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
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Albas is once again off topic. Moreover, he isn't setting an example. There are two sets of rules, one for the committee and one for Mr. Albas. Mr. Albas has often interrupted my remarks to accuse me of being off topic or of not talking about points of order.
Mr. Albas is now completely ignoring the topic of the motion. I would like us to return to the motion at hand.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
Colleagues, so that we can avoid having all these points of order, try to speak to the motion as much as possible when the floor has been given to you. As Mr. Albas has pointed out in previous points of order, within a couple of minutes, circle back so that we can avoid other members calling for a point of order.
Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I really appreciate your guidance on this, Mr. Chair.
I'm just so thrilled to have the ability to actually speak to our.... I was thrilled to have MP Greaves also speak in support of his interest in BC Ferries. As I said to him earlier, it would be very helpful for Conservatives to know that we are done with the issue of BC Ferries because we've had the ministers come in. They've answered questions. They've been accountable to Parliament.
Mr. Chair, I see that the bells are ringing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Colleagues, if we want to continue debate, we need unanimous consent to do so. If not, you will force me to suspend.
I see no unanimous consent. Colleagues, I will suspend the meeting.
Thank you all for your time. The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.
[The meeting was suspended at 5:17 p.m., Tuesday, December 9]
[The meeting resumed at 8:22 a.m., Thursday, December 11]
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call the meeting to order.
We'll now resume meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members.
Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.
For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.
The committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, December 9, while debate was ongoing on a motion. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting and the debate on the motion, as amended, of Xavier Barsalou-Duval, moved on Thursday, November 6, 2025.
Colleagues, the speaking list, as we had it at last meeting, had Mr. Albas, followed by Mr. Muys. Mr. Lauzon just requested to put his name on the list as well.
Before I turn it over to Mr. Albas, I want to make a special announcement. It was the birthday of our good friend and analyst, Alexandre. Happy birthday, sir.
On that note, it's a pleasure for me to turn the floor over to you, Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Happy birthday to the committee's analyst.
This morning, we should start with a quick review of the motion.
The motion as amended reads:
That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities request that the Departments of Transport, Revenue, and Employment, as well as the Prime Minister’s Office, forward to the committee clerk, within 60 days of the adoption of this motion, all correspondence, reports, emails, and documents relating to the issue of non-compliance in the trucking industry since January 1, 2022, and that Departments and Agencies tasked with producing the documents apply redactions as per legal obligations under the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act;
That the Committee add three additional meetings of two hours each as part of the study of the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada, so that in the first meeting, it can hear testimony from victims of heavy trucks and representatives of Justice for Truck Drivers, The Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSA), and The Joy Smith Foundation; in the second meeting, testimony from representatives of 6S Trinity Transport, J+R Hall Trucking, Dan Express, Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, Canada Post, and the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec; and in the third meeting, testimony from representatives of BC Trucking Association, Ontario Trucking Association, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), and the Alberta Motor Transportation Association;
That, immediately following these meetings, the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a five-meeting study on what is needed to support, diversify, and modernize Quebec and Canada’s ports to find new markets to reduce reliance on the United States; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.
I'm really glad that no one called me out on relevance for not speaking to the motion, because that is literally the motion on deck.
I wanted to point out that I am very upset that, unlike Quebec, there's no mention of B.C. B.C. has wonderful ports, and I think that this is overlooked. However, I know that my colleague from Quebec always puts Quebec close to his heart, so I don't blame him personally for that oversight. If I were from Quebec, I would probably do the same.
Now, if you cast your minds back to where I left off, I was saying that moving to a new study before we significantly addressed BC Ferries.... I believe this is still a very contentious issue, with $1 billion being sent to a publicly owned corporation, BC Ferries, and being used to purchase ships from China.
There's also subsequent infrastructure that would be involved because these are hybrid ships that utilize batteries.
By the way, I'm just letting everyone know—this is the exciting part of the job—that this is the first application of a battery hybrid engine for ships of this size. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. They haven't been used to scale, so there's some question about whether these ferries will function as promised. I know that BC Ferries has used smaller ferries that have a hybrid engine in the interior of British Columbia, where they don't have the charging infrastructure.
The charging infrastructure that BC Ferries would be purchasing to charge these large vessels ends up charging its own batteries on diesel, which actually creates more greenhouse gas emissions than we'd usually have.
