Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I suspect I know why the Liberals don't want to invite the minister to appear as part of the study being proposed by the Conservatives. I appreciate that they want to protect the minister, while affirming, or reaffirming, that the CIB operates at arm's length. I think they've said it enough times to convey how important that point is to them.
They may be missing the point of the motion, however, because they are focusing on the preamble, instead of the actual motion. The preamble refers to the $900,000 that the CIB paid in consulting fees, so nearly a million dollars. I assume the minister wasn't the one who granted the $900,000, but I don't know. Similarly, I assume the minister wasn't the one who decided who would get the contracts, since the CIB operates at arm's length from government.
At this point, I don't think we can lay the blame at the minister's door. We don't know the rest of the story. We need to find out how the money was spent and see the supporting documentation, obviously. The motion refers to more than just the $900,000. It refers to the project as a whole. We need only read the motion carefully to see that it refers to a study on the CIB's involvement in the Lake Erie connector project.
I don't see why the minister wouldn't meet with us to discuss the matter. The issue goes beyond the contracts and the infamous $900,000 in fees. The focus is on the Lake Erie project itself.
Basically, when is the minister notified that a project is planned or that the CIB is working on a project? How much did the minister know about the project? Did he sign off on anything related to the project? At what point does the minister have to sign off on certain things?
A lot of questions need to be asked. It is in the committee's and the public's interest to get answers to those questions, so as to better understand CIB projects and the CIB's relationship with the minister. The whole point is to help us understand just how rigid that much-talked-about separation, or arm's length relationship, is.
I think it would be very helpful to hear from the minister in relation to the study being proposed. Is the minister's participation essential at this point? Is it the most important part of the motion? Perhaps not, but his participation would add value to the study. For that reason, I won't be supporting Mr. Badawey's amendment.