Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

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

Mr. Chair, I thought I had the floor next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. You were the next person on my list.

You have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have heard everyone around the table speak, and it seems that we are all very close to agreement. Not much is missing to reach a consensus that will enable us to make a decision about the next meetings.

We all agree to dedicate a meeting to the victims and invite victims to testify. We are all in favour of representatives of the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec and Canada Post testifying. We also all agree that people would have liked to testify but were not able to come. In fact, that is why the Conservatives have submitted names. It seems that some regions of Canada have not been adequately represented so far. The Liberals have also said they would like to invite more witnesses. That is what is on the table at the moment.

From what I understand, there is no problem. The only challenge is determining whether we are going to hold two or three meetings. If we agree to hold three meetings, we may want to hold one more. Very honestly, whether there are five meetings or ten meetings, I think we will have to hold as many meetings as it takes. If the committee decides to do two, I will accept that, and we will focus more on what is essential.

A lot of people have an interest in this issue, which affects numerous businesses. I am sure I could find many companies in Quebec that are ready to testify, because there are numerous jobs at stake. There are also a lot of victims; people have lost their lives on the roads. This is a serious study, an important study. I think it is crucial to do this study properly.

At the same time, we also have to come up with solutions. If we agree to hold two meetings, it will be two meetings. If we hold three meetings, it will be three meetings. I think we are capable of making a decision this evening and moving forward from there.

That is the message I want to send to committee members. I think it is important not to end up talking about it over and over for an hour or two at another meeting in one or two weeks, when in fact we all agree on the essential points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

It is now Ms. Nguyen's turn.

You have the floor.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm in agreement with Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I think we have a lot here that we are in agreement on.

You talked about the idea of preserving a meeting specifically for survivors and witnesses who were victims of accidents and making sure we dedicate that in the right way. I think we all want to make sure we are working in concert with the provincial governments to get the right recommendations to tie this up. We have started to see a lot of patterns emerging in the data and the witness testimony. There are a couple of other perspectives that I think are important to hear to make sure we round this out.

I'm looking forward to making sure we get to the next piece of work around the recommendations here, so that we can have action on this really important topic. I hope we can get there and can work in consensus in the spirit of a friendship room because we are all grown-ups and we're trying to do great things for this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Nguyen.

It is now Mr. Kelloway's turn to take the floor.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Some comments were made here with respect to where we go from here. I do think that we're close. There is some contention on our side that the goalposts have moved a bit, and they seem to be somewhat malleable and flexible in terms of fluidity.

We're closing in on the tail end of a very important study, one that I'm grateful the Bloc member put forward.

As a member of Parliament from Cape Breton, I realized the essential nature of truck drivers during COVID, as we all did, but I didn't realize the extent of it. I did talk to some local truck drivers who brought it up to a degree, but I didn't realize the extent of the challenges and the divisions in a lot of things. First, I didn't realize that, in some provinces, training can be up to 48 hours and then people are put into trucks. That's astonishing to me. It's more than a red flag. That, to me, is something that in a meeting or two or three, whatever we decide to do, will no doubt be further cemented or further elaborated on. I know that there are a lot of nuances there.

Today we heard from a witness who talked about the fact that there's remedial training. If something goes wrong that you're called on the mat for, you have to receive some training to update your skills, but there isn't really anything mandatory in terms of continuing education for truck drivers. That's astonishing to me.

Then we talked about the fatigue aspect and how that is consistently a theme that's been brought up. I'm thankful for the opposition here. It's not often that you hear that, because we often have our own game sheets coming in here. The Conservatives want to own the Liberals, and the Liberals want to own the Conservatives, and the Bloc wants to do what it does. I'm really thankful for the fact that we need to look at the victim side of this and how this impacts victims. I understand that we need to be very careful, mindful and thoughtful in how we do that. I think that's really important.

A lot of things have been learned here, so I'm grateful that the study has happened, and I'm grateful that we've spent the time on it that we have. I've learned a lot. I've thought a lot about loved ones on the highway who I hold dear, whether we're on the Trans-Canada in Cape Breton or travelling to see our niece and nephew in Toronto. How safe are we, and how do we reassure that?

We've learned here in this study so far that it is complicated in the sense that there's a great deal of oversight by the provinces, but there may be opportunities for the federal government to look at different venues vis-à-vis Revenue Canada and how we can play a role there.

