Transport Committee on May 4th, 2021

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First of all, just speaking to the motion as a whole, obviously I believe that Mr. Fillmore's amendment is giving a far more appropriate length of time for the production of any documents, but I am still extremely disturbed about the whole idea of this motion.

It just seems to be something that will interfere with the workings of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and has the potential to disrupt a deal that is good for Ontario, as we've heard from officials from the Government of Ontario. That deal seems to have all sorts of benefits potentially for ratepayers, and is essentially something that should not be jeopardized in any way.

I am extremely disturbed that this motion has been put forward, and the very least we could do.... As Mr. El-Khoury has said, the translation of what will doubtless be thousands and thousands of documents just seems like an incredibly onerous exercise, with a goal that could jeopardize what seems, to me, to be an excellent opportunity for completing this particular initiative of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek.

Mr. Scheer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I know that we heard some of these arguments at the last meeting. It's not going to surprise members that I'm not swayed by Liberal members who are advocating for secrecy around this deal. The only shareholder in the Canada Infrastructure Bank is the Canadian government—it's the Canadian taxpayer. The government is right to say this is the first of its kind, because the Canada Infrastructure Bank has so far been unable to complete a single project; and as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has told us, the projects that it has announced so far do not include private sector money.

Now, here we have a situation where the bank is subsidizing a project that will primarily benefit a private company that is owned by another company, Fortis Inc., which made $9 billion in revenue and paid out over $800 million to its shareholders. I don't need to repeat the staggering financial position of Fortis Inc. It's in a very positive position in terms of cash flow, in terms of revenue, in terms of bragging about increasing its dividend every year; and it decided not to put any extra money into this proposal.

Ms. Jaczek talked about how this project is going to be so good for Ontario. The Ontario government hasn't put any money into this project. If the Ontario government has decided not to put its skin in the game, what does that tell us about the project? The problem here is that we don't know a lot of details about it. I think it's incumbent upon this committee to have that detail.

This amendment is about the timeline. I'm looking at the calendar, and I think 45 days puts us awfully close to the end of the parliamentary session. I think it's very important that this committee have this data before the House rises, before the government can get out of, or dodge this, so to speak. If there are things that come out of this deal that opposition parties, or even government backbenchers, decide they'd like to know more about, we lose so many parliamentary tools at our disposal.

I'm willing to meet the government. I think Mr. Bachrach had an idea last week of 30 days. That is eminently possible. I know the government's trying to talk about how much work this will be for translators and how much documentation could be provided. We've all been at committee or heard about other work done by committees where they have had much tighter timelines on much bigger projects. The House of Commons translation staff is excellent. It has very quick turnaround times.

We're not talking about digging back into the archives. This is not a cold-case file exercise where we have to find the keys to the basement and go downstairs with the flashlight and dust off the microfiche machines. This is a current project. All of this information would be on deposit, at the CIB. They've just gone through whatever work they have done to approve this project.

I think the need for a longer timeline is a complete red herring. I think 30 days is eminently reasonable. It does give the bank more time. As I said at the last meeting, if the Infrastructure Bank comes back to this committee with a compelling reason that it hasn't been able to fulfill this order, or if the translation staff at the House of Commons tells this committee that there's some impediment to meeting that deadline, then this committee can evaluate that. But I would like to stick to the 30-day deadline so that we can ensure that we get this information back before the House rises.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

I was going to make many of the same points, and perhaps in the interest of time and of getting to the vote on the amendment, I will just say that we have no idea how many documents there are. I'm not sure what the basis is of the suggestion that it's going to take a lot of time because there are a lot of documents. If the department comes back and needs more time because they're wading through thousands and thousands of documents, I think the committee would be happy to consider their concerns in that regard. Like Mr. Scheer said, I think the timeline seems simple based on my short experience here. We're obviously not of one mind, and we've heard the different perspectives around the table. My preference would be that we move to a vote on the amendment and try to get back to our meeting and hearing from the witnesses we had scheduled.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

We're doing our best here. We climbed down from our first attempted amendment last week of 60 days, and 20 days is just patently unreasonable. I don't think I've ever seen a document order of 20 days in my six years in this place.

Really, what we're talking about.... We're fiddling at the margins here, I would say, because what's really at stake here is the motion itself. The motion itself is asking the Infrastructure Bank to break the law. It's putting officials at the bank in the position of asking them to break the law, to break their own governing statutes.

