Evidence of meeting #25 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gaspésie.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We're going to send a copy to them, Mr. Albas. I'll let you continue, sir, but, really, I just can't proceed unless we have translation.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Yes, that's fair.
It goes on:
d. That one meeting be dedicated to hearing the testimony of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the CEO and other officials from the Canada Infrastructure Bank; and—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Albas, I am going to have to cut you off. We have zero translation right now.
The clerk is working as diligently as possible to ensure that they have a copy of it. Once they have a copy of it, Mr. Albas, I will turn the floor back over to you to continue.
Thanks for your patience, colleagues.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you. It goes on:
e. That the subsequent meeting be dedicated to hearing the testimony of representatives of Roswall Development including Michel Samson, Edgar Samson, Mitchell Brison, Dan Roscoe, David Howell, and Scott Rodgers.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
All jokes aside, I just want to make sure that we're okay. Yes.
Are there questions or comments, colleagues?
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you.
This a news story that has raised a lot of concerns. The Conservatives believe that by studying this in a timely fashion, bringing forward and asking these questions.... We've seen before that the CIB seems to have its own criteria, and I think we need to investigate it. We've seen before, in previous decisions, that “made in Canada” was not part of its regime.
We think that, in this case, for the public trust—meaning people feel these public entities, whether they are Crown corporations or government agencies, should abide by certain rules around conflict of interest—if we have the various groups come in, including the minister's office and the CIB, as well as inviting the company itself, we can publicly address this, and we think this is the proper forum for such a discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
You have the floor, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I think this is a matter of public interest. Much too often in the past we have seen cronyism on the Liberal side. We don’t know if that’s the case this time, but the situation is definitely suspicious.
I think we have a duty to analyze things and to call witnesses to answer the questions my colleague has raised. I’ll wait and see if there are more comments before I turn to some other aspects, but I agree with the principle.
The only point I would like to raise is point (b), which proposes that the “study be given absolute priority over all other matters before the committee”. I don’t know if the clerk has already invited any witnesses to the meetings. I think meetings have already been scheduled.
I would therefore like to amend point (b) to let the witnesses who have already been invited testify. That way, we won’t have to start over all over again. Otherwise, I completely agree with that.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Indeed, point (b) does not fit.
I would like point (b) to be changed to “the study be given absolute priority over other matters before the committee”. That’s how we want point (b) to be drafted. It fits in with what Mr. Barsalou‑Duval stated. The rest is fine.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you.
I certainly can appreciate Mr. Barsalou-Duval's comments on where he would like to see...because the clerk has been working very hard, and I will praise the clerk publicly here for trying to keep so many balls in the air.
Perhaps I can make a suggestion to Mr. Barsalou-Duval that witnesses who have been confirmed at the point of the adoption of this motion be kept and that the priority is given directly after. I'm worried that if we say “invited”, some people may not have responded, and that could create some confusion in the clerk's mind.
If there's been a commitment made to have witnesses come on a particular date, then this particular motion would not apply to that, and the clerk would simply slip them in as quickly as possible so the substance of the motion happens as quickly as possible. If the member were to make that motion, I would absolutely accept it as a friendly amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
I would like to say something before I turn the floor over to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. There was some uncertainty around your proposal, Mr. Lauzon. You said something, but on both sides we were wondering what the proposed amendment was.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my proposal.
I didn’t have the text before me, and so I would like to move a subamendment because Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has already moved an amendment.
I move as follows: “That the study begin following the conclusion of the ongoing study of supporting, diversifying, and modernizing Quebec and Canada’s ports”.
I’m not opposed to moving forward, but it’s just that we want to prioritize the ongoing study.
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I was going to move an amendment to what Mr. Albas has moved.
At the end of point (b), I would add: “with the exception of meetings for which witnesses have already confirmed their presence”. It would be different from what Mr. Lauzon has moved. I don’t know how Mr. Lauzon wants to proceed. If my amendment is acceptable to him, he may be willing to withdraw his friendly amendment and we will retain mine.
He may want to keep the subamendment as currently moved. I think the proposed subamendment takes us very far into the future. I think this is an important issue. We’re only talking about two meetings. I have a feeling that this topic needs to de dealt with quickly. We can’t deal with it in May.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I just want to confirm what has been proposed for the benefit of everyone. If we finish the study on ports, that will bring us to April 13. We would therefore start the proposed study on Wednesday, April 15.
You have the floor, Mr. Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Chair.
We have already done the math concerning the end date of the current study even though we don’t know the number of witnesses that will be available over the next weeks. We are going to be in our respective ridings next week, but we have the date when we will look at this matter, and it will not be in June. It will be April 15.
We could even put consideration of this motion on the agenda of the two meetings that have been scheduled, including the meeting on April 15. That would work for me and it would not delay our ongoing business. We know that the current study will end on April 13 and that we will be available on April 15. I don’t mind adding a date, instead of working with the number of witnesses that will be available from those on the list.
I don’t want to speak for the clerk, but convening witnesses is ongoing work. You get in touch with them, get an answer, conduct some checks, and so forth. I don’t want us to undermine the established procedure for drawing up a list of witnesses. A witness may also agree to appear on a given date, and then we say otherwise before that date. That’s part and parcel of the procedure.
That said, bearing in mind that April 13 is the end date of this study, I think we can address this issue no later than April 15.