Transport Committee on June 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 120 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, April 18, 2024, the committee is resuming its study of the Competition Act and air travel in northern, rural and remote communities.

Before we begin, I'd like to remind all members and meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents, which can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. These new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use the black, approved earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of the meeting. When you're not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker that you will find on the table for this purpose, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has also been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. Thank you all for your co-operation.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses, colleagues.

Appearing from 11 to noon today, we have, from the Air Transport Association of Canada, Mr. John McKenna, president and chief executive officer. Welcome to you, sir.

From the National Airlines Council of Canada, we have Jeff Morrison, president and chief executive officer. Welcome back.

From North Star Air, we have Mr. Jeff Stout, president and chief executive officer. Welcome to you.

We'll turn it right over to you, Mr. McKenna, for your opening remarks.

I will give you the floor. You have five minutes, sir.

[John McKenna, President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada]

Good morning.

This year, the Air Transport Association of Canada is celebrating 90 years of representing this country's commercial air transport industry.

Our 175 members are engaged at all levels of commercial aviation and flight training in every region of Canada. Our membership ranges from very large domestic, transborder and international carriers to regional carriers, flight training organizations and the Canadian air transport support industry.

Our members offer services to all regions of this country, including to northern, rural and remote communities.

The high costs of operating air services in Canada are affected by many factors. A significant portion of these fees are charges that are added directly to the price of tickets or indirectly through fuel excise taxes, carbon taxes, airport taxes, regulatory costs, outrageous APPR compensation and charges, and non-subsidized services.

These costs combined make it impossible for airlines to offer competitive services in Canada, compared to other markets or other modes of transportation.

It is fair, however, to say that the Canadian air travellers have more options today in travel decisions as they are no longer limited to one or two airlines.

In addition to Air Canada and WestJet, today's consumers can travel with Porter Airlines and other large carriers to most major markets and cities in Canada. Greater travel options put a downward pressure on prices. The government needs to embrace even greater competition by limiting the huge barriers to entry into our market, as well as those that limit return on the investment.

The northern and remote regions of Canada are geographically large and face a different reality. The user-pay model is not and cannot be applicable to those markets. The concentration of services is sometimes the only way that service can be guaranteed, given the sparsely populated, huge territory.

The merger of First Air and Canadian North is a prime example of the consolidation of air operator resources that is needed to maintain service to small and very remote communities that depend on air service as a lifeline. That merger was key to their combined ability to provide the service needed to airports, which are a vital socio-economic link to the rest of Canada. Many airports are also important feeders of international passengers to and from major airport hubs in Canada.

Interline agreements are an option, but the government should perhaps go a step further. Many airlines linking the major Canadian hubs to the larger northern markets such as Yellowknife and Whitehorse should be strongly encouraged to also service the less lucrative, smaller, northern, outlying markets, perhaps through interline agreements.

Competition in the air transport industry can also be felt in the critical labour shortage in Canada for pilots and aircraft maintenance engineers, or AMEs. Demand for experienced pilots and AMEs is draining regional airlines of their resources.

Indeed, the demand for experienced pilots and AMEs is draining regional airlines of their resources. The larger airlines in Canada are hiring more pilots and AMEs than this country produces in any given year. They hire away from the regional carriers. Faced with an imminent labour drain, the regional carriers have a choice between lowering the frequency of service or cutting out routes altogether.

Therefore, ATAC considers the following basic but necessary first steps to be key to the competitiveness of Canada's aviation sector.

The government needs to reinvest at least the majority, if not all, of the aviation-generated revenues back into aviation infrastructure. This is essential to maintaining our industry. We don't stand a chance of being competitive as long as the government continues to see aviation as no more than a cash cow.

Regional aviation is a vital link in Canada’s connectivity and government investment in regional and northern air infrastructure is long overdue. The government has to recognize that the user-pay model can’t possibly work in northern, rural and remote communities as that model just can’t sustain operations in these regions that depend almost entirely on aviation.

