Debates of Dec. 8th, 2025

Liaison

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals trying to hide? It is a lot. I look at my own committee, in terms of trying to get the Stellantis contracts. The government gave $13 billion to Stellantis, only to see Stellantis flee, fire people in Brampton and then show up at the White House with Trump, bragging about a $15-billion investment in the U.S. Specifically, with Stellantis, it looks like the Liberals are hiding the fact that taxpayers are funding production and job growth in the U.S. instead of in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the member would acknowledge that, at times, we get things that come out of committees. We have a committee that says it wants to try to travel, at taxpayers' expense, to talk about and promote what I would suggest is misinformation or misleading information.

Why should the taxpayers have to pay for it? Why would the government want to support an initiative like that?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Winnipeg North had had the same feeling and concern for taxpayers before his government gave millions for gender-just rice in Vietnam and before giving billions to U.S. multinationals that actually use some of that money to fund ISIS in Syria. The member should get serious.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

It is an honour to rise today ahead of what I guess is an early Festivus miracle to air some grievances on how committees are functioning in this place. I can assure members that in my experience at the environment committee, things are not going well. As my colleague so ably stated, we are watching, in real time, ministerial responsibility fall apart. We are watching an erosion and a decay of ministerial responsibility.

In the case of the environment committee, which I have been a proud member of since I was first elected back in 2023, we have been graced so humbly by the minister, it was only for a total of one hour of her time, one hour of her presence. We have been ignored, with over five invitations for the minister to appear. We have been ghosted time and time again. We have been stood up. It is starting to feel like she just does not like us. She is just not that into us. Asking tough questions is not a good enough reason to not be accountable to Parliament and to all Canadians. I would go so far as to say there have been more verified pictures of Bigfoot taken than there have been of our minister in the environment committee.

I will say something about the previous environment minister. He showed up. He was a scrappy guy. I will give him credit. I did not like his answers and I am sure he did not like my questions, but at least he had the guts to show up with regular occurrence. He got so fed up with his current government that he, of course, had to quit cabinet. Nonetheless, he at least showed up.

For Canadians out there thinking, well, we have question period, if anyone ever watched question period, they would notice that it is certainly called “question period” and not “answer period” for a reason. I think there has been a tremendous regression in question period under the current Liberal government. Committees are the place where accountability is meant to be had. It is where I, as a member of Parliament, just like all my colleagues, is on the same footing as a minister. It is where we can ask tough questions and are expecting fair, truthful answers. It is not a place to come and hide from accountability.

To give members a bit of a timeline, the first meeting we had at the environment committee was back on September 18, where we passed a very reasonable motion inviting the minister to appear for a total of two hours on her mandates and priorities. Given that, under this so-called new Liberal government, it was no longer publishing the mandate letters, it made sense to have the minister come and appear, particularly in the aftermath of a platform that was focused on removing many of the Trudeau-era environmental legacy pieces. The invitation was sent out later that day on September 18.

In that same meeting, we passed a second motion for an important study and invited the minister to appear to kick off that study on the electric vehicle mandate, or EV mandate, that this government is trying to impose upon manufacturers, dealers and all Canadians. There was a timeline associated with both of those, with October 10 for the mandates and priorities and prior to Halloween for the EV mandates. We ended up starting that study a little later, but that study was completed without the minister's appearance. We are unable to move forward with our report because, as per the motion adopted by the committee, we have not had all of the witnesses, including that minister. It is like she is hiding from a policy that she knows is going extremely poorly.

On September 25, we passed another motion asking for a different minister, the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, for two hours to discuss the transition of Parks Canada from Environment Canada over to the heritage department. At that time, it was the minister who resigned from that post recently, who was the former minister of the environment. He was the perfect minister to come and explain how this transition had happened. We did not even receive a response. I recognize that it is different; it is not the environment minister, but it was a very reasonable request that was just looking for a briefing. However, there was not even so much as a no thanks. They would not even respond to us. We simply did not matter.

On October 20, we passed an important motion seeking clarity out of the Government of Canada by having the Minister of the Environment appear regarding the Canadian government's vote at the United Nations International Maritime Organization on the UN net-zero scheme that would apply a carbon tax of up to $500 per tonne to the entirety of shipping goods in the world. I have no idea where this money is going to go.

[An hon. member]

It's Brookfield.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Brookfield is a very reasonable guess, and if only the minister would come and answer, maybe we would know whether it is Brookfield or someone else.

