Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I do hope we can hear from our witnesses at some point today.
With regard to the motion before us, I think the Conservatives make a decent point, which is that these witnesses were recalcitrant until this motion landed and, all of a sudden, they have expressed a desire to accommodate the committee. My concern is that, if we don't support this motion, that recalcitrance will reappear and we won't see them at committee.
We're doing a study on McKinsey's role at the Infrastructure Bank. Most of the folks on this list have been closely involved in the Infrastructure Bank, so I think their testimony is eminently relevant to the topic we're discussing. I also support my colleague from the Bloc in wanting to add his witness to the list.
My bigger concern is that the committee has a pretty aggressive work schedule between now and when Parliament rises for the summer. I am concerned that we've already litigated the Canada Infrastructure Bank once and issued a report. I'll remind the committee that it was the NDP that brought forward the single recommendation that the bank be scrapped, so we're hardly doing the bidding of the Liberals on this one.
I am just worried that this is the infrastructure committee and we should be dealing with issues related to infrastructure. The issue of procurement is currently being fairly thoroughly discussed at another committee that is focused on procurement. I want to avoid this redundant fishing trip exercise that hasn't really proven to bear much fruit at the other committee. At least in my discussions with colleagues, that's their impression.
I am curious to know more about the role of McKinsey and the bank. I think that's something that's relevant to Canadians. For the reasons I already mentioned, I will support the motion going forward. However, I want to make sure that we put some sort of a cap on this study and that we don't jeopardize other studies, such as the investigation into high-frequency rail, which I think is going to be of interest to a lot of folks. It also has tie-ins to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We have other studies, including Mr. Chahal's study on climate resilient infrastructure, which I believe will be interesting.
As long as we can hold the length of the study to the envisioned four meetings.... We've already lost one meeting.
I would further suggest that, if we run into a situation again where we don't have witnesses for a meeting, instead of cancelling it, we should proceed concurrently with one of the other studies. Perhaps that means the chair might ask us to submit witnesses for those other studies so that we can have them in our back pocket and proceed as we have before in situations when witnesses haven't appeared.
I do think there are outstanding questions. We've been highly critical of the role of high-priced consultants, particularly the impact it has on the public service. I am very keen to ask questions about McKinsey's role, but I want to make sure we're not covering ground that is being covered more appropriately at OGGO currently.
I'll leave it at that, Mr. Chair, and hand the floor back to you.