Information & Ethics Committee on June 15th, 2026

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 12, 2026, section 14.1 of the Lobbying Act and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the committee is resuming the statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

Before I introduce our witness, I will remind you that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. Please make sure you have the earpiece in if you need it.

I'd like to welcome our first witness today from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Dylan Hanley is here. He's the senior vice-president of public affairs.

Mr. Hanley, you have up to five minutes to address the committee.

Go ahead, sir.

[Dylan Hanley, Senior Vice President, Public Affairs, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today.

My name is Dylan Hanley. I'm the senior vice-president for public affairs at CIJA, the advocacy agent of Jewish Federations of Canada, representing hundreds of thousands of Jewish Canadians.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you as you undertake the statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

That's all the French that I will attempt. My apologies for it. I'm working to make sure my kids are properly bilingual.

At its core, our concern is not about any single provision of the act. It's about whether Parliament's intent, clearly expressed through legislation and committee recommendations, is being upheld or effectively overridden through administrative interpretation by the Commissioner of Lobbying.

We have concerns in two areas: sponsored travel of parliamentarians and parliamentary internship programs.

First is sponsored travel. Parliament allowed sponsored travel because it recognized its value. Public office holders benefit from direct first-hand exposure to complex global issues they're asked to weigh in on. CIJA's missions to Israel are structured, non-partisan and educational. Participants engage with Israeli, Palestinian and Canadian officials, as well as experts, journalists and civil society.

However, the current interpretation, advanced by the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, has created a clear contradiction. Parliament clearly permits sponsored travel under section 15 of the conflict of interest code, but the regulatory approach effectively prevents participation by including sponsored travel under gifts with a $200 limit. In practice, this has largely nullified the exemption Parliament deliberately created, undermining the will of parliamentarians.

We are already seeing the impact. According to the Ethics Commissioner's most recent annual report, only 15 MPs participated in sponsored international travel in 2025, the lowest number in 15 years.

Second is parliamentary internships, where the contradiction is even clearer. In 2002, CIJA established a multipartisan parliamentary internship program to give young Canadians first-hand experience working on Parliament Hill. The objective was simple: to expose participants to public service and inspire future careers in political life. In October 2018, the Ethics Commissioner issued an advisory opinion stating that interns placed by third parties constitute a benefit under the code, despite the code making no explicit reference to interns.

The following month, the Commissioner of Lobbying issued a ruling concurring with the Ethics Commissioner that providing paid interns to MPs free of charge is a gift or benefit. It's also considered a gift in the context of rule 10 of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. In compliance with the rules, CIJA immediately suspended the program.

Parliament has since spoken directly on this issue. In 2022, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose report was concurred on by the House, stated clearly that parliamentary internships are invaluable opportunities and recommended that interns be excluded from the definition of benefit. Yet, despite that clear expression of parliamentary will, the outcome remains unchanged in practice. While the Ethics Commissioner has moved toward allowing internships, the Commissioner of Lobbying's interpretation continues to prevent organizations subject to the Lobbying Act from offering them.

Taken together, these cases point to a broader issue. The activities themselves are legitimate, educational and non-partisan. Parliament has either explicitly permitted them or, in the case of internships, clearly indicated its intent to do so, and yet regulatory interpretations made them impractical. This is not simply stricter oversight; it's divergence from Parliament's intent.

We're strongly supportive of both safeguards and full transparency for sponsored travel, public disclosure, and detailed reporting of participants and costs. For internships, there should be a clear exemption for sponsored interns alongside public disclosure of the sponsoring organization, the intern and the duration of placement. Transparency can address concerns without eliminating the programs themselves.

In closing, Parliament made its intent clear, both through legislation and through committee recommendations adopted by the House. We're concerned that current interpretations have, in effect, overridden Parliament's intent. We respectfully urge this committee to restore alignment between Parliament's will and regulatory practice.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

We're going to start with our first round of questioning. We're going to go to Mr. Barrett for six minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much.

I'll note that in, I think it was 2022, I did go on the travel sponsored by CIJA, and that informs my view of the range of issues that were covered during the experience, but also on the subject of sponsored travel.

I think that, at the core, the most important thing is the transparency that comes from the disclosures that are made thereafter. It's important that sponsored travel is reported. It's important that the reporting is transparent and that, for example, it's not necessary for me to say that I took that trip with my spouse because the total value, the details, the dates, are public. I think that's important, as is the case with all lobbying activity.

When it comes to the question of whether or not it's a gift, do you think it would simplify the matter if members were given, through the House of Commons, through the consolidated revenue fund, budgets to engage in this kind of travel, be it with or without the coordination of third party organizations like yours, for example?