Finally, establish a federally backed funding program for qualified Canadian students attending professional flight schools or for post-secondary institutions providing aircraft maintenance engineer programs approved by Transport Canada. This would help attract the vast number of pilots and maintenance personnel so desperately needed to address critical shortages that are seriously impacting service to Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. McKenna.

Next we'll go to Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Morrison, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

[Jeff Morrison, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Airlines Council of Canada]

Thank you for inviting me to appear before the committee, Mr. Chair.

Once again we are before this committee to discuss air travel in relation to rural, northern and remote communities.

First let me acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Anishinabe peoples.

Canada's airlines are committed to providing service to communities large and small throughout the country. Although air travel is an undisputable force for good for all Canadians, it has particular relevance for people living in rural, remote and northern areas, given its vital link in the supply chains, its relevance for tourism, and that air travel of course is often the only viable link to the outside world.

NACC member airlines provide service to all provinces and operate over 50 airports in Canada outside the tier one, or top eight largest airports. Many of Canada's 24 domestic carriers also provide specialized regional service. I believe Mr. Stout will likely speak more to that.

As I said when I was here a few weeks ago, NACC's vision of a competitive air travel system is one in which all carriers, large and small, have the same opportunities to succeed. Having said that, I will reiterate some of the key challenges to competitiveness that I spoke of before this committee and what you've heard from other witnesses, including Mr. McKenna, in the context of rural, remote and northern service.

You've heard repeatedly about the negative impacts that the high cost of third party fees and charges inherent in Canada's user-pay system have on the competitiveness of Canada's air travel system, a fact that is exacerbated when seen through the lens of rural, remote and northern regions. With lower populations and lower margins, providing comprehensive and affordable service to regional and remote communities is an ongoing challenge, but, as our northern carrier colleagues expressed to you last week, this is compounded by such high user charges as airport rents, air navigation fees, fuel excise charges, the 33% increase in the air service charge implemented last month, and so forth.

By the way, this is not just the opinion of Canada's airlines. Our American counterpart, Airlines for America, has informed this committee that since 2019 there has been a 38% reduction in American carriers flying to tier two—or smaller—airports in Canada, with the high cost burden cited as the top reason.

Anecdotally, I just got back yesterday from the IATA annual general meeting in Dubai, and I can share with you that Canada's reputation as a high-cost jurisdiction is something that I heard more than once.

Airport infrastructure is another challenge disproportionately impacting rural, remote and northern communities. For example, aircraft may not be able to land at smaller airports in the case of inclement weather, because they may not have the required lighting requirements, which compounds potential disruptions. We heard at the recent accessibility summit that meeting the needs of passengers with accessibility challenges can be more challenging at smaller airports due to their inability to upgrade infrastructure.

You heard last week about the challenges northern airports face in meeting infrastructure and safety requirements within the confines of a strict user-pay system. As we've said before to this committee, can it really be considered user-pay when the federal government takes out over $400 million per year more in airport rents than it reinvests back into the system?

Another point is that many stakeholders, including many non-airline entities, have been clear that if the APPR regulations, as proposed by the CTA in July 2023, are implemented, they would have a negative impact on regional and remote connectivity. Canada's Atlantic premiers, rural airports, unions, smaller municipalities—including communities from my home region of northern Ontario, as represented by the Northern Ontario Large Urban Mayors caucus—have publicly expressed these concerns. Many of these concerns over regional connectivity have mostly been in response to the proposed regulations released in July 2023. They don't even yet focus on the cost recovery component of the APPR reform, which will drive costs even higher and put regional connectivity at even greater risk.

These concerns were well captured by the Atlantic Canada Airports Association, which said, “Increased regulatory demands including penalties, cost recovery mechanisms and other penalties will burden airlines with higher operational costs, potentially translating to escalated ticket prices for air travellers and reduced regional connectivity.”