A portion of the $1 billion will be going to Chinese companies to build the infrastructure. We heard from the unions that they were quite upset that they had no say in.... BC Ferries wouldn't even tell the BC Ferry and Marine Workers' Union whether there's a made-in-Canada component to this or whether the infrastructure would actually be built by Canadian workers.
In my mind, it's not just outsourcing Canadian jobs in steel, aluminum and shipbuilding; it's actually pushed out to electrical components. It is not going to be Canadian steel, most likely, used to build this infrastructure. I should point out that the committee received a note, much of it redacted, from BC Hydro, citing large costs to build the infrastructure for this.
We still haven't produced a report on this. Why? Well, it is because we have not heard from the various ministers...to come and talk about this. Now, we could ask Minister MacKinnon to take some time away from the House leader's function, since he's probably spending 90% of his time keeping a minority government on the rails rather than making sure that our transportation system is efficient. If we brought him here, Mr. Chair, I would ask him, “Minister, on BC Ferries, what do you think about this BC Hydro connection? What do you think about all the electrical components coming from China and being put in place by Chinese workers?” He would just say, “Hey, it wasn't me. I had nothing to do with it...totally clean hands.”
For a minister to say that is a gift. It's a gift because it is terrible decision-making. As I said, Minister Freeland wrote to the provincial minister outlining her concerns about national security and wanting to ensure that not one dollar in capital investment from the federal government would go towards the acquisition of this, Mr. Chair.
I've spoken to many accountants about this kind of thing. That is completely preposterous. If you give money to operations, accountants will say that it pays down the debt. For anyone trying to contend that not one federal dollar will go towards the purchase of these things from Transport Canada, that is not true.
Maybe Mr. MacKinnon would not have totally clean hands. Maybe I could press him on that point. Right now, we don't have any ministers coming. In effect, the minister had her hands in the muck, but when things got too hot, she decided she was out, Mr. Chair. Maybe she couldn't live with the conflict.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Mr. Speaker, or Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I appreciate what Mr. Albas is doing in terms of setting up the argument, but there are a couple of instances in which Mr. Albas is seemingly Kreskin or Reveen, for those in Atlantic Canada—someone who can get inside the minds of people as to why they leave politics.
I'd ask him to stay on task, please.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway. I appreciate the pre-Christmas promotion to Speaker, but I am a lowly chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Even so, I do have the ability to ask members to try and stay on topic as much as possible. I would ask Mr. Albas and all members to do that in this case.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I appreciate the intervention. I know that Mr. Lauzon loved it when I intervened because it gave a moment to consider, but I'm really talking about the motion here. How can we move forward with the port study if there are still unanswered questions on BC Ferries, Mr. Chair? That is a direct link. If I end up talking for more than three and a half minutes about a subject without looping back to the motion, I expect Mr. Lauzon to do me the courtesy of letting me know.
We have a situation, Mr. Chair, with which I'm not satisfied. I know that the public isn't satisfied. If you were to ask them if they think that right now we should be giving a billion of their tax dollars through an unaccountable bank, through a government that seems to want to be unaccountable for the decision of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is under their direct purview.... They fund the bank. If we had had the minister here for estimates—we had a filibuster by Liberal members for who knows how long, raising all sorts of interesting questions—maybe we would have been able to ask him those questions or perhaps summon my fellow colleague from British Columbia, Minister Gregor Robertson.
That is an aside. The Liberal filibuster seems to have ended, and right now, before proceeding on anything further, I think it's important that Conservatives get their points across about why BC Ferries is still an ongoing issue that has not been addressed, as I will point out, not just by the members of the government but by members of this committee. I have not heard any Liberals say they want to hear more. I asked the parliamentary secretary—or the parliamentary secretary assured me that Chrystia Freeland, when she comes, would answer every single one of my questions. It may not make me happy, but he said I would be satisfied. Mr. Chair, being happy but not satisfied is never the position of the opposition.
Getting back to the motion, because it has been approximately three and a half minutes, to move to five meetings on modernizing Quebec's and Canada's ports to find new markets to reduce reliance on the United States, it's my understanding that there have been three or so reports on ports by this committee in previous parliaments in which the government was given recommendations. I'm not going to speak to those reports. I wasn't there. All I'm going to say, Mr. Chair, is that the fact is, we have not given recommendations to the government for them to ignore as they have the three previous port studies that this committee has done. We do the public a disservice and we do ourselves a disservice if we are not making recommendations on BC Ferries before proceeding to another port study that will be largely ignored by the government.