[Dylan Hanley]

The root of our concern is the opportunity for MPs to be able to go, experience and hear from folks on the ground. I think that would be an option that probably would make sense for Parliament to look at, at least in terms of increasing the funds that are available to MPs.

Again, I think that, through transparency, everything that takes place is a matter of the public record, and we'd like to see it restored. We think that folks like you—and that was before my time back at CIJA—hopefully have benefited from the opportunity to learn and gather facts on the ground.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have colleagues who've participated in sponsored travel, parliamentarians representing all parties in the House, who have brought back different experiences as the result of sponsored travel. Some organizations, of course, are captured by the interpretation made by the commissioner. CIJA is one of those. Some government-funded organizations or governments are not captured by the interpretation made by the commissioner.

We agree that transparency is the most important piece, that the reporting that's available to the public is important.

What would you say to concerns about the risk of foreign interference? Some would say that perhaps in the case of CIJA, what's the straight line distance between the Government of Israel and the member of Parliament who's accepting the travel?

[Dylan Hanley]

The line is stark. We don't speak for or at the direction of or in any kind of coordination with the Government of Israel. We represent Jewish Canadians, hundreds of thousands of them, through Jewish federations across the country. The Jewish people have a unique, strong bond to the land of Israel. That is what we're looking at when we're hosting these sorts of delegations.

I'd also note that sponsorship by foreign governments is allowed.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Right, and I know that's sometimes one of the questions raised about sponsored travel, where it's sponsored travel by a government, like the economic office for Taiwan, which is publicly disclosed. It's for a legitimate purpose and that transparency exists.

On the trip that I took with CIJA, I did the things that you referenced. I had the opportunity to meet with Palestinian officials, Israeli officials and Canadian officials in the region. I think I benefited greatly from that.

What do you think the effect is on other organizations? Results Canada is an organization you'd be familiar with, sponsoring travel to countries in Africa. I know colleagues from all parties who have taken part in that. What do you think the loss is to the public discourse in the absence of a change that would either allow the permissibility of these trips or budgetary funding from the House for these trips?

[Dylan Hanley]

I think the loss is in members of Parliament's connections to Canadian civil society, but also global issues. When we're talking about clamping down on risks, we're talking about risk mitigation. There's no such thing as zero risk, right?

When you buy an alarm for your house, etc., there's not zero risk. The transparency and accountability provisions that we have in this country are the strongest as far as I know amongst any peer country, the most stringent. I think here this is a balance between ensuring MPs have the ability to connect with the issues that they're going to be confronting as MPs, and also connect with Canadian civil society. I think it's very important.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

You have the floor for six minutes, Ms. Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Hanley.

I participated in the trip with your organization in 2018 and I had a nice experience. Earlier, you spoke about some unique things, and so I would like to tell my colleagues that my riding has a very unique Jewish community, namely, the Tosh community, which was established in 1964 and is home to 3,000 individuals, including 350 families. It's very unique. Its primary connection is to New York city and not to Israel.

During that trip, I was happy to meet with government representatives, people from Parliament and Palestinians in a bid to understand why you need an organization that represents the interests of various Jewish communities. My understanding was that these communities are not homogeneous and that the Jewish community in my riding is very Orthodox.

You welcomed the recent government announcement on the Canada community security program in light of the troubling rise of anti-Semitism. I should point out that Boisbriand has not experienced that over the past five years. That said, given that members of the Tosh community have a distinctive style of dressing, the people of Boisbriand have always been fairly apprehensive about them, even though they don't cause any problems and they keep to their community.

We have seen a rise in anti-Semitism across Canada over the past few years, and so I would imagine that your organization has had significant opportunities to engage directly with the Minister of Public Safety and with departmental officials to express concern and to advocate for programs, such as the Canada community security program.

With that in mind, would you say that this is a compelling example that illustrates the importance of a transparent and accessible lobbying regime that allows organizations, such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, to express their concerns, to make their voice heard and ultimately help shape policies that protect vulnerable communities?

The community in my riding has received funding to set up security systems.

[Dylan Hanley]

Sure, and apologies for not being able to respond in French. One hundred per cent the Canada community security program funding that was announced in the spring economic statement and another tranche specifically for the Jewish community earlier in the spring are of significant importance to protecting the Jewish community in a very difficult time.

For the last three years, and escalating in the last year, we've seen synagogues surrounded. We've seen schools and places of worship shot at, etc., and this is one of the responses. The other one is Bill C-9, which we hope to see brought forward, that will stop protest around places of worship and hopefully better protect Canadians. What we need to see more of still is enforcement of the law. We've been calling on the federal government to utilize the federal convening power to convene other levels of government and see greater enforcement. We're hopeful that over time we will see this. Of course, we work very closely with Minister Anandasangaree and, again, police forces across the country, provincial governments across the country, to try to make sure our community is kept safe.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Do you think the first recommendation should have a distinction between an in-house lobbyist and a consultant lobbyist?