It's a thing that we should not be doing, as a committee. I think it's going to reflect poorly, at the end of the day, on the way we are perceived and our ability to understand and execute our jobs in a responsible way at this committee. It's putting all the staff, both at the CIB and the committee staff, in an extremely unfair and awkward position. Frankly, the motion is an embarrassment and it should be an embarrassment for all of us. That's what really is at stake here.

We've tried to come down from 60 days to 45, to try to find an incremental way forward through the thicket of this motion, but please, you must try to meet us somewhere on this path through the thicket.

I understand Mr. Bachrach is ready for a vote and Mr. Scheer is ready for a vote. I see that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has his hand up. I should certainly love to hear his opinion on this before we proceed to a vote. I see Mr. Iacono has his hand up.

I think we just have to have an opportunity to hear a few more perspectives and, I hope, some common sense on this.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

I'm going to move on to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, go ahead.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I must say that I listened to the comments of the other committee members and I was intrigued by the arguments for providing more time.

At the most recent committee meeting, it seemed to me that we agreed on 30 days. I must admit that, if we had asked for three days, I wouldn't have minded. If it's impossible, the public servants will tell us. They'll tell us the time required to achieve the result.

Ultimately, no matter how many days it takes, we can always talk again. If it's impossible, we'll need to look at how to arrange things and obtain the required documents.

I don't see any issues. However, I gather from Mr. Fillmore's comments that, regardless of the number of days, it will be an issue for him.

Why are we discussing the number of days? We're talking about the motion, not the number of days and the time frame.

Mr. Chair, I would like us to vote on the motion so that we can move on to the real business, rather than getting bogged down with the number of days. Ultimately, we'll need to live with the production capacity of our public servants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start off by saying that this feels like a fishing expedition and we have no idea what we're fishing for, and for what reason. We're just putting on this motion to go and get documents—great—but I have a question. Who is going to pay for this? Mr. Scheer, are you going to be paying for the translation of all these documents? Are you or your party going to pay for all this translation, and for having people work excess hours in the limited days you want these documents to be provided to you, or are you going to just throw this on taxpayers?

I'd rather use money in a more productive way than to just go out on a fishing expedition, requesting documents, having no valid reason as to why we are requesting all these documents. Then they have to be translated. You seem to forget that there is a cost. Aren't you concerned about taxpayers and the cost of all this to taxpayers, to Canadians? You're just concerned with going on a fishing expedition and forgetting that somebody has to pay for this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

I have some hands up here now. Is there anybody who has their hand up just because they haven't taken it down? Do you all want to speak again?

Mr. Bachrach, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, and Mr. Scheer, you all want to speak again, I'm assuming. Good.

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

I'd rather go to the vote, Mr. Chair, but if people are going to keep talking....

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I'm going to go back to Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead.

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

It seems as though we're going down a bit of a rabbit hole. To suggest that the cost of having the CIB officials provide the documents is the primary driving concern here is just not reasonable. Looking at the Liberal obstruction of other committees and the costs that has caused for the taxpayers of Canada, I think we would most happily tally up those costs for comparison.

Mr. Fillmore's assertion that we're asking the CIB officials to do something that is illegal, I think, is patently untrue. The law clerk has written, “there can be no doubt that, as a matter of law, the power of a House committee to order the production of documents prevails over the seemingly contrary provisions of a statute, including the Privacy Act.” We're actually asking them to follow the law, and that law requires them to produce documents if the committee so orders.

I think this is clearly a reasonable motion. There seems to be some appetite for compromise on the timeline, and I would certainly be happy to support something along the lines of 30 days. As soon as we go to 45 days, we're not going to see those documents before the end of the session. It really goes against the purpose of trying to get these answers, which the Canadian public deserves. We've seen these damning reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and I think very much the Canadian public deserves to know how these deals are structured and what value the taxpayers are getting.

I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, but I'm very eager to get to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Before I go to Mr. Scheer, members of the committee, would you mind if I excused the witnesses?

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

Unless they find us entertaining....

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Clerk, could you excuse the witnesses, please?

