Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let's talk about the motion that is currently put forward. First, I want to reiterate my objection to the process today. In fact, I believe we're going to be documenting this and raising it with the proper authorities. I want to thank the clerk for trying to be as impartial as possible. Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of pressure has been put on the clerk today.
Today I am going to speak about the fact that moving on to a new subject, such as ports.... Ports may be a process or a study that perhaps we want to involve ourselves in, but I would point out that the government and the government members have failed to come to the committee for our BC Ferries study.
Now, Mr. Chair, I believe you and the clerk offered the former minister of transportation, Chrystia Freeland, the opportunity to come to committee. So far, this has not happened. Now she's a sitting member in this place but no longer in the cabinet. Maybe I'll leave that there. I think she has a moral obligation, given the fact that her fingerprints are all over BC Ferries.
Again, for the people at home, the BC Ferries issue is about the Canada Infrastructure Bank giving $1 billion of your taxpayer money to BC Ferries, which is now effectively outsourcing Canadian jobs to a hybrid shipyard in China. A hybrid shipyard means that both civilian and military vessels are created there.
When Chrystia Freeland was in the chamber, she said she had written to Mike Farnworth, the minister. She said she had issues with the procurement. In that letter, which we were eventually able to track down, she actually related her concerns about national security.
Now, I can't think of many things, Mr. Chair, that should trump almost everything else as national security does, even the business about not letting members of Parliament be heard. National security is fundamental. It's the reason for the state.
A government must protect its people, especially the country's sovereignty. Everyone is well aware of the challenges of working with a communist regime such as China's government. As a result, it's vital to reassure people of the government's willingness to take on all the challenges, especially when it comes to the security of the sensitive system that operates the boats.
She raised the issue of national security directly with Minister Farnworth. BC Ferries immediately came out and said that the sensitive systems that would be on these boats would be dealt with in another area.
Mr. Chair, I checked with some people in the industry, who said that, in their familiarity with a turnkey contract such as the one procured to the shipyard, it literally means everything is done on site. We had unions come and talk about their concerns about steel, about the way workers are treated and about the lack of environmental laws.
As a former vice-chair of the Canada-China relations committee in previous parliaments, I will note that many people have cited that not only is the technology China utilizes in a lot of its goods subsidized—where we'll be buying a billion dollars' worth of subsidized Chinese steel and aluminum, which undercuts labour—but China also has access to those systems and what goes in them. We've actually seen questioning in some European countries about whether that is a safe thing to do, particularly when it comes to electric vehicles.
Getting back to national security and Chrystia Freeland, she would be well aware of this as a former minister. When she wrote that letter to Mike Farnworth, Mike Farnworth and BC Ferries both responded. By the way, Mike Farnworth was very upset that the government was questioning the province of British Columbia, but again, many of our citizens would say the geopolitical risk.... The Prime Minister said himself that the biggest geopolitical risk to Canada—I believe “threat” is the word he used—is China, the Communist government in Beijing.
The fact is that we were asking about national security and wanting to bring her in because.... As a fun fact, Chrystia Freeland actually wrote to the Minister of Public Safety, outlining her concerns around national security. She actually criticized BC Ferries for not having a made-in-Canada policy; for the record, Mr. Chair, I find this absolutely hilarious. Marine Atlantic is a federal Crown corporation that was under Miss Freeland's portfolio. She neglected to mention that she did not have a buy Canadian procurement policy either.
How does all of this relate to the motion? That's really easy. It relates to the fact that there are outstanding concerns of national security that can only be answered by Chrystia Freeland in her capacity as a former minister who was there during this process and who wrote letters to both provincial and federal ministers.
Some Liberal members may be perfectly fine with allowing Ms. Freeland.... She's a former minister, so let's leave her off the hook because she has done enough for the country. To be fair, sometimes when you're just on the way out.... As we've heard, she has accepted a prestigious job at Oxford. I want to take a moment and say that I take issue with this. I don't believe that politicians should be telling the press what to write or what headlines to have, but I did see one saying that Chrystia Freeland was taking a prestigious position at Oxford. I said to myself, Mr. Chair, “Being a member of Parliament is pretty prestigious.” This is a point that needs to be made.
It's pretty prestigious because you speak up for, in some cases, 115,000 people in your constituency. It is sometimes a little bit more or a little bit less. To be overruled and told that you didn't have your hand up by some authority outside of yourself, denying your constituents the ability to make substantive arguments to motions.... I might be going into previous territory, Mr. Chair, and I do want to stay on the motion at hand, because as Mr. Lauzon knows, a pro knows that after every three and a half minutes, you need to return to the motion itself.