Do you support the adoption of a registration by default process?

[Dylan Hanley]

I don't think we have any issues with being registered as lobbyists and with the distinction between in-house and outside. Obviously, I'm sure you've had representatives of private sector business and others coming in and talking about all of that. Again, I think that we're perfectly happy to be registered, in full compliance and 100% transparent about all the communications that we have with government.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I would also like to hear your views on the second recommendation.

You've looked at the recommendations, haven't you?

[Dylan Hanley]

Yes.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

The second recommendation is to amend the Lobbying Act to deem members of boards of directors employees of the organizations or corporations on whose boards they sit.

Can you speak to the potential impact of this recommendation?

[Dylan Hanley]

I think, again, that when you're talking about regulating lobbying—which is an important thing to do, because transparency and accountability are important—it's an exercise in risk mitigation for us as a community organization and, I would imagine, for plenty of other non-profits and charities. I can't speak to private companies, because I haven't yet been invited to sit on a private company board. Maybe one day I will.

These folks are volunteers, by and large, and the words “registered lobbyist” may instill hesitation in people to participate in those activities, so I would say we would not be in favour of seeing that regulation brought into place as long as the organization is following the rules and regulations that are put out there, which again go further than in virtually any other western democracy.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

You have the floor for six minutes, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Mr. Hanley. Thank you very much for joining us today.

You spoke about the rise in crime and acts against the Jewish community, and so I would like to start by saying that I share your concerns regarding this growing problem. We are happy to see the results of the efforts taken by the Bloc Québécois to prohibit the use of religion as a tool to commit acts or promote hatred, which we find unacceptable. We know that these acts have targeted Jewish communities, among others. I am underscoring that because I think it's important, even though it's not directly connected to the issue at hand.

Furthermore, I'm sure that as the representative of the Jewish community, you champion the interests of your members and the people you represent, in compliance with the law, obviously. Nevertheless, some organizations do not comply with the law when they fail to disclose their activities to the Commissioner of Lobbying and also fail to register. These organizations could work against your interests even though you follow the rules.

Recently, I worked on a matter involving low-cost truck drivers, among others. One organization had lobbied the government and Liberal members without reporting these activities. I filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Lobbying, and she told me that she could not tell us whether she was conducting an investigation. I find it mind-boggling to know that there has been no accountability and that there is no information about what happens to complaints once they are filed.

Would you agree that it would be important for the Commissioner of Lobbying to tell us about ongoing investigations and the findings to instill confidence in her work?

I think that if we don't know what she is working on, we can't know whether she is doing her job thoroughly and whether the laws that are meant to protect people when it comes to lobbying are actually enforced.

[Dylan Hanley]

Thanks very much for your recognition and concern for the community.

On this particular issue, I'm not familiar with the Driver Inc. case, so I can't comment on it directly.

The one thing I would say is that a move towards greater transparency in investigations would also raise a hesitation about the weaponization of a complaints process, and we've seen that utilized against our community in other fora, so I think there's a balance to be had there. We don't have a specific position on that piece of what's in front of you, but I would say that there's a balance there between privacy and creating perverse incentives that....

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

Thank you for the answer.

Mr. Chair, during my last appearance at this committee, I tabled a notice of motion, and I would now like us to debate the motion. I will read it out once more to remind everyone of the motion in question:

Whereas, in the context of the study on the “Drivers Inc.” model conducted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities (TRAN), the Canada Truck Operators Association (CTOA) is the only organization to have expressed explicit support for this model; Whereas the CTOA is the only organization to have refused to provide its membership list to the TRAN committee as part of the study;

Whereas numerous Liberal elected officials and ministers have repeatedly appeared with members of the CTOA at public events or lobbying activities, including the organization's founding gala in 2023;

Whereas a Liberal minister prohibited the use of the term “Driver Inc.” at the request of the CTOA;

Whereas the chair of the TRAN committee attended a CTOA event where he was featured as one of the two headliners;

Whereas Tejpreet Dulat, the CTOA's spokesperson, has been involved with the Liberal Party of Canada since 2015 and played a direct role in electing Mark Carney as Member of Parliament for Nepean and as Prime Minister;

And whereas about 10 active members of the CTOA have contributed to the LPC's election fund by providing over $100,000 to the party since 2015;

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertake a study on the links between the LPC and the CTOA.