I can assure you of this: No one has played this game. I appreciate the opposition not playing this game. Liberals have families too. Liberals drive trucks too. This study matters to us. It matters to everyone around this table and everyone in our caucus. We don't get time and a half. We're just very thoughtful and careful of how we want to move forward, in all seriousness.

That goes to my second piece, or maybe third piece or maybe fourth piece, which is how we work as a committee. On committee work, I've been doing this for six years. That's not as long as some people here. Some people have been here for a long time. Again, I often wonder, when we think we're going one way in terms of a process, why we seem to zigzag and go to another process. In past committees, we've had a very functioning subcommittee that was able to blow through that minutiae and really bring out some tangible processes and go-forwards for the larger committee.

Now we find ourselves in this situation where we're very close in terms of solidifying a move on the scheduling, but you can understand that when things change three or four times in an hour, it gives you a little pause for concern in terms of, if we now agree to this, will this change...? It's like a Russian nesting doll. It just keeps on going.

From our standpoint, we're looking at that very carefully, and it's very thoughtful because we want the best study for it. Ideally, we could have one meeting with the victims, get this study to the presses and get this back into the hands of government, and then ask the federal government about recommendations number one through whatever.

Let's seriously talk about this for the betterment of the industry, for the betterment of the citizens of every province and for the drivers themselves. We've seen in a lot of testimony over the last number of sessions that there's a lot of data. Some of it is substantiated, and some of it less so. There's a lot to think about on this side of the table, as there is on the opposition side of the table.

It was six meetings. There were six meetings and then it was nine meetings. Then it was eight meetings, and then there's two and a half and then carry the one.... I mean, you can understand our trepidation in this. I'll sum it up this way. It's that I do think that if we were to take this off-line, adjourn or suspend...but I think suspending the meeting could possibly impact the minister. I don't know if that's the case.

Clerk or Chair, if that were to happen...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

No one wants to see that because we have two ministers coming who are ready to answer your questions and ready to provide perspective and insight: Minister Hajdu and Minister MacKinnon. Again, I think we need to maybe pause and reflect on the next steps here and come up with a successful resolution.

With that, I'll yield the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

I now give the floor to Mr. Lauzon, who will be followed by Ms. Nguyen.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To go back to what my colleague said, we want to get this study finished, because trucking is central to the Canadian economy. Witnesses have told us that every day, more than 70% of the goods traded in the country are transported by drivers on the roads.

We are therefore committed to ensuring that those drivers be legally qualified and work safely. Some witnesses have also asked that those drivers speak French or English.

Whether they are transporting food, consumer goods, construction materials or essential materials, this transport is central to our economy. All of the companies that testified told us about the circumstances in which they work. I will not list the witnesses we heard, but these people are good workers, they are the heart of this sector of our economy. They are truckers, dispatchers, small businesses, cafeterias, truck repair workers and truck parts sellers. In my riding, very close to my home, there is Transport Laplante, a company I am very familiar with that hires workers from all over. They are foreign workers, but they are well trained.

One of the difficulties these companies have is that the more rural they are, the more difficult it is to recruit, particularly because there is no housing. The economic situation varies from company to company, but the importance placed on road safety is really what they have in common. It is the foundation. The rules of the game have to be the same for small actors, big actors, independent drivers and drivers for big companies.

The problem that the witnesses told us about has rapidly taken on significant proportions. Some witnesses told us that the problem has existed for ten years; others said it went back 14 years. One of the witnesses today told us he had started spending time with ministers and MPs from all parties 14 years ago. We are therefore all involved. This is not a question of politics, and it is not about knowing whether you are Liberal or Conservative. It is a problematic situation that the witnesses have seen coming and have seen getting bigger. So Driver Inc. is a name given to a problem that was already here 14 or 15 years ago. That is what we have heard.

We have also heard testimony from a number of companies. Even though we have not heard every one of the Canadian companies, we are able to see what the problem is and find solutions. I think our analysts have enough material in hand to complete some pretty exhaustive reports and enable us to submit recommendations and move forward on this issue.

That being said, our colleague Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has raised a point that had escaped us.

I am going to take the liberty of speaking freely: If we invite witnesses to talk to us about what they have been through, it will be painful. What we experienced when we heard witnesses from rail transport was less serious. Of course, some people had to take medication, for one thing. But in this case, it is taking it up a notch. We are going to hear testimony that is going to hurt. Is that pain necessary? If it is important to the committee, we will go ahead. I think it is important to respect Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's intention and invite witnesses from the families that have suffered the repercussions of this phenomenon.