Mr. Scheer, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like Mr. Bachrach, I will keep my remarks brief because I am anxious to get to the vote on this. I have never heard an argument so ridiculous as the one I just heard from Mr. Iacono. I mean—stop the presses, everyone—this is the first time a member of the Liberal government has been concerned about efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. By that logic, we'd save a lot of money on translation if we didn't even allow Parliament to hold the government to account, but of course we've seen this government try to do that. The first thing this government did during the pandemic was try to write itself unprecedented powers, sidelining the role of the opposition. We saw why when we saw the various scandals that came out through the WE contracts and things like that. This is just ridiculous.

Parliament's provision of oversight on government departments and agencies is essential. That is the core function of this Parliament. We come together to provide accountability for how the dollars that are entrusted to us are spent. That is the very essence of the House of Commons, dating back over almost a thousand years of parliamentary tradition now.

We've seen this bank waste so much money already. It lost over $500 million last year and it hasn't completed a single project. This argument about the cost of translation is just a red herring.

Congratulations, Mr. Iacono, you got me to bite on it. I just couldn't let it go. What an insult to every parliamentarian, everyone who shows up to fight for our constituents to ensure that their tax dollars are treated with respect and only spent in their interest. That's what this motion is about. If there's nothing to see here, if everything is fine, this committee will come to that conclusion, but it's essential that we provide that kind of oversight.

With that, I won't engage again on this debate, Mr. Chair. I think, as Mr. Bachrach said, we may as well come to a vote on the timeline here and then we can resume debate on the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Barsalou-Duval for his comments. I think we're seeing a little movement on the timeline, but before I come back to the timeline and maybe a vote, I want to raise something in the motion that Monsieur Barsalou-Duval would perhaps be concerned about. It is the requirement to have the documents produced in two official languages.

This committee and the opposition parties have placed a lot of emphasis on ensuring that all parts of the federal government respect the official languages obligations. In fact, just last week, the Conservative Party raised this issue during question period. Last Thursday, the Conservative member for Richmond—Arthabaska raised a complaint about committee documents being in English only. This is directly tied to the 20 days, 30 days, 45 days and 60 days.

Our government agrees that we should absolutely be respecting our official languages obligations. There has been some confusion during this debate, I think, about how this motion could possibly respect those obligations. There has been a suggestion that the CIB could be allowed to provide the documents in English only, and then the committee staff would translate them.

Colleagues, given the breadth of this sprawling motion, we're talking about hundreds—in fact, probably thousands—of pages of documents. It would be extremely unfair and patently unreasonable to place the burden on our committee staff to provide the translation. It should be the CIB's responsibility to respond to the committee's request to have the documents in both official languages, and our responsibility as a committee is to give them enough time in that request.

I will again remind us of the Conservative Party's comments last week, specifically about the fact that committees must provide documents in both official languages, not in English only, as has happened on several occasions. There might be an amendment out there to make sure that the documents come in both official languages. However, the need to have them in both official languages is tied to the timeline as well, so I would like to come back to the point of the timeline.

The government is willing to try perhaps 40 days. We might find some traction on this. I hope you get the message that we are trying to find a path forward, as I said, that is fair to the people who support us on this committee so professionally and who work so hard, that is fair to the CIB officials and that is respectful of fair and reasonable process.

I'm happy to move to a vote on the motion. Should it fail, I'll immediately try again with an amendment of 40 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Just to be clear, regardless of the intent with respect to translation, obviously we would need it, and regardless of where you think documents go, they all go to the translation bureau. Essentially, that's where the documents will go to be translated.

I will now go to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, go ahead.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to address the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Iacono. I must confess that I was deeply shocked, if not scandalized, to learn that the reason for not wanting to pass the motion is that it would cost too much to correct and translate the documents.

I expected that a member from Quebec would never object to having documents in French. I'm also surprised. I don't think that we're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars, but about a few people who will be working on the translation of documents. I find it interesting that my colleagues around the table assume that the documents would be in English. In my view, the fact that they make this assumption is further evidence that this country operates primarily in English, and not in French. I also expected that these documents might be produced in French and that they would require translation into English. However, it seems that this is more the exception than the rule, Mr. Chair.

I don't know whether my colleague would like to retract or apologize for what he said, or at least clarify what he meant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, you have your hand up.

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

Mr. Chair, it seems like the compromise is 30 days if Mr. Fillmore is suggesting 45 days, and the original motion is 20 days. By my math, the mid-point is closer to 30 days. I just think we are going to end up there eventually anyway, and I would love to find some way to short-circuit it, so if this amendment fails, I would love to make an amendment changing the timeline to 30 days.