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.