Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

I realize that you don't want to get yourself too much in a corner because there may be situations you can't contemplate.

I'm just trying to get it out there, so that if you're a truck driver or the owner of a truck company, you don't accidentally run afoul of the misclassification. I think you've been helpful there.

Before I move on, is there anything else on that issue that you might want to give to truckers or truck driving companies?

The minister said—and I'm inclined to believe her—that there were a number of people who, when you did the investigation, just didn't know. Is there anything else that you can give them in terms of bright-line rules?

[Brenda Baxter]

When our officers are out at these weigh stations educating some of the drivers, they are talking about the benefits of being an employee and the protections that they receive under the Canada Labour Code as an employee, not just from a labour standards perspective, but also from a health and safety perspective. These are protections that you receive as an employee.

We do take the time, when we meet with the drivers, to educate them on those benefits.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

For the crackdown that was announced, I believe that $23 million in funding was announced.

Over what period is that $23 million? Has that already been spent? Where are we with that $23 million?

[Sandra Hassan]

The fall economic statement of 2023 announced $26.5 million over a five-year period from 2023-24 to 2027-28.

Really allocated, if you do quick math, it's close to $5 million per year. Since we have two fiscal years that have gone by, $10 million has been spent. We're well into 2025-26, so the team is up, they're working, and we know that we've been spending those sums as it's mostly full-time employees, FTEs. We know, because we have the teams in place, that the money is being spent.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Sorry, I'm going to jump in there.

My challenge is, if you do the math, that's 10 million bucks and we have 129 misclassifications. That's like $100,000 per misclassification. That's a lot of money for relatively limited results. I'm not sure if taxpayers are getting full value for money there.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Kelloway, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and hello to the witnesses.

We know that many drivers, in particular newcomers, incorporate without understanding the legal and tax consequences.

We've talked to some degree about that in this testimony, I'm wondering if you can break down what ESDC is doing, tangible action items, in relation to that lack of awareness and lack of understanding of the tax implications and the legal implications.

Could you break down actionable items or outcomes that you are focused on?

[Sandra Hassan]

Thank you.

Going back to the work that is being done, the awareness and the sharing of information, that relates to informing the drivers we are meeting, a lot of them at the weigh stations but in other fora also, about their rights, about the qualification under the Canada Labour Code and other acts as employees.... It actually protects them. Many did not know. It gives them rights to medical leave. It gives them protections in case of nonpayment of wages, for example.

We also explain that if they are an employee there are contributions to Canadian social systems, such as employment insurance and our retirement regime, the Canada Pension Plan.

That's part of the information that is shared when we have those meetings and information sessions. Our colleagues from CRA and our colleagues from the provinces are also in attendance.

I have the ADM responsible for the temporary foreign worker program also here with me. There's a strong link that's being made with the temporary foreign worker program. Under that program, employees who are brought to Canada are brought under an agreement that they will be hired by the employer as an employee. When those workers come, the agreement that allows them to come to Canada is that they are to be employees, they are to be treated under the Canada Labour Code, but also under our other legislation as employees.

We're looking into that also.

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

I'm curious—and this is for you or for anyone else—about the feedback of what's been done to date. I understand that a lot of scaffolding needs to happen here; you focus on putting a solution in place, but there's always more to do.

I'm wondering about the feedback from stakeholders—whether that would be companies, individuals or newcomers—in terms of the measures and in terms of industry. What is the feedback that you're getting in terms of this particular measure and how it's manifesting? It's important to hear what you're hearing. We've heard from industry and we'll continue to hear from industry and different stakeholders. What are you hearing from stakeholders? I'm interested to see what the threads are here.

[Brenda Baxter]

I will start with the investigations we are doing at the weigh stations, spending a lot of time educating drivers. We do hear a lot of appreciation of the time that we're spending there with the drivers to help educate them. Many of them didn't know what the difference was between being an employee and being a contractor, and what the benefits were from an employee perspective. Having other partners participating there, like the provincial transportation authorities, the CRA, the workers' compensation boards and the insurance boards, they're getting a lot of information, and that is very much appreciated.

Certainly, we engage frequently with the Canadian Trucking Alliance. I believe they're here in the room as well. We've been working with them on this issue since 2018. I think they appreciate the escalation of the work that we are doing, starting with the education and now with the enforcement, looking to enhance that enforcement work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to move the following motion, which will be handed out to all committee members:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities request that the Departments of Transport, Revenue, and Employment forward to the committee clerk, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, all correspondence, reports, emails, and documents relating to the issue of non-compliance in the trucking industry.

The purpose of this motion is to give the committee a better understanding of what is being done, what has been done, what hasn't been done, and what more can be done to address this serious problem. There have been announcements today, but I'm far from convinced that they will be enough to solve the problem. By obtaining this information, the committee will be able to do a better job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I will suspend the meeting for a few minutes while the motion is being handed out.

I don't think we're going to be able to get back to our witnesses.

I want to thank you, on behalf of all committee members, for appearing today and for sharing your testimony. You're free to leave.

This meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Colleagues, I believe you have all received the duly translated, in both official languages, version of the motion proposed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I believe there is one small adjustment.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, do you want to speak to the slight adjustment you made to your motion?

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

Yes.

If the committee members are in agreement, we could go back to 2018, instead of going back indefinitely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have Mr. Albas, followed by Mr. Kelloway, followed by Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

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

I just wanted to make sure that there are no issues with revenue being factored in to the department. I just want to make it very clear that this is obviously the Canada Revenue Agency we're speaking of here. I think that's the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Can you confirm that, Mr. Barsalou-Duval?

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

Yes, absolutely. If the committee feels it is necessary to include the Canada Revenue Agency in the motion, I'm perfectly willing to oblige.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Do you want to continue, Mr. Albas?

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

As long as we all know what we're talking about and the intent is clear, I am fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. It is much appreciated.

Thanks for the notice of motion. A couple of things come to mind with respect to this. One is what Mr. Albas said, so that's clear. In terms of this particular motion, it doesn't state it in here so I'm assuming it's not: Does this extend the study or the discussions we're having around the length of the study even further than we're going? I guess that is question number one.

Number two is a question about the intersection of the federal government and the provincial government in terms of the production of documents and emails. Does that get complicated when it's another level of government and there are corresponding discussions with respect to programming or information around offences under particular acts and things of that nature? I'm not exactly sure, and that's why I'm asking the question. How easy is that to produce? Does it become more of a cascading series of more meetings on this? Before I say, “on this” and someone says safety is a priority, I want to make sure to say it's important and that security is absolutely a priority. Everybody wants safe roads, and we've all illustrated that.

I'm just wondering if we can have a discussion on that, because I genuinely want to know. This is a legitimate question, in particular for my colleague from the Bloc, about jurisdictions, discussions around that and information. I'll put that out there, and I might have more questions as we go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

I'm taking note of that, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I'll turn the floor over to Ms. Nguyen.

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

Thank you.

I wanted to follow up and get a bit more context as well, to add to my colleague's request for additional context on this motion.

From my understanding, some of the stuff you might want to gather through this production could breach the Privacy Act and might provide information on those who have been fined, and some of this data would actually not be releasable because of the enforcement and corresponding data. What can be put in view is a bit challenging.

I'm also curious whether you'd want this data to remain confidential within the committee or if you would want this to be more broadly out in the open and available to journalists, which would potentially provide personal information of offenders. I wanted to strike that note of concern around that and get more clarification on the motion.