Transport Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

No, you just finished.

Can you rule on that, Mr. Chair?

[An hon. member]

He's still speaking. He still has the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

He is still speaking. He would still like to speak to the motion.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

No, he did his motion.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I have a point of order.

I challenge the chair's decision that Mr. Lauzon has the floor, and as part of that, Mr. Albas should have the....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

He's next on the speakers list.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Can I put a point of order in?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There's no debate; it's a dilatory motion.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Wow. Okay.

[The Clerk]

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Just for future reference, if a member has the floor, can other parties vote to remove that member's ability to speak, Mr. Clerk?

Colleagues, the clerk is looking up something quite important. We're going to suspend for two minutes while he does that.

This meeting is suspended until the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Albas. Next I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Again, Mr. Chair, thank you for handing me the opportunity to speak, because I think it's something that has not been fairly shared. Over the past few weeks, we've seen a Liberal filibuster presented mainly by Mr. Lauzon. Today, he gave more reasons for this.

Mr. Chair, quite honestly, in my mind, I don't know whether the first two meetings of his filibuster felt longer than the last 10-minute intervention, but I digress, and I'm going to digress here, Mr. Chair. There are a few things.

First, the tactics the Liberal Party members have been using are obstructionist. It's also been very unfair to Mr. Lauzon that he has shouldered all of this. My suggestion is that they might want to examine having a fair share by having the load spread out more fairly.

Beyond that, Mr. Chair, it's undemocratic for us not to have regular meetings while Parliament is sitting. I believe this is an issue that you must profoundly contemplate, because you have a key role that has been given to you by this committee, not by any one member or any staff member, but by Parliament itself. I think the obligation runs such that we need to have regular meetings.

Now, to be fair, the last few meetings have not been productive, but that is not the business of the chair. That is the business of the committee and how it decides to spend its time. I understand it when there are legitimate concerns about the direction. It's very clear to me, though, and I think anyone from the public who came in or watched it on TV would clearly see that the majority of the committee members support continuing this study into the issues that are happening in the trucking industry and that the majority wants to hear directly from victims.

I am going to take a point of contention against Mr. Lauzon, who has said that this is politicking. Mr. Lauzon can choose any reason he wants not to support Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval's motion. He can pick any reason. The one reason he has presented that I take issue with is that somehow we are forcing victims into a position in which they compromise their pain for political gain.

I would say that it is their pain, sir. It is their pain, and it's up to them to decide whether they wish to share it publicly in a way that might benefit this committee.

Also, I think it's remarkable that we've spent so much time talking about what is on political websites. I will tell you what's on a political website: a donate button. There might be other information Canadians will go to a political website for, and they will see that in addition to a donate button, individual members of Parliament from all parties will sometimes present a press release that—guess what—other members of Parliament will disagree with.

I for one want to see victims who freely choose to share their pain—it's for them to decide how they're going to deal with it—and if they are willing to come forward and give us their views and recommendations to consider as part of a study, exempting them from it would somehow lessen our report.

I will also say this: We heard earlier from the analysts here that if we have closed-door sessions, we're not going to be able to use their testimony. If someone's coming here freely to speak about their issues or their family members' issues, I say that this is what Parliament is for.

I'm just going to recap. It is obstructionist, what the government members have been doing. It's undemocratic that we have not had meetings. Also, I support the right of people to come forward and to share their experiences in the way they so choose.

Mr. Chair, I often say that I want a government who thinks of me, not for me, and I certainly want a committee and a committee chair who thinks of us, not for us.

I am going to finish my time on this floor by simply asking for a friendly amendment to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's motion to include the Association des Professionnels du Dépannage du Québec, the tow trucking association of Quebec, which seems to have fallen by the wayside.

I hope that it will be seen as a friendly amendment and that Mr. Barsalou-Duval will include them, because they are a key witness. In my original thinking.... In October we expressed that we wanted to invite them. I think they probably want to come and talk to us about the woes they're having, with millions of dollars of unpaid tow trucking fees. They should be able to share their experiences with this committee as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas. Is that an official amendment you're putting forward, sir?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

It's a friendly amendment. If it's adopted by Mr. Barsalou-Duval, I think it's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

All amendments put on the table have to be voted on by members. A new speaking order would have to begin to discuss that amendment. I guess you'll have your hand up.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you will be the first to speak to Mr. Albas's amendment.

