Transport Committee on Aug. 1st, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

This is a rule. Thank you very much, Ms. Nguyen.

Yes, Mr. Albas.

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

We confirmed this earlier. I had said five o'clock, and you said that 5:25, I believe, was going to be the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It was 5:29.

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

It was actually 5:29, so we've already decided the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

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

As my colleague was saying, we agreed that there would be a disposition of all issues at the end of an hour, and the end of that hour is quickly approaching.

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

I have a question for the clerks regarding the nature of the motion that is on the table. My interpretation is that the motion currently under discussion must be voted on—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, excuse me for interrupting.

The clerks are checking something, so they can't listen to you right now. I'm sure your question is very important, but they've asked me to pause for a moment.

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

Their brains are busy. That's fine. I'll come back to my question later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

If you continue, they won't have a chance to listen to you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. I will therefore give them time to see exactly what Ms. Nguyen is talking about before continuing the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

What I've just confirmed with the clerks—and there was another clerk they reached out to who's an on-duty clerk to respond to emergency questions—is that under normal circumstances the chair cannot end debate if it's ongoing. However, in this particular case, because there was a motion adopted by the committee that put a timeline on the debate, it has to abide by that timeline.

However, and this is the caveat, the committee could change that. The committee could look back on its own motion to say it needs more discussion on this. Then we don't have to abide by the 5:29 vote if the committee decides to not do that.

I'm throwing that information out there to help with our discussions moving forward.

Okay?

Do you understand, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval? I can repeat it in French if you like.

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

That won't be necessary.

May I ask my question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a technical question that the clerks will likely be able to clarify for us.

We are currently debating the Conservative motion on the production of documents. As I understand it, once the allotted time has elapsed, we will have to vote on this motion. Will that conclude all the matters that need to be dealt with, or will it still be possible to move other motions?

Obviously, other issues and other motions need to be dealt with. Perhaps my Liberal colleagues will also have other motions to move that they wish to discuss. Will it be possible to do so, or are we obliged to debate only the motion that has been moved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That is a good question.

Did you hear Mr Barsalou‑Duval's question?

It appears they did not.

Could you please repeat the question, Mr Barsalou‑Duval?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

According to the motion that the committee adopted, once the testimony is finished, we will have one hour to talk about how we want to proceed with the meeting, and the committee must vote on that. The problem is that we have debated only one motion, while other motions may be introduced and discussed.

The question is whether we will have the opportunity to move other motions and discuss them, or whether, once the time allocated for discussion has expired, we will simply vote on the one before us, which would automatically defeat the other motions, since they will not have been moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You can always submit another motion, and we will discuss it at another meeting.

Members can always propose discussing other issues and introducing other motions. For example, we may decide at 5:29 p.m. that we don't have enough time to do so, and the committee could vote in favour of one or more additional meetings to discuss them further.

I have Mr. Greaves with a hand up and then Mr. Kelloway with a hand up.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was going to speak to the Conservative motion. I just want to confirm that it's the correct item before us at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It is.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

In that case, what I want to speak to is this: I don't support this motion.

I think it's very clear from the broad scope laid out in this motion that some of the member's intent is to continue to create as much of a fishing expedition here as possible. The number of different departments and ministers' offices that are listed.... Despite having had the opportunity today to speak directly with the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and the senior leadership of both the CIB and BC Ferries, we still find ourselves in a position where, seemingly, our honourable colleagues are not satisfied with the answers given. They don't seem content with these autonomous agencies having arm's-length relationships with both the provincial and the federal governments.

BC Ferries is a provincial entity that has no relationship with the federal government other than Transport Canada's regulatory authority. It seems very much that the intent here is a willingness on the part of our colleagues to use BC Ferries as a political cudgel and to undermine the future effectiveness of the service and the impact it has in British Columbia, in B.C. communities, in the B.C. economy and all of that. Our colleagues are willing to put this at stake to try to make political hay in an effort to embarrass the government.

This motion, I regret to say—especially as it's coming from a fellow member from British Columbia—is not in the best interest of our province. It's not a motion that supports the infrastructure and services British Columbians rely upon. It is a motion that seeks to serve the political interests of the member's party at the expense of British Columbians. I suggest that is not acceptable, Mr. Chair. I suggest it's an irresponsible motion that casts a wide net in a fishing expedition, one attempting to find information additional to that which has been provided in the last five and a half hours of committee before us.

Therefore, I don't support this motion, Mr. Chair. I think it is an effort to drag out this committee's work rather than allow us to go forward and produce the study we initially agreed upon in our last meeting.

