Transport Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I can tell you, based on her facial expressions, she did not appreciate what you said, but she did not interrupt you.

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

Will she—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's the kind of respect I expect every member to show each other in this room.

Thank you.

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

They heckled while I was speaking, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. O'Connell did not. If you feel you're being disrespected, please bring that to the chair, and I will take action to address it.

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

I'm bringing it to the chair right now.

I was told, as a member, as an elected official, to get out of here. I would like her admonished for telling me to get out of here. I have a right to be here. I was elected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

If that happens again and you see that the Chair has not taken action, then I will take action, because I want to defend your right to speak in this room. It is your right, Dr. Lewis.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Instead of doing that, you've decided to do exactly what you are now complaining about against Ms. O'Connell. I'm not going to tolerate that in this room. I will make sure that nobody else speaks when you speak. When Ms. O'Connell speaks, I will make sure she has the right to speak. That's the way we're going to work things in this room.

Can we proceed? We have important work to do today. She has the floor. If you'd like to speak again, I will gladly put your name down after Mr. Strahl's.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like an opportunity to respond to you.

Mr. Chair, I was elected by the residents of Haldimand—Norfolk to be in this room and to defend taxpayers, and another member told me, an elected official, to get out of here, saying that I don't have a place in this room. She came and she has disrespected not only Canadian taxpayers but the entire constituency of Haldimand—Norfolk, by telling an elected official to get out of the committee room. I was told to get out of here.

I would like her admonished for that unparliamentary behaviour before we proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Dr. Lewis, if you heard those words coming out of her mouth, which I did not, your recourse is to call a point of order and say, “Mr. Chair, this was said to me and I would like the following action to be taken.” That was not done. In the future, please bring that to my attention. You know that I highly respect you. I respect all members in this room, and I will make sure that everybody has the right to speak and nobody is insulted nor the constituents that they represent.

We will continue. I will provide the floor to Ms. O'Connell, and I ask that everyone to please respect one another during the proceedings of this meeting.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.

I find the outbursts absolutely insane. I sit here and have to listen to the fact that I am questioned for my presence here today, and then we hear an outburst about the comments that Dr. Lewis made to me the second I responded to this motion. It's a constant silencing of opinions that differ from the Conservative Party. That's what we are continuing to see. I won't be silenced. The member opposite can make all the fuss she likes. That's not going to stop me from speaking my mind on the merits of this motion.

The fact is that the merits of this motion are ridiculous because we have witnesses sitting here right now. The member opposite referred to Minister LeBlanc's apparent refusal to appear and answer any questions. In fact, Mr. Chair, I sat here while Dr. Lewis asked—or perhaps it was one of her colleagues—the minister if he would appear at this very committee in which he was appearing.

He said that he was able to, except for the fact he has no knowledge of the contract decisions made by McKinsey, so he would have nothing to offer the committee with respect to the information it was requesting. That is not saying he refuses to appear and refuses to answer questions. He is simply providing the committee with an opportunity to utilize its time with the most appropriate witnesses.

I'm sure that Conservatives remember how they treated committees and witnesses when they were in power. It is quite ironic to then say.... When a minister rightly says that the Infrastructure Bank is arm's length, that he had no dealings with how contracts were decided and that we'd be better suited to invite other witnesses.... Those other witnesses are sitting here today, and instead of actually asking questions of those appropriate witnesses, they decide to make a big fuss, create clickbait and create a scandal where one doesn't exist.

Mr. Chair, they refuse to take yes for an answer.

I understand we have six witnesses ready for next Tuesday. We have witnesses here today. We have additional witnesses that have been invited. To point out the member opposite's own ridiculousness with this motion, as the motion is being read into the record, the member opposite is making amendments to her own motion.

That should demonstrate to Canadians how ridiculous this process is. This is nothing more than an opportunity to divert the time and attention that this committee should be spending on the very real issues that Canadians are talking about, like climate change and resilient infrastructure. I don't know, perhaps the Conservative Party still doesn't believe climate change is real and, therefore, they don't think there is a need for a study about the resilient infrastructure that this government should be investing in and that there is no merit to that. Instead, they decide to take on a study that, by the way, Mr. Chair, OGGO has already studied.

OGGO actually heard from a variety of these very same witnesses and talked about the very same contracts. The members opposite could also just read the blues from OGGO to get the very same testimony.

That's fine. All members agreed to take this on. The witnesses are lined up. More witnesses are invited. More are scheduled, but Conservatives instead want to create a fake scandal where one doesn't exist, suggesting this committee is not fully prepared to listen, talk about these things and ask questions.

Remember, this study is not about facts. It's not about reality for the Conservatives. It's about clickbait. It's about a scandal where one doesn't exist. They already have the information. OGGO already realized that really there was no.... What's the classic Atlantic saying? The juice is not worth the squeeze.

