EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities NUMBER 016 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 25, 2025 Le mardi 25 novembre 2025 Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 25, 2025 Committee NUMBER 016 NUMBER 016 NUMÉRO 016 16 25 11 2025 2025/11/25 15:35:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities TRAN Chair Peter Schiefke 1 45

(1535) [ English ]

The Chair (Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to 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. Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to consider the request by members of the committee to continue the discussion on Driver Inc. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those of you participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, 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. Remember that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. I don't think there's anybody joining us online today. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard. We begin debate today with Mr. Kelloway, followed by Mr. Lawrence and—

Philip Lawrence (Northumberland—Clarke, CPC) :

I have a point of order. I was first.

Mike Kelloway (Sydney—Glace Bay, Lib.) :

No, you weren't.

Philip Lawrence :

I challenge the chair.

The Chair :

I saw Mr. Kelloway's hand go up while I was speaking.

Philip Lawrence :

Yes, Mr. Chair. I was up first.

The Chair :

I recognize Mr. Kelloway. If you'd like to challenge the chair, you can.

Philip Lawrence :

I have. I just did.

The Chair :

Okay.

The Clerk of the Committee (Philip den Ouden) :

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

Mike Kelloway :

That's incredible, guys. The hand was up before yours. That's incredible.

The Chair :

We're going to Mr. Lawrence followed by Mr. Kelloway.

Philip Lawrence :

It's actually quite shocking to me that we're having this childish behaviour. Mr. Chair, could you please maintain order in here? After cancelling two meetings because they don't want to hear from victims, now they're going to act as if they're victims. This is ridiculous and silly.

Mike Kelloway :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. This is absolutely ridiculous. We want a study to go ahead for recommendations. This is absolutely incredible. It is terrible—shameful.

The Chair :

Colleagues, we're all going to have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Lawrence can begin the discussion. The floor is yours, sir, followed by Mr. Kelloway. Do we have any others who would like to be on the list? Mr. Barsalou-Duval is third. Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours.

Stéphane Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, Lib.) :

I was not, but now I want to be there.

Philip Lawrence :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, it's really quite remarkable that, after not wanting to hear from victims of serious accidents, sometimes fatal ones, they're over there playing the victim because they didn't get the right to go first. It is really beyond the pale. His moral sanctity is only matched by his silliness on this issue. I want to get a couple of things on the record. First, Conservatives did not consent to the cancellation of the meetings that were otherwise scheduled. This is extremely disappointing and not the way Parliament should be conducted.

As well, I want to put on the record that Conservatives will not and do not consent to any type of adjourning of the meeting prior to the full usage of all resources available. Conservatives are absolutely committed to hearing about victims who have suffered fatalities or significant injuries and from their families. Conservatives care, unlike the Prime Minister , who clearly does not, as well as those members who do not want to hear—again, that's the only conclusion—from the victims of serious accidents. With that, I will pass the floor to Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval.

The Chair :

I have Mr. Kelloway and then I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I'm just going to be clear: They did have their hands up first. Mr. Kelloway.

Mike Kelloway :

Thank you for respecting my hand going up. I don't use 50-cent words to describe people or tear people down. The member opposite talked about silliness and used a variety of other words that are absolutely, categorically false. In fact, the motion on the table would have the survivors here. What we're seeing right now is an example of how the Conservative Party of Canada, which used to be conservative, is now cynical and conspiratorial; its members are blending things together to suit their narrative. How dare the member opposite say that we don't care about survivors? That doesn't wash with Canadians.

That doesn't wash with people from coast to coast. We have a plan on the table that we think is a pretty good motion, but we played a game today. My hand was clearly up, and we played a game. That is the seriousness you have put into this. We have a motion on the table. You could have respected that. You could have talked it out. You could have had a very good conversation about it, but right at this moment today, on this side of the table, we have a lot to say. I hope that, as we listen to you folks—and you care about survivors.... To come out and say that is just greasy. It is bush league.

It is out of the handbook that you guys have to say, in your PowerPoint presentations on committee work, “Own the Liberals.” That doesn't help anybody. What a shameful act we see today.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway. [ Translation ] We'll now move on to Mr. Barsalou-Duval. The floor is yours.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to begin by saying that I'm pleased to see you again. To tell you the truth, I'm quite pleased that the committee is meeting this week, because we haven't met since November 6, and today is November 25. That's quite a long time. I think many people around this table were disappointed that the Committee did not meet last week. That is why we were forced to request a meeting in accordance with Standing Order 106(4). First and foremost, I would like to ask the chair if she can explain why the committee was not convened for meetings last week.

The Chair :

That question is addressed to me. First of all, two weeks ago was a break week for Parliament, so we were not in Ottawa. As for last Tuesday, there was a confidence vote. There were rumours about possible political manoeuvring that could have influenced the confidence vote to be held in the House of Commons. Since I didn't want committee members to miss that vote, I didn't call a meeting for Tuesday. As for Thursday, while talking to several committee members, I heard that there might be a solution to the problem of systematic filibustering or our discussions that are clearly not leading to solutions.

So, I decided to let people talk privately, so as not to waste the House of Commons' money. Unfortunately, that didn't work. I wanted to call a committee meeting today, but I received a request for a meeting under Standing Order 106(4). So here we are. The goal is to move forward and let people discuss as planned, without wasting too much taxpayer money, hopefully, in order to find a solution that will allow us to hear from the witnesses we all want to invite here. That's really what this is about.

(1540) Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Under the circumstances, I move the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities resume its business where it left off with the debate on November 6, 2025.

The Chair :

Very well. Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Dan Albas (Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, CPC) :

If we have a motion on deck, you should find that in order, and then I think you would take a speakers list from that point.

The Chair :

I find it in order, and the first person on the speakers list is Mr. Lauzon.

Dan Albas :

All right, if you want to play that.

[ Translation ]

Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we're experiencing this afternoon is a bit shameful. My colleague raised his hand first, but people wanted to play at forming a coalition between the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois from the outset. That's what just happened. I'm very surprised to see Mr. Barsalou-Duval playing this game, which involves lying to the committee by saying that it was actually a Conservative member who raised his hand before my Liberal colleague. Now—

[ English ]

Dan Albas :

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Just a moment, Mr. Lauzon, Mr. Albas has a point of order. Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Dan Albas :

It's my understanding that a dilatory motion to resume debate happens immediately and goes to a vote. To have someone else speaking to it.... I don't think you're in order. Could you please rule again and consult first with the clerk, because it was a dilatory to resume debate on a motion? It should immediately go to a vote. We should not be having other speakers.

The Chair :

We had a motion that was on the table.

Dan Albas :

He made a motion to resume the debate. That's a dilatory motion, and therefore, it should be voted upon right away, without debate. If you can check with the clerk, please, I think this would save a lot of time and energy, and I'm sure Mr. Lauzon has a lot of breath that he could save for the actual debate, not the lead-up to the debate.

The Chair :

My understanding is that Mr. Barsalou-Duval reintroduced his motion to discuss it.

Dan Albas :

He actually said that he'd like to resume the debate that we were having, and he gave this specific date. That means it's a motion, and it should have been brought immediately to a vote. I'm just raising that at the earliest possible opportunity as a point of order. I'd ask you to consult with the clerk.

The Chair :

Let's go to a recorded vote please. (Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

The Chair: I'll go to MPs Lauzon, Albas, Kelloway and Barsalou-Duval.

[ Translation ]

Stéphane Lauzon :

Let's start with what happened today. My colleagues were also very offended that survivors were spoken about that way. We are all keenly aware that we must act quickly on the issue of Drivers Inc. We have a lot of empathy for survivors and their families. This week, the Bloc Québécois and Mr. Barsalou-Duval posted fake news on their website using survivors as an excuse to compel the production of tax documents, among other things. It's so shameful. They're using survivors just for political gain and not for the purpose of the study.

From the outset, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois had the opportunity to invite families to testify. There was nothing stopping them from doing so, but they didn't. We never prevented them from inviting accident survivors to testify. It's dishonest to say things that aren't true, when I clearly said, in my last speech, that there would be options for survivors. It's not about having them appear publicly to play on people's emotions. We can easily invite them to come and testify in camera. I even recommended that they come separately and wait until we go in camera to meet with them.

We never said that we didn't want to see survivors. What I said, and I'll say it again, is that I don't find it relevant. They are on the list, so we will respect that, but I proposed alternatives, and they were not considered. For the benefit of those listening to us, and for the record, I have to talk about what was published on the Bloc Québécois website. The last paragraph states that the Liberals have no compassion for families, and four inches below that, a request for donations is made. They chose to ask for money on a website just below a publication that talks about families bereaved by an accident.

Why use people's grief, suffering and trauma for political gain? If this is not an attempt to score political points, I don't know what is. I know it is customary for Conservatives to form a coalition with the Bloc Québécois, to take statements out of context and to create slogans. However, I am surprised to see my colleague entering the fray and asking for funding on his website. I am not sure his party leader and whip approve of everything he is doing today. I am not happy with that approach either, because we on this side are committed to solving the problem.

We could solve it quickly by returning to his original motion and saying yes to it, with a view to making serious recommendations, about which I have said enough. Let's put political games aside. I find it appalling to exploit people who have lost their lives to further one's political interests. I would never interfere in Quebec City's affairs by arguing that Highway 50, which I take to get home, is a deadly highway. When we talk about an issue, we talk about repairs and bringing things up to standard.

I would never use the case of a family that has been in mourning for a month to bring the issue to the media or to hold a press conference to say that the government is at fault because the highway is poorly built.

(1545) This requires a modicum of common sense and empathy towards our fellow citizens. I will never, ever allow my name to be used on social media, in newsletters or in fake news that accuses me of lacking compassion for those who have lost a family member. Our motion gives survivors of accidents the opportunity to come and testify with dignity. What I asked was that it be done in private. We tried to find solutions. We suggested that they wait outside the room until the committee moves in camera, so they could be extended a welcome befitting a parliamentary committee. That's my introduction.

Now I'd like to speak to the original motion. We're now back where we left off the debate on the original motion. I'll go back to the original motion, or Mr. Albas is going to remind me that I have to speak directly to it. We have—

(1550) [ English ]

Dan Albas :

Three and a half minutes....