Are we then going to add a layer by taking that opportunity to invite a representative of a towing company? We are open to the idea of hearing representatives from one or two towing companies, but we would have to know what approach we want to take with them.

In fact, we would almost have to consider them to be first responders. After the police and firefighters do their work, it is often the towing services that arrive on the scene to observe the damage and handle the consequences of an accident.

Is it useful to invite people from that industry? Personally, I don't think it really is, but I am open to the idea of finding a way to justify the decision to invite a towing company.

That being said, we are now talking about going back to a list of witnesses based on testimony already received. Their names were submitted today, but we still have to do research to determine what arguments we want to put forward in our discussions. Do we have time to do that research? The answer is no. We do not have time to do research into the witness list proposed by the Conservatives. We are considering maybe adding one, and that is where things stand in our discussions. If we add one, we have to find the one who reflects the line of thought we want to follow in the testimony, because any addition calls for additional research.

Do I want to revisit some of the reporting we have seen, like the reporting done by J.E, for example, good, constructive reporting, to relaunch this study? I think it would be worthwhile to take another look at it, yes, to do our homework again and think about the witnesses we might invite.

All of that is with the aim of ensuring fairness among ourselves and among the witnesses and adhering to the approach we want to take in this study.

Initially, the plan was to hold one meeting, and then a second was added. We now find that this is not enough and we are adding a third. Moreover, we want to avoid certain witnesses being exposed to the testimony given by others, particularly when sensitive subjects are discussed.

Earlier, I proposed a friendly amendment so the witnesses would be somewhat isolated and their testimony would be given in camera, if they preferred. If a witness is heard in camera, it does not mean they can't participate in the first part of the meeting, which might be followed by rearranging the room for hearing the second panel. We are now looking at a meeting solely for sensitive testimony. It will never end.

I think we have some homework to do. We have to verify what we are looking for in all this, and then propose a solution that will satisfy everyone.

Essentially, what we want is to manage, together, to complete this study. What is important now is to discuss our subject in a way that will identify common approaches that can lead to conclusions and recommendations.

Driver Inc. is not an easy issue to understand. Although we started by looking at the workers, we realized that they were not the only ones affected; the companies are suffering major economic consequences in all this. We realized that hourly rates had been changed because of cheap labour and failure to maintain vehicles. In addition, highway controllers have little oversight of the condition of vehicles.

I have learned a lot of things over the course of this study, during which we have also discovered that there are communication problems between the provinces that are injurious to road safety. Plainly, some of our recommendations could help to improve the situation.

We also learned that some transport companies had only one customer. There are laws that govern this aspect of trucking. Some recommendations ask that we establish that a company that incorporates for a single customer is not entirely legal. What can be done in this regard?

Testimony heard today also told us that some drivers were cheating their logbooks. In addition, some drivers have two of them: they change a letter in their name and thus drive with two logbooks. Others manage to thwart the electronic logbook by rebooting it to show that they slept for eight hours so they can keep driving.

We have a lot to learn, we have learned a lot, and we have a lot of recommendations to make about this.

We have also learned that some trucks were not inspected by the drivers, they were inspected by the companies themselves and they were plainly not being maintained.

It goes even further. We had witnesses tell us about unpaid benefits and holidays, tell us that there were sometimes two drivers per truck in order to be more competitive against companies that comply with the rules, with keeping logbooks and with maintaining vehicles, and have very low personnel turnover compared to others.

We realized that drivers have no social safety net. That is very important to us, because safety depends on it.

We also learned about the language barrier. We were told that training was given in the language requested, but drivers were getting behind the wheel who were not able to read the signs, because they spoke neither French nor English. We know the signs are not written in other languages, such as Spanish, for example.

This is all not to mention the differences between provinces. According to the testimony, road monitoring is not done the same way in all provinces. We heard from a roadside inspector that certain safety practices in Quebec are not applied in the other provinces. The inspector could not even access a truck's maintenance or inspection history. Some problems that are concentrated in Ontario and Quebec are not seen elsewhere.

There is also the matter of price increases. I spoke a little earlier about competition. What we learned on that subject is that prices have risen since the pandemic, which has forced companies to use the Driver Inc. model to try to stay competitive. A weak spot has thus been created in all this because of the labour shortage, for one thing.