Mr. Chair, allow me to say what the motion is all about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Just hold on a second, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Hanley, please stay on for a few minutes. We are going to debate the motion that was tabled.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, your motion is in order. Please explain it.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am moving this motion today because the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study and discovered the much-discussed Driver Inc. scheme. Some of the people at this table may not be familiar with this scheme, and so I would like to describe it briefly.

Basically, the scheme consists in integrating someone into an organization as a subcontractor instead of hiring them as an employee. That way, organizations avoid making contributions for various kinds of benefits, such as employment insurance premiums and pension plan contributions and they also avoid paying vacation pay. Normally, organizations are required to cover that. They also don't make income tax deductions because subcontractors are paid in cash directly.

In addition, there is no coverage for work-related accidents. Because the drivers are subcontractors, they have to pay their own insurance, and they are responsible for their own operations. There is also no overtime pay or minimum wages, and as such, no matter how hard they work, drivers don't have guaranteed wage levels. They don't have job security either, because they are subcontractors. Organizations don't need to fire them and instead, they just stop giving them work.

This creates a system that often puts victims of these schemes at a greater disadvantage compared to regular employees. We heard from witnesses who said that this system allows businesses to reduce costs by 30%, 40% or even 50%. Additionally, individuals who are paid through this method believe that they don't even have to pay taxes or report their income. This appears to be a prevalent idea in the sector. Obviously, it puts businesses that have salaried employees and comply with the law at an entirely unfair disadvantage.

The system also leads to all sorts of abuse and exploitation. The required number of work hours comes to mind. There is no compliance with the minimum number of hours, and this contributes to extreme driver fatigue, which in turn contributes to accidents. Indeed, statistics bear that out. In 2020, there were 336 fatalities resulting from collisions involving commercial motor vehicles in Canada. There were 362 fatalities in 2021, 376 in 2022 and 399 in 2023. The number of fatalities increased steadily each year. In Quebec alone, the number of fatalities involving heavy trucks rose by 35% in one year, in 2023–2024.

We often see other issues associated with the Driver Inc. system. I am thinking of unroadworthy trucks that are not properly maintained and of poorly trained and underpaid drivers and immigrant workers who are forced to perform hazardous manoeuvres because of their status. As I said, there is also non-compliance with the maximum number of driving hours. We can also talk about fraud more broadly. There are tonnes of media stories about people who have been caught driving 50 or 87 hours straight. Unfortunately, this is becoming more common.

Let us turn to the statistics. According to Statistics Canada, in 2015, there were 65,000 incorporated drivers in Canada, and over 100,000 in 2025. Quebec had approximately 9,000 incorporated drivers in 2015 compared to 11,000 today. Ontario had 27,000 incorporated drivers in 2015 and 53,000 in 2025. A look at the latest data shows the number rose from 33,000 to 53,000 between 2020 and 2025. That's an increase of 20,000. The number of incorporated drivers in Ontario has virtually doubled in five years, while the number has increased by 1,800 in Quebec and 26,000 in Canada. This means that 20,000 of the 26,000 incorporated drivers that were added between 2020 and 2025 were in Ontario.

Mr. MacKinnon has told us multiple times that this issue falls under Quebec and that the province has to resolve it. However, these data clearly show that the main problem lies in Ontario. Indeed, 85% of the increase across Canada over the past five years is from Ontario. I believe that is as clear as it gets.

Comparing the number of incorporated drivers with the number of employees in the transport sector provides a clearer picture of this situation. In 2025, there were 100,000 incorporated drivers in Canada compared to 200,000 employees. That means that approximately one in three truckers in Canada were incorporated drivers.

There are 53,000 incorporated drivers in Ontario versus 66,000 employees. That's a ratio of 45%. Nearly one in two truckers in Ontario is an incorporated driver. Quebec has 11,000 incorporated drivers versus 47,000 employees, which comes to one in five drivers. Again, it's quite clear that the problem lies in Ontario.

Furthermore, the data show that there were 215,800 trucking jobs in Canada in 2023 and 209,000 in 2025. Over 6,600 jobs were lost in two years. Why are jobs being lost in the trucking sector? Because businesses are literally going bankrupt. They can't support this system, which undermines workers and forces them to work in terrible conditions. Some businesses are following the standard rules, but they are being forced to transition to this system. Some 123 trucking and warehousing businesses in Canada filed for bankruptcy in 2020. The number rose to 424 in 2024. The number of bankruptcies skyrocketed and increased by 245%.