Mr. Chair, since I last appeared before this committee just a few weeks ago, the Competition Bureau of Canada has launched a consultation on the terms of reference for an upcoming market study into air travel that it will undertake. We will propose that the Competition Bureau focus its study on the competitiveness of the overall air travel system and look at how we can better balance the user-pay principle so that the negative impacts of Canada's current approach, particularly those impacts disproportionately impacting rural and remote communities, can best be addressed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to the conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison. Thank you for being here. I know that you just came off an overnight flight from Dubai, and we appreciate your presence.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Stout.

The floor is yours, sir. You have five minutes.

[Jeff Stout, President and Chief Operating Officer, North Star Air Ltd.]

Hello. Thank you for inviting me here today. My name is Jeff Stout, and I'm the president and chief operating officer of North Star Air. This is my first time engaging with parliamentarians, and it's a distinct honour to be here today.

Ottawa often seems so far away from home in Thunder Bay and from the communities we work with on a daily basis, so I'm excited to be here and share some of our insights about the north with you.

North Star Air is a unique airline to me. It's special because my father started it as a family business over 25 years ago. As a family, we've worked hard to grow this airline and ensure we could continue to serve northern communities. In 2013, when it became abundantly clear that my dream of becoming an NHL goalie was not going to happen, I joined the company as a ramp hand, loading airplanes in Pickle Lake, the northernmost road-accessible community in Ontario.

Over the last 11 years, we've grown from a team of 40 to over 320 strong and have tripled our fleet size to 21 aircraft today. As part of this journey, we finalized a deal in 2017 with the North West Company, which now wholly owns us. Our success story can be attributed to our community-minded approach. Our growth introduced competition into our markets and let community members vote with their dollars. Today, we are proud to have revenue-sharing agreements and partnerships with 12 first nations. We offer passenger service to 14 communities in northern Ontario and compete with other regional airlines on over half of those routes. We also compete with other carriers for chartered passenger aircraft services.

The rest of our services are dedicated to cargo and bulk fuel deliveries. We provide freight service, bringing fresh produce and essential retail goods to over 50 communities in northern Ontario, northern Manitoba and Nunavut. This is why the North West Company acquired us, to fill in critical logistics gaps. Although it is important to note that we operate separately and distinctly from the North West Company's stores, our freight business services all retailers, including community stores. We have competition from other providers on the majority of our routes, despite the small market size.

Operating in the north comes with substantial challenges, and I believe parliamentarians and government can help northern communities address them. Approximately 10% of our flights are cancelled before we even depart, because of infrastructure deficiencies in the north, including lack of precision approaches, the scarcity of de-icing equipment and the lack of precise weather reporting. This means our flights cannot land in bad weather conditions, which you can imagine are quite frequent in the north. Most northern airport authorities do not provide de-icing services, and storage space is limited or unavailable, which is a safety risk that seriously impacts our operations. High cancellation rates mean we must be careful about our levels of aircraft utilization. I believe this committee has heard quite a bit about the impacts of the flight and duty time regulations. Those have required us to hire 13% more pilots to maintain the same level of aircraft utilization as pre-regulation.

Other airlines are taking similar steps, thus creating a domino effect within the industry whereby more pilots are required to complete the same number of flights. This market dynamic has subsequently resulted in an increased price of operations. Over the last three years, we have seen pilot costs alone increase by over 30%. While we provide bursaries to community members interested in becoming pilots, we believe the government can do more to incentivize others to enter the profession.

My family grew this business out of a love for the north, and that guides how we operate today. We try to give back through these bursaries. We've launched a recycling program to help communities with their waste management. We have the community partnerships fund, which has resulted in tangible infrastructure and economic growth in the communities we partner with. We are fully committed to the north. Our commitment means that it is critical for us to control costs and ensure that flights land safely and on time. We are an essential lifeline for the communities we serve and want to be an enabler in social and economic prosperity in the north. This means making sure we can help people reach doctors' appointments, travel for educational opportunities, and access fresh and healthy produce.

I recognize the committee members may have questions about our unique operating environment or the challenges we face. I look forward to answering your questions and appreciate your collective interest in supporting the north.

