

Mrs. Block, you have the floor.

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

Do we not have to vote on the motion that was tabled?

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

No. We must immediately pass to the next item on the agenda. Mr. Rayes' motion will not be put to a vote because the debate was adjourned. According to the procedure and the verifications we made last time, we must pass to the next issue on the agenda.

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

So, when will my motion be put to a vote?

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

You did not ask for the floor, Mr. Rayes.

I will give the floor to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's a dilatory motion.

If I may continue, as I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we actually continue on with the dialogue and the questioning of the witnesses which we were diverted from 20 minutes ago.

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

So we have a proposition from Mr. Badawey.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like some clarifications on this situation. I bring out the fact that I have a clear feeling of being gagged. I want to know what will happen to my motion.

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

Mr. Rayes, before you take the floor, I would like to know why, specifically if you are raising a point of order or if you want to discuss the proposition that we resume talks with the witnesses. If it's a point of order, it's not the same thing. We are currently discussing Mr. Badawey's proposition.

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

Mr. Chair, I raise a point of order.

I want to know what is happening with regards to my motion. You speak of adjournment, but I don't understand this technicality. I would like for the clerk to elaborate on the topic.

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

At the moment, Mr. Rayes, we must continue with the issues as prepared on the agenda. You may put forth your questions to the clerk immediately after, but as for me, I will follow the agenda. It is our responsibility.

Do you want to raise a point, Mr. Aubin?