All I know is that it seems as though the minister just hoped that nobody would notice that Canada went along with trying to impose this massive tax on the import of every good that we bring into this country. Unfortunately for her, though, we did notice. We asked her to come forward within a few weeks to explain the vote and explain the process that was happening, but we got crickets; we have been ghosted yet again.

Then, all of a sudden, the Liberal MPs moved a motion to bring forward the minister for supplementary estimates, the bare minimum of what a minister could appear for. Surprisingly, she agreed to lump one hour of supplementary estimates in with one hour of the two hours that were requested regarding her mandate and priorities. That was for Monday, December 1.

Lo and behold, hours before the meeting, she got too busy. She could not possibly come for two hours. She would come for one hour, combining all of the spending and supplementary estimates for the environment department with what her mandate and priorities are. She would give us one hour, in which the chair would start the meeting a little late, she would leave a little early, and we would call that a day.

That is not accountability, and it is not ministerial responsibility.

There is another outstanding future invitation for the minister to come with respect to the industrial carbon tax, the so-called strengthening that we are expecting to perhaps see, as alluded to in the budget and in the memorandum of understanding with Alberta. I hold out next to no hope. This minister is simply terrified to show up. She is terrified to come and answer tough questions about a $500 carbon tax and about the fact that manufacturers, dealers and Canadians broadly despise the electric vehicle mandate. If this job is too hard, then give up the car, give up the driver, give up the salary, give up the responsibility and let the Prime Minister appoint somebody else. I am sick and tired of asking officials questions that ministers should be accountable for at committee.

Speaking of not being up to the job, there is our committee chair. Aiding and abetting this ministerial dereliction of duty is an unchecked, tyrannical, power-tripping chair who is unwilling to collaborate with any members of the opposition. Now, this member has been elected for a long enough time to know, I would have assumed, the rules. It has become clear that either intentionally hiding behind not knowing the rules, or simply not knowing the rules, is perhaps cover for following orders from on high from the minister's office, to try to avoid any sort of accountability.

Just to give a few examples from a very in-the-weeds procedural standpoint here, I have never seen so many requests for suspension and all of a sudden the chair whacking gavels and we are suspended. I have never seen so many attempts at a point of order just ignored to adjourn a meeting. I have never seen such a rude exchange as the one with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, in which the chair took issue with the professionalism of a member.

I hope that in future, this debate today sparks a conversation, as it appears that there are many other chairs who are certainly lacking in awareness of the new and improved big green book that was just recently circulated to members' offices here. There should certainly be an increase in training for chairs, either to better understand the non-partisan nature of their role or simply to understand the rules. They should not have so many rookie MPs, who have just taken the time to read the rules of this place, providing guidance to the chair. They should not have chairs so reliant on and attempting to follow but basically bungling the advice of the clerks.

All in all, the environment committee has been a difficult one for the Liberal government because of its terrible track record of coupling the amount of pain and suffering that it has imposed upon Canadians with its incredibly disastrous track record of environmental policies and the lack of gain in terms of any environmental results, made worse by a complete disregard for ministerial accountability.

It is time that we did better. It is time for the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Transport, the ministers of the Liberal government, to do a heck of a lot better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, what has not been lost on me regarding the debate that has been taking place to date is what should have been taking place today. We should have been talking about the budget implementation bill. However, the Conservatives, once again, are using this debate to filibuster instead of talking about the budget. There is a lot of irony there.

I would suggest to the members opposite that, if they have any interest in serving Canadians in the delivery of the many projects in the budget, they need to recognize that they need to stop the filibuster and allow the budget implementation bill to go to committee.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that was just such a Liberal question: “Why would they not just do what we want them to do?”

It reminds me a lot of Bill C-9 actually. The Liberals are trying to control what people say and how they express themselves. It is a continuous track record for people who do not agree with the Liberals, as they then do their level best to silence them. The Liberals try to control everything that people say, see and think. Can members remember when we could share news articles on social media in this country? What a time to be alive that was.

The Liberal government is all about control. It is not surprising to get a question like that, asking why we would not just do what they think should be done. No, we are not going to do that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said that he has never seen so many meetings being cancelled. I am glad to hear that. I do not know whether he was here when I gave my speech, but I mentioned that we have a lengthy report on this very subject. We are going over it now to present the statistics, and that is not normal.