Stéphane Lauzon :

I will take the time I need.

Dan Albas :

No, just come back to it every three and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Stéphane Lauzon :

All right. The motion calls for a massive number of documents, without any awareness of what that entails. Our side would like to reduce the number of years and the amount of information requested. What do people want to do with this information? What direct communications are they trying to obtain? We have never prevented the production of documents needed by the committee concerning a discussion involving a minister or a department. However, in this case, the request is to send the committee all correspondence from certain departments related to the subject. Le me explain what that entails.

Once again, the role of the Opposition and the Conservatives is to impede the government somewhat to prevent it from doing things properly. However, it boggles my mind that the Bloc Québécois is playing this game by forming a coalition with them. I asked Mr. Barsalou-Duval if we could just drop this so that we can quickly find solutions, work with the committee's analysts to produce a report with solid recommendations and bring this study to a close. We're all eager to achieve that. The sooner we get there, the sooner we can prevent another accident, save a life and spare a family from grieving.

The motion calls for the production of a massive volume of documents—which are also complex, making the search difficult. It becomes very cumbersome for the apparatus. We will have to search for all communications, including all emails, text messages, briefing notes and professional text messages. We rely on a number of communication tools today. We receive messages on all kinds of platforms, such as Teams, Zoom, Wire, etc. There are also all the ephemeral documents, drafts and discussions that took place between departments.

We are talking about tens of thousands of communications items, and it is impossible to estimate how much it would cost to produce them. The departments can't even tell us. In fact, the administrative costs would mainly be related to sorting. We have to sort it all out, and we shouldn't make everything public either. There are legal checks required, because there are contentious cases. We also have to protect sensitive information, because we don't want to cause trouble for people either. That's not to mention the hundreds of hours of work that public servants would have to devote to it.

That usually suits the Conservatives. Keeping the government busy is the way to go, according to them. By tabling this motion at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Mr. Barsalou-Duval is joining the Conservatives by demonstrating that he no longer wants a functional government. That surprises me. To respond to such a request, several departments and human resources departments must assign a certain number of employees to the production of documents, and the timelines are incalculable. It could easily take 8, 12, 14 or 20 weeks.

We don't know how long it could take, but it's at least eight to 12 weeks for redaction, research and compliance verification.

(1555) Meantime, public service employees who perform these tasks cannot serve the public. On the one hand, people are saying that they want to put an end to this. On the other hand, they want to use public servants to search for documents instead of serving the public. This is being done simply to waste time and to be right. The Bloc Québécois member and the Conservatives have a majority on the committee, so anything can be done with the public service. It's immoral. In addition, there is a risk with respect to personal information that may be very sensitive. They say they want to help families.

They claim we are insensitive to families. However, does putting confidential information at risk by making lists of names public protect families? Does it protect honest companies and drivers who have nothing to do with the Driver Inc. scheme? Some people do follow the law. It's as if, in this study, the problem stems solely from immigration. It's as if everyone is at fault except Quebeckers. I have bad news: There are drivers who are pure French-Canadian Quebecers, who have an education and who drive badly. It's not just an immigration problem. Mr.

Barsalou-Duval wants to publish clips to put everyone in the crosshairs. They want everybody to look bad and everybody to be the bad guys. [ English ] I only have one hour and a half left.

Dan Albas :

No, it's every three and half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Stéphane Lauzon :

When you run the risk of exposing—

The Chair :

Mr. Lauzon, give me a moment, please. [ English ] I'll just quickly remind everybody that when somebody has the floor, to let them speak.

Dan Albas :

Oh, we are.

The Chair :

I think he has actually done a good job of bringing it back. He just once again referenced the motion and everything else.

Dan Albas :

I'm just trying to be helpful.

The Chair :

Out of respect for each other, let's try to keep decorum. It's obviously a very touchy issue. We're talking about survivors. We're talking about doing right by them. Let's try to keep decorum in the room. [ Translation ] Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Philip Lawrence :

I have a point of order. How long do we have resources for?

The Chair :

That's a great question. We currently have resources until 5:30. The clerk is looking into whether we have additional resources. If not, we'll suspend.

Dan Albas :

Excellent. Will it be until midnight?

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Mr. Lauzon, you may continue.

Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was talking about the risks related to confidential data. I don't think the right way to protect people is to use them for political advertising and fundraising. I invite the people listening to us to go to the Bloc Québécois website, click on the “News”

section and go see the news about Xavier Barsalou-Duval. The

article says that the Liberals aren't nice because they don't want to hear from victims. That's not true. Then look at the ad soliciting donations at the bottom of the page. There, you can donate $10, $20 or $50 to the party to support its efforts. How charming. I think the best way to protect citizens and vulnerable people is to finish this study and come up with solutions. While the entire public service is being mobilized to search for documents and check with legal services, it's not helping citizens. It's inconceivable.

We need to finish this study as quickly as possible to serve Canadians as soon as possible. Those listening to us can see that, on the Bloc Québécois website, the page featuring the

article on that subject contains an ad soliciting funds. But let me tell you one thing. The committee's primary objective is to serve the public in relation to the Driver Inc. scheme. What is being proposed would snowball. That's a French expression. If such a request is made to the Department of Transport, it will impact all the other departments. It will affect public safety and human resources. The human resources department will have to assign employees to the task, and so on. There will be a mad dash within the various departments to figure out who will have to respond to the request.

So it will have an impact. I did a quick search and found that the request affects seven departments, including Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which is not surprising, since it also involves the T4A slip. So that would be the impact on the public service should this motion pass. I suppose some are pleased about that. Imagine all the duplicate work required within the departments to verify and align all that. This is a logistical challenge that the government cannot undertake. It's not feasible. Certain elements of the motion are not even legal.

Some of the information cannot be provided. Not to mention the effort for consistency among departments, which would have to consult each other about what they're going to present. That would result in an incredible overload of interdepartmental work. I would have liked to estimate the cost of such a request. I tried to find figures, but it's not assessable. We can't quantify the cost of such a request to the machinery of government.

(1600) If every department received such a request, it would have a devastating effect on the proper management of our government. It would have a direct impact on service delivery. The best way to help citizens is to provide them with services. Service delivery must not stop. We must continue to serve our citizens properly. With regard to the Driver Inc. model, we must continue to assess international permit applications, assess everything related to federal jurisdiction, including interprovincial matters, and verify compliance.

Compliance must be assessed by the federal government, which has certain obligations. This is a matter for the Department of Transportation. The Minister of Transport made that clear when he came here. The Department of Transportation handles all sorts of things. The committee has studies pending. We're getting letters asking the committee to do a study on ports. We're told that it is important for us to do this study soon because things are happening now. There are other files that require the committee's attention.

We heard from the Minister of Finance that extremely important issues arising from the budget will have to be examined by this committee. So, once again, we have to look at other extremely important issues. You can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that you want to conclude this study and on the other hand make grand speeches saying that you are shocked that there were no meetings last week, that citizens are paying for this and that the Liberals don't want to hear from witnesses.

We have to start by telling the truth, we have to start by telling the real story—and then we will be able to finish this study. Today, the session began with a lie and a procedural game. I don't want to play that game. That's not the kind of politics I want to engage in. The opposition parties must begin by apologizing to the families and telling them the truth. They must tell them that the Liberals were willing to meet with them, but in private. It is wrong to tell them that the Liberals did not want to meet with them. It is important to continue providing services to citizens.

Therefore, we must not shut down the government apparatus or use it for other purposes. If we use it to search for documents or redact them, other accidents might occur in the meantime. Anything could happen. We don't want any more accidents involving drivers taking

part in the “Driver Inc.” scheme during our study because it's taking so long. There are solutions we want to bring forward. We can't fix everything overnight, but at least the committee can make recommendations with the help of our analysts. I am convinced that the analysts have enough material at this point to do their job. Despite this, we agreed to hold two more meetings, but suddenly, they were no longer asking for just two meetings. They were potentially asking for three, or as many as there were witnesses. But it's easy to find as many witnesses as you want. However, we accepted the proposed witnesses.

All we asked was that we stick to the original motion. But they keep adding witnesses, and it's never enough. Even if we say yes to the original motion, they'll add more. If we go back to the basics and hold two meetings with the witnesses on the list, including families of victims of accidents involving drivers taking

part in the Drivers Inc. scheme, we'll be able to finish this study and make recommendations. That's all we're asking.

(1605) It's important for the public and my colleagues across the way to know that we want the families to be able to come and testify in camera. It's a matter of dignity and respect. Adopting the proposed motion could set a dangerous precedent for this committee and for other parliamentary committees. Imagine what would happen if the government received another such request from another committee. It would be forced to look for emails, exchanges and briefing notes for two committees, then three, then four, and so on. As a representative of the government, I'm telling you that is unacceptable.

If we let this pass and the committee receives documents that are mostly redacted, then it would seem as if the government has something to hide. However, it would simply be protecting the confidentiality of witnesses or vulnerable persons whose safety could be threatened if certain information were made public—but I suppose that doesn't matter to the opposition parties. Loss of life in an accident is serious. Everyone has said so. However, losing one's life or one's integrity publicly because of the disclosure of confidential documents is, I suppose, nothing serious for the opposition parties.

It is serious for us. For us, the integrity of our citizens must remain absolute. There is no place for the disclosure of compromising documents that could put certain people at risk. There is growing inconsistency regarding the urgency of addressing the issue of non-compliance in the trucking industry. On the one hand, they say they want to finish the study, and on the other, they are asking for the impossible. Why? Because they don't want to finish it. Yet all they have to do is say yes today.

All it takes is to accept the solution by proposing an amendment to hold two meetings and invite the witnesses on the list. During my first meeting with Mr. Barsalou-Duval, we discussed the fact that one aspect had been overlooked. I told him that I, too, thought I had overlooked other aspects. Indeed, we did not discuss the medical aspect. Drivers are at risk. I brought this up with my family doctor. I had a good discussion with her. As a diabetic, I told her that I had a concern about the “Driver Inc.” model, namely that some people might be less fit to drive.

