Transport Committee on Feb. 1st, 2024

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

We believe that reporting to the House is the more official response from this committee, and that's why we selected the wording the way that we did. Expressing our concern doesn't compel the government to respond in any way. They can ignore this without even having to respond. We know they've certainly ignored recommendations from this committee in the past, but at least we've forced them to explain themselves when that happens. We believe that by issuing that simple report, it is the official way to register our concern and compel the government to respond.

We will be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I have no one else on the list, so we'll go to a vote on Mr. Bachrach's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to discussion on the motion as amended.

Mr. Strahl, go ahead.

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

I guess my question for you, Mr. Chair, is: How does the committee express its concern to the House, or is that not part of the motion? It just says “expresses its concern”. I'm wondering what the method is by which we express that, other than perhaps by the passing of this motion. Is there actually something that officially communicates our concern from this committee to the government now that we've removed from this motion—thanks to the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc—the official nature of a report? What would actually be the effect of this? How would we express that to the House? This isn't entirely rhetorical, but I would like to know how exactly that is expressed now that it will not be done via an official report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I've confirmed with the clerk, and the simple act of adopting the motion is the way it's expressed, but there won't be any official communiqué, letter or report.

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Bachrach, who had his hand up.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would be happy if the committee wanted to write a letter to the minister, to the Prime Minister, to the government. I think all of that is fine. I don't, on principle, object to the use of concurrence motions, but what we've seen is that every committee gets piled up with these motions demanding a government response and a debate in the House, and it prevents us as Parliament from doing other work.

I wouldn't assume nefarious motives, except that those motives have been clearly stated. It's been clearly stated that certain parties are going to do everything they can to obstruct the work of Parliament. As a parliamentarian, I don't think that's in the public interest, so that's why I moved that we remove that particular wording from the motion. I still think it's a very important topic, and the committee should express its view on it, and if it's the will of the committee, I would certainly agree to writing a letter to share the outcome of the vote on the motion with the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I have Mr. Muys, who is followed by Mr. Strahl.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I think the removal of the report to the House neuters this, and that really is an inappropriate signal to Canadians who are affected by this issue. If you've had your vehicle stolen, as Ms. Gallant pointed out, you may not be able to get a rental. There's a financial hardship. This is impacting businesses as well, in terms of productivity. She's quite correct that productivity is certainly an issue in the Canadian economy. On top of that, $1.2 billion in insurance premiums were paid out. That's a $500 per Canadian household increase in terms of insurance premiums that is being seen by many Canadians. In Ontario it's higher.

This is something that's a serious issue, and it's all happening through a federally regulated port and on federally regulated railways. It had a sharp increase in the last number of years. To not report that to the House, to not take it that seriously, I think, is a mistake and an affront to those Canadians impacted by it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Mrs. Gallant, go ahead.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The money arising and the profits from the theft of vehicles is known to be used to fund terrorism. We've talked with different departments that it must be a whole-of-government approach when it comes to combatting terrorism. We have it here at home as well.

To have the transport committee appear to just wash its hands of the issue of stolen vehicles and the export of them makes it sound like all it is is a hunk of metal going from point A inside one border to point B outside the border. These are real lives we're talking about, humanitarian crises that are happening around the world. The proceeds of this crime are going towards funding wars.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Gallant.

Mr. Bittle, go ahead.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you so much.

There are a lot of statements being made that. They don't want to call experts. They're making these statements, and perhaps they're true, but if these statements are true, like combatting terrorism and this money's going to foreign governments to fund wars, I think Ms. Gallant will want to speak to her Conservative colleagues on the public safety committee, who are filibustering at every opportunity our attempts to get to that study. They're even filibustering bringing in additional motions similar to this, even though there's a study on the books already. It's just the Conservatives flailing their arms, trying to cripple Parliament. That's what we're seeing here.

Ms. Gallant accused me of filibustering. It must have been the world's worst filibuster—I think I spoke for five minutes. I think she has spoken for longer than I have. However, I really think she needs to speak to her colleagues on the public safety committee, because that's where this motion and a comprehensive study on it is currently sitting.

