Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We've heard this “trying to create a scandal where one doesn't exist” before. I recall hearing that before the SNC-Lavalin scandal. We were told to just shut our mouths, to trust the government and that everything was fine. We know how that turned out.
I do think there is a bit of gaslighting here when a member tells Conservatives that they're being silenced while saying that these are conspiracy theories. We're telling another female member of Parliament to stop making a fuss, referring to them as being insane, the ridiculousness of this all, etc.
This is, quite frankly, an attempt to shut down a legitimate motion that is in order and was tabled before this committee as a result of.... In the middle of last week, we had to cancel the Thursday meeting because no one would agree to come to participate in this study. Subsequent to that, Dr. Lewis wrote a letter to the chair and the clerk outlining our concern with that. She raised the matter in the House and raised the matter by motion, and suddenly there were a lot of people who had said no now saying yes. Forgive me, quite frankly, for saying that we should have trusted the process and allowed it to go on. We saw where that was leading.
Quite frankly, I understand that the Liberals don't want to go down this road and are going to oppose this motion, but there will be a time—I know they never believe it—when they are on this side of the table, and they will want parliamentary committees to be respected. They will want the supremacy of Parliament to be respected. They will expect ministers who are accountable who are the responsible person for entities like the Canada Infrastructure Bank to be accountable and to present themselves.
We have a case where the governance website of the Canada Infrastructure Bank makes it very clear that the bank is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Infrastructure. That is the accountability mechanism that parliamentarians have. Minister LeBlanc said he wouldn't come to the committee the last time he was here, but he did say that he would make sure that the CEO appears. He was already talking about directing traffic. I guess it would have been good. Maybe we could have called up the minister, and he could have directed which of the other Infrastructure Bank witnesses appeared. To have a minister of the Crown who is the responsible minister for the Canada Infrastructure Bank set the tone.... He set the tone when he said he would not come. Surprise, surprise—numerous other people affiliated with the bank said that they too had nothing to add.
Yes, the dynamics have changed dramatically since Dr. Lewis took action, since she moved her motion, since she indicated that we would be bringing forward a motion to summon those witnesses who had declined without a reason. A minister of the Crown has a complicated schedule, we understand that. When the invitation is declined, that's not the same as, “I will see when I can make time.”
Yes, we will acknowledge that there has been a shift in the witness list since Dr. Lewis took action. Had she not, we would be cancelling additional meetings as we are cancelling a meeting on this study on Thursday.
I know this will fall on deaf ears on the Liberal side, but there is a time to recognize the precedent we are setting. If we set a precedent where witnesses in a complicated study, in a tough study, who get called to talk about things they don't really want to talk about....
Imagine if we had had our study following the debacle that was the Christmas travel season and the airlines had said to this committee, “Pound sand; we're not coming”. The outrage from all members of this committee would have been palpable. We would not have tolerated it. We would not have tolerated the airlines, airports and others who were responsible for that debacle refusing to come here to answer to Canadians.
To suddenly just say that now it's okay, because this is something the government does not wish to talk about, I think sends a really chilling precedent, quite frankly. The minister can come and say that he doesn't want to talk about it, and suddenly all the people underneath him are giving the same answer.
The minister should be here. That shouldn't be in question. He might think he has nothing to add, but it's not up to him to make that determination. He's been invited. He's the minister responsible. We expect him to be here. I know that we can't compel the minister to come, but strongly urging him to come is I think the least we can do.
I appreciate that Dr. Lewis's motion and her words in the House have gotten results, but we're not all the way there yet. We need to move this motion. We can amend it for those who have already agreed. We'll get to the questions today. We have a two-hour meeting. Don't worry, but this is the sort of thing where Parliament has to stand up for itself, because no one else will do it for this committee. If this committee doesn't stand up for itself and say that, when we extend an invitation, you might not be available, but you don't get to just decline, especially when you're part of an entity that is part of the government apparatus, as the bank is.
We hope we will get support to move forward with this. As the chair knows, there was a very bleak outlook here just a week ago. Yes, things have shifted, but that is not by accident. That is because of the actions we've taken to assert our authority to signal to those witnesses that we intend to proceed with this study in a way that is beneficial to this committee and to all Canadians.
I'd be happy to support Dr. Lewis's motion.