Madam Chair, you just heard my colleague's intervention, which once again shows his bad faith. He doesn't want to co-operate; he just wants to protect the interests of his government, which lacks transparency and a spirit of co-operation.
The motion I moved on November 24 was very clear and very explicit:
Given the mandate of the Standing Committee on Science and Research, that the committee invite the Minister of Industry, Mélanie Joly, and the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, Evan Salomon, to appear for at least two (2) hours each to discuss their mandate and other related matters; that these meetings take place no later than December 11, 2025; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House following the meeting.
My colleague Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault just told us, “as soon as possible”. I proposed “before the end of the parliamentary session”. They want to put this off until February, several months after the budget. I repeat: It has been pushed back from November to December, then from December to January, and from January to February. That's three months later. Last week, we couldn't agree, because we wanted the committee to report its findings and recommendations to the House after the meeting. Today, I challenge Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault to find one example, since the creation of this committee that has existed since January 2021, where we discussed things that we never presented to the House. I challenge him to do that.
I'm going to use the words that my colleague Mr. Deschênes‑Thériault mentioned: “openness” and “co-operation”. I welcome him to the committee. I will gladly co-operate with him, but I will tell him what this government's openness and co-operation mean.
I've been trying to reach the Minister of Industry for a month and a half. I can't say “Minister of Science” because, as you know, the word “science” no longer appears in her title. That's a pretty good indication that she's no longer very interested in science, research and innovation. She's focusing entirely on industry, and you're hiding her away by refusing to bring her here. Is that openness and co-operation, when a parliamentarian asks the minister's office, not once but twice, for answers to their questions about the budget? Is that openness and co-operation on the part of my colleague and his government? That isn't how I see openness, co-operation and transparency.
Do you know what's still ridiculous? I'm going to say it: It's the hypocrisy surrounding what we've just experienced. On November 24, we moved a motion to bring in the minister, and committee members suddenly seem to have become responsible for her schedule. They're the ones checking to see if she's available. They're wondering if she'll be having a coffee and a muffin at such and such time or if she's going to be at this committee meeting.
Madam Chair, things have to be put back to how they should be according to the rules and procedures: The standing committees of the House of Commons are sovereign. If committee members want to invite ministers, parliamentary secretaries or other people, it isn't up to government members to check the schedule of the minister and her office.
Here's how it works, Madam Chair, and I'll let you correct me if I'm wrong. As far as I know, the committee invites the minister and her office to appear. It isn't up to my colleagues to say that they've talked to her office, that she's available, or that she's at the G7 shopping for submarines in Korea and that she'll eventually come after the holidays once she has digested her turkey and meat pie.
I understand that my colleagues are uncomfortable with the idea of having the minister appear; they want to hide her away behind a curtain. Once again, this demonstrates the government's lack of transparency and lack of understanding.
When we look at this today, there's very clear hypocrisy. Last week, they were against the motion. They were talking about the reports and saying that the committee's work shouldn't be submitted to Parliament.
Again, Madam Chair, let them give me the date, time and subject of a single committee study that would have been submitted to Parliament. There has never been one. I've been on this committee since January 2021, and we've always operated this way. Now, all of a sudden, abracadabra, that no longer has any value.
Even my colleague Mr. Noormohamed told us last week—I was stunned to hear him say it—that it was better to have the minister appear because we wouldn't have to report to Parliament, that we could post our clips on social media, and that reports didn't achieve anything anyway, since no one reads them.
Madam Chair, I still can't get over it. I shudder just talking to you about it. He said that publicly. Doesn't that show that some parliamentarians, and a government parliamentary secretary, don't care about the committee's work?
Respect for the democratic institutions of the House of Commons and Parliament is at stake. My colleague said, word for word, that people didn't read the reports. It's as if witnesses, who are here today, don't have any value in his eyes, since reading the reports is meaningless to him. In other words, they have no meaning. I'm telling him that I disagree with him. Tens of thousands of dollars, if not millions of dollars, are invested every year to conduct these important studies. They make it possible to give the government recommendations and make a difference.
That shows the government's view of democratic institutions.
In fact, the example comes from the top. There has been a new Prime Minister since last April. He barely comes to Parliament and travels all over the world. Do you know what he did last? He introduced a bill allowing him to circumvent the laws. I thought to myself that this might have happened before in the history of Canada or that it was possible in the context of a crisis. However, he's taking advantage of the crisis to advance his economic and political agenda and bypass Parliament.
I'll say it again: In June, my Conservative colleagues supported the gag order to pass Bill C‑5. I've rarely seen that in the history of Canada. Four weeks after a new Parliament was elected, the official opposition supported a gag order to get that bill passed. I would be embarrassed if I were them. I can tell you that I voted against it.
I'll come back to the matter of bypassing democratic institutions and completely ignoring science, research and evidence. I invite people to look at the budget, and I will take this opportunity to say that I'm a fact-focused person.
On page 301 of Bill C‑15, the budget 2025 implementation act, No. 1, there's the possibility for a minister to circumvent all acts of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, to advance projects of national interest. Laws no longer have any meaning in Canada. A minister could get up one morning and decide that a project is important for the national interest.
This is an unprecedented totalitarian shift. A minister would have the power to decide that a project can circumvent environmental, tax and transportation laws, and even consultation on laws for indigenous peoples, first nations. When Justin Trudeau was in power, this same government was lecturing us about truth and reconciliation. Well, what happened last week? It was a disaster for the environment and science. Votes were bought in Alberta. A new pipeline goes against—