If class 1 drivers were all Canadians or Quebeckers, if there were no foreign workers, if trucking companies were all recognized and did their inspections and kept their logbooks as required, we would not be here talking about this phenomenon. It is not solely attributable to immigration; it involves all areas of the economy.

I am going to talk about this phenomenon as it affects workers. We have heard from a number of representatives of groups and organizations in Quebec and Canada and internationally, and we have seen that companies had varying opinions about the Driver Inc. model.

They talk to us about not just the loss of competitiveness, but also, and most importantly, about market concentration and composition. One witness told us, about three weeks ago, that some drivers got their licences in 24 hours, in a foreign language, and that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Forgive me for interrupting you, Mr. Lauzon, but Mr. Albas has a point of order.

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

I have to say I am loving this, hearing all of this testimony, but relevance to the motion.... It seems this member is wandering off and giving us his own recollection. I really hope some of the members who were talking about repetition in witnesses might say that this witness here, this member, is being repetitive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I think there was a link to the transport sector and missing truckers and how this study is important to ensuring that we always have ample truckers in the industry.

Thank you very much for that.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thanks for the break, Mr. Albas. I appreciate it.

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

It's precious—

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Let me go back to that. Let me talk about the people who drive those trucks—I was there.

I am going to speak in French, because I do a considerably smoother job of it in French.

French is my language; it is the language of Molière.

The witnesses talked about the best interests of truck drivers, but also about the impact a scheme like this can have on employment insurance, for example, when hours are not properly declared.

In addition, in Quebec, it has an impact on worker protection by the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail, or CNESST. There are equivalent organizations elsewhere in Canada, including the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, or WSIB. In fact, there are others, but I don't know them all off the top of my head. Finally, it has an impact on workers.

I want to remind Mr. Albas that I'm talking about Driver Inc. and what we heard from the witnesses. I'm also talking to you about the motion. We want to find solutions and come to an agreement.

Today, it's important to say the following: From what we've learned, those drivers were also deceived. Their leave hasn't been paid and they have to work extended hours.

It's very important to point out that we've spoken to union representatives about the well-being of workers. I was fascinated by their testimony, especially when it came to supporting their workers, protecting them and giving them the best working conditions. However, unions are there to represent all workers, including foreign workers. That said, I think there's still work to be done in this area. Therefore, I want to put recommendations in place based on what the unions have said. Based on the testimony we've heard, some very good recommendations could be made. When they draft our report, I think the analysts will really focus on the testimony of the union representatives, whose primary goal is to protect workers. Mr. Chair, that's what I wanted to say about workers.

However, I'd also like to address public safety, because we heard some extremely important testimony on that subject. The pressure on drivers is not just economic and related to the profitability of businesses or the illegality of what they're often pressured to commit. They also have to accept all workloads, which has an impact on public safety. We know what the risk is.

Every morning, I drive for an hour and a half or an hour and 45 minutes to get to work. Every night it takes me an hour and five minutes to get back. On a day like today, I know I'm at risk. I started work at 6 a.m., I will have to work late until 9 p.m. or 10 p.m., I have the flu and I get back on the road to head home. The stretch of road between Masson‑Angers and Thurso is as dangerous as the road between Thurso and Plaisance. I'm talking about the little country road that extends over those 12 dreaded kilometres, which is even more dangerous in the dark. Since the beginning of the season, two deer have been hit. In short, I'm taking a risk.

Now imagine the case of drivers whose loads weigh tons. Add to that fatigue and driving in the dark on snowy and dangerous roads. I know what I'm talking about: Since 2010, I've been travelling that route for two and a half hours a day to come and work. Since 2010, I've crossed paths with trucks. Why? Because that's where the trucks drive. I drive on the highway of death every week. For those who aren't familiar with the highway of death, I'd like to point out that it is eastbound Highway 50 in Quebec.

Highway 50 is a truck-heavy road. I see them. If I didn't care about this study, I wouldn't be the right person sitting here. I'm always on the lookout, because I don't know what the truckers are doing in their truck, but they take up part of my lane. I don't know if they're falling asleep, texting, eating or whatever, but I end up with two wheels of their truck in my lane. On Highway 50, there are many head-on collisions. There were more deaths last month. Once again, a truck and a driver had a head-on collision. That concerns me, and I think it's extremely important that we be able to propose solutions.