She replied that she had many patients who were truck drivers and that, when they were receiving proper treatment, were being monitored medically, and had good working conditions, with working hours that complied with standards, they could do their job very well without restrictions. I was satisfied with my doctor's response. I did not mention it again to Mr. Barsalou-Duval. He had told me that it was not a bad idea to add witnesses to talk about diabetes, but he wondered where they could be added to the list of witnesses, given that we only had two meetings and the list was already getting long.

He even told me that he was willing to remove a witness from the list so that we could invite a witness, perhaps from Diabetes Canada, to talk to us about the medical situation for drivers. However, my doctor convinced me that this might not be necessary and that diabetics have the right to live their lives as they choose if they have the right treatment. I'm talking about diabetes, but that's just one example. I could talk about hypertension or any other occupational disease. I just gave you the example of diabetes because I'm a little more familiar with that disease.

All of this is related to discussions that Mr. Barsalou-Duval and I had about going back to two meetings.

(1610) If we go back to two meetings, we have to look at the witness list. I, for one, have dropped some names. During my first discussion with Mr. Xavier Barsalou‑Duval, he also told me that we had forgotten the towing companies. I took a step back and said that maybe we could invite them. However, as I told him, they arrive on the scene after the accident has occurred. They don't fall under any provincial or federal authority. Most of the time, they're called by the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police or another police force, as the case may be.

If necessary, we will hear from them, but personally, I don't see the point of inviting representatives of towing companies. I don't think these people will contribute anything further. I don't think the analysts will make recommendations that towing needs to be done better in situations involving Driver Inc. In light of all the aspects I've heard in the testimony, I don't think towing will have an impact. However, I respected Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's request and agreed to hear what witnesses from the towing family had to say. All of a sudden, a towing company was added to the list of witnesses.

As for the others, they go off on a tangent, they head in a different direction and they add even more to the list. All these additions increase the number of documents. Let's stop accusing the Liberals of wanting to shut down this study. In fact, what we want is to achieve our purpose. This motion is too broad, as my colleagues very well know. They are very familiar with political games. There are experienced members around the table who know exactly what I'm talking about. A motion that is too broad can quickly violate the meaning of the study we are currently conducting.

In doing so, you can veer off on any topic and head off in any direction. Why do those members want to do that? They just want to nitpick. They don't want to solve the Driver Inc. problem, they want to find something that could somewhat embarrass a department, a public servant, a deputy minister or a minister. Who knows? They hope to find some nugget they can use for political gain. They want to be able to put it on their Facebook page or Twitter account, or on the Bloc Québécois website and attach a nice dollar sign to it. That way, they can show people what they found and use the opportunity to ask for money.

They are using the families of survivors and saying that the Liberals are mean in order to ask for donations. That's not what we want as a committee. We want something better. We want parliamentary practice to be used to solve a problem or an issue. We want to understand the file, obtain clarification from the witnesses and verify non-compliance. We also want to check everything that is going on in the trucking industry. What do towing companies have to do with that? I have no idea. Perhaps we'll find out when their representatives come and testify. I'll prepare some questions.

I could ask them if they can explain what caused the accident involving the vehicle they towed. They can speculate as much as they want, but they won't be able to answer my question, because that's not what their job is. They have nothing to do with it. Think about it logically. Despite everything, they'll go ahead and say yes to that. Why? Because they want more witnesses. They're missing the point. This lacks seriousness. They're not taking the right approach to achieve our goal. Survivors' families are part of that. Why don't we meet with them in private, at an in camera meeting?

We could listen to their stories of grief and suffering.

(1615) Of course, if it takes place in camera, unfortunately you won't be able to select excerpts and post them on Facebook and then solicit donations of $10, $20 or $50. You won't be able to do that if the meeting is held in camera. If you really want these people to come and testify, they should do so in camera. That would be the most dignified way for a committee to hear from families who have lost a loved one. There's nothing worse than misleading or lying to these families. Please stop looking these people in the eye and telling them that the nasty Liberals don't want them to appear before the committee.

(1620) Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I would like to know if there is a procedure to follow so that the people sitting at this table don't accuse others of lying—or if they do, if they have some obligation to prove what they're saying. We're hearing all kinds of accusations that are absolutely baseless and there is absolutely no way to respond to them. My integrity is under attack and I find that problematic, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. After we hear from Mr. Albas and Mr. Kelloway, you'll have an opportunity to respond to everything Mr. Lauzon just said. Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Dan Albas :

Again, I don't want to make this bigger than it needs to be, but accusing anyone of a lie—an honourable member—whether it be in the House or even at committee, I would say, would fall under your scope. I would just ask you to call any member to utilize decorum. We are all honourable members here. We make mistakes from time to time. Perhaps Mr. Lauzon has made a mistake, and he might want to mention that.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas. This is just a reminder to all members to be judicious with the wording that we use in this room. With that, I'll turn the floor back over to Monsieur Lauzon.

[ Translation ]

Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to quote a paragraph about 10 centimetres above the box that says, “Give to Quebec!” and suggests donations of $5, $10, $15 or $25: “Meanwhile, the Standing Committee on Transport is paralyzed by the Liberals, who are refusing to hand over the requested documents and hear testimony from victims.” [ English ] Am I the liar? [ Translation ] It's on the website. It goes on to say, “This committee, which was meant to be a forum for listening and finding solutions, is completely hamstrung by the Liberals, who are even refusing to convene it.” That's unbelievable.

I will now get back to my serious work. I was saying that the government is co‑operating, but within reasonable limits. The department has sent all the information we need. I think the clerk has worked extremely hard to meet the needs of all the witnesses who've appeared since the beginning of the study. We received testimony, reports, analyses, statistics, a detailed plan and a framework for action. We're willing to work with the analysts. I've already asked the analysts if they're keen to start drafting the report. I didn't ask for a response, but I raised it with them.

We also reinstated the requirement for the T4A slip. This is a major step forward. Even Xavier Barsalou‑Duval acknowledged that. I don't think our government has been closed to the idea of meeting all needs. What we want, in fact, is to work in a targeted way. We must not drain each of the departments of their capacity to provide services because we are tapping too many resources. We say yes to transparency, but no to administrative overload, which slows down action, costs taxpayers dearly and diverts public servants from their essential road safety work.

Imagine what would happen if we delayed the work of that entire team. The work required to prepare these documents would come at the expense of road safety. It would be irresponsible for the committee and the government to accept that. I'm now going to talk a bit about how the Bloc Québécois presented its 10 requests, because Mr. Barsalou‑Duval may come back to them when he speaks. At a press conference, the Bloc Québécois raised 10 points that should be addressed. These are 10 structural requests made in good faith by the Bloc Québécois.

The goal is to impose reporting obligations on all companies in connection with the Drivers Inc. model. Those requests are legitimate in and of themselves, but they are not necessarily legitimate for the government. We responded that the government viewed the 10th request as legitimate—the one concerning the T4A slip. We agreed. It must be said that many of these requests would require the federal government to encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction. Such a request from the Bloc Québécois is quite something. I'm not sure the leader and whip of the Bloc Québécois would agree with that.

I don't believe that those great defenders of Quebec's interests—who always say that what belongs to Quebec must remain in Quebec—would agree that the federal government should interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. I'm not sure it would suit my colleague's political party if the federal government were to tread on Quebec's toes in order to respond to these 10 online recommendations.

We're talking about roadside checks and everything outside federal services: the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, the police, registration, licences, training, the issuance of class 1 licences, administrative fines, tickets, vehicle inspections and so on. It's a lengthy list and I could go on.

(1625) Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Have you seen the list? That's not on the list.

Stéphane Lauzon :

Any responsible MP looking at each of these recommendations would find that several of them are contradictory and encroach on provincial jurisdictions. It might also be worth looking into whether they are legal. People always say that the federal government can't encroach on provincial jurisdictions, and nobody wants the feds to supplant Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec traffic officers. Everyone agrees that this issue is primarily a provincial responsibility. Moreover, some of these 10 recommendations would undoubtedly be challenged in court.

The Bloc Québécois can make any recommendation it wants, because it has no hope of ever being in power or in charge of the Canadian government. It is up to Conservatives and Liberals to not let anything the Bloc Québécois says go unchallenged. Government actions must be evidence-based, comply with administrative processes and respect fundamental rights. It has to follow the rules. Some people think it would be a good idea to denounce offenders, but the government can't just publish blacklists without establishing very rigorous criteria and an appeal mechanism.

If it just went ahead with blacklists, it could easily make mistakes, cause problems for families, and embarrass companies acting in good faith. Some people seem to think that's no big deal and this needs to be done. This is not the best way to help the trucking industry, which is grappling with a labour shortage and still recovering from the pandemic. We all remember everything that happened with customs, vaccines, and interprovincial and international borders. Businesses are facing skyrocketing maintenance costs, not to mention fuel costs.

Many wonder if they would have to comply with new administrative requirements if the Bloc Québécois were to succeed in imposing all these restrictions. They definitely would, but it's not up to us to impose that on them. This is not the time to crack down hard on people who are already in the industry or to increase unnecessary red tape. The government wants to prioritize targeted and effective measures. We want to make solid recommendations that won't be detrimental to businesses that follow the rules.

Many witnesses came here to show us that they're acting responsibly and making sure their businesses are well managed. They provide training to their employees and pay attention to their health and safety. That's what we are focusing on now. To get the best of both worlds, all businesses should do likewise. They should support their employees, comply with the specifications and working hours, and co-operate with Quebec’s Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, the CNESST, and equivalent entities in other provinces.

(1630) Yes, some of these things are within our jurisdiction. We're absolutely aware of what needs to be done on some of these issues. However, some of the things the Bloc Québécois is asking for are simply impossible to implement. We're talking about CRA and ESDC resources. There are some things we can do and some that are more difficult. Let's start with our first recommendation. We've already reinstated the T4A requirement, which is a good thing. Let's handle our end of this as quickly as possible. Mr.

Barsalou‑Duval and the Conservatives will have an opportunity to include anything they want in the recommendations to move this file forward. If Mr. Barsalou‑Duval wants to include some of the iffy recommendations he shared at the press conference, we can debate them here and, with help from the committee's analysts, we can come up with good recommendations to move the file forward. We know that the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois want a punishment-centric approach. No one wants accidents to happen. No one wants to lose a family member. No one wants our roads to be unsafe.

