Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We did not necessarily expect the motion to be moved today, but I'm happy to speak about it. I have listened to the remarks closely. I agree that there are many elements on the Driver Inc. phenomenon, a matter that clearly falls under the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. However, today we have heard about many issues, and I believe they fall under the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I will skim through the elements of the motion and I will also share some of the notes that I took. I think it's important to raise this issue here and to get to the bottom of this matter.
The motion talks about the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA. It says that the CTOA is the only trucking organization to have refused to provide information and that supports the model. This committee often deals with cases where people may not want documents to be made public. The lack of transparency is something we hear about regularly. All the commissioners and all the witnesses who come here speak to the need for more transparency. There is a problem when we see an association that doesn't want to provide its documents.
We have learned that the association has very close links to the Liberals. Again, that has raised some eyebrows in the committee and we think we need to dig deeper to see if there might be something there.
I also learned that the CTOA was not registered with the lobbyist registry. We are reviewing the Lobbying Act, and then we realize that there have been events involving a number of ministers and members of Parliament, and yet the commissioner doesn't know about them. What is going on? That's another element. The role of elected officials includes knowing the people you're cozying up to. They need to know that attending some events might be problematic and that it might be better not to attend. It appears that this was not considered in this case.
There is the refusal to provide information to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Next, as I have said, the motion states that “numerous Liberal elected officials and ministers have repeatedly appeared […] at public events or lobbying activities”.
From what we have heard here, the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is supposed to ensure the proper functioning of the committee, is also cozying up with the only organization that does not want to provide information. That would appear to be a major problem.
Again, I am very surprised to learn that committee meetings are taking place in camera, even though members just want access to some information. In camera meetings are far from transparent. They are held when there is something to hide. I think it would be important to bring back transparency into the picture. If we want Canadians and Quebeckers to have confidence in Canadian institutions, we have to be transparent, make things visible, and give them access to information.
The Minister of Finance appeared before the committee last week, and we asked him whether we could have access to documents pertaining to his recusal, but the Liberals did not agree with that. Ultimately, one of the things that bothers Canadians is to see that we don't have access to the information that we request for.
Furthermore, now that we know that the CTOA had direct access to the former prime minister and that its new representative attended the incoming Prime Minister's swearing-in ceremony, we think there's a history of a cozy relationship and that they are good friends.
Every Canadian and every police officer we have spoken with has told us that this is a serious issue. The Montmorency—Charlevoix riding has some shorelines and police officers often tell me low-cost drivers consistently park on the roadside and that this is dangerous. Their truck brakes are shot by the time they reach the lower stretch of the shoreline because they don't know how to handle our roads.
We see this phenomenon across the country. Families and community stakeholders have said there is a problem. However, inexplicably, there is no end in sight to this phenomenon. Why is that so? There must be something in the way. We now know that some of the people who have made significant donations to the Liberal Party are very close to this group, and so there is definitely a problem. That is why the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics needs to address this issue.
I took down some notes earlier.
First, 78% of breakdowns and accidents are connected with low-cost drivers operating on our roads. I'll take my colleague's word on that because the police officers I have spoken with have told me that they deal with such drivers on a regular basis. Officers patrolling Quebec highways have even asked to carry firearms because interactions with low-cost drivers are far from peaceful.
I also noted that 79% of members of the Association du camionnage du Québec have experienced lost sales. A third of the workforce has been laid off and 6,000 jobs have been lost in two years.
Right now, we are in a recession under the Liberal government and people are struggling to pay their rent and gas and to buy groceries. The business model that is clearly supported by the Liberals is costing Quebeckers and Canadians more jobs. We have difficulty understanding the rationale. No one wants competition more than I do, because competition is good for Canadians. Competition means Canadians pay lower prices. However, competition must adhere to the rules. People must not compete unfairly or illegally, which is what is happening currently.
To put it another way, this situation has a negative impact on eight in 10 individuals. Workers in the trucking industry have publicly come out to say that something needs to be done. The only organization that does not want to take any action is the one that has close ties to the Liberals. Once again, we have a debate about ethics and transparency.
As a result, the government is dragging its feet and has a laissez-faire attitude. However, the laissez-faire attitude costs lives. In Parliament, we often speak about the rights of victims and when their voice will be heard. When will victims be given the right to be heard? When are we going to make laws to protect these victims?
What is the point of making laws if, in the end, loopholes still exist? For example, we saw this recently with Bill C‑16. One can claim to be the toughest person to tackle crime, but leaving a big loophole in place means that person is not tough enough to tackle crime.
As such, I believe it is important that we undertake this study. This business is not registered with the lobbyist registry. Our committee is reviewing the Lobbying Act. These individuals lobby the Liberals. There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship. There is no transparency. We have heard that the Office of the Prime Minister doesn't want to release the documents. We went through that last week and we are going through that now, as evidenced by what we have heard. That is a lack of transparency.
I believe the motion makes sense. The committee's mandate gives it ample room to shed a light on the ethical problem we are seeing, which is directly linked to the Driver Inc. phenomenon.
The Office of the Prime Minister doesn't have any information to share with the committee. That is serious.
As to the meetings held in camera, again, I think it is very odd that the general public is not given the right to access what is being said during such an important study.
That is all from me for today.
Thank you.