Thank you again for this opportunity to share our story with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Stout. I would like to thank you as well for being here and lending your expertise and your guidance to us today.

We'll begin our line of questioning today with Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for coming today and for their testimony.

Mr. Chair, I would like to take the opportunity at this moment to move a motion on a very urgent matter. I tabled this motion last week, and it has been distributed to all the members of the committee in both official languages. I move:

Given that

a. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a $1-billion taxpayer fund, is under investigation by the Auditor General and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and

b. A former director of the fund, Andrée-Lise Méthot, helped to send multiple companies in which she has a financial interest millions of dollars, and despite this the government appointed her as a director to the Canada Infrastructure Bank;

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the committee order the Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide the committee, within seven days of the adoption of this motion,

a. The resignation letter of Andrée-Lise Méthot,

b. A comprehensive and detailed summary of the projects and funds that she oversaw during her time on the CIB board, and

c. Any internal communications regarding or relating to her resignation from the board;

And, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee call for the following witnesses to testify before the committee for no less than two hours each:

a. Andrée-Lise Méthot, founder and managing partner, Cycle Capital,

b. Jayne Huntley, director of appointments, PCO,

c. Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, and

d. Ehren Cory, CEO, Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to take a few moments to remark on this motion.

Sadly, it is no surprise that we see yet another instance of mismanagement and waste from the Liberal government. The Auditor General's report, released earlier this week, is truly shocking. She assessed the extent to which there were ethical violations and mismanagement at SDTC, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, what we call the government's green slush fund. According to the CBC, her report found that SDTC “violated its conflict of interest policies 90 times, awarded $59 million to 10 projects that were not eligible and frequently overstated the environmental benefits of its projects.”

This is shocking evidence of gross mismanagement by this fund and by this government. It is incumbent upon this committee to get to the bottom of this for Canadians. It is also essential that we find out how a member of the board of directors at the green slush fund, who has admitted to several of these 90 conflicts of interest involving millions of taxpayer dollars, ended up being appointed to the Liberal Canada Infrastructure Bank. It is completely unacceptable that those who repeatedly violate conflict of interest policies should be promoted to plum government positions because of their connections as Liberal insiders.

The motion I have put forward is a necessary step to ensure accountability from this government. Canadians continue to pay high carbon taxes and struggle with affording rent and groceries, while this government plays fast and loose with taxpayer dollars, appointing friends to boards who serve their own financial interests while Canadians get no environmental benefit.

Ms. Méthot is implicated in mismanaging and mishandling 42 million dollars' worth of taxpayer funds by awarding contracts to companies she had financial interests in. How is it that this government, as though it were perfectly fine to appoint her to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, does not need to answer questions?

We know that Ms. Méthot tendered her resignation from the bank in April. We have her resignation letter from the bank.

We know that the Liberal government has also been embarrassed by the revelations of this mismanagement by the fund and that they decided a week ago to abolish the green slush fund. However, none of this absolves Ms. Méthot, the Liberal government or the minister from having to answer to Canadians about what they knew, when they knew it, how this happened and how deep this corruption goes.

I am certain that the government members here on this committee will welcome and support the investigation, so that Canadians can have answers, because Canadians do indeed deserve answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

I have on the speaking list Dr.—or Mr.—Bittle.

Mr. Bittle, the floor is yours.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm definitely not “Doctor”. I know some lawyers who have gone to “juris doctor”, but I don't think we're bold enough to attempt even that.

This is a little disappointing. I'm old enough to remember when Conservatives cared about rural and remote communities, and we have witnesses here who are ready to testify and provide answers. I know Ms. Lewis represents a rural community, but she's close enough to Pearson, where I guess this doesn't matter.

What she has left out is that this has been under study by two other committees, so her pretense that this is urgent and shocking and hasn't been touched by Parliament before is a bit misleading. Even though Ms. Lewis acknowledges that the committee has received the resignation letter and a detailed summary of the projects and funds that Ms. Méthot oversaw during her time on the CIB board, her motion doesn't actually reflect that.

