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.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the witnesses for travelling here. I had some questions to ask you, but, unfortunately for you, I am going to begin by making a motion.
Imagine my surprise, when I arrived here, to learn of a letter that the chair of our committee had sent to the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance before today's meeting, although the letter is dated...
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Rayes, forgive me for interrupting, but I would like to know whether you are now using your speaking time or you are speaking to a motion. If you want to speak to a motion, you need to move it first.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
I would like to move the motion with the text you have in hand. However, I would like to make some changes to it, given that the deadlines have passed.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Thank you, Mr. Rayes.
We will distribute the text of the motion.
I am going to read the motion for the committee members:
That the Committee commit the full two hours of its Tuesday, May 16, 2017 meeting to witness testimony on the Infrastructure Bank, that the committee invite three additional witnesses to appear in the first hour of the May 16th meeting, with the Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP each proposing one witness, and that the committee write a letter to the FINA Committee to request additional time to conduct its study of the Infrastructure Bank.
The motion was received within the time allowed.
Mr. Rayes, you have the floor.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you see, there are dates that need changing. Naturally, I am requesting an amendment to the motion so that it reads: "That the Committee commit two more hours to additional witness testimony on the Infrastructure Bank before finalizing its study, and that the Committee invite three additional witnesses." I would strike the rest...
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Rayes, I am interrupting you because you cannot make an amendment to your own motion.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
You cannot do it. The motion that was introduced is the one we have to talk about today, even if, I agree, half of the motion is no longer valid.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Therefore, I will keep the end of my motion, as it is the only part that is still valid: “That the committee write a letter to the FINA Commitee to request additional time to conduct its study of the Infrastructure Bank.”
Allow me to explain this request.
I have, in my hands, a letter which is curiously dated tomorrow, Friday, May 19, 2017 but was sent yesterday to the Standing Committee on Finance. Does everyone have a copy of this letter? It is signed by our chair, who, unfortunately, is not present. What a shame, because I would have liked to hear what she has to say about this.
The letter reads as follows:
Upon your request, the Standing Committee of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook the consideration of clauses 403 to 406 (Division 18, Part 4) of Bill C-44. In doing so, the Committee heard testimony from the Canadian Electricity Association, the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the Canadian Union of Public Employees as well as officials from Infrastructure Canada and Finance Canada.
So far, everything is true.
The problem is when the chair speaks on our behalf and says the following:
I am pleased to inform you that the Committee has no recommendations….
I would like for the clerk to confirm whether we all made this decision together, as a committee. To my knowledge, this is not the case, and I do not believe I have missed any discussions about this subject.
The letter continues as follows:
… or suggested amendments for clauses 403 to 406 of Bill C-44.
I don't know whether my fellow members across the table will have the courage to confirm my statement, but I find this very peculiar. This is the first time since I became a member of Parliament that I have experienced such a situation, that someone speaks in my name, sends a letter two days before the date indicated on the letter, which is already a peculiar way of doing things, and decides for me, in the name of all the committee members, that there will be no amendments.
The letter continues:
Please note I invited Committee Members to contact the Parliamentary Counsel and Legislative Clerk assigned to bill C-44 should Members wish to draft amendments on their own initiative and to submit them directly to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance before Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5:00 p.m.
I have searched all of my emails and letter mail without finding anything in writing in either official languages offering me this possibility.
The letter concludes:
Yours sincerely.
The Infrastructure Bank is a big issue. Many witnesses were of the opinion that such a bank was premature. I will repeat what the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy official said: we are putting the cart before the horse.
I want to make clear that we are talking about $35 billion. That's 35 billion taxpayer dollars that will be used to enrich investors, for the most part foreign investors, to the detriment of Canadians. This is simply a way for the government, and therefore taxpayers, to secure the investments of these businesses or foreign investors.
Our committee chair, a Liberal member, is speaking in my name, in a letter dated tomorrow and sent yesterday, to announce that our committee will not propose any amendments. I just cannot believe it. I hope that our discussion is on the record and that it is not taking place in camera. Are we in camera? No, we are not. I want to try to highlight the inconsistency in which we find ourselves.
Conservative
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
You can't. No, that's not your call.
I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
—that I want to send to the Standing Committee on Finance....
May I continue?
Liberal
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Badawey, if I may, I would like to say a few words before giving you the floor.
Since we will most likely be discussing the motion for at least 10 minutes, I would like to have the committee's unanimous consent to thank the officials from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. I do not think it would be appropriate to keep them here needlessly. They have already been more than generous by taking the time to meet with us.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
That's what I was getting at.
The second question I was going to ask is, what are we discussing? There was a motion presented, and now there is discussion on the letter. I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman—
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Luc Berthold
Mr. Badawey, just before we begin the discussion of your point of order, I would like to excuse the witnesses. You may then continue. It is simply out of respect for those who took the time to come to meet us. It is very important that we thank them.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
If I may continue and finish my point of order, the third thing I was going to mention is, are there any more questions for the witnesses? You're making an assumption that the next round of questions may be stifled. I'm just wondering whether members of the committee have an intention to ask the witnesses any further questions before we allow Mr. Rayes to go on with his commentary.