Do I have any others on the speaking order for Mr. Albas's amendment to add one more witness to the list?

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not know how to explain the fact that the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec is not mentioned in the motion. That may be a mistake on my part. It seems to me that it was part of the discussions we had previously had in committee and that it was also part…. We remember what Mr. Lauzon said. I must admit that it was difficult to listen to him for three hours at the last meeting. He alluded to it himself when he spoke.

I imagine that he never mentioned that he would be against that, especially since it was part of the discussion at the beginning. I assume that everyone will agree on adding the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec to the list of additional witnesses who must appear before the committee.

Having said that, I think we also have an opportunity to talk about the overall context of the topic we are discussing right now. I think it is important to talk about it because we did not really have the opportunity to do so at the last meeting, given that the speaking time was monopolized by a single person for almost three hours—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I think we need consensus to confirm the presence of at least one other witness. You're next on the speaking list.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Great.

So I will be able to continue my comments once—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That is correct. I will turn it over to you.

Okay? Perfect.

There's no one else on the speakers list, colleagues, so we can go to a vote on this.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go back to the main motion. For that, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to comment on the way we decide whether or not to call a meeting of the committee, which has been rather random for the past few weeks. I am one of the people who find this problematic. I have always believed that, according to normal procedure, the committee was convened on a mandatory basis, but I understand that is not the case. For our part, we therefore believe that our operating rules should be revised so that, in the future, the committee is properly convened when Parliament is sitting. Otherwise, it becomes another tactic to prevent the committee from doing its work. I think all Quebeckers, and probably Canadians as well, expect committees to do their work. They pay taxes for a reason. So it is very disappointing to see this kind of tactic, but we learn something new every day. We will have to find a way to correct that.

Now, I have to say that the arguments from the other side of the table at the last meeting were quite far-fetched. I would even go so far as to say that this is virtually unheard of. I think they are inventing a parallel reality. I do not intend to go through the arguments one by one, because there have been so many. It is quite unpleasant, because if you do not know the overall context, you could be tempted to believe the comments made by a single person who monopolizes the speaking time. So I find this way of doing things problematic.

This same individual, Mr. Lauzon, suggested in his opening remarks, in a tone that I very much appreciated, that we find a way to work together. I think that is positive, but with what we heard at the last meeting, the contrast is a bit striking, especially when the person who prevented the committee from operating during the entire meeting lectures us about respect for taxpayers, the staff who work here and everyone around the table. We have seen this in other meetings. In any case, let me say that I find this way of speaking quite particular.

That said, I am still among those who hope that the committee will find a solution, because I think we want to have a committee that works, not a committee where members talk to each other all day. So I promise that I will not be speaking for the entire meeting today, Mr. Chair. However, I am still going to go back to some comments, particularly those calling me a liar who manipulated the victims.

Anyone who consults the “blues” or views the recording of the November 6 meeting will see very clearly that the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation did not want to hear about the victims. Has he changed his mind in the meantime? If that is the case, so much the better, we will eventually be able to hear from the victims. I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that, when the motion proposing to invite victims to testify was originally moved, two or three meetings before the November 6 meeting, the government members filibustered. This shows that it was not just the requests for documents that bothered them, but also the idea of inviting victims to come and testify.

Were they opposed to the victims testifying or to us continuing to work on this in committee? It is up to them to explain it to us, but Mr. Lauzon's comments on November 6 very clearly showed that he had little consideration for victims and that he was not interested in their presence at the table. If he has changed his mind on the subject, I will be very happy, and I think the victims will be too. Society will come out ahead. In his own words, it is a duty of humanity. I am not talking about being a Liberal. I am talking about people who have had accidents, who have lost loved ones or who have nearly lost their lives. It seems to me that the least we can do is allow this committee to hear what they have to say.

