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.