In addition, the human impact is very important to me. Based on what the witnesses have told us, I feel that those workers are in a tough spot even though they haven't come to testify. No illegal drivers have come to testify here on the stand, to tell us why they're working illegally, because they know they're going to lose their job. These drivers are subject to threats and have to comply with certain conditions.

As Mr. Barsalou‑Duval was asking, could we go further? Yes, we could go five, six or ten times further and investigate further. We could bring in witnesses, drivers who want to report their company and explain to us how they were dragged into this process. I'd like to know if we do, but I believe we have enough material to make structured recommendations.

Plus, this is a complex issue. When we talk about the social safety net, there are also tax consequences, and they are huge. These workers are under increased pressure to work illegally. We haven't really explored that aspect, because we just want to slap people who are doing illegal things on the wrist, without understanding why they're doing it. The tax system is less fair because these individuals don't pay their fair share of taxes, and that concerns us. We understood that it was related to the federal government's responsibility.

This brings me to the federal and provincial governments' responsibility, because most of the problems that witnesses have raised, at the past six or eight meetings at least, are more the provincial governments' responsibility. We talked about training for a truck driver's licence. We've had witnesses explain to us how people can get licences in 24 hours, and how the provincial training laws work. We also learned how trucks are inspected by officers mandated to do so, which is a provincial responsibility. A soon-to-be-retired inspector even invited me to go to an inspection station in Saint‑Jérôme to get a clear understanding of how things are done. That, too, is provincial.

Many of these issues fall under provincial jurisdiction, but some are a shared responsibility. The provinces manage licensing, safety and inspections, but the federal government can still regulate interprovincial transportation. We learned that there were gaps in our communications and that we could improve data sharing when it comes to interprovincial transportation.

I have good news: Our government is willing to work to better communicate with the provinces and territories. We're also prepared to move forward on transferring data across Canada.

Examples of potential co-operation include the joint programs at the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. We know that there's a lack of communication at the CRA. We want more information to be shared to properly monitor the information we have on each driver and, above all, the companies, because the problem stems from the companies. We want companies to report the right information on the right drivers in the right place. The federal government will benefit and earn revenue from the situation.

A lot of other information could be shared. For example, the CNESST or the WSIB could share information on data and classifications.

We also need the appropriate T4A slips. We've already passed legislation on T4A slips. We could further legislate, but there are always permission issues.

There are also inspections. I'll go back to the Quebec traffic officer who testified before the committee. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval no doubt remembers that. The witness clearly told us that harmonizing information would be a good idea and very important. Inspections could be better coordinated. In that regard, Transport Canada and the provinces could do more to pass on information. That would make it easier for a traffic officer to be able to reprimand a driver.

Now, “harmonize” is a big word, because we have to define it in this context. The definition of the verb “work” varies in provincial and federal legislation. We know that provincial and federal laws are not always easy to merge when it comes to classification or regulations. To improve the situation, we can talk about that in our recommendations.

I'm far from being a lawyer, but if Mr. Lawrence will allow it, I'm going to play the lawyer, even though I'm not one.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I apologize in advance to lawyers, if there are any in the room, but I've learned that there was a legal uncertainty about this. The analysts may not be legal experts, but they are very good.

I see there's a legal expert in the room. I congratulate him on that. He'll be able to add to my remarks.

Basically, I think the crux of the problem lies in the legal uncertainty in the current legislation, because it allows a company to designate a driver or a contractor as a salaried employee. They can easily ask the driver to set up their own company, lend them their truck and designate them as an employee.

The analysts will agree with me that there is a legal uncertainty here from the get-go. I'm not asking them for answers today; they will be able to provide answers when they write the recommendations. That's my understanding.

When I heard the witnesses, I was surprised to learn that companies were taking advantage of this legal uncertainty. They are very aware of it and they know how to use it to have cheap labour that makes their businesses profitable and more competitive, and they get more contracts. Serious businesses are at risk of closing because they're being honest.

I think that case law and evaluation criteria are not applied in the same way everywhere. In my reading, I learned that there was case law, but that it was interpreted in different ways. However, we're allowing it to be diluted in the message. There have been concerns about the practices of certain companies for 10, 12, 13 and even 14 years, but we remain permissive.

