Transport Committee on April 29th, 2021

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you very much.

This is an eminently reasonable committee. I'm sure that if we're getting close to the end of the 30-day period, if the law clerk or the translation services came to the committee and just said that there are so many documents here they can't manage the workload, I would certainly support hearing that. I would be inclined to support a reasonable request for an extension, so that the law clerk or the translation services don't find themselves past the deadline.

If we say 60 days, I'll take 60 days. If we say 30 days, more likely it will take 30 days. I'd far prefer giving a shorter time frame with the understanding that we could face requests for an extension based on real circumstances. That would obviously be entertained by reasonable people, especially if they came from someone of such stature as the law clerk.

Just to talk about the redactions, there are confidentiality agreements with lots of arrangements with government. Lots of legislation now enables governments to use that as an excuse to not provide details. It's essential that committees, when they feel that it's important enough, send for these types of papers and assert their parliamentary supremacy on that.

We're not talking about contracts between two private individuals or two private entities. We're talking about a contract with the government. We've seen with this government with other scandals where we've had to ignore some of those confidentiality agreements. We've had to use the committee power to compel that to shine a light on some of the scandals this government is embroiled in.

That's not to suggest that anybody at ITC or anybody at the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done anything like that so far, but if these types of crown corporations and government agencies know that Parliament and committees will not hold them accountable, that could be very detrimental to the sound management of these things down the line.

That is why the Conservatives proposed this motion to begin with, which is to send for them in an unredacted form. I believe that Mr. Bachrach has introduced a good faith effort to try to take into account some of the more reasonable concerns of Mr. Fillmore. I'm hopeful that we can find some wording around that that everyone can support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

We have come to the end of the meeting.

Because there are no more hands up, I'm going to allow the vote to happen on the amendment. With that, my intent is to adjourn the meeting. Of course, from there Mrs. Kusie would have to bring a motion up to resume debate at the next meeting.

With that—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Sorry, I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We're kind of chatting through the committee about providing some language around Mr. Bachrach's proposal to involve the law clerk. I'm not formally a member of this committee at this point, so I'm not able to move a subamendment to do that.

I wondering, just because I don't know what the rules allow, given the time, if this amendment is defeated because we don't yet have a full agreement on how the law clerk's involvement would be structured, if that would that prevent a further amendment to be brought in that might have that kind of clarity.

My suggestion would be to either adjourn the meeting now and allow those conversations to happen or give some clarity that if this amendment is defeated, it doesn't preclude another crack at it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I have two things to say. One, the motion belongs to the committee. It's on the floor. Two, regardless of whether this motion passes, another amendment can be presented at a different time. That different time would be at the next meeting, when the motion is brought back to resume the debate.

Does that clarify your thoughts?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Good.

Mr. Bachrach, you have your hand up. Again, we're running out of time. I would like to go to the vote on the amendment.

Did you have any further comments?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I hear you, Mr. Chair.

Procedurally, I'm a little bit confused as to why we're going to vote on the amendment and not on the main motion, but if that's the way it's going to go, that's at your discretion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I have to vote on the amendment so that if it does pass, the main motion would be amended. What we would be voting on when we get to the main motion is an amended main motion.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Right. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Clerk, we can call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and thank you, members of the committee.

We had a very robust discussion today. I do apologize to the witnesses or for those that are left for the time over the last half hour. Hopefully, we can get the witnesses back at a different time.

To that end, members, I do now adjourn this meeting. Have a great evening.