I really just want to hear from the witnesses. I know this committee has an agreement that studies go from party to party, and I believe the Conservative party is up next, but I believe this is best addressed by scheduling a committee business meeting. I'd like to hear from the witnesses today.

Therefore, I move that we adjourn debate, now that Ms. Lewis has her Facebook clip.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bittle.

We'll just wait for all members to return to the table.

I'll now turn it over to the clerk.

Madam Clerk, go ahead.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Carine Grand-Jean]

You're voting on the motion to adjourn the debate.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

On a point of order, I don't believe we can if there's somebody else on the list. Is there somebody else on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There's nobody on the list.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

I have Mr. Bittle and then Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'll defer to Mr. Bachrach first and put my name back on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This is an issue of concern for us, as it is for many Canadians. However, I believe the House of Commons already has some of this information in its possession, including the resignation letter. As Mr. Bittle—Dr. Bittle, rather—was saying....

We're just bugging you now, Chris. I'm sorry.

As he mentioned earlier, this committee has a long-standing practice of ensuring that each party has the ability to bring forward a study in turn. I know not every committee has that practice. If we wish to abandon the practice, I suppose that can be done at any time. It's certainly not in the Standing Orders. However, it has led to a committee that is more convivial and collaborative than most. I've certainly appreciated it, having been on the committee for four years. Last time certain members tried to double-stack studies on topics of interest for their party, there were protestations from Mr. Strahl that this was contrary to our practice as a committee, and I backed him up on that. Eventually, we got back to the practice we had. I'm happy to pursue this study, but I would note that we just finished a study on Lynx Air, which was a Conservative study.

Perhaps I'll ask Madam Clerk, through you, Mr. Chair, what the next study is that this committee plans to undertake. I understand that we have a work plan, and time is ticking down prior to the summer recess. With that information, we could decide where this falls. I'm more than happy to study this.

I would also note that this is a topic of study at the industry committee. The industry committee has already held several meetings on this topic. While there may be a desire to have every committee preoccupied with this issue, I think we can efficiently get answers for Canadians utilizing the committee that is most relevant to the issue at hand. The simple fact that she was appointed to and then resigned from the board of the Infrastructure Bank seems a bit of a tenuous connection to the mandate of our committee, which is infrastructure and transportation.

I represent a rural community. Air travel to rural Canada and northwest British Columbia is a matter of urgent concern for the people I represent, who are paying as much as $1,200 to fly between northern B.C. communities and Vancouver. This is unaffordable for many families. They want to see greater competition, lower prices and more affordability in the air sector. That's the topic we're trying to get to the bottom of today. It's something that might not be of urgent concern to urban Canadians—the folks in the big metropolitan centres who are served by several if not dozens of airlines—but it really matters to small places and to Canada's north. I'm hoping the recommendations from this report can push the government in a direction that results in better affordability for those areas.

We don't have that many meetings left before the summer break. I'm hoping that at some of our future meetings we'll hear from the witnesses I put forward, including the mayors of northwest B.C. communities. I'd love to hear from some of the smaller airlines that have tried to compete in these smaller markets and have had to exit for various reasons, so we can better understand what those reasons are.

I didn't vote to adjourn debate. I think there's a version of this that I can get on board with. That would be to carve off the piece about a study and deal with that issue at a future business meeting when we talk about the work plan for the committee. I think that's a fair approach. Simply ordering the production of the resignation letter, “a comprehensive and detailed summary of the projects and funds” and “any internal communications” is certainly relevant. As I mentioned, some of that information is already in the possession of the House of Commons.

I would move, Mr. Chair, that we amend the motion by removing all words after “her resignation from the board”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

We have a motion on the floor to amend the motion tabled by Dr. Lewis.

In response to Mr. Bachrach's inquiries about the next steps for the committee, I'll share with everyone that we still have to conclude the study we're currently working on right now on rural and remote airports.

Following that, we still have, among things to attend to, the review and clause-by-clause consideration of recommendations for the study we just left off on Tuesday about HFR.

