Transport Committee on Oct. 28th, 2025

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

In that case, we can add more.

We can talk about road safety, which is compromised by skipping steps. There are issues around the language barrier and getting licences without proper training. One witness told us about drivers on the south shore who get their licence in 24 hours and go on the road, when they can't even understand the signage. Come on. This is serious.

Second, there's been a lot of talk about the systemic nature of the Driver Inc. model. Has it become an acceptable model? I have a problem with that. Are there any witnesses who could come and tell us more about this systemic aspect? Some drivers receive training and can legally start driving 24 hours later. Has that become automatic? The company doesn't care what could happen, because it costs them less. To hell with the risk of accidents, they wash their hands of the matter. If a truck is destroyed, they will replace the driver with another and they will go on.

I want to talk about what we're proposing as a concrete measure to the federal government, because it's kind of getting drowned out in everything I've said. There's a balance to be struck with regard to what's on the table right now, which is to finish up and move on to recommendations. My colleagues will all agree that these won't be very easy recommendations. The analysts are going to do a great job, I have no doubt about that. They're lawyers. The report will say exactly what they're thinking. However, in our case, we might be a little more emotional, especially if we have witnesses who know exactly what a family goes through coping with an accident. That could be very moving and influence our recommendations.

Now, will there be more emphasis on clarifying provincial regulations? I don't see how we could change the regulations of the SAAQ, Contrôle routier Québec or other inspection organizations in Canada that fall under provincial jurisdiction. Over the next two meetings, we'll hear testimony that will determine how we're going to amend the laws that govern trucking companies, because parts of those laws are under shared jurisdiction. I agree with the committee that we can look at the CRA. That said, how are we going to amalgamate all the recommendations so that they can be implemented in co-operation with the provinces and territories across Canada, and so that we can put an end to the Driver Inc. scheme?

We also brought up another extremely important factor, which is data sharing. Is it enough to make it easier to share data so that the abusive practices we've heard about in previous testimony don't happen again? No, it isn't.

However, with the help of the witnesses, we need to gather as many simple and necessary tools as possible to denounce the fact that people are abusing drivers, classifications and the system used to foil companies that are doing well on the market. Some companies are really above board, but we still have to cope with a tiny part of the market that doesn't follow the rules.

The purpose of this study is really to give good companies the opportunity to earn a good living and, above all, to stay in business.

In closing, I'd like my colleagues who have felt my passion today to understand that I care about introducing sanctions and all the necessary incentives to support this cause. I think they also heard me talk about the importance of harmonizing federal and provincial regulations and working together to share information.

I think my colleagues will all agree that some very good recommendations in our anticipated report can have a positive impact. I continue to think it's very important that they be aligned with the priorities of the federal government of which we are a part, but we can still convey key messages to the provincial governments, educate certain people and find the magic solution to put an end to Driver Inc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lauzon.

Next, we have Ms. Nguyen.

Ms. Nguyen, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much to my colleague for his important remarks as we continue to think about our path forward for this study.

I want to note that in early September, the Ontario Trucking Association shared some really important news. During National Trucking Week, just a few short weeks ago, ESDC took the opportunity to deliver a really important and serious message to employers in the trucking industry. It was that misclassifying workers under the Driver Inc. model is illegal and there are consequences.

A video released by the labour program at ESDC defined and outlined the crisis of employee misclassification in the road transportation sector and warned companies that non-compliance with the Canada labour code will not be tolerated.

We know there's really important action happening. We want to see the government continue to do its work alongside the provinces. The provinces have a really important role in training and enforcement. We've heard from the Auditor General reports about the opportunities here. They're doing work at the same time. We'll look forward to getting to hear that as well.

Road safety is paramount and we want to make sure that the work continues in the appropriate way. As we hear about these trends, the opportunities around the T4A and the potential loopholes we could potentially look to close, that's all part of the reflection and the work we need to be doing.

This video that was put out by ESDC explains the consequences, the role of employer obligations and what will happen in terms of non-compliance. Part of the work that needs to happen is around education for the sector, so that people who are the bad actors, who are acting inappropriately, sidestepping labour obligations and not doing what is required in terms of supporting their workers, are being held to account. That's really critical.

We've heard in the testimony over the last few weeks that this misclassification really gives an unfair competitive advantage to some in the industry. We've had a chance to hear those perspectives throughout the last few weeks of the testimony. It's been really important to reflect on this. I'm looking forward to hearing from government officials in the next rounds as we continue this study. This campaign is really important.

An awareness kit has been developed and released online. This kit has practical tools—educational resources for employers and drivers. It outlines what this misclassification looks like. It gives guidance on how the labour program investigates and addresses violations. It has materials that can be shared and put on sites and at venues where workers are able to see them.