We need to get through Bill C-26, which is on cybersecurity. In that case, we've heard from experts that money from cyber-attacks is being used to fund foreign governments, to fund wars and conflicts, and to fund countries like North Korea. What are the Conservatives doing on that, a Conservative Party that cares about security or pretends to, anyway? They're filibustering it. They're filibustering witnesses who appear, whom Parliament's paying to fly in. They're making them sit there and watch filibuster debates, one after another.

I appreciate the crocodile tears from the Conservative Party that those of us on the other side of the table aren't taking this seriously. When the chips are down on the public safety committee, it's the Conservatives who don't care, who are not showing that they want to see action and hear from experts. Here we just have a motion, which is a one-liner that we can send to the House of Commons to cripple debate and continue their obstruction in the House of Commons. It's disappointing. Canadians deserve better.

Again, I ask the members here—and maybe it's not Ms. Gallant but the other Conservative members—to please speak to their members on the public safety committee. I really want to get to that study, and I don't want to do this piecemeal, like a one-line report. Let's hear from the RCMP, CBSA, port officials and experts on criminal justice. Let's actually find out. Maybe Ms. Gallant is right. Maybe this money is going to fund terrorism. If that's the case, why doesn't she want her colleagues to stop filibustering in the public safety committee to get to that thorough study that Mr. Strahl—and I believe him—says he wants? Even though his motion for a study is, I think, one meeting with two witnesses.... It's pretty weak tea from the Conservatives, who pretend to care about public safety. Clearly, the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc care about this issue and want a significant study to look at the actual details so we can provide recommendations.

We need to be better on this, as a country, at all levels of government: municipal police forces, provincial police services, RCMP and CBSA. We need to be looking at this from a holistic perspective. It's easy and great for fundraising emails to say, “It's the federal government's fault.” There are some opportunities that we need to address, but if you're not going to do it in a serious way, it just shows how unserious the Conservative Party is on issues of security and on a lot of different issues. Pound the table. Get angry.

Housing is another example. During question period, there are 45 minutes when the Conservatives pretend to care about housing and security, but when it gets to actual tangible items, they're nowhere to be found.

Filibustering and obstructing, that's all this motion is. It's truly disappointing, once again, to watch the Conservatives go down this path. They used to be serious on issues of public safety, but not anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

I have Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Mr. Strahl.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to request a brief suspension of the meeting, if I may, because we would like to discuss amongst ourselves some issues before coming back and continuing the debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We have a request for a brief suspension from Ms. Koutrakis. I'll oblige. We'll reconvene in five minutes.

This meeting is now suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Next on the list we have Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I note with some interest that the governing parties always complain about opposition parties bringing forward concurrence debates.

I would ask Mr. Bachrach to go back.... I know he wasn't elected in the time of Jack Layton and Tom Mulcair when they were the official opposition. I can assure him that this tool to bring forward issues was utilized with great frequency. That's the same for Mr. Bittle, who wasn't here when they were the third party.

Concurrence motions are a valid tool of Parliament. They are very much one way to bring attention to a serious matter, as is a report to the House where the chair actually stands in the chamber and tables a report during routine proceedings.

Mr. Bachrach may want a strongly worded letter, a moderately worded letter or a letter with no emotions attached to it whatsoever. We think that the report was the way to go, which is why we moved it that way.

I can appreciate the theatre here of pretending that Conservatives don't want to actually address this issue. Of course we do, which is why we brought it forward. We believe it should have been treated substantially, with a report to express our concern about the parts of this that relate to the mandate of this committee, which is oversight and holding the government to account on issues that are within our purview. That includes ports and railways, both of which are implicated in the organized crime scheme that steals vehicles from the driveways of law-abiding Canadians and ships them via the port of Montreal.

We simply thought our concern and our desire for additional resources to be provided should be reported to the House.

We know that there's a budget coming up. We know that the government is evaluating its priorities. We believe that a priority, as indicated by this committee, should be to give CBSA more resources, so it can do its job of preventing the property of Canadians from being shipped abroad through the port of Montreal to be used by organized crime.

We don't apologize for wanting that to be done in a formal way where it could be discussed in the House and where the seriousness of this matter would be registered with the House, as opposed to through a simple motion here, which will go no further, or a letter from the clerk or the chair, which requires no response from the minister or the government.

It's disappointing that this has been watered down. It seems that the direction the committee wants to go is to not have the force of a report, but to simply take note of something. We believe that the report would have put some more significant weight behind it to express that concern.

