Evidence of meeting #16 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 lauzon.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I find it in order, and the first person on the speakers list is Mr. Lauzon.
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we're experiencing this afternoon is a bit shameful. My colleague raised his hand first, but people wanted to play at forming a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois from the outset. That's what just happened. I'm very surprised to see Mr. Barsalou-Duval playing this game, which involves lying to the committee by saying that it was actually a Conservative member who raised his hand before my Liberal colleague. Now—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Just a moment, Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Albas has a point of order.
Mr. Albas, you have the floor.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
It's my understanding that a dilatory motion to resume debate happens immediately and goes to a vote. To have someone else speaking to it.... I don't think you're in order. Could you please rule again and consult first with the clerk, because it was a dilatory to resume debate on a motion? It should immediately go to a vote. We should not be having other speakers.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
He made a motion to resume the debate. That's a dilatory motion, and therefore, it should be voted upon right away, without debate. If you can check with the clerk, please, I think this would save a lot of time and energy, and I'm sure Mr. Lauzon has a lot of breath that he could save for the actual debate, not the lead-up to the debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
My understanding is that Mr. Barsalou-Duval reintroduced his motion to discuss it.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
He actually said that he'd like to resume the debate that we were having, and he gave this specific date. That means it's a motion, and it should have been brought immediately to a vote. I'm just raising that at the earliest possible opportunity as a point of order. I'd ask you to consult with the clerk.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Let's go to a recorded vote please.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
I'll go to MPs Lauzon, Albas, Kelloway and Barsalou-Duval.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Let's start with what happened today.
My colleagues were also very offended that survivors were spoken about that way. We are all keenly aware that we must act quickly on the issue of Drivers Inc. We have a lot of empathy for survivors and their families.
This week, the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Barsalou-Duval posted fake news on their website using survivors as an excuse to compel the production of tax documents, among other things. It's so shameful. They're using survivors just for political gain and not for the purpose of the study.
From the outset, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity to invite families to testify. There was nothing stopping them from doing so, but they didn't. We never prevented them from inviting accident survivors to testify. It's dishonest to say things that aren't true, when I clearly said, in my last speech, that there would be options for survivors. It's not about having them appear publicly to play on people's emotions. We can easily invite them to come and testify in camera. I even recommended that they come separately and wait until we go in camera to meet with them. We never said that we didn't want to see survivors. What I said, and I'll say it again, is that I don't find it relevant. They are on the list, so we will respect that, but I proposed alternatives, and they were not considered.
For the benefit of those listening to us, and for the record, I have to talk about what was published on the Bloc Québécois website. The last paragraph states that the Liberals have no compassion for families, and four inches below that, a request for donations is made. They chose to ask for money on a website just below a publication that talks about families bereaved by an accident. Why use people's grief, suffering and trauma for political gain? If this is not an attempt to score political points, I don't know what is.
I know it is customary for Conservatives to form a coalition with the Bloc Québécois, to take statements out of context and to create slogans. However, I am surprised to see my colleague entering the fray and asking for funding on his website. I am not sure his party leader and whip approve of everything he is doing today. I am not happy with that approach either, because we on this side are committed to solving the problem. We could solve it quickly by returning to his original motion and saying yes to it, with a view to making serious recommendations, about which I have said enough.
Let's put political games aside. I find it appalling to exploit people who have lost their lives to further one's political interests. I would never interfere in Quebec City's affairs by arguing that Highway 50, which I take to get home, is a deadly highway. When we talk about an issue, we talk about repairs and bringing things up to standard. I would never use the case of a family that has been in mourning for a month to bring the issue to the media or to hold a press conference to say that the government is at fault because the highway is poorly built.
This requires a modicum of common sense and empathy towards our fellow citizens. I will never, ever allow my name to be used on social media, in newsletters or in fake news that accuses me of lacking compassion for those who have lost a family member.
Our motion gives survivors of accidents the opportunity to come and testify with dignity. What I asked was that it be done in private. We tried to find solutions. We suggested that they wait outside the room until the committee moves in camera, so they could be extended a welcome befitting a parliamentary committee.
