Transport Committee on Oct. 21st, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 15 seconds.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I'll come back to it, then. That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gaheer.

Thank you, Mr. Vishwanth.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'll start my questions with you, Mr. Vishwanth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, we're going to restart your six minutes because I think there's a problem with the interpretation.

I'm being told the English is on the French channel.

Are you able to hear the translation?

If I speak in French, can you hear the English interpretation?

I'll speak in French to see.

That's great. I'm being told that the interpretation is working. We're going to pick up where we left off.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome the witnesses.

I'll start with Mr. Vishwanth.

On the website of the organization you are representing today, I saw a press release or a reposted article that originally appeared in Truck News. The article reported on a meeting between members of the organization you represent and members of the government, including a former labour minister and several Liberal members. I'm going to read you a passage from the article in question in English, because I don't have the French translation.

“There were a few things [O'Regan] made very, very clear in that meeting.... First and foremost, he assured and promised the industry and our association that from here on in, the term Driver Inc. will never be used by the government.”

Can you give me a little more detail on what was discussed at the meeting? What kind of assurance was obtained from the government that it would not be cracking down on Driver Inc.?

[Arjun Vishwanth]

I was not at that meeting, but Driver Inc., the label, connotes a lot of pejoratives. It's associated with words such as “illegals” and “tax cheats”.

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

Okay. Thank you.

My question was really about that meeting. I'm sorry to hear that you weren't there. However, another passage, a bit later in the same article, might be of interest to you. It says that the government's promise was as follows.

“Enforcement is going to be education-driven, not the kind of clampdown I think some people thought government was going to do. Much more education-driven.... There is no targeted campaign coming”.

If I understand correctly, your organization's position is that there should be no coercive measures by government authorities with respect to driver classifications. Is that right?

[Arjun Vishwanth]

What's your question, sir?

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

I think it's clear.

Is it your organization's position to ask that there be no coercion on the part of government authorities when it comes to driver classifications?

[Arjun Vishwanth]

The CRA, under IPG-069 and IPG-105, and the Sagaz rules, already provides the misclassification rules. I'm saying, enforce that. I'm also saying it should adapt and be modernized. That's our position.

Right now, it's outdated. It includes a model that penalizes—

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

You answered the question. You want the law to be enforced, which is good news.

In your presentation, you also mentioned, a little earlier, the importance of T4A slips.

Currently, there is a moratorium on T4A slips at the federal level. In 2011, the federal government stopped issuing T4A slips for self-employed workers. I understand that one of their purposes was income traceability for self-employed workers.

As far as I understand, your organization would be in favour of the government going back to issuing T4A slips, so that everyone pays their taxes properly.

[Arjun Vishwanth]

I take no position on it, but I'm not opposed to it. Our organization doesn't oppose it, but we don't take a position on it, because it adds administrative costs to small and medium-sized businesses. Large-scale businesses can afford it. Issuing T4As adds administrative costs for us. That's the reason I would oppose it, but I'm not against it. I don't take a position on it.

It needs to be studied. The moratorium was placed for a reason. The CRA has to comment on it.

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

If I understand correctly, your organization is not proposing the return of T4A slips. That's great.

Another question occurred to me when I was looking at your website. I see that you are not a truck driver, but rather a lawyer in private practice, if I'm not mistaken. The association you represent claims to speak on behalf of incorporated small-scale drivers, but your clients don't identify themselves.

When I looked at your client's website, I couldn't find a list of members, I didn't see anything about who sat on the board of directors and I didn't see a list of contributors. I find that rather troubling.

In order to reassure all committee members, including me, about your claims, and to establish the credibility of your organization, could you provide our committee clerk, who is here today, with a list of your members and contributors?

[Arjun Vishwanth]

I would, but my difficulty with that question is, has that question been asked of other organizations that have appeared here? I don't have a problem with it, but it should be fair. That's my problem.

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

In that case, Mr. Chair, I could make it a proposal. I had prepared a motion, but I think Mr. Vishwanth's proposal is also interesting. I'm going to turn it into a motion for the committee.

I move:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request that the Canada Truck Operators Association demonstrate transparency and good faith by providing the committee, within 15 days of the adoption of this motion, with a complete and up-to-date list of its official representatives and contributing members.

I'm willing to accept an amendment that would also incorporate the other associations that have testified before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to ensure that everybody has a copy of the motion that was put forward by the member. The clerk will distribute that as soon as he receives it.

The meeting is suspended at the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, I've started a speakers list to discuss the motion put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

First on that speakers list, I have Mr. Albas, followed by Mr. Gaheer.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you.

I'll keep it very brief. I'm sorry that we're keeping the witnesses from further questions for this, but it's important when a member has a concern.

I would just simply ask MP Barsalou-Duval if he would tolerate a friendly amendment, just allowing that if we're going to be asking this of one witness, we ask the same of all witnesses who have appeared and will appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Is that okay with you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval?

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

Yes, I'm fine with that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

I have Mr. Gaheer next.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I tried my hardest to request that actual carriers within my riding and neighbouring ridings come and testify before this committee. All of them said that they would love to come and share their own stories, but that they actually feel targeted and that if they appeared before this committee, they would be targeted even more by agencies, legacy carriers or legacy associations. They feel like when they speak out on this issue to voice their concerns, their clients are actually called and told to switch their contracts from those companies to other companies. That's the experience I've had. Again, I have a very big sample size. My riding is probably the transportation hub in Canada. It includes Pearson airport.

For this organization, I, too, was wondering why a lawyer was sent instead of an actual carrier. I'm guessing that's probably one of the biggest reasons: Carriers feel like they're targeted.

For an organization to have to submit its full membership list would actually make it even easier for those companies to be targeted, if they are in fact being targeted. I can see that hesitation there from a potential association like that, because the carriers I know and have been speaking to would not want this to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, if we're amenable to it.... This is a motion put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval. With all respect to the member, if we don't have agreement on this for the time being, is it okay if we push this off, to at least ensure that we get the testimony from these two witnesses, and then come back to it? Does that work for everyone?

Is that okay with you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval?

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

I'm trying to understand the proposal.

Is it to delay debate on the motion?