My colleague also said that one minister was afraid to appear before the committee. That is not normal either. We have statistics on that as well. We are not talking about those who simply have not yet responded and may never respond because they are hoping for a suspension.

The Conservatives have also been experts at filibustering in the past. They have to concede that. I would like my colleague to tell me how we can break the current deadlock. It seems that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has been convened and that a meeting will take place tomorrow. We are very pleased about that.

Will you commit to not blocking the committee's work and to doing the clause-by-clause study, even if it means voting?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I want to remind the member that he is addressing the Chair when he uses the word “you”.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the acknowledgement of the stats that have been kept by my colleague and the report undertaken about the lack of appearances.

It would be one thing if it was just the odd camera-shy minister who was not very confident in their portfolio and did not want to show up, knowing they might get rung through the ringer a little. However, we are seeing a consistent pattern across every single department, a fear to come and defend the ideas, policies and the spending by this Liberal government.

If the Liberal ministers are proud of what the government is doing, they should have the guts to show up to a committee and answer tough questions from parliamentarians on behalf of their constituents. That is the job.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Portage—Lisgar just landed on something quite relevant, and maybe some of my Liberal colleagues missed it, which is the stifling of debate.

He mentioned that, because of the Liberal censorship bill, we cannot share news articles online. The government has prorogued Parliament not once, but twice, in the past 10 years. Once it was to cover up the WE Charity scandal and another time it was to cover up the green slush fund scandal.

I am a big fan of the idea that future behaviour is dictated by past behaviour. The government has done nothing but stifle debate over the last 10 years. Would my colleague agree with that?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is like the Liberals cannot help themselves and it is in their DNA to try to control what other people think.

Canadians are sick and tired of it, and I think they wish they could just share that message with a few more Canadians on social media.

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

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to rise to speak on behalf of the good citizens of Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. Unfortunately, it is to do something that is not in my nature, which is to be negative, but it has to be done.

The government and its members have treated Parliament badly. One only has to take a look at the debate tonight. There are Liberal members here, but they are not in sufficient numbers that I would say shows they take this issue seriously—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of order. The member is trying to walk a fine line in terms of talking about members being present or not present, and I just want to caution that he is not supposed to be doing that.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

That is a good reminder. There is a standing order that says members cannot draw the attention of the House to a member being here or not being here.

I will let the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna continue. He is an experienced member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply be mindful that no member was mentioned; I was talking about the House in general. I think all of us would consider that a strong presence by all parties would always be a welcome thing in a democracy.

At committee, I have found the government and its members to be unaccountable, undemocratic and obstructionist. I will be talking about each one today.

Unaccountable is when the transport committee sought to have the Minister of Public Safety and the former minister of transport, who is now just the member for University—Rosedale. We found it was like pulling teeth when we invited them to come and speak about the BC Ferries scenario. Again, let us be mindful that over $1 billion of federal taxpayer money is going to a corporation that is sending that money, effectively offshoring Canadian jobs in steel, aluminum and shipbuilding.

We could not get the Minister of Public Safety to come, even though the former minister of transport, in her capacity as minister, wrote to the B.C. government outlining her concerns with national security with those vessels being procured from a hybrid, both military and civilian, Chinese shipyard. The fact that those ministers never came, to allow us to have a complete study, means we still have not been able to do our recommendations. I hope that eventually the members of the transport committee will encourage those ministers or former ministers to appear and to share their expertise so that Canadians can know their Parliament is working and there is accountability for ministers.

I also mentioned the undemocratic or anti-democratic behaviour. I have to say, this pains me to no small extent. I work with the member of Parliament who acts as the chair of the transport committee on the all-party cancer caucus. Unfortunately, in his capacity as chair of the transport committee, Conservatives have twice had to invoke emergency powers under Standing Order 106(4) in order to force the chair to convene meetings while Parliament is in session. I will repeat that: meetings while Parliament is in session. I could understand the reticence of a chair to hold meetings, unless there are emergencies, during the off period, during the summer when we are in our constituencies, working with our constituents, but when Parliament is in session and our committees are running, there is no reason why we should not be having regular meetings.

During a meeting, we have seen the chair gavel out without the consent of the room, just leave and the meeting is over, even though there were resources, which was confirmed. We had one case where the chair suspended for technical reasons, walked out, and then all the Liberal members went while we were switching over to new translators and used that opportunity to effectively end the meeting. That is purely undemocratic and unbecoming behaviour of a chair who is supposed to be an impartial referee for our parliamentary committees. This chair needs to think deeply on his role.