However, the Driver Inc. scheme, bad drivers and immigration are not the only factors. Can we do what needs to be done, once and for all? Let me explain where we're coming from. It's important to know that some witnesses submitted analyses that were done by parties that collected data. It's our responsibility to resolve this issue, even if that means stepping on provincial toes. We can give them recommendations. Road safety is under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government has a framework in place and has some responsibility for road safety.

For example, some issues relating to the interprovincial border between Quebec and Ontario affect my riding and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's riding. There are also trucks that depart from a given province and cross an international border, such as the border between Canada and the United States. That is extraprovincial travel, which is under federal jurisdiction. In this sector, labour standards and licences are up to date, and there are regulations.

However, the witnesses told us that, although there is a licensing process, people can still get a licence in 24 hours, and certain recommendations should be implemented quickly to change that. This needs to be remedied quickly, but it falls under provincial jurisdiction. Can we send recommendations to the provinces so they can get to work on this? During our discussions at recent meetings, I even considered recommending that we finish this study and start another one, where people could express any silly idea they wanted.

That way, we could at least send some recommendations to the analysts so they could draft a report, get what we need to do done and address the needs expressed during this study. That would include the recommendations we heard from witnesses about hours of service.

(1635) I did things the old-fashioned way. I used to have a class 3 licence and, at the time, I wrote my driving time on paper, with a pencil, in a logbook. I went around the truck and did a full mechanical inspection. People use electronic logbooks now, and all they have to do is change a letter in their first name or last name to have two different logbooks and accumulate hours of work. I found out about that here at this committee. I could use the name “Stéphane L. Lauzon” and drive a truck for eight hours and then use the name “Stéphane Lauzon” to drive another truck for another eight hours.

That practice puts everyone at risk. That really hit home for me. Recommending the creation of a national or interprovincial registry is urgent. I have plenty of recommendations to make, so it bothers me that we can't table any today to get the job done. Some of them have to do with things like leave and protection against termination of employment. We've heard that some drivers are forced to travel from point A to point B, incorporate with only their current employer as a direct customer and drive a truck that isn't always inspected and maintained. Why?

Because businesses want to be more competitive and reduce their expenses. I was horrified to hear that. I have recommendations regarding that too. All we need to do is give those recommendations to the analysts and the clerk so they can do their job. We need to move this forward. That's why I won't stand for anyone telling us that we're not acting in good faith and that we want to freeze the entire machinery of government. The least we can do is set minimum standards for employees of federally regulated trucking companies.

That is the least the federal government can do to address the Driver Inc. situation directly in areas under its jurisdiction. For anything else, people can recommend whatever they want. We want to work with the provinces and the witnesses who came here. We've seen some great presentations from vehicle inspectors and safety officers who work on provincial highways. They came here to explain the problem with information exchange between provinces and territories and between countries. We need a more universal approach to enable these officials to do their work. They want to keep people safe.

Their job is not just to check vehicle weights. That protects our roads, but it doesn't protect people's lives. Truckers are on the road transporting massive loads. It's time to wrap things up and make recommendations for more universal regulations. Transport Canada sets standards for legal limits on driving hours, rest periods and logbooks, so we have a say. Last week, I spent a little free time poking around the Transport Canada website. I'm pretty sure you never stopped working either.

You checked the website out, took note of everything that's under federal jurisdiction and thought about what could be improved. I started drafting some recommendations. I realized there was some room for improvement in the application of interprovincial and international trip rules, given what we've heard during all the meetings we've had. These rules are critical to road safety domestically and internationally.

(1640) We always talk about what's going on here at home, but let's not forget that drivers are leaving the country, and then we lose track of them. Then they come back on Canadian soil. They are the same drivers who deliver our goods, who support the Canadian economy and who make our businesses successful. Their services are essential not only to human survival, but to the survival of each and every business in your ridings that rely on transportation, whether trucking, rail or air.

And the fact remains that trucking is the most cost-efficient, agile and efficient solution to support our businesses, ensure our well-being and put food on our plates. Ensuring that rules are in place to regulate road safety at a national level is essential. In that regard, we have made the use of electronic log books mandatory. I have learned that there are technical standards. On the website, I also learned about the approval of devices that are recognized and can be used for work. These devices, however, cannot detect frauds committed with the use of fake names.

We have heard that the model nicknamed Driver Inc. uses all sorts of tactics. This didn't appear overnight. For years, people have developed schemes and strategies to circumvent the system and the rules to reduce costs, be more competitive, undermine competitors and have a larger share of the market. Our government has a role to play when it comes to making recommendations. We can intervene in provincial jurisdictions by making recommendations to provinces and territories about fixing some of the problems.

I will now turn to another issue that we've talked about a lot, that impacts us and that we have a lot of control over: tax revenue. On the one hand, there's an issue with income tax when people file incorrect returns. On the other hand, there are shortcomings with EI premiums. People who are unemployed for a certain period will claim EI benefits even if they haven't contributed the full value. Yes, we do have some say about that. There's also the issue of premiums for the Canada pension plan on the federal side, or the Quebec pension plan in my and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's case, or any other provincial system.

We have an obligation to self-employed Canadians and a fiscal responsibility to properly respond to any legal matter regarding businesses. There's no issue with being a self-employed business owner. I was one myself as the owner of Gestion Lauzon. I was the sole employer, but I had several clients. It's when there's only a single employer and a single client that it becomes problematic. That's when we can intervene. It was also up to us to restore the requirement regarding the T4A slip for Driver Inc. We quickly fixed that.

All that being said, we still kept a close eye on the fiscal management side of things, including everything that I just mentioned, audits, fake workers and self-employed people who have only a single employer. These are all elements that are within the purview of the Canada Revenue Agency.

(1645) I fully agree that we should present recommendations on this matter in order to move forward directly with things that fall under federal jurisdiction. Some of our recommendations should also include the ability to investigate businesses, but to not necessarily make that information public like issuing a lack list of businesses, for instance. We could investigate businesses that use incorporated workers to lighten the tax burden. We always have to mind the legal aspect. I'm sure that some cases could end up before the courts. I believe that we can do part of the work.

I have a great deal of confidence in the committee's analysts. I know that they will work diligently on recommendations and check the legal ramifications of the rules of conduct that we're going to implement. Moreover, we need to reassess the tax status so that everyone pays their fair share and to eliminate tax havens. It's important that all companies pay their fair share of taxes by filing their tax returns properly.

Our government absolutely must follow up on every file to develop a strategy that aims not to make the names of these companies public, but to bring them in line using fines or regulations already in place. The CRA, as per its regulations and obligations, already has the means to intervene when any wrongdoing is identified. People are used to it. No one wants to receive a letter from the CRA, because it's rarely good news. The CRA is doing its job, which is to crack down on wrongdoers who try to circumvent the system. Our recommendations can include mechanisms to improve the CRA's response capabilities.

We can also request advice on how to impose fines in cases of wrongful tax returns. We've heard witnesses talk about fraudulent classification. Some drivers have a class 1 licence even if they speak neither French nor English. That's what we've heard, right? I'm not the only one who heard it. I've heard that some drivers got their class 1 licence in 24 hours. Some don't even know the traffic regulations. They might drive on the wrong side of the road because they don't know what the traffic signs mean.

What if we learned tomorrow that airline pilots who speak neither French nor English and can barely decipher the text for each button of the instrument panel could get their licence in 24 hours? It would be outrageous. It's outrageous too for truck drivers. It's just as dangerous on the roads as it is in the air. I met people who work at a flying school last week. They explained to me in no uncertain terms what the requirements are to become a pilot. We're talking 1,500 hours of training, and that training is overseen by the Canadian government through Transport Canada.

A lot of emphasis is put on practising with flight simulators and hands-on training. Why not give the same importance to the truck drivers' training? Yes, we can give recommendations in that regard, but it's not within our jurisdiction. Airline pilots are, but truck drivers who don't cross interprovincial or international borders aren't.

(1650) Can we make recommendations to provincial and territorial governments to advance verification and inspection to target any element of the process that falls within provincial jurisdiction? The federal government can take action against companies that are extraprovincial and incorporated as joint-stock companies. Take, for example, a company called Canada Inc. Since it would fall under federal jurisdiction, we could intervene in how the company is managed and tell it that it cannot circumvent the law.

In other words, it's not possible to use the company called Canada Inc. in its current form to circumvent the rules or compromise transport safety to the detriment of citizens of Quebec and Canada. In our case, when it comes to international rules, we could place much more emphasis on trade corridors. It's important not to discourage companies that do things legally, that experience labour shortages and that are struggling to make ends meet. Because they do the right thing, they want to maintain good working conditions for their employees, but struggle to do so.

These are conscientious people who want to provide adequate training to their employees so that they can work legally and legitimately, but are struggling to pay for it. These companies want to give their drivers the best so that they can remain the same companies they have always been. Some of the witnesses who appeared before us were representing a family business that had been passed down from father to children. They were proud to tell us about the family business they wanted to preserve. It's becoming increasingly difficult, but they're doing it because they were taught to do the right thing.

What the federal government wants is to make sure that every company and all the Canada Incs. of the world that puts their truck drivers on our roads act the same way. However, what we certainly don't want to do is break the supply chain, which is vital to our constituents, the public in general and businesses. Not only do we implement international standards, but we have agreements with other countries. We still have agreements in place with the U.S. and Mexico. Truckers are regulated through long-standing agreements. Our government is hard at work to reach good agreements elsewhere.

Our government is determined to develop markets other than the U.S. We'll need truckers, drivers, people willing to participate, dependable companies that will not only offer safe and reliable services, but also support the Canadian supply chain. When it comes to transportation of goods, we're in a transition period. I could also talk about the different licence classes. Sometimes licence classes are not complied with. As we've heard, some classes can include transportation of dangerous goods, which requires more training. What I heard from witnesses is worrying.

All the time I spent working in that industry, I drove gas tanker trucks. When you're a welder by trade with 25 years of experience and you drive trucks filled with oxygen, acetylene, argon, carbon dioxide or other hazardous materials, you need the proper accreditation. Today, the situation with the transportation of dangerous goods worries me.