We know that this is a form of labour abuse that really undermines workers' rights and puts compliant businesses at a disadvantage. We also might want to reflect more on the role of this conversation in this time of tariffs and challenges with our neighbour to the south.

We know that industry associations, industry participants and labour advocates want us to do more. We have an appropriate role as the federal government, alongside the provinces, to ensure that we are getting to that kind of road safety. We want to make sure that those are all tackled. It's not appropriate and it's not okay to see this abuse. We know that ESDC is resourcing to ensure that it can address the needs of workers and protect workers through this time.

We need to make sure the provinces are doing that enforcement work. This study can help inform that. We want to make sure these great recommendations land in lockstep with our provincial counterparts, so that we can collaborate and work together because that is what Canadians expect from us. We want to make sure the employers know, too, what their obligations are and that they're well versed in their responsibilities. That's really critical at this time.

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to make sure that we get this work done well, hear perspectives that we have not had a chance to hear and do this in a way that works and continues in the spirit of great cross-party collaboration.

I just want to add, too, that as someone who's new to committee life, this has been a real learning opportunity. I'm so thrilled to get to work with the amazing colleagues here and to dive into an issue that.... I've said this before at committee. I appreciated the testimony of the Toronto police representative that trucks are killing machines. They are dangerous and we want to make sure that people who operate these vehicles are doing it with safety in mind. That's why I don't drive. Seriously, I don't want to be responsible for operating machinery that can seriously wound someone.

Reflecting back on all of this important testimony, let's please make sure that we are respecting the hard work that has gone on as we dug into this research over the last few weeks. I'm really thrilled that we are able to do this work together.

I think those are my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Nguyen. Well done.

Next, we have Mr. Albas.

[An hon. member]

Here we go.

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

I'm just glad, Mr. Chair, that I got two things tonight.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Number one is that I got an immediate laugh for taking the floor and that warms my heart.

What I wanted to mention is, again, in a proper filibuster, you have three and a half minutes and then you need to get back to the motion. I saw some improvement from Mr. Lauzon, where he attempted to bring it back in.

I congratulate you, sir, for asking for more time and resources so that we can get this issue resolved tonight.

Just as a reminder, this is about safety. We've heard multiple suggestions tonight from Liberals that they want to see more witnesses—truckers who have diabetes, I think, or mental health issues. We've all talked about the need to bring in people who have a loved one who has perhaps died or who have had their own incident as a victim. I think we should zone in. This is what we're proposing.

Conservatives believe it can be two meetings that are extended to allow for us to have regular panels, as the clerk has said, where people can be heard. It can be two and a half meetings, with the second half of that last part where we give drafting instructions for all the great recommendations by giving a clear direction of what the committee wants to the analyst, and that would clearly end the study—or it could be three meetings of the regular two hours.

Conservatives are supportive of this Bloc initiative. We're supportive of having victims come in to share their stories, because they matter. I also think that we've heard tonight that there are other voices that need to be heard. We stand prepared, Mr. Chair, either for consensus—because I've made a number of offers here, pick up one of them and we can get this done right away—or to stop talking. Stop talking and we can vote.

I'm ready for either a consensus of this committee or a recorded division. I'm ready to wait. I'm ready to vote. I'm ready to get started on that next part of this excellent study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Kelloway, the floor is yours, sir.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the interventions by my colleagues.

Mr. Albas is ready and we appreciate that very much.

I really appreciated the interventions by everyone around the table over the last four hours, or is it five hours?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We haven't been here for four hours—have we?

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

We've been here since 3:30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's five hours.

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

Yes, I was pretty good in math in grade 12, and then it went downhill after that.

Look, I know we all take to heart the comments made by MP Lauzon. A lot of what he said was absolutely relevant to the motion. I'd like to take a different twist on it going forward.

When we look at a lot of the major projects that were announced by the Major Projects Office and Prime Minister Carney, we see that a good deal of them are going to require trucks, transportation of a variety of sorts and certainly ports. That's not the focus of this study, but I hope that someday it will be a study we look at. It's one that is near and dear to my heart and I think to the hearts of people across the country and MPs around this table.

However, we're going to be accelerating the major projects in Canada, which requires a lot of transportation. What we heard over numerous sessions here is that there are significant challenges and pitfalls that impact the drivers and the people on the highways. If we don't get together with the provinces on some key items, my concern is that there will be more of them because of the level of traffic that is going to manifest itself from the major projects, whether it's the west coast, the Prairies, the north, Quebec, Ontario or Atlantic Canada.

If we don't get those recommendations to government—which I am sure we will, in due order—then the problem is not going to go away. It will be exacerbated by the volume of major projects that are happening in Canada. That's number one—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kelloway, we don't have any more interpretation. They've just informed us that we have a hard stop at 8:30, so I'm adjourning the meeting.