Why do we know that, Mr. Chair? This committee worked so hard just before we rose for the session. I know Mr. Barsalou-Duval was working overtime. I know our members were working overtime on Bill C-5, and the thing is, the committee ended up passing that legislation with many accountability checks. To my friend from the Bloc, I say congratulations. A number of his amendments were included. Some were supported by us—many, I believe—and I think it's made for better legislation, but we gave that to the ministers who said it was necessary for the good of the country to speed up projects.
The Major Projects Office, Mr. Chair...like the recommendations this committee made on previous port studies, none of them have been designated under Bill C-5 as being in the national interest. It seems to me that we get into such a rush on what the government thinks is important to it, and it doesn't even act on it.
Before going into another study on Canada's ports.... I'd be happy to talk about ports; in Prince Rupert, for example, I have some concerns. That particular port is currently being sued by a local first nation for an exclusivity deal. At some point, we may want to talk about whether ports should be able to simply make those deals and not reveal it, when they are supposed to be doing indigenous consultation. That happened, 100%, under this government's watch. That lawsuit...this first nation.... I'm sure the government will try to ignore that as well.
BC Ferries is still very important to me, Mr. Chair, but there are other issues that could be addressed before we get to it. Let me quickly point out some other issues.
For example, if you're flying in western Canada on one of our airlines, sometimes, through no fault of the staff or pilots, you will suddenly find out that you are grounded or have to circle around, because there are massive shortages with NavCan. Tim Perry, the Air Line Pilots Association president, has publicly said that this is a huge concern and is hurting Canada's international reputation. If someone cannot make their connection in places like YVR, it's a huge problem. I know these labour shortages have even affected the Kelowna riding. It's not my riding, but I'm sure many constituents in my riding have been affected by these labour shortages with NavCan.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as though they're accountable to anyone. They're very nice people. They came and talked to me, and they gave assurances that everything is well in hand. I know that there are members from Winnipeg in the Liberal Party. I know this because Mr. Lauzon is on this committee, and Mr. Lamoureux is in the House of Commons, where he is the voice and face of the new Liberal government. He talks endlessly, in fact. I'm intrigued by his holding many constituency meetings at the local McDonald's. I bet you that he's probably heard about this issue, because Winnipeg is one of those affected airports, in addition to Vancouver and, I believe, Calgary.
Calgary is one of those airports. Quite honestly, I have to say that, since 2021 or 2022, there has been a fleet modernization. We've seen Air Canada, WestJet and others modernize their fleets, and this has changed the course. We have members of Parliament from Alberta and Saskatchewan who have to fly to either Calgary or Vancouver just so they can then fly to Ottawa, because of the connections.
When we have NavCan's international reputation causing us issues and when we have members of Parliament interested for their constituents, and pilots.... You wouldn't believe how many members of Parliament have contacted my office who have pilots saying that this is a major issue, yet we hear nothing from the Liberal side on this. We need to bring them in. We need to ask questions of Nav Canada regarding how they're going to rectify these shortages.
I also know that CBSA often has issues with computers being down. I've had people stuck in line, tweeting me with pictures because I'm the opposition's shadow minister for transportation. They're asking me what I'm going to do about it. Well, I haven't had the chance to get the mic to say that these are important issues.
Really, I wanted to finish the study on Driver Inc., so I'm very supportive of having the changes Mr. Barsalou-Duval asked for. Originally, I was the one proposing three meetings. To see three meetings in this motion, Mr. Chair, to specifically deal with the changing context for truck drivers in Canada is absolutely excellent.
It's important in order to understand the approaches. It's vital for the committee's report. Our committee will potentially hear directly from the victims. Their voices and words matter. We must give them time to explain their points of view and to address the challenges. That's really important to me.
It's also important for the different associations. For example, I'm just going to give a quick shout-out to one of the groups that is actually in this, the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group, because I know they're watching these proceedings. They have been keen to come here. I've seen some of the work they've done on their website and some of the very harrowing tales they have of the changing landscape of truck driving in Canada. I'm very supportive of that particular motion.