That's my introduction.
Now I'd like to speak to the original motion. We're now back where we left off the debate on the original motion. I'll go back to the original motion, or Mr. Albas is going to remind me that I have to speak directly to it. We have—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
No, just come back to it every three and a half minutes.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
All right.
The motion calls for a massive number of documents, without any awareness of what that entails. Our side would like to reduce the number of years and the amount of information requested. What do people want to do with this information? What direct communications are they trying to obtain? We have never prevented the production of documents needed by the committee concerning a discussion involving a minister or a department. However, in this case, the request is to send the committee all correspondence from certain departments related to the subject. Le me explain what that entails.
Once again, the role of the Opposition and the Conservatives is to impede the government somewhat to prevent it from doing things properly. However, it boggles my mind that the Bloc Québécois is playing this game by forming a coalition with them. I asked Mr. Barsalou-Duval if we could just drop this so that we can quickly find solutions, work with the committee's analysts to produce a report with solid recommendations and bring this study to a close. We're all eager to achieve that. The sooner we get there, the sooner we can prevent another accident, save a life and spare a family from grieving.
The motion calls for the production of a massive volume of documents—which are also complex, making the search difficult. It becomes very cumbersome for the apparatus. We will have to search for all communications, including all emails, text messages, briefing notes and professional text messages. We rely on a number of communication tools today. We receive messages on all kinds of platforms, such as Teams, Zoom, Wire, etc. There are also all the ephemeral documents, drafts and discussions that took place between departments. We are talking about tens of thousands of communications items, and it is impossible to estimate how much it would cost to produce them. The departments can't even tell us.
In fact, the administrative costs would mainly be related to sorting. We have to sort it all out, and we shouldn't make everything public either. There are legal checks required, because there are contentious cases. We also have to protect sensitive information, because we don't want to cause trouble for people either. That's not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that public servants would have to devote to it. That usually suits the Conservatives. Keeping the government busy is the way to go, according to them.
By tabling this motion at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Mr. Barsalou-Duval is joining the Conservatives by demonstrating that he no longer wants a functional government. That surprises me. To respond to such a request, several departments and human resources departments must assign a certain number of employees to the production of documents, and the timelines are incalculable. It could easily take 8, 12, 14 or 20 weeks. We don't know how long it could take, but it's at least eight to 12 weeks for redaction, research and compliance verification.
Meantime, public service employees who perform these tasks cannot serve the public. On the one hand, people are saying that they want to put an end to this. On the other hand, they want to use public servants to search for documents instead of serving the public. This is being done simply to waste time and to be right. The Bloc Québécois member and the Conservatives have a majority on the committee, so anything can be done with the public service. It's immoral.
In addition, there is a risk with respect to personal information that may be very sensitive. They say they want to help families. They claim we are insensitive to families. However, does putting confidential information at risk by making lists of names public protect families? Does it protect honest companies and drivers who have nothing to do with the Driver Inc. scheme? Some people do follow the law.
It's as if, in this study, the problem stems solely from immigration. It's as if everyone is at fault except Quebeckers. I have bad news: There are drivers who are pure French-Canadian Quebecers, who have an education and who drive badly. It's not just an immigration problem. Mr. Barsalou-Duval wants to publish clips to put everyone in the crosshairs. They want everybody to look bad and everybody to be the bad guys.
I only have one hour and a half left.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Lauzon, give me a moment, please.
I'll just quickly remind everybody that when somebody has the floor, to let them speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I think he has actually done a good job of bringing it back. He just once again referenced the motion and everything else.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Out of respect for each other, let's try to keep decorum. It's obviously a very touchy issue. We're talking about survivors. We're talking about doing right by them. Let's try to keep decorum in the room.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I have a point of order.
How long do we have resources for?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That's a great question.
We currently have resources until 5:30. The clerk is looking into whether we have additional resources. If not, we'll suspend.