(1655) Could our recommendations also include the opportunity to talk about transportation, but also the ability to implement national rules regarding the logistics, alignment and safety aspects of transporting all these goods to ensure that our roads are safe? In the case of the accident that happened, we can only be thankful that the driver wasn't transporting oil or extremely harmful or toxic products. Remember what happened in Lac-Mégantic. We wouldn't want something similar to happen on our roads. We don't want to bring back painful memories. But let me tell you something: The risk is there.

When road accidents involve dry materials, it's maybe not as bad. But we still have to prepare for the inevitable. Can we include this in our recommendations? We're also not doing enough regarding labelling for transportation. Can the government make recommendations in that regard? Since I had a bit of free time Tuesday and Thursday of last week during working hours, I did some research on the website. I was surprised by the list of products. I did some research. We haven't talked about this before, but it's another potential risk. A truck driver could have an accident.

We've mostly spoken about transporting heavy loads, especially with witnesses. When a truck transporting a heavy load is involved in an accident, it's devastating. It's like a battering ram slamming into a concrete wall. It's extremely dangerous. And when the heavy load consists of dangerous materials, the risk is even higher. It's even more dangerous. And yet, we've never talked about this aspect and never had witnesses appear to talk about this.

Nevertheless, I would be ready to formulate recommendations without inviting other witnesses to tell us about the transportation of dangerous goods in relation to the Driver Inc. model. We also talked very little about specialized training. We talked about training and the driver's licence. We talked about diligent companies that offer training, or even provide that training themselves, on operations, routes and things of that nature. We also talked about truck driving lessons—which, by the way, are not mandatory.

For a class 1 licence, the requirement is passing the written exam and the practical exam to drive a two-axle truck. That's worrying. Can we learn more about this? Can we recommend that the government be a bit more proactive on that front? By the way, Quebec has already taken some measures. The provincial government announced its intention to implement recommendations regarding elements that are within its jurisdiction. Can we follow in Quebec's footsteps and go even further? Can we add these recommendations and add them to our own?

When the time comes to submit our recommendations, I will highlight what Quebec has done over the past weeks through the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec regarding the issuance of class 1 licences. It wants a more rigorous process to make this licence class harder to obtain and improve road safety. As a government, we can work on national safety standards in the same vein. We can develop a national framework. We can also include road safety standards in our recommendations, in constant collaboration with the provinces and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.

(1700) We spoke a lot with the witnesses about labour relations. We asked them questions on the subject. I listened as my colleagues asked them what we could do to help them with their labour relations, always in relation to the federal government. It's obvious in the written transcripts we receive: The lines between jurisdictions are often blurred. It's okay, because witnesses are not experts. It's our job to set this straight.

And even we, as elected representatives, sometimes get mixed up between provincial and federal jurisdictions—we can imagine what it's like for witnesses who come here and haven't been part of the proceedings since the beginning. It's normal for them to get things confused. It's up to us to sort through all that's been said, with help from our analysts, to keep what's relevant, draw up some recommendations with what relates to the federal government and leave out what doesn't. Will having representatives from the towing industry appear as witnesses help us to learn more?

I don't think so, but I'm keeping an open mind. They might bring up something that the analysts can add to our report. I hope so, because I wouldn't want all the energy that's been spent discussing these witnesses to be for nothing. Can we talk about what's relevant to us, like protecting temporary foreign workers from exploitation, for instance? I mentioned earlier the departments that we want to ask to submit their communications, but others are concerned, including the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

We must work with temporary foreign workers and ask the department in charge for every communication. Every exchange that took place must be checked for compliance. Doing all that is absolutely ludicrous, if our goal is to draft recommendations with the committee's analysts to set standards. Whether we like it or not, the Driver Inc. file has very little to do with the federal government. The government is responsible for work permits, temporary foreign workers and issuing hiring authorizations to employers. Transport Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada also conduct inspections.

The government also revokes the work permits of wrongdoers who use the Driver Inc. stratagem. Businesses have lost their accreditation. We've seen the government step in when irregularities were identified. It's unfortunate for some of my colleagues, but all of our potential recommendations involve asking the provinces and territories to do better. Can we try to remain serious in our work, stay focused on our objective and make recommendations along that line? The federal government is fulfilling its responsibilities. We've never hidden.

My colleagues and I want to fulfill our federal responsibilities in terms of taxation or interprovincial transportation safety. We want to be there. We're perfectly aware of the situation. We want to talk about federal labour standards. I'm willing to talk about audits and the T4A slip. Even if we've started to make the issuance of T4A slips mandatory, I'm willing to talk about potential improvements. All that being said, accident investigations, training, licences and compensation are all things that Quebec and the other provinces have jurisdiction over, and so is protection.

My Bloc Québécois colleague is well aware of that. He's a smart and decent man, most of the time.

(1705) I'm surprised that Mr. Barsalou‑Duval would take this position and willingly leave reality behind for this show of political theatre. I can't believe it. Let me go back to the news

article published on the Bloc Québécois' website that I quoted an entire paragraph from earlier, which included a quote from my colleague. I'll choose my words carefully, but I invite everyone to go read that paragraph. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues will need a translation because it's in French only, which is to be expected since it's from the Bloc's website and they don't translate their publications. I'll read it in French and let the interpreters translate it. First, it says that “Ottawa has access to many levers.” Indeed, I listed a whole bunch.

Right at the top are the analysts, who eagerly await our recommendations. We have the power, in this committee, to respond and submit recommendations as quickly as possible. We're saying yes to the list of witnesses that was sent, we agree to have them appear over two meetings and we're dropping all other ideas about other witnesses that we could invite in the interest of moving forward. Nevertheless, the

article continues: “Ottawa has access to many levers to break the laissez-faire system that benefits bad actors who flout the law.” I agree with my colleague, 100%. It's crazy how we're rowing in the same direction. I would be totally okay with it being published on the Liberal Party's website. The

article continues: “The government has to understand that only a series of coordinated measures will guarantee the safety of road users.” Up to that part, the

article is perfectly agreeable, because our committee's analysts will draft a report according to our recommendations, and I can't wait for everyone to understand that the only course of action is for us to coordinate a series of recommendations. Back to quoting the article: “A clear message must be sent to non-compliant businesses to put an end to this dangerous phenomenon…”. That is what “the Bloc Québécois transport critic added”, according to the article. That's what we've all been saying from the get-go. You're simply repeating what we've been saying, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. We're all in agreement.

What we want is to be clear and to tell non-compliant businesses to put an end to this. Have you ever heard me, either today or at any other time, that we were opposed to reprimanding businesses that are found at fault? Have you ever heard me say that I don't want them to pay their fair share of taxes? Have you ever heard me say, in any question that we asked witnesses, that we're supportive of any illegal practice whatsoever? In my very first intervention, I said that it was an excellent subject for a study, I thanked you, Mr.

Barsalou‑Duval, for proposing it on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and I noted that we took that issue very seriously. I congratulated you, because it was well deserved. It's disheartening to watch you sabotage this study right at the end. The

article continues: “Meanwhile, the Standing Committee on Transport is paralyzed by the Liberals, who refuse to table requested documents…”. I gave a very clear explanation about the documents earlier today. I spoke about it for 20 minutes. I think it's obvious to everybody that it's the beginning of the end. I'm very surprised that Mr. Barsalou‑Duval formed a coalition and got mixed up in this kind of stuff. You know what? The Conservatives split their time with the Bloc Québécois so that Mr. Barsalou‑Duval could move this motion. It's important for people to know. If this isn't a coalition or an alliance of sorts, I don't know what is.

(1710) Let me repeat this quote from the article: “Meanwhile, the Standing Committee on Transport is paralyzed by the Liberals, who refuse to table requested documents and hear victims' testimonies.” And I'm being told that I'm not allowed to say that it's not true? I'm sorry, but victims have the right to know that the Liberals truly empathize with them and what they've gone through. Losing a loved one hurts. In that context, it's even worse. There's no good way to lose a loved one. However, when I see these families being used for political purposes, let me tell you that it's not right.

What's more, four inches under the article—I'll use inches if you don't understand what 10 centimetres means—there's a request for donations of $10, $15 or $25. What do my colleagues think is more moral: that request for donations or me denouncing it? I'm sorry, but that's immoral in my book. And I don't need to be lectured on that either. I'll conclude with this—just to clarify, it's my colleague's quote that I'm concluding, not my speech: “That committee, which should be a space for listening and [support], is completely blocked by the Liberals…”. No mention of the Conservatives of course, God forbid.

It's only the Liberals' fault. Conservatives aren't blocking anything. It doesn't say that it's the Liberals and the Conservatives, of course not. The sentence seems to be missing a small part that should mention that it's because of the coalition between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives. That

part is missing. I'll quote it word for word: “That committee, which should be a space for listening and finding solutions, is completely blocked by the Liberals, who even refuse to call meetings. That attitude only benefits wrongdoers and is indicative of a worrying disconnect and, most importantly, a blatant [lack of] compassion toward the families…”. It wasn't enough to mention it earlier in the article. It wasn't enough to use a separate paragraph to highlight how the dirty Liberals refuse to hear the victims' testimonies.

It's written not only in the second-to-last paragraph, but also in the very last one that it's a blatant lack of compassion. I'm portrayed as the bad guy and I'm not even allowed to say that it's all a bunch of lies, that the Liberals are being attacked for political gain, but they're allowed to declare that we have a blatant lack of compassion toward the families. I'm sorry, but I have to reiterate that our hearts go out to the families and that we want them to testify. What I said was that I wanted to have them testify separately and in camera. I maintain that position.

We want these families to be respected and we want to keep politics out of this. For crying out loud, could we please not connect requests for funding to the testimonies of people who lost a loved one? For the life of me, I can't understand how the leader of the Bloc Québécois and everybody else are fine with that. If I were that party's whip, I wouldn't be happy. At the end of the day, a grieving family is still a grieving family. In this case, a tragedy where families lost loved ones is being taken advantage of and displayed on a website that has a window pop up to ask for donations to become a party member.

I find that utterly disgusting. The Bloc Québécois should probably remove the solicitation of funds from that page of their website. They can do whatever they want elsewhere, but I have a problem with seeing a request for funding associated with a publication like that one.