I hope my colleagues will agree that we are not well served by extending this process in the way that has been proposed. Rather, we should allow the analysts and the committee to move forward in producing a report that will indicate how, in future, we can ensure that procurement decisions with federal government support are taken in such a way that they support Canadian jobs and industry and meet the critical needs of Canadians and our constituents with the vital infrastructure we are expected to be investing in.

I'll hold it there. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was going to speak to this earlier, but I handed it off because I thought there was going to be a subamendment.

You know, over the course of the last five or six hours, I think we've had a really strong opportunity to hear from a lot of different people on this particular topic: Minister Freeland, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and, of course, BC Ferries and the Infrastructure Bank. Again, it's my take. It's through my lens, and I didn't see a heck of a lot of contradictions here.

I did see things that unified many of us around the table, that we're in a different time from six months ago, four months ago or three months ago. Seemingly, we're in a different time every day. When you turn on the television, whether it's CBC, CTV, Global or social media, the goalposts with respect to the United States.... In particular, Mr. Trump, with these unfair tariffs, keeps on being erratic and unpredictable. The only thing that's predictable about him is unpredictability.

We're in a different time, and I think each of the witnesses really highlighted that. Yes, there were dates thrown about, with who knew what when. This is serious, and I get that. In particular, it's serious for the British Columbian people. I'm getting that through opposition people who are from B.C. and, of course, folks who are on the government side who are from B.C.

I look to a couple of things. It seems that this is an omnibus motion to go fishing. Okay, that can be done, but what are we going to do in terms of not just the government but meeting the moment for Canadians? I agree we need more infrastructure development in Canada. I agree we need more people working on ships, different infrastructure, not shipping them out to potential areas, in this case China. However, we also have a firm grasp of the chronological aspects of why that happened.

Now, as a committee, what are we going to do? Are we going to go back and be sifting through everything to determine if someone said something that they should have said on July 1 or June 2, or are we going to identify that we all agree that we need to do better?

What can we do in terms of recommendations to ensure that we do better, that we do better in terms of our relationship with different entities in the provinces, such as BC Ferries? How do we prepare for what is not a dream, what is not fantasy? That is, we are going to be, to a high degree, masters of our own home in the sense of generating national wealth. What are we going to do to produce better in terms of industry? Those are the recommendations that I want to see.

I want to take this situation and I want to learn from it; I want to build upon it. I think that's what Canadians want us to do.

I think it is good that the opposition got us here today, because the reality is that we had some sunlight on some things. For example, there is the $1-billion loan—I stress “loan”—of which $690 million is going to the building of the vessels while $310 million is going to the electrification of infrastructure in B.C. I'd like to know how we maximize that, because most of that is going to be in B.C., right?

Among other things, I'd like to know this: How do we do everything we can to avoid getting here again? How do these institutions evolve at a rapid rate? The difference between now and 12 months ago is staggering in terms of our relationship with the Americans. Where do we need to go as a country in terms of development, in terms of jobs, in terms of the new economy and in terms of energy, whether that be oil and gas or whether that be renewables?

Those are the things that I'm hoping, and I look to people around this table, people who care about the federal side of things but also care about provincial rights and provincial economic wealth. How do we put forward recommendations to strengthen that based on what we heard today? That's what I'm hoping to achieve.

I don't cast any doubt that if you put forward a motion, that's your motion. I respect that, but honestly, in this motion, I don't think it's going to help us pivot; I don't think it's going to help us learn from this, and I don't think it's going to help British Columbians.

What we can do is be serious about what recommendations can come out of this committee that are going to impact industry in B.C., industry in Quebec, industry in Atlantic Canada. That's what we could be serious about.

That's just my opinion. That doesn't make it any different from or any better than a Conservative input or a Bloc input, but we're in a different time. We're at an inflection point in this country. We need to get these things right. Let's learn from it and build on it, or we can spend five, six, seven, eight meetings on having really important banter. Social media can have its thing. Conspiracy theorists can have their thing, and where are we?

I just defer to you, Mr. Chair, and anybody else who has their hand up. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

I have Mr. Albas on the floor.

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

I just wanted to say that I find it interesting that when the members wanted to strip away any kind of accountability when it came to government offices such as a minister's office, they seemed to be perfectly fine with this so-called fishing expedition, as long as it didn't include their ministers' offices.

It's pretty clear what's going on here. It's clear they're just trying to block any kind of accountability for their ministers, and that's fair, but I'll just leave it at that, Mr. Chair, other than to say that Conservative opposition members—I won't speak for the Bloc—seem to have some concerns. We want to know more, and that's what the production order is supposed to do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.