The last one is obstructionistic.

The member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation keeps filibustering at committee. This behaviour is unacceptable. The Conservative Party and the other party, the Bloc Québécois, want to continue the study on the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada.

We want to hear from victims and other people who can provide the committee with necessary information. The longer this one particular member filibusters continually, using up all the time and resources, is another day that victims are not heard. That is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to the members on the transport committee on the opposition side, whether Conservative or Bloc. This member needs to stop and recognize that there are other voices that need to be heard, such as victims. Every day we do not have a step forward on that report is a day when we do not get to do those recommendations, which all members say that they want.

It is so important for us to hear from some of those final voices before we give recommendations that could save a life. It could safe the life of one of the Speaker's family members or the life of one of our constituents, so we need to move forward with this.

I have gone through a few things today. One is that we need to have an accountable government, with ministers coming to committee within a reasonable period of time. Number two, we need to change the undemocratic way that some chairs are choosing not to convene regular meetings during parliamentary sessions, gavelling out or taking advantage of technical situations, such as when translators are switching over. That is undemocratic behaviour that is unbecoming of the House. Lastly is the obstructionism coming from the Liberal Party, particularly one member on the transportation committee.

This is not what my constituents sent me here for. They sent me to be a powerful voice as they have sent all of us to be powerful voices for their interests. I cannot think of anything more important in our transportation system right now than having a safe highway, where we can have a safe, smooth and efficient exchange of goods using our trucking system, connecting with our ports, connecting with our jobs and connecting with our supply chains.

This is one of those things where the government needs to listen, and particularly the chairs of the committee, all committees. Just because members do not have a majority on committee does not mean they do not need to follow the rules of democracy, which means basic things like votes and motions. Those are what parliamentary committees are set up for.

I look forward to hearing from other members here tonight and answering their questions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I found my colleague's speech rather ironic. He talked about obstruction. I completely agree with him that we must avoid obstruction, but that is actually what the Conservatives are doing this afternoon in the House. We were supposed to have a debate on the budget implementation bill. This is a budget that meets Canadians' expectations with investments in public safety, border security, and infrastructure. Instead of debating this important bill, we are witnessing parliamentary obstruction by the official opposition.

When I am in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, people ask me to advance their priorities, and those priorities are reflected in budget 2025.

Why is my colleague trying to delay the adoption of the budget, which meets Canadians' expectations?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's intervention really does cause me to think of the reason I am here. As I said in my speech, we are here to be powerful voices for our constituents. I was here during the majority years when I first was elected in 2011. Sometimes I probably gave the government of the day a little too much latitude and not enough to the priorities of members in this space.

This member right here is essentially shining the shoes of the government rather than listening to the voices of our constituents. I bet that member's constituents want to see those recommendations from Driver Inc. and also want to see a government that respects parliamentary committees, so we actually have meetings and get business done.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member is right to criticize systematic filibustering, especially when the government does it. We received good news. It seems that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will finally be meeting tomorrow, after being blocked for I do not know how long. According to what my party's critic told me earlier, the committee will have resources until midnight, and we are a little apprehensive that the Conservatives may engage in filibustering.

My question for my colleague is this. Will his party commit to working tomorrow and proceeding with a clause-by-clause vote, instead of filibustering until midnight?

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

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I know about the justice committee right now is that when we are in transport committee and, for example, we are suddenly told that the justice committee has ended abruptly, we get those resources and we specifically say we would like to continue the filibuster to let that member of Parliament have his say and maybe perhaps finally finish. Unfortunately, even with all the extra resources, the chair still ends the meeting early and before that member stops talking so he will again have the floor the next meeting. All I know about this place is that there is a cascading effect, and if this member feels the government is playing games at his committee, I guarantee they are playing games at my committee. This needs to stop.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen consistently in this Parliament is the disrespect of the government for the democratic process. Government members claim they want committees to bring forth meaningful amendments, but they vote down amendments. They claim they want things to go to committee, but they shut down committee meetings.

Now the PMO has given a directive to the Liberal House leader and all the committee chairs to muzzle Parliament by eliminating committee meetings, by basically not having them.

I wonder if the member can share his thoughts on how he thinks this is helping democratic voices in Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We are out of time, so I cannot let the member respond to that.

The question is on the motion:

That the question be now put.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The next question is on the concurrence motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.