As for Mr. Lauzon's comments about funding, they are so ridiculous that I do not even know if it is worth talking about, but I have to do it to get it on the record. I did not even know what he was referring to when he talked about it, because I obviously do not manage our party's website, Mr. Chair. There are staff who take care of that. My colleague apparently discovered, to his great surprise, that there was a press release on the Bloc Québécois website in which I raised the issue of the Driver Inc. model and that, on the same website, our party was asking for money. I am surprised by his surprise, since all parties solicit donations on their websites, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Green Party or the Marxist-Leninist Party.

So it is completely ridiculous. It is clear that the member opposite was looking for an excuse to get all worked up, and that day he found one. He tried to put on a dog and pony show and, unfortunately for him, no one believed him, but he still caused us to waste a lot of time.

In short, we have seen a sad spectacle in the past month. That is not how we should be working here. I am sure that, even on the government side, there are members who are not happy to work that way. When you work for your fellow citizens, it seems to me that you want to come home on the weekend and tell them why you fought that week. I do not think they want to hear that we sat at the table to listen to a colleague block the committee's work. They want to hear that we are concerned about the real problems they are experiencing and that we have tried to find solutions.

Despite everything, I found the Liberals' argument about the scope of the documents requested in this motion interesting. I have not had a clear indication of that, but I understand that it could be a significant burden, a significant amount of time and a significant cost to society. I would therefore be prepared to accept amendments to send the request to ministers' offices only, first of all, rather than to all departments.

Why would we not start by sending our request for documents to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of National Revenue? Sending the request to their respective departments is not something that should necessarily be excluded, but by limiting it to the offices of these three ministers, first of all, will make it possible to request fewer documents. In addition, it will allow us to see whether there is real political will on the part of the government to act on this issue, or whether the government would have been able to make decisions and to move the file forward. Perhaps there are solutions that the committee has not yet thought of that have been proposed by people with whom the ministers have had discussions. These are very interesting and relevant things for the committee.

I am therefore making a very open and constructive proposal, even though we have not seen a lot of constructive action on the other side, apart from the fact that they have taken a slightly less frivolous tone today.

With that, I am willing to turn it over to others who have things to say. I hope we will find a solution today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

They say they want the committee to work well, but we have just received evidence, once again, that this is not the case. From the outset, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois formed a coalition to overturn a decision from the chair, something they would not have been able to do otherwise. The Conservatives even defended the Bloc Québécois when it came to the icon that people can click on their website to make a donation. This is the first time I have seen that. They also joined forces by sharing their speaking time to move the original motion and amendments.

Now, as for the consequences of speaking for three hours, as Mr. Barsalou‑Duval said, that is nothing compared to mobilizing the entire public service to provide documents. Whether it is public servants or ministers' offices who contact the departments, the request for documents would need to be dealt with. The train goes in one direction, but it has to come back. So the amendment my colleague is proposing today changes nothing. He is not acting in good faith. The amendment I proposed, which was directly related to the Bloc Québécois' original motion, would have enabled us to achieve our objectives for this meeting. In addition, we agreed to add a witness who had been forgotten. We did not have a problem with that, although I wonder where that appearance will fit into our schedule.

It was publicly stated that I did not want victims to come and testify, whereas in fact, we never voted on that. We have just had discussions. I had an honest conversation with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval behind the scenes, and I told him that I would agree to these witnesses appearing before the committee as long as their testimonies are heard in camera to keep their identity confidential. I would like him to admit it, for the record of the committee. A few minutes later, I heard people say publicly that I did not want victims to testify.

Once again, today, I made concessions in good faith. What I recommended in my amendment is that these witnesses come, but on their own accord. If they want the meeting to be held in camera to preserve their dignity, they should have that option. It would be in the interest of this committee. If they want to come and testify publicly, they can do so. That is what we said, and if that is not a way to put some water in our wine, I do not know what is.

Then, the two two-hour meetings are exactly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lawrence has a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

My point of order is relevance.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval has put forward a very reasonable compromise here. Can we just get rid of the obstructionism? If we have a deal, then let's get a deal.