That's what we're seeing here because OGGO already moved on from it. OGGO already studied it. OGGO already realized that they got all of the information they needed and moved on.

The Conservatives need additional clickbait. They don't want to talk about climate change. They don't want to talk about the infrastructure that needs to be built in this country. They don't want to talk about the things that I think most members want to talk about. They want to recycle. The one thing they believe in regarding climate change is recycling scandals that don't exist. That's what we're seeing here today.

If we want to ask those questions, that's fine. Witnesses are here. Let's redo the OGGO study for all members who are interested. Let's take away time from talking about infrastructure or other transport issues to redo that OGGO study with witnesses. Let's have the Conservatives create their clickbait instead of asking questions, because, let's be honest, they're not really interested in the facts. Their minds are made up.

Why ask questions of the witnesses who are here today? Instead, create that clickbait. Create that scandal that doesn't exist. Create some fake outrage about my comments and my being here. Suggest that I don't have a right to be here and that I'm only here to disrupt.

It's unfortunate that pointing out the hypocrisy in the Conservative Party and the Conservative members equals they don't want me here. That's fine. I don't take it personally. I just see that, whenever they're challenged with reality, the Conservatives are going to act in a way such that they can no longer conduct themselves in a professional manner in this committee.

Mr. Chair, I think that the best course forward is to continue with this meeting, allow the witnesses to answer the very legitimate questions that the committee members may have and allow the study to continue, like I said, with six witnesses next Tuesday. I'm assuming there are more that the clerk can update us on.

Leave the theatrics and the fake outrage of the Conservatives for their Twitter and Facebook followers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. O'Connell.

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Strahl.

Before I do that, Madam Clerk, do you want to share the names of the members who are appearing? It might help guide our discussions.

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

On May 9, we will have the Council of Canadians appearing, as well as the Honourable Catherine McKenna, Tamara Vrooman and Toby Sanger. I'm still waiting for Andrew Pickersgill. Robert Palter from McKinsey & Company will appear on the 11th.

I have heard from some others, who are saying that they can't appear on the suggested date, but they would be willing to appear on another date if we find one. They include Janice Fukakusa and probably Andrew Pickersgill, if we want him to appear after Mr. Palter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Clerk.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

He will be followed by Mr. Bachrach, then Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today. I hope we'll have the opportunity to hear from them very soon. If we don't have time to hear from them, I hope we'll have an opportunity to invite them back.

With respect to Ms. Lewis' motion, I must say that I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories, but I too sent a list of witnesses to the clerk and they all declined the invitation, with one exception. So I share the disappointment of my Conservative colleagues. I would have loved to see these witnesses. If they couldn’t come last week or today, at least they could come later, so we could do the work we need to do in this committee.

I won't start doing the same thing as my colleagues, but I think it's unfortunate that my colleagues are making very long interventions, which means that the time we have goes very quickly. We're wasting valuable time that could be put to good use.

So I'm going to move quickly to my amendment to Ms. Lewis' motion. I hope my colleagues will support it. It is to add the names of the witnesses I had proposed, but who declined the invitation: Annie Ropar, chief administrative officer at the Canada Infrastructure Bank; Steven Robins, head of Strategy at the Canada Infrastructure Bank; Aneil Jaswal, director of Sector Strategies at the Canada Infrastructure Bank; and Bill Morneau, former Minister of Finance.

I hope we can get back to work and be productive as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

I have Mr. Badawey, followed by Ms. O'Connell.

I just want to add to your point, Mr. Bachrach, or to clarify. Because we knew we wouldn't have the witnesses for this Thursday, we actually have moved to begin Mr. Chahal's study on sustainable and resilient infrastructure. The clerk has done an exemplary job of trying to secure witnesses for that. I think we're already at three or four, and we're going to be picking up the phone to try to get more so we don't lose, as you said, the important time of this committee.

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

I mentioned it only 20 seconds ago. Our clerk is incredible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There have been thorough discussions with Dr. Lewis over the weekend trying to make this work out.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey, followed by Ms. O'Connell.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity.

The first thing I'll say is that I appreciate the efforts of OGGO. They had 11 meetings, I believe, on this issue, with a lot of content, I'm sure, gathered throughout those 11 meetings. Mr. McCauley, from the Conservatives, as well as Mr. Barrett, Ms. Block and Ms. Kusie, along with the Liberals and the NDP deserve a lot of credit for bringing a lot of the information forward.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the clerk, I am hoping that we would have the opportunity to collect some of that information to complement what we are going to accrue over the next three meetings.

Other than that, my interest right now is with the two individuals who took their valuable time to come here today. I am hoping we can deal with this motion and move on with the meeting so that we can hear from the two witnesses and do the work we should be doing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

We'll have a final word from Ms. O'Connell, because I don't see any other hands up.