Now let's talk about the process that drivers must follow to file a complaint. Inspections can take too long, they're expensive, and the paperwork is too long and complex. This discourages drivers from reporting the situation they're experiencing. Basically, the paperwork and the complexity of the complaint process make it so that drivers don't dare complain.

There is no legal uncertainty, but it is an area for which it could be recommended that there be a gateway. That may be part of your considerations.

This is for all members of the committee as well as the analysts. I'm slowly unveiling how I want to focus my recommendations in the report: We could suggest that it not be so easy for companies to create this kind of situation and that it be easier for drivers to file a complaint, for example, in one place that would allow drivers to be better protected. The union is asking for no less. It wants to better protect drivers. We want to support them. We want them to have good wages and good working conditions, but to do that, we have to pave the way to removing the grey areas.

That's why I'm talking about the proverbial grey area, the classification and the legal uncertainty surrounding the incorporation of a company where a single driver is designated to drive a loaned truck. We need to go further in the law, even if the law already exists. It just needs to be strengthened and make it clear that a driver cannot incorporate if they work for a company on a designated truck.

In other words, after two or three weeks or a month, if there's only one client and one driver on the invoices, that should sound the alarm at the Canada Revenue Agency. They should say that it's an illegal activity and it can't go on. So the driver has every reason—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lauzon, we have a point of order from Mr. Albas again.

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

I'm just going to take another minute here.

Number one is relevance. I haven't heard a reference to the motion in probably about 15 minutes. For those people who have done these kinds of filibusters, you should, at least every three and a half minutes, touch upon the motion. It does give a little more relevance, and it gives you a little bit more cover, because people are watching right now and probably think that we're actually hearing testimony.

I just want to confirm, Mr. Chair, that the analysts are not using this as testimony that will go towards the recommendations.

Finally, I just want to say to the clerk that I would ask for some more resources because I'm quite content. I'm learning a lot about the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

You may continue, Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Albas, for my second break. Thank you very much.

I will keep talking, thank you.

To link it directly to the motion, I can talk about new witnesses, if you like, and important testimony for the committee.

The Conservatives proposed five witnesses, one of whom we all wanted to call, which was Canada Post, and we may add a witness. We weren't able to draw up a full list of the witnesses proposed by the Conservatives. However, I can tell you some key topics that we could look at with certain witnesses. That is relevant.

I know that I get better every time, but let me talk about relevant testimony.

We haven't talked about driver-related illnesses. Some of the witnesses the Conservatives might bring forward could be suffering from what's called “occupational diseases”. We're talking about the CNESST and occupational diseases. Some drivers may be suffering, not only physically but also mentally.

I can talk about drivers recognized by the Association Diabète Québec and the SAAQ as diabetics who drive trucks legally, because they stick to certain driving hours. We haven't talked about that. We could talk about physical health. This is an issue I know well, because I'm diabetic myself. I didn't eat anything during that six-hour meeting. Those who are familiar with this disease know the importance of snacks or meals and measuring blood sugar. However, we haven't talked about situations where drivers are forced to work overtime, when that can have serious consequences for people with high blood sugar or hypoglycemia. Therefore, I hope that the Conservatives have at least one witness suffering from an occupational disease or recognized illness on the list they plan to submit. In fact, we just heard from one during our meeting. Being diabetic is one thing, but if a driver doesn't control their blood glucose levels properly and the employer forces them onto the road, they could be involved in an accident.

There are other diseases besides diabetes, but I'm talking about that one because I know it. As a diabetic myself, I have to control my blood glucose levels every day before I get on the road to go home. I often have to eat something sweet to be able to leave Parliament Hill. If my blood glucose levels are too high, my vision goes blurry and I can't leave. I have to book a hotel room and stay over in Ottawa. As a responsible person, I can't afford to go on the road and put someone else in danger. On the other hand, I only drive a regular car, not a 16,000‑pound truck loaded with goods.

Therefore, we didn't address that aspect of the issue, nor did we address mental health. When a driver is exploited, it affects their mental health. However, we haven't addressed the problem of depression or psychological disorders among drivers. In Parliament, a lot of emphasis is placed on the fact that everyone must get the state of their mental health approved. This is an issue people are talking about everywhere, in all fields, including in hospitals. Has a witness talked about the mental health of drivers forced to work despite their condition? I hope we're going to talk about that.

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

That's a good point.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I hope you include those types of witnesses on your list.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

There are two.