(1715) I want to return to what I told you earlier when I mentioned where we started and where we want to go. It's true that the list of witnesses was long. As for adding the list of witnesses included in the motion before us, when I met with Mr. Xavier Barsalou‑Duval, we talked about inviting representatives of towing companies, and I agreed. And then we had witnesses proposed by the coalition. Some were from the Conservatives, but they were all mixed together. Again, we acted in good faith. We agreed to that in good faith. We said yes, and not only because we're a minority government.

It has nothing to do with that. It's just common sense. We know very well what role we have to play as a government. My colleagues and I explained multiple times that it's important not to paralyze the municipal machine. We also understand the issue with the list of witnesses, which was built over a period of time. There's a question we need to ask ourselves, however: if it was so important to invite the family to testify, it would have been mentioned during the first meeting. How many meetings have we had exactly since the beginning of this session? About 10 or 12, something like that?

(1720) The Chair :

We're now in the 16th meeting of the committee, Mr. Lauzon.

Stéphane Lauzon :

We're in the 16th meeting. For the first 15 meetings, no one proposed that witness. For 15 meetings, that wasn't important. But now, all of a sudden, it comes up, and we say yes. We agree to add witnesses.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I have a point or order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Lauzon, please hold on for a moment. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has a point of order. You have the floor, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I just want the clerk and you, Mr. Chair, to confirm that this is the 16th meeting of the committee, but that only six of them were about the Driver Inc. issue.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Stéphane Lauzon :

There was plenty of time over the course of 15 meetings to move a motion and propose witnesses. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval just noted that we've held six meetings on the subjects to date, and I thank him for the clarification. I knew we hadn't spent 15 meetings on this, that it was more like 10-ish. Still, why wait until the last of the six meetings on the subject to bring this up? Why not do it at some point during the first four meetings? It just occurred to someone that this situation could be exploited for political purposes, and they decided to go all-in.

Sure, let's bring the victims' families in, but let's do it with dignity, have them appear separately and not with other witnesses so that they don't have to face representatives from trucking companies that are potentially at fault, which could be upsetting. Then Mr. Barsalou‑Duval said that we should call a half-meeting or a separate meeting to keep the list of witnesses as is. I didn't react. Why not two and a half meetings?

We could have two meetings to have all the witnesses on the opposition parties' list, and then we could cave once again and agree to hold a half-meeting to hear from the victims' families, but in camera. That would prevent those who would be tempted to take advantage of people's emotions and put that on social media from doing so. Is that too much to ask to protect the families' dignity? They could make important recommendations to add to our report to move things forward. Can we do that in a proper and dignified manner? That's all we're asking. Saying that we don't want them as witnesses is false.

I'll repeat it to be crystal clear: It's false. It's a complete distortion of what we told the committee. Maybe it's an attempt at disturbing the committee so that we don't have to face reality. And the reality is that we've been saying the same thing ever since the beginning: We want to fix this issue and find solutions that fall within our jurisdiction. We even want to go further than that. I agree with you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, that we should step on Quebec's toes for once. Just acknowledge publicly that it's your intention. I don't mind at all—I'll help you.

We want to offer recommendations to provinces and territories to address this. The only way to do that is to agree on the motion and add two meetings. If you drop the request for the production of documents and propose the addition of a half-meeting, we'll say yes. I haven't talked to my colleagues, but, just by looking at them, I'm sure that if you were to do that, we could move on to another topic. There's no shortage of topics that the committee could study. We could talk about ports, for example. By the way, there is good news for Quebec and the port that's located between our ridings.

Our next study will require a lot of work, and I believe we'll both have a lot to say on the matter, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. There's a lot of room for improvement in that area. The investments are unprecedented. Millions of dollars have been invested in the workforce. Can we finally move on to our next study?

(1725) If we could only pass this motion, we could move on to our study on ports. All we're asking is for this motion to be passed, to remove the part about producing documents, to have a conversation and move to our next motion about ports. It's a matter that is not only of interest to Quebec. Your respective ridings all have ports. There are ports everywhere in Canada. Maybe not all of your ridings have them, but there are ports in Conservative ridings. There are some all across Canada. It's a study we need to be serious about.

Regardless of that study that we want to get under way, we must remember the speech that the Minister of Finance made in the House of Commons in which he said that committees had better get ready because business is about to pick up. [ English ] Be prepared. We'll be there for you. [ Translation ] He clearly said that recommendations would be made to committees about areas of study, including some that fall within the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' portfolio. Sounds great to me. Now, we won't include that in the resolution or in the motion.

All we want is to talk about these two mandatory meetings. I haven't spoken with my colleagues about it, but I'm sure that our colleague will agree with adding a half-meeting. You wouldn't mind adding a half-meeting to hear from the grieving family, would you? I knew it. I'm sure Mr. Baker agrees with us. That way, we could meet our objective. Oh come on, it's not hard—

The Chair :

Mr. Lauzon, sorry for interrupting. Before your turn ends, we need to switch interpreters. I'll suspend the meeting until the new interpreters are ready to begin. [ English ] The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

(1725) (1810) The Chair :

I call this meeting back to order. [ Translation ] You have the floor, Mr. Lauzon.

Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, let me congratulate the interpreters on their work. I thank them for taking over today. We're very grateful. You know, it's an onerous task when nothing's written down and the person speaks at a rapid pace for an hour and 45 minutes. It's not easy for the interpreters, so hats off to them. Let's now turn to the Driver Inc. issue. It's an issue that we all take very seriously and that is of great concern to us all here at the transport committee. I mentioned some of the important aspects that were raised over the course of this study, specifically around road safety.

We also mentioned tax fairness, worker protection and fair competition between businesses that have to find ways to turn a profit, offer appropriate services to their employees, ensure safety, give the proper training and so on. The first part of the meeting mostly covered these topics. I also highlighted what was released publicly about the grieving family affected by the accident linked to the Driver Inc. phenomenon. In this time of labour shortage, truck drivers are impacted. They provide an essential service, but it's not all.

We often think of the truck drivers and the companies, but there are also countless people and small businesses who support these companies with maintenance, highway traffic control, repairs, dispatch, etc. and who do amazing work. We did the comparison earlier with the aviation sector. Highway traffic controllers are not like air traffic controllers, but their work is crucial for road safety. I did some research and can confirm that. They have to determine which vehicle needs maintenance and what the situation is regarding permits and routes. Routes are very important.

Plotting a course through a different highway can make the trip longer, which can have safety implications. Many risk factors are related to what we've been talking about since the beginning of this study. As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What we believe is important and what we want to see is a level playing field. We want the rules to not only be the same for everyone, but properly and consistently implemented. In short, we want everyone to play by the same rules to put an end to the Driver Inc. phenomenon. We want to do it properly and consistently all across Canada.

The way we want to proceed as a government is to come up with recommendations as quickly as possible. We all agree on that. We know all that there's some cleaning up to do, whether it's illegal drivers, temporary foreign workers or self-employed workers. Some of them are put under pressure by their employer, and that's what we've heard in numerous testimonies. This practice has extremely serious consequences. We want to fix the problem. We want to prevent any more consequences. How can we do that?

We have to come up with recommendations quickly in collaboration with our analysts and our clerk so that we can move on to something else. Of course, there's the whole issue of duress. That has to do with payroll taxes, and it's up to us to do something about it.

(1815) Then there is the famous loss of tax revenue. This represents a loss of income for our government. In other words, there is a shortfall on the tax side. It is essential that we collect our share in order to make up for this shortfall. We are also witnessing the erosion of fair competition. We have heard from representatives of companies that have decided to follow the straight and narrow path. They are committed to their work. They are listening to us today and asking us whether the committee can achieve these goals.

I am sure that the guests who have come to testify before the committee as part of this study want only one thing: to see the solutions they have proposed included in our recommendations. Are we going to fix everything? No. Can we make changes quickly? I believe so. We can make recommendations to the provinces and territories to improve the situation. Then we sensed that workers were becoming more vulnerable. They are at risk of injury or misconduct due to the influence of companies, which exert a certain amount of pressure on them. It's exhausting.

We can easily recommend working with the provinces to find possible solutions with the aim of giving these workers jobs that are worthy of their skills and worthy of a supply chain that we greatly need. According to my research, 25% of drivers could make improvements. They are paid according to different models. In some regions, mainly in Quebec and Ontario, this is a concern. This practice is used elsewhere in Canada, but in Quebec and Ontario, it has developed more rapidly with the help of schemes like the ones we've heard about when it comes to obtaining licences.

Above all, this boils down to fair competition. Companies play by the rules and pay their fair share. They are proud to do so because they are part of a society and a state where there are rights and regulations that must be strictly followed. However, this comes with responsibilities. We have heard that some companies are going to lower their costs considerably. By cutting corners, they can reduce cost by 30% or 40%. In the interest of fairness and fair competition, it is essential to have a mechanism in place to reprimand offending companies.

They must be caught and brought to justice, but the provinces have to do their part. Then there is the issue surrounding the provinces, which have an important role to play. In our recommendations, I am eager for us to mention the example of Quebec. The first thing it had to do was transition from overly easy-to-obtain licences, while complying with the existing rules. First, complying with the existing rules is a step in the right direction. Let's start with the T4A form and the rules for obtaining a driver's licence. In the province of Quebec, we have francization.

Licences can be obtained in either of the official languages, English or French.

Interpretation services are available during the process to ensure compliance with standards and rules.

(1820) What's more, we always take worker protection seriously. People always forget that. We always talk about citizens and road safety, but worker protection is also a public safety issue. Workers have told us that they are afraid to drive on the roads. They're not afraid of the people who follow the rules. They are afraid of those who don't. If a worker sitting in a large truck carrying a huge load is afraid of his colleagues on the road, then we all have cause for concern. Protecting the workers is very important to the committee.

Let's achieve our goals and make recommendations to restore confidence to these workers, these drivers. Many companies are also experiencing labour shortages. They are looking for workers because there is an exodus of drivers who want to do something else. According to witnesses, one of the reasons they want to do something else is that they no longer feel comfortable with this model. This model is broken, and this practice must be stopped as soon as possible.

The best way to break this cycle of misconduct perpetrated by the “Driver Inc.” model is to go through the committee, which will make recommendations, and agree to hear further testimony at two meetings. We could have another half-meeting. We are in complete agreement on this. We could have an in camera meeting with the bereaved family in order to ask them our questions and show them our empathy. This would enable us to find helpful solutions for the future of this issue. We could add a future study that focuses on ports.

