Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the motion proposed by my Conservative colleagues, I want to start by making several observations based on the testimony we have heard and the things we have learned today.
To begin, we learned that the June 16 letter from Ms. Freeland requesting that no federal funding provided to BC Ferries be used to purchase ships built in China was a bluff. The letter was worthless because, at the time it was written, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure already knew that BC Ferries had secured a funding agreement with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB. Despite this, it appears that the minister did not ask the CIB to backtrack or cancel the agreement, and the CIB told us that it would go ahead. Furthermore, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure's testimony was hard to follow, and it was difficult to know what his real position was. He said he was sorry, but the CIB told us that he seemed to be fine with it. So we are eager to find out what is really going on.
Then we learned that, despite statements by Minister Mélanie Joly to the effect that the government is requiring large infrastructure projects to be built with domestic steel and aluminum, the CIB has not received any directives about encouraging the infrastructure projects it finances to purchase Canadian steel and aluminum products. We have also learned that the CIB has no objection to the loan being used to finance Chinese state-owned companies, even though our steel sector is subject to 50% tariffs from the United States.
Mr. Chair, I would say that this situation is quite disconcerting. There are still some grey areas. There are some contradictions, particularly in the testimony from the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and a lot of information is missing. However, I believe that the Conservative motion will allow us to obtain more information. I would very much like to see the contracts and documents related to this loan. I would like to know whether it was absolutely impossible to backtrack, as the ministers have told us. However, the Canada Infrastructure Bank told us that it has only one shareholder, the federal government. The CIB makes the decisions and is independent, but at the end of the day, the government is still the boss. I feel that this government lacks the political will to find solutions to the problems we are facing. By reading the contracts and the correspondence related to this decision, and by getting more opinions, we will be able to shed light on this matter.
I look forward to seeing the amendments that the Liberals, the government, may propose to make the Conservatives' motion acceptable to them. I am prepared to support the motion as it stands, but I am also open to discussing what could be changed. I hope that lessons will be learned from this situation because, frankly, it is clear that they are improvising, sending out disjointed messages. It is not unlike how the decisions involving taxpayers' money do not seem to be consistent with the government's words. It is terrible that the Canada Infrastructure Bank does not seem to be putting Canada's national interests first either. We obviously believe that the CIB should never have existed, and today is it clear why. Decisions are made behind closed doors, without any consultation, and the government seems to be presented with a done deal, even though these decisions are not necessarily in our best interests.
There needs to be more transparency.