Following that, we'll go into our normal rotation, which has the Bloc Québécois up next, followed by the NDP.

The Bloc Québécois would like to discuss the river navigation regulations, I believe. I think that is still the case.

After that, we have only one for you, Mr. Bachrach, which I believe is still on the towing vessels, if that hasn't changed.

That's where we are now. That's where we left off.

I don't think we'll be getting to either the Bloc Québécois's study or yours, Mr. Bachrach, before the fall. If we're really lucky, we'll be able to conclude this study and possibly conclude going through the HFR study.

I see your hand up, Mr. Strahl. I have added your name, so you can put your hand down.

With that, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Is Monsieur Barsalou-Duval on the list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

He is. He's after you, so it's over to you, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm willing to go to the bottom of the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have the floor, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. We will then go to Mr. Strahl, then to Mr. Biddle.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like us to have an opportunity to deal with this matter as quickly as possible so we can hear what our witnesses have to say today. They will be speaking about a subject that is extremely important: regional air transportation.

I think regional air transportation has been in crisis for many long years. The subject deserves to be given our attention and have us do it properly. It is also a matter of respect for the witnesses who are here today.

That said, I would also not want to give the impression that I think Ms. Lewis's motion is not important and the subject does not deserve our attention. For that reason, I am going to make a few comments on the motion.

I would first like to address something that others have also raised before me. Point a of the motion asks that the committee be provided with the resignation letter of Andrée‑Lise Méthot. I think that has already been done, so it may no longer be useful for it to be included in the motion. The same is true of the request set out in point b, that the committee be provided with “a comprehensive and detailed summary of the projects and funds that she oversaw during her time on the CIB board”. If I am not mistaken, that document has been provided to us. Again, it seems to me that it is no longer useful to request it.

There perhaps remains the request in point c, which may be of some use to the committee.

I would also like to raise something else. The introduction to the motion itself states that Sustainable Development Technologies Canada, or SDTC, is under investigation by the Auditor General of Canada and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. In fact, the Auditor General is not investigating at present since her investigation has been completed. This part should therefore be reworded to reflect the fact that she has submitted her report on the matter, which is in fact rather devastating regarding management of the funds.

With respect to summoning witnesses, I would need to hear further explanation regarding the reasons for inviting Mr. Dominic LeBlanc and Jayne Huntley, PCO director of appointments. I understand the reasons in the cases of Ms. Méthot and Ehren Cory. I also have a theory about the reasons for including Mr. LeBlanc and Ms. Huntley in the witness list. However, I might like to have an explanation from the people who are proposing this to help me get a better idea of the usefulness of the invitation.

There may be another point I would like to make. It seems to me that inviting each of these people, individually, for a two-hour period each, is a bit much. It also seems to me that these people might find that a bit intimidating. From what I understand, Ms. Méthot has resigned from the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the SDTC. In any event, the Sustainable Development Technology Fund is no longer managed by the SDTC; it is managed by the National Research Council Canada, or NRCC.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is currently doing an investigation. I think we are going to be looking at what the Commissioner has to say to us on this subject, but I have the impression, or rather I am afraid, that we are abusing our powers and engaging in a kind of witch-hunt, or even a kind of inquisition tribunal, that might want to launch an attack on an individual. I think that individual is entitled to defend their integrity. However, I am not opposed to the individual testifying and explaining themselves, and to us doing the work expected of the committee, but, on the other hand, there are also investigations under way.

For these reasons, it seems to me that holding one meeting that all the witnesses in question would attend would perhaps enable us to determine whether it is necessary to go any further. What concerns me is obviously that we not ostracize an individual without sufficient grounds for doing so.

Those are all my comments on the motion. On the amendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach, I am prepared to consider it, but I will continue meditating on it, because I assume other people want to speak on the subject.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Yes, Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

I propose that we suspend for five minutes and talk about this off-line rather than burning through the witnesses, because I think there is still interest in hearing from these witnesses.