It's disappointing that this is where this is going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I have Mr. Bittle.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks so much.

I reached out to a friend of mine who's in the know, and her response was it's false that there are only five officers who are engaged in this. So we don't have the facts. There's dispute about the facts. The importance of the public safety study, which the Conservatives are filibustering, and Bill C-26 focuses on cybersecurity, which I know....

I take Ms. Gallant at her word in terms of being worried about money going to terrorist entities or state actors that Canada is not allied with. That's actually happening on the cyber front. That's being filibustered to prevent us to get to a thorough study. It's great to take a headline and put it into a motion and say, “This is fact.” We could have witnesses here, but the Conservatives don't want that.

It was interesting to hear Mr. Strahl talk about the good old days of the 41st Parliament. I'm sure he remembers fondly the Conservative cuts to CBSA. I believe it was about a thousand CBSA jobs that were cut during their time in office. That's interesting. You can send to my personal email account the motions like this that I'm sure he voted on, which were NDP motions like this that were just to set up a concurrence debate. I'm sure that was permitted quite a bit.

There is work being done by the government and in Parliament. I know the Liberal government is working with the Conservative government in Ontario on a big announcement in terms of money for a response to this. I'm looking forward to the outcome of the auto theft summit, and I really want to get to the public safety study on auto theft. Let's hear from all of these witnesses.

Mr. Strahl is right. A concurrence motion is an appropriate tool—it's in the rules—but the way the Conservatives are using it is to just shut down debate and the important work that Canadians expect us to do.

The motion at public safety was unanimous in terms of having a thorough study on the subject. Let's get to that. I'm sure Mr. Strahl, after this meeting, is going to get on the phone with his colleagues on the public safety committee, insist that they end their filibuster tactics and get us to a point at which we can actually debate something important and come up with actual recommendations from actual experts rather than gripping a headline that may or may not be true and using it as the basis for a motion for a concurrence debate in the House of Commons, which I guess Mr. Strahl is now admitting is the tactic in play.

I can't support this motion since it's based on incorrect information, despite being a serious issue. Let's do it properly. Let's get to the study at public safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

I have Ms. Koutrakis, followed by Mrs. Gallant.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make sure that everyone who's watching this very important meeting today and this very important discussion understands that no one is saying that this subject is not an important subject. In fact, if you look at what the government recently announced with the summit, the government takes this issue very seriously, but we want to make sure that we are going to be receiving proper and factual information.

We, as parliamentarians, everyone around this table, are responsible. Our obligation is to always provide clear and factual information to Canadians so that they fully understand the subject matter. We can all sit around this table, filibuster and talk things out, but I don't think that Canadians sent us here with that in mind. I think Canadians sent a strong message when they said that they expect parliamentarians of every stripe—opposition members, government members—to work together to deal with very important subjects, such as auto theft.

Every single one of us around here is touched by increased prices of insurance. No one is saying otherwise, but we also have a lot of other studies and a lot of other important work that we have prioritized in previous messages. To drop that very important work that's already in the queue....

We have the high-frequency rail. We have the air passengers. Earlier, Mr. Bachrach spoke about his study on rights for passengers with disabilities. There are so many other studies that are waiting in the queue that are equally important.

The government is willing. The government has shown that this is a top priority for it, and it wants to get the proper information. We want to speak to the officials who need to be spoken to, to get to the bottom of this. Nobody is saying that we want terrorism financing to continue, obviously. This is not something that's acceptable to anyone, but we also have to make sure that we're giving the proper information so that Canadians know exactly what is happening.

From a policy perspective, if we don't have the proper information and facts, then clearly any policy that's put forth would be flawed. I know that I'm speaking for all my colleagues around this table when I say that this is not something that we want. We want to make sure that if and when this issue does come back to transport—and there's nothing to say that it cannot come back to transport at a future date, but let's not put the cart before the horse. Let's see what comes out of this summit.

The government came out and said that they want to bring all the officials and all the stakeholders together to talk about this issue. I think it would be wise that we wait to see what comes out of this summit. At the same time, we can continue to speak to our own stakeholders. We can have our conversations with the officials who are in a much better position to provide us with facts rather than just hypotheses.

With that said, Mr. Chair, I would like to move the adjournment of this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis, I'll turn it over to the clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

This meeting is adjourned.