Thank you, Chair.
I want to begin by acknowledging that we stand with survivors and victims of exploitation through this trucking model, but let me be clear: Misclassification is illegal. That's why the government is taking decisive action to stop it. Through budget 2025, the government is investing $77 million over four years for the Canada Revenue Agency to crack down on employers who misclassify employers' employees. The government lifted the moratorium on T4A penalties in the trucking industry as part of a series of targeted measures to combat misclassification. In doing so, we are building on the work that has been done over the last number of years to protect workers and ensure that employers are responsible for their actions in preserving the status of true independent contractors.
The government continues to monitor this progress closely, but for meaningful change to occur, the provinces and territories also have to do their part by continuing to work collaboratively with the government on education, inspection and enforcement. The baseless accusations that MP Barsalou-Duval is making against colleagues and the government do not support survivors or victims of the Driver Inc. model, but I will share what does—supporting measures that were in budget 2025. However, the Bloc, like the Conservatives, proudly voted against these measures and others included in budget 2025.
Mr. Chair, as I sit here, I think everyone on the committee has had the opportunity to share how important this committee is and how we have a lot of work to do. I know that my constituents in the riding of Waterloo and all Canadians expect this committee to function. Hearing the comments of Mr. Barsalou-Duval and Mr. Hardy, I wonder if there should be a committee that oversees committees, because now it seems that whenever somebody's upset with what happened at their committee, they come to this committee.
It states in here what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics studies:
Under Standing Order 108(3)(h), the Committee’s mandate is to study matters related to reports of the Office of the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, and the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Act....
Then it explains what should go to PROC and others.
I've noticed that members on this committee use the words “ethics” or “lobbying”, use whatever definition they want and believe it all of a sudden becomes relevant to the mandate of this committee, which is really unfortunate. I'll be very honest: I did expect the stunt from the Conservatives, but I was really disappointed to see the Bloc member play this in front of a witness.
We know that these have been challenging times. We have people who are gainfully employed— taxpayers—coming and giving their time to committee after we've asked them to come. I was not a member of the committee when the name of CIJA was provided, for example. Last week we had similar shenanigans, I guess, taking place. Somebody comes to our committee. They have work to do. They have other commitments. All of a sudden, it feels like opposition parties believe the time of these people who have accepted our invitation to come is not as valuable as ours. I think that's disrespectful. We have other witnesses who we want to have come and who have not accepted our invitation. It's probably because they're seeing the way they're treated. People know that if they come to Parliament Hill, they might not leave after their hour appointment, because, well, somebody just might want to change the agenda.
For the Conservatives to do it, it's just kind of become normal. I love my country with its 10 provinces and three territories. I know that the Bloc wants to separate our country, my country, which is something I disagree with, but usually when it comes to decorum and following rules, they're pretty clear as to where they stand. They often are a productive caucus. It appears that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has demonstrated, perhaps, the true intentions of the Bloc, and it's really disappointing.
Last week, I had the last spot in the rounds. It was confirmed that the witness would be released after my time and that we would be going on to committee business. I pre-emptively got the conversation on committee business going. The Bloc member that day was really quick to come, pull me aside, confront me and say, “How dare you take away my speaking slot?” I said, “No, you can speak to the chair. You can speak to members. I was the final slot, so you did not have a slot after me.”
Please confirm, because I wouldn't do that.
I think most of us come to committee prepared. We come to ask questions. That's why I will say that I was disappointed the Bloc member last week did not want me to do that. However, today, the Bloc member has no trouble trying to override the questions that I and other members prepared. It's really disrespectful, and I would encourage Bloc members not to take that approach. I know they are really close to the Conservatives. Sometimes you can't tell them apart. I would let the Conservatives do what they're doing because some of us have to try to get some work done on Parliament Hill. Clearly, it's not the official opposition.
I'm looking at the notice of meeting that the chair was kind enough to provide to us at the end of the workday on Friday. It said that, from 4:30 to 5:30, we'd be studying committee business, which is “Resuming debate on the motion moved by Michael Barrett on Thursday, April 23, 2026.” We should respect the fact that this is the agenda we have in front of us.
With that, I have no other choice, Mr. Chair, but to move to adjourn the debate.