The challenge we have here, Mr. Chair, is the way this motion is currently constructed. We can't support it at this time without some major changes. I would start with the major changes needed for BC Ferries. I can't move forward without some sense of closure. I need closure, Mr. Chair, and unfortunately the government has not been able to give me that, because I don't feel that it has been accountable. I don't think that.... I still believe that the loan should be cancelled and that we should be looking to see how we can build these ships here in Canada, rather than allowing them to go to a hybrid shipyard in China and supporting their industry—their war machine—because it's all fundamental. It's all one thing to them.
Here in Canada, we have the very successful national shipbuilding strategy. I know that the government celebrated that and said all the wonderful things it does for the economy. Places like Halifax, with the Irving shipyard, have benefited very much. There is Seaspan, a great company that is producing fantastic Coast Guard vessels—the science vessels—as well as icebreakers, which do not use only Canadian steel, but use some.
Much of the steel, Mr. Chair, for icebreakers—I'm not sure if you're aware of this—actually comes from Finland, where Davie shipyard is a part owner. One of the things that I think we should have a real conversation about if we're going to do “made in Canada” is seeing whether we can import some of that specialty here in Canada, because when I last checked, Mr. Chair, we have some excellent steel companies.
These are all issues right now that I'm afraid the Government of Canada is not addressing.
We could consider, as I said, supporting the elements that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has obviously negotiated with the government members, because essentially it seems that this motion that was amended originated from the Liberal Party. I guess if Mr. Greaves were present, I could actually say that it appears there is a coalition between the Liberals and the Bloc. Actually, Mr. Lauzon said earlier that there was a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc, but that would be a silly thing to say. Ultimately, as you know, those in the Bloc have their ideas about what is good for their province, and we Conservatives have our own ideas. Sometimes the two travel the same way, and obviously, sometimes the Liberal Party seems to want to support and be supported by the Bloc, at least in the current way that this motion was amended.
I think it's a very silly thing for anyone to say—and I know that Mr. Greaves tried to make a point of this on Twitter—that it was really.... You wouldn't believe this, Mr. Chair. He actually did a report to his constituents, with a lovely background, because Victoria is beautiful. The coastline is very beautiful.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
On a point of order, it's been more than three and a half minutes since he talked to the main motion. Maybe he could talk about the main motion. He's been talking about BC Ferries for about eight or nine minutes. The subject here is the main motion.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
This is a reminder to all members to try to bring it back as much as possible. We have an unofficial three-and-a-half-minute rule, but we've used it in the past and I think we should include it here.
Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.
November 25th, 2025 / 4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Pros will refer to the motion every three and a half minutes.
Again, Mr. Lauzon was saying, in relation to the study of Driver Inc. and the motion, which now includes many of the measures, now including the ports.... I'm speaking to the motion. He alleged that there was a coalition.
I'm clearing the air. People who may have been confused by that statement from Mr. Lauzon can know that I think it was just political rhetoric. What was also political rhetoric, though, was Will Greaves' doing a little report to his constituents, saying it was the Conservatives who were filibustering and stopping the meeting. He actually posted Mr. Lauzon's statement that it was a coalition between the Conservatives and the Bloc.
I think it's really important, because had Mr. Greaves been here, he may have addressed this directly. Maybe he would have admitted that he was wrong and Mr. Lauzon was wrong. He might have wanted to speak about pipelines, MOUs and things like that, as my colleague Mr. Lawrence had asked him to.
Getting back to the report that is proposed here, I think it's very interesting that the Bloc has asked for the Prime Minister of Canada's Office to be added to the list for a production order. Why is that interesting? It's because TVA Nouvelles did a story in the past three days outlining that the Prime Minister has been seen multiple times with a gentleman, and this obviously has some connection to the issue that has absorbed so much press time in Quebec.
I find it really interesting that the government has welcomed this. I will give the government a bit of credit. It is trying to open up the doors of the Prime Minister's Office in this motion. That's very interesting, and I hope it was done with the coordination of the Prime Minister's Office, because I wouldn't want Mr. Kelloway to lose his job as parliamentary secretary. Apparently, if you don't consult with the Prime Minister's Office on things like agreements with the Bloc on Bill C-9—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I will say the sentiment, particularly as we leave for the holidays—
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
I wanted the sentiment on the record. I appreciate that, sir.