Furthermore, removing all the requested documents requires tremendous work on the part of the entire government administration, which makes no sense. There is a way to do this: reach a resolution to that effect and move forward. Next week or weekend, I would like to meet with the bereaved family and explain the Liberals' true position. I want to explain exactly what work we have done. I would never exploit the conversation I will have with them in private, if I have one.

I would never exploit a conversation about someone who lost their life because of the “Driver Inc.” model by posting it on my social media or mentioning it in a publication. I won't do it, regardless of the type of publication. I would like to come back to the economic pressure on businesses. Beyond comments about illegal drivers, there is new pressure on drivers that did not exist before the pandemic. I know the pandemic has had a huge impact, and I'm tired of talking about it. However, it has led to increased costs and workforce destabilization.

What is more, some people changed jobs, while others went back to school. There has been an upheaval in the trades. Transportation is one of the sectors that has been hit hard, for a variety of reasons, including the vaccine. I won't go over that again because we've talked enough about the pandemic. The fact remains that some drivers work beyond the legal limits. Today, companies are facing difficulties due to skyrocketing costs, particularly for fuel and vehicle maintenance. Purchasing a vehicle has changed significantly.

Keep in mind that each delivery requires the allocation of expenses, which include benefits, salary, operating costs and the purchase cost.

(1825) Companies have come to us to show that profits are declining from generation to generation. There are generations that have earned a good living, while today's generations are struggling to make ends meet. Not only are they under pressure because of illegal drivers, but they also face daily pressure from operating costs. Can we, at least as a committee, give all these companies a little help?

Can we support them by making recommendations so that we can at least resolve the portion of the problem that falls under federal jurisdiction and then, in collaboration with the provinces, resolve the issue of the “Driver Inc.” scheme? The more risks there are on the roads, the more vulnerable we are. There are several factors to consider. Some roads are in poor condition. There are ambitious infrastructure investment projects to improve user safety.

However, there are more and more trucks on the roads as the population grows and, as a result, the number of services to meet the needs of the population also increases. However, infrastructure is not being improved. We need to do more for infrastructure, including maintenance. Before investing heavily in infrastructure, we must first maintain what we already have.

(1830) Let's talk about business operating costs. These businesses should expect this committee to make recommendations as quickly as possible in order to fulfill its mandate, which is to ensure that all companies operate on a level playing field. We can't do this alone. We can do it together, with all parties involved. I agree with allowing the committee's recommendations to slightly encroach on provincial jurisdictions, because they are still only recommendations from the committee. We have seen this in other committees.

We can work with the provinces and territories and collaborate with them to find appropriate solutions to improve a situation that falls under provincial and federal jurisdiction. The subject of our study is a good example of this, because some aspects of it depend on both levels of government. The primary federal responsibility is intergovernmental co-operation. I believe that this committee can be given a lot of weight and that it can play a key role in finding a solution. As I keep saying, this is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.

We need to act very quickly on the tax front to make this more profitable, and we need to strengthen tax enforcement. We also have an opportunity to work with the provinces to harmonize all of this and to put standards and inspection mechanisms in place. I had the opportunity to talk at length with an employee from Quebec's ministry of transportation and sustainable mobility. This is not my area of expertise, but I can tell you one thing: I learned a lot. He feels a little stuck with the limited information available in Quebec.

Can we streamline communications, provide the tools needed for better collaboration between provinces, harmonize standards, and find inspection mechanisms? I will go further than that. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval may call me to order, saying that I am talking about a subject that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am an instructor by trade. I taught for 21 years, including at the trucking school. I worked in metallurgy, at a vocational training centre. Training is close to my heart. For me, training is the foundation of knowledge.

I would not want our new pipeline to be welded by welders who have not been properly trained. There are requirements for welders. They are required to complete 1,800 hours of training and obtain high-pressure welding certificates. If they fail, they are fired.

(1835) [ English ]

Philip Lawrence :

I have a point of order.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Just a moment, Mr. Lauzon. [ English ] Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

Philip Lawrence :

I am wondering about the relevance of pipelines. I was wondering if Mr. Greaves had some comments about pipelines and wanted to make some comments on them.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I don't believe that's a point of order, Mr. Lawrence. It is a point of order, but is it in order? No. I will turn the floor back over to Mr. Lauzon.

Stéphane Lauzon :

It will be a double break. Thank you, Mr. Albas.

The Chair :

We have a double point of order to allow Mr. Lauzon to take a drink. There are 12 minutes left. Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

Dan Albas :

As interesting as it would be to hear Mr. Greaves' thoughts on the pipeline to the Pacific coast, I want to reiterate that the point of order was on relevance. Unfortunately, Mr. Lauzon has strayed and is not coming back to the motion every three and a half minutes, like a pro. He's getting a little slow. I really want him to get back on his A-game.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas. I think Mr. Lauzon just spoke about the importance of proper training for drivers. He was making the link to [ Inaudible—Editor ], but I will still remind all members to bring it back to the subject matter at hand. Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours. You have 11 minutes left.

Stéphane Lauzon :

I will bring it back in a few minutes. The relevance is there. [ Translation ] I was explaining that training is extremely important. In the various trades, requirements are so high. For a pipeline welder, every welded joint is X-rayed. If he misses three, he loses his qualification. That's what I'm trying to tell you. This is a widespread model in Canada. When an X-ray of a welded joint shows that a welder missed something, not only does the welder have to redo the joint, but he also gets a ticket. After three failures, like demerit points for driving, he loses his licence.

In Quebec and Canada, there are point systems for licences. They just need to be organized and enforced. Road inspectors are asking us to do this. It could be among the committee's recommendations. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval may say that such recommendations go too far, but I am somewhat tempted to go there. The main motion we're debating aims to find solutions and conclude this study, then make recommendations. I want to tell the provinces to get involved in training and to go straight to where it hurts, which is demerit points, as with welders. When you get a ticket, you lose the opportunity to do your job.

Driving is a privilege. I told my daughter so. My daughter got her first driver's licence and her first car. This is her first winter driving. The first thing I told her was that driving is a privilege. I told her she had to pay close attention to her lessons, pass her tests, follow the rules, deal with bad weather and, above all, deal with reckless drivers. I had to tell her that she would have to face incompetent big truck drivers because she would be driving on Highway 50 every day. So my daughter is learning to drive on Highway 50.

You can't prevent a child from expressing themselves or growing up because you live in a rural area. So I have to live with the consequences of my daughter facing trucks every day. So if I don't care about bereaved families and this committee, I'm in the wrong place. I wouldn't want my daughter to be in that situation. I wouldn't want anyone's child to be in that situation. I wouldn't want responsible parents to have their child's death on their conscience because they gave them the opportunity to drive at 17 and they had an accident because of a driver involved in the Driver Inc. scheme.

I want this to be resolved. That's why I'm making the link with welding. I'm just as passionate about qualification certificates to work on pipelines. I taught high-pressure welding for pipeline work for 21 years. I always told my students that welding certification was a privilege. The same goes for drivers, like the ones we heard from during this study. Those drivers made the effort to get good training, gain experience and learn how to drive well. They work for responsible companies and don't deserve unfair competition from other drivers. It could affect a family member.

Now, in connection with the federal government's broader objectives, we must work together to fight the Driver Inc. model and protect workers' fundamental rights.

(1840) Very little has been said about Quebec's Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail and its equivalent occupational health and safety bodies in other provinces. This truly is an occupational health and safety issue. We must consider drivers' health, including their mental health. We must also consider their families. When a spouse drives a truck longer than the allowed maximum number of hours, their family is worried. It's holding the drivers hostage. They don't talk about it, because they're under pressure. We can resolve this together. We can achieve our goals.

We can ensure healthy and fair competition if we want to. We can also improve road safety indirectly. Road traffic controllers and provincial government representatives are asking for collaboration, standardized rules and information sharing. It's not just a matter of making lists and publishing them. What they want, and what the majority of the population wants, is for everyone to work together to come up with a solution to the Driver Inc. problem. You know, Driver Inc. is not a fringe phenomenon. I must tell you that it's a real threat.

I rarely talk about my concerns and my family, but every time I see Jade leaving on Highway 50, I feel a knot in my stomach that I shouldn't have, for many reasons. We can go back to the design of the highway. We could say it's a trucking route or it's because of reflection. If we went way back, we could say that it was because the Quebec government ran out of money, so it settled on fewer lanes and built a single road with adjacent lanes running in both directions. These days, they're improvising with temporary barriers and trying to put markers down the middle of the road.

Every day, cars collide with the dividing markers. I have all kinds of reasons to be concerned. However, I wanted to convey to you today how important it is for me to resolve this matter, and to make it clear that I am not speaking lightly. Thousands of trucks a year use our highways. I often mention Highway 50, but you all have a highway used by trucks in your riding. Wherever there are trucks, whether at ports or in large cities where truckers have to operate in very limited spaces to make deliveries, people are at risk.

We need skilled drivers, with proper training, who receive fair and equitable wages from companies. Please, it would be much better if these issues were not exploited for political and partisan purposes through the feelings of a bereaved family. Today, we have an opportunity to correct a significant flaw. I know there's not much time left, but I want to say one more thing before I leave. If we absolutely want to come back to work together and settle this matter, I ask you, if possible, to accept the following solution.

I propose that we hold two and a half meetings, two of which are related to the list of witnesses we have. Then I propose that we hold a half meeting to hear from the bereaved family, and each of us in turn can offer them our condolences. We will have the opportunity to talk to them, to look them in the eye and to offer them our condolences. We will have the opportunity to tell them that we are working on the issue. I will never tell them that it is the Bloc Québécois' fault for telling lies, and so on. This is not the time to play politics. It's time to grieve with the families, but it must be done in camera.

(1845) It's also important to remove the request for disclosure of communications concerning the trucking sector. No such request should be made to the government. Now, we absolutely must adopt this motion in earnest and address the study on ports, which would be of great benefit to us. Together, we have a chance to achieve a strong “win-win-win” outcome for the Port of Montreal and Contrecoeur projects. They represent hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. There are thousands of jobs in your community, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. It is a viable and profitable project.