According to the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec, 78% of traffic accidents and incidents are linked to low-cost drivers. Members of this association tow these trucks from the road. They are the ones who deal with the problem. They respond to approximately four accidents or incidents a day, and they are losing millions of dollars due to outstanding invoices. Unfortunately, quite often, companies that try to cut spending in any way that they can, including using unroadworthy trucks, underpaying their employees or exploiting immigrants don't pay their bills. As such, there are $3.8 million in outstanding invoices.

A look at the data on temporary foreign workers shows that between 2016 and 2024, 43,000 work permits were issued in the trucking sector alone. That is quite a big number when you look at the overall data. According to some of the documents we received through a request for the production of documents at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, including correspondence between Employment and Social Development Canada and the temporary foreign worker program, 114 of the offending 149 employers were using the temporary foreign worker program. This means that 114, or 77% of the 149 employers that were using the Driver Inc. scheme were using temporary foreign workers, even though this is clearly prohibited. Anyone hiring temporary foreign workers is expected to hire them as salaried workers and not as subcontractors to work in hazardous conditions that put them at a disadvantage.

The government has been aware of this issue for years. The trucking industry alerted the federal government about it and so did the U.S. embassy and unions, but nothing has changed. How come nothing has changed, Mr. Chair? That is our question today, and to some degree, it explains why I am moving this motion at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics today.

We even found that Canada Post also uses low-cost drivers. In addition, through requests for access to information, we found that some agencies, including Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, have recovered millions of dollars and some $12 million in unpaid premiums were recovered between 2019 and 2024. Hundreds of millions of dollars in wages have not been reported. This is a systemic problem in Canada and in Ontario.

Some organizations have a vested interest in making sure things don't change, that the system remains in place and that the laws are amended to allow this system, which leads to exploitation. Faced with industry demands, the government decided to implement a pilot project, and in 2021, Employment and Social Development Canada used a pilot project to survey businesses in Ontario to see whether this was an actual problem. A sample found that 60% of the businesses surveyed in Ontario were non-compliant.

The government announced a $26.3‑million investment over five years in the 2022 economic update to address this issue and said that the funds would be provided to Employment and Social Development Canada. That was good news. However, the update also stated that further details would be provided in subsequent economic updates and budgets. What became of that? There was nothing in all subsequent government documents, including the 2023 economic update, budget 2023 and budget 2024, all the way to 2025. The only time something was included was last fall, when an announcement about T4A slips was made after we exerted pressure. I will speak to that later.

A new lobby group was created after the 2022 economic update, and it organized a founding gala and threw a huge party. The lobby group is known as the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA. The association invited a variety of Liberal members. A look at photos from 2023 shows there was swift response to the 2022 economic update. The photos show Liberal members, including Sonia Sidhu, Iqra Khalid, Francesco Sorbara, George Chahal, Maninder Sidhu, Ahmed Hussen, Ruby Sahota, Rechie Valdez and Sukh Dhaliwal. Some of these members are no longer in office. More members may have been in attendance, but those are the ones I could identify in the photos that were taken at the founding gala. Obviously, attending a lobbyist's founding gala is not a crime. It does show that the lobby group is doing its job, that it's engaging with people and trying to influence them. However, seeing a big number of Liberal members attending the launch of a lobby group does raise some questions and can prompt you to dig deeper.

Which businesses or organizations are behind the CTOA? We dug a bit deeper and found a group called Kapow Communications, which manages public communications for the CTOA, an organization that supports the Driver Inc. model and believes that the system has positive benefits, despite the information I have already shared with you. Other businesses include HK United Trucks, Harman Transport, KJS Transport, Sun Transportation Systems, JB Rand Express, Mig Freight, Air & Oceanland, Autobahn Freight Lines, United Group of Companies and Truck Solutions. The spokesperson, Mr. Jaskaran Singh Sandhu, is a close ally of the Prime Minister and used to be with the World Sikh Organization of Canada.

In short, when we looked up the shareholders and senior leadership of these businesses, which are all members of the CTOA, the lobby group that supports the Driver Inc. model, we found that these individuals had something in common: almost all of them are Liberal Party donors. I don't know whether this is a coincidence, but it does raise a few questions, especially since an article published in Le Journal de Montréal last December reported that individuals behind the CTOA had contributed over $85,000. The latest information we could find shows that this amount is now in excess of $100,000.

What business groups are behind the CTOA? Are they trustworthy businesses that can guarantee good, secure jobs? Let us talk about Harman Transport, one of the businesses I named. One of its drivers was involved in an accident on Highway 30 in July 2022 that claimed the lives of 42-year-old Nancy Lefrançois and 11-year-old Loïc. The driver, Baljeet Singh, fled to India and then moved to the United States. He was extradited to Canada and will now stand trial. The same company was involved—