The Minister of Public Safety, as far as I understand it, is still in cabinet. Despite some major errors, such as having private conversations in which he disagreed publicly with government policy recorded by a tenant, he is still the minister. As the minister, he is supposed to be accountable to Parliament, yet we have this parliamentary committee that has been completely absorbed by the ongoing filibuster, at least until earlier today, by Mr. Lauzon. Thus, the minister hasn't had the opportunity to come.
This is where I will begin my intervention today by saying to the Minister of Public Safety, we need you. We need you to fulfill your end of the bargain. When you went up and swore an oath as a minister that you would not take private advantage of your office.... When you took that oath at Rideau Hall in front of everyone else, that was a commitment to being accountable and not to just simply think of your own comfort. I say again to the Minister of Public Safety, we need you here at this committee.
For us to start launching off.... As much as I know the Liberals want to switch the subject away from BC Ferries and the safety or lack of safety on Canadian routes and highways.... I could see why they'd want to talk about something that is more to their liking.
Mr. Chair, one of the great things about minority parliaments is that it's not just up to them. In fact, I've never questioned it when members begin to filibuster, as long as they can simply hold the room and continue every three and a half minutes to talk about the motion, like this one, in which we are actually trying to proceed with moving on a port study without finishing the previous study.
It's time Conservative voices were heard at this committee for once. It seems that we are constantly hearing from Liberal voices or being told that we can't speak. I don't think this is something we're going to tolerate today.
Moving on to the Minister of Public Safety, I'd like to ask the minister a number of questions. For example, Marine Atlantic has one of these vessels operating in its fleet, and I would like to know two things.
First, there is an important piece of legislation called the protecting child labour and.... No, it's the anti-protecting...the protecting children from forced labour.... I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The name of the bill has escaped me, but it was actually a Liberal bill. Every entity that is covered, such as BC Ferries or Marine Atlantic, has to submit on a yearly basis a report in which it talks about whether its supply chains have been compromised by forced labour or child labour. Obviously, when we look at the situation with the government in Beijing, we see that it was very unhappy when Parliament voted that what was happening in China with the Uyghurs was intolerable. I just hope that everyone around this table would agree with me that it's intolerable. This is under the area of the Minister of Public Safety. I'd like to see if BC Ferries has submitted an updated form on this so that we can know that the minister has been looking into these components before we proceed on a port study, as was suggested in this motion.
Furthermore, I'd also like to know, Mr. Chair.... With regard to the Marine Atlantic vessel itself, the ownership is actually Swedish. I'm not sure if members know that, but it appears that the Swedish owners are leasing it on a five-year basis. I believe that there is an option to buy. Now, there are questions in my mind, because as we all know, you always pay more for a lease than when you purchase. However, I can see the national security implications. The great officials at Public Safety Canada would probably say, “Well, it's not a permanent addition to Canada. It's owned by a foreign company that is sailing under a limited lease. Therefore, we don't need to investigate potential technology that may be, perhaps, collecting information that we're unaware of.”
Mr. Chair, I think that the BC Ferries situation is quite different. Having the minister himself come here to answer these important questions when it comes to Marine Atlantic and the procurement of these vessels with Canadian taxpayer monies.... I think it's a fair thing to ask him to come.
Now, Liberals may be comfortable with simply moving on. Conservatives are concerned about this procurement. We're concerned that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is flowing this much money.... I know that the Bloc Québécois, in a previous Parliament, voted along with Conservatives to repeal the bank altogether. I think that many of my constituents would be very worried to see their tax dollars, instead of supporting Ontario steel, Quebec aluminum.... Let's be frank, Mr. Chair. There's a lot of steel and a lot of aluminum here.
There's one other thing I'd like to ask the minister when he comes. Did you know this, Mr. Chair? Did you know that the Minister of Public Safety is charged with remission orders? When a company wants to bring in a large ferry vessel—such as the procurement—it's actually the Minister of Public Safety who can provide a remission order to cabinet. It's his recommendation. I would like to hear from the Minister of Public Safety as to whether he will be giving a remission order, effectively bypassing tariffs.
I know that the Prime Minister made a huge deal when he went to Sault Ste. Marie to talk to the workers, saying that we are going to be clamping down on cheap Chinese steel. He made a big deal of it, saying that there would be 25% tariffs, in some cases, on certain other products, maybe even higher. He did this, he said, to protect Canadian workers.
Well, Mr. Chair, I don't think that he's doing such a great job of protecting Canadian workers because, first of all, as we can see, Algoma Steel has had tremendous pressure put on it by the unjustified tariffs by Donald Trump and his administration, and obviously we've seen a thousand layoffs there already. We've also seen $500 million go to this company, and we don't know under what parameters.