It is for the good of the organizations, the community, and the businesses in your community, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. It would be extremely profitable to move forward and address this study so that we can look at—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon. It's now 6:47. I'm going to suspend until the next meeting. Then we'll continue the discussion. [ English ] This meeting is suspended until the next meeting. [ The meeting was suspended at 6:47 p.m., Tuesday, November 25 ] [ The meeting resumed at 15:32 p.m., Tuesday, December 2 ]

The Chair :

We will 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'd like to take a few moments to make some comments for the benefit of members. First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for

interpretation of 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. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. As members will recall, the committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, while debate on the motion was ongoing.

Therefore, we are resuming this meeting. The following motion is still on the floor. For the benefit of members, the motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request that the Departments of Transport, Revenue, and Employment forward to the committee clerk, within 30 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, 2018; and

That the committee add two 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, and in the second meeting, testimony from representatives of 6S Trinity Transport, J+R Hall Trucking, Dan Express, Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, and Canada Post.

We left off with Mr. Lauzon having the floor, followed by Mr. Albas and Mr. Barsalou-Duval. Members, if you would like to add your names to the list, by all means say so, and I will add your name. [ Translation ] Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[ English ]

Dan Albas :

I have a point of order.

The Chair :

Yes.

Dan Albas :

I thought we had something about the tow trucks association of Quebec. Did I miss that?

The Chair :

I don't believe I read that in there, but—

Dan Albas :

It was part of the original motion.

The Chair :

I will ask the clerk to verify whether it should be in here, and if it should, Mr. Albas, I'll fix that and confirm with you. [ Translation ] Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

Stéphane Lauzon :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for setting the stage. We'll start with some good news. We're going to let you speak today. We'll listen to you. We may have a solution to offer you. We have decided today to kick the ball back your way and put an end to this study. I will be tabling an amendment shortly. It is a significant amendment. It will be a very good compromise. I believe this amendment will allow us to achieve our goals together. I'm glad to see a Conservative member and a Bloc Québécois member among the next people on the speaking list. They'll be able to vote on this amendment.

After tabling my amendment, I will put my name back on the list and we will decide whether we want to end the debate and vote on this amendment. Also, it will allow us to settle certain things that were said or done during committee meetings. I'm prepared to make a correction, if the clerk reminds us that we left out a Quebec towing company. It will be a good compromise with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Conservatives, who wanted to hear from a series of proposed witnesses. The chair disclosed that today. This is a truly sincere attempt on my part.

From the beginning, I have maintained the same position, and that is still the case. Even if I don't find it relevant, I agree that the committee should receive, with dignity, survivors of truck-related accidents involving companies that use the Driver Inc. model. They will be able to come and testify here, but we will have to give them at least the choice to do so in camera. That will be up to them. It will be up to the committee members to decide whether they want to offer these survivors dignity. I think that's the best compromise we can make among ourselves.

I'm not talking about requiring an in camera meeting, but about offering grieving families, or families affected by the events, the opportunity to testify in camera so as to avoid turning grief into a political weapon. That weapon can be just as harmful for politics as for families. It will also prevent Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Bloc Québécois from using bereaved families as leverage to force the disclosure of information, such as private tax information, which could affect tens of thousands of Canadians. Then, as a guarantee, we would be ready to vote, to make it easier today.

It's not because I don't want to speak. Rather, I think we could get to where we want to go fairly quickly. I think the main purpose of this study is to adopt a report and then force the government to make it official. That's what our analysts have been waiting for all along. I've repeated it often enough. If we continue at this pace, we won't achieve that result. Witnesses have travelled from all over the country. These people made sacrifices to prepare. For us, speaking for five minutes is nothing, but for other people, it can be more difficult. They did it to help us move forward.

What we are doing as a committee demonstrates a lack of respect for the witnesses. It's also important that we begin other studies. I am thinking in particular of the port study, which we all care about and which closely or directly affects our ridings. That topic specifically concerns Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and me, particularly what is happening in Montreal. We are talking about the original motions, which were tabled at the beginning. If we really wanted to invite accident survivors to testify before the committee, why did we not do so at the outset? Why did we not have that intention?

It is because, as we were working on that file, the choice of witnesses was guided by the aims and the political agenda of some members, in order to potentially influence public policy. That should not be mixed in with decisions made at a committee. Instead of doing what we did, my colleagues waited and are now using survivors as pawns for a totally different purpose. Here is what really bothered me. In the week I was researching the subject, I wanted to see the article. By clicking on it, a new window opened. It was a funding request. In other words, people are asked to make a donation of $5, $10, $15 or $25.

I am talking about the

article that says the Liberals do not want bereaved families or accident victims to testify before the committee. This is disinformation. In addition, there is coordination between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on the fact that we have included in our motion the request for documents that have been drafted since 2018. We all have a distinct role to play on this committee. However, our common role is to make recommendations as quickly as possible. We know that this is mostly a provincial issue, and the federal government has a lot of work to do.

The Government of Quebec has already started taking steps, and so have we. We started with a measure targeting the T4A slip. In addition, we have made investments and our budget provides for massive investments totalling $77 million over four years to continue working on the file. We know that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives have joined forces. This afternoon, I think the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals could join forces and vote in favour of the amendment I am going to propose. The ball is in your court.

This afternoon, I propose that you vote in favour of my amendment so that we can move on. We are all going to have a wonderful holiday season, and the analysts are going to have a lot of work to do. Then we can move on to another study. We are going to work to find good recommendations and move the file forward. It is important for the public to know that we are all here for the same reason: to get things done. This shows a lack of respect not only for the public and the witnesses, but especially for all those who support the committee, including the interpreters and all the staff.

I will not name them all now, but I could do so later. In addition, it shows a lack of respect for witnesses by preventing them from sharing their remarks. Their comments are extremely important and serve to find a solution. We have to get this done. They have all stepped up to the plate. They came to tell us exactly what they thought. I was elected to do that work, not to filibuster. I was not elected to waste your time, my time and the time of all these wonderful people who support us. I was elected so that I could stand by my beliefs and get things done.

The Bloc Québécois is calling for the disclosure of personal tax information. These are potentially the documents of tens of thousands of Canadians and businesses, which would be targeted without their consent. In so doing, we are playing games with them. That would be putting businesses at risk, and that is not what we want. We do not want to mobilize the public service. However, we need it to mobilize people to resolve the “Driver Inc.” issue. We need it as a pillar for communicating with our provincial and territorial partners so that we can move forward on this issue.

It is not our job to mobilize it to do anything other than its work. If we really want to solve the “Driver Inc.” issue, we have the will and the opportunity to do so this morning. We have already started by lifting the T4A moratorium. However, this is only one step. The Bloc Québécois tells us that it has 10 recommendations, one of which has been addressed. That is exactly the purpose of this committee: to propose recommendations and work with our analysts to get to the end of the study.

It is the right way to make recommendations, as long as they are not unconstitutional, they do not encroach on provincial jurisdiction and there is no risk of getting into legal proceedings. We do not adopt recommendations by holding press conferences, but rather by proposing them to the committee, putting them on the table and finding solutions to the “Driver Inc.” issue. You know I could go on and on. However, my objective today is to let you speak if you propose recommendations. I really set the stage to give you a chance to spend happy holidays, wrap up this study and move on to something else.

Please do not use witnesses in the wrong way. That is why, on Monday, after thinking about my business over the weekend, I tabled a notice of motion that will be admissible tomorrow around 3 p.m. I still want to read this motion to you for the record of this committee: “That the committee report to the House on its firm condemnation of the use of grieving families, victims and survivors to fundraise for a political party.” It is not too much to ask not to combine a page on the victims with a funding request, or to use it elsewhere.

If you click on the link that I provided to you, that I provided to the public and to everyone, the first thing that jumps out at you when reading the

article about people in mourning is a request for donations of $5, $10, $15, and $25. We should not use it like that. I am getting to my amendment. It is simple. I will read the amended motion in its entirety for the clerk, and I will take this opportunity to ask the staff behind to send it to the clerk in both official languages so that he can distribute both versions at the same time, without taking a 15-minute break. I think you understand that.

That the committee add two 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 in camera, if witnesses would prefer, and representatives of Justice for Truck Drivers, the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSA), and The Joy Smith Foundation, and in the second meeting, testimony from representatives of 6S Trinity Transport, J+R Hall Trucking, Dan Express, Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, Ontario Trucking Association, BC Trucking Association, and Canada Post.

That drafting instructions to enable the development of a comprehensive report to the House of Commons be provided by the committee immediately after this testimony.

[ English ]

Dan Albas :

I have a point of order. Mr. Chair, given that this is my first chance for weeks.... Hi. I'm glad to see you again.

The Chair :

It's good to see you as well, Mr. Albas.

Dan Albas :

It's good to be back in this chamber. My point of order is that the amendment—the so-called amendment that the member opposite has placed—substantially changes the original motion, so much so that it supplants the entire motion. I would like for you to rule it out of order because it substantially changes the intent of the original motion by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Albas. I don't believe it does. I feel that this is an attempt by Mr. Lauzon to try to find common ground on this issue, which has had the committee seized for quite some time. I think it merits discussion to see whether there is a path forward here. I see Mr. Barsalou-Duval's hand is up, so I'd like to give him an opportunity to speak to it as well.

Philip Lawrence :

I have a point of order. These things could have been ironed out beforehand if there was any effort on the Liberal side to have dialogue with us. However, this is clearly out of order, and I challenge the chair.

The Chair :

Okay, there's a challenge to the chair. I'll turn it over to our clerk.

The Clerk :

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair :

Mr. Lauzon. Ms. Nguyen, do you want your name on as well? Mr. Albas.

Dan Albas :

Mr. Chair, I believe that he had his motion; it was put down, and now I'm putting my hand up to speak to the original motion. I think you had me down to speak after Mr. Lauzon.

Stéphane Lauzon :

No, I'm still on it. You just asked for a point of order.

Dan Albas :

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 :

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

Dan Albas :

No, he did his motion.

Philip Lawrence :

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 :

He's next on the speakers list.

Mike Kelloway :

Can I put a point of order in?

The Chair :

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

Mike Kelloway :

Wow. Okay.

The Clerk :

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? (Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

The Chair :

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.

(18355) (18355) The Chair :

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 :

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 fo