Evidence of meeting #14 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was misclassification.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Up next is Mr. Greaves, but I'll let Mr. Barsalou-Duval answer these questions first before giving the floor to Mr. Greaves.
Is it a question to add on to those questions that maybe he can respond to?
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
On the subject of jurisdictions, to my knowledge, this isn't the first time that such a request has been made involving correspondence in other jurisdictions. I imagine there are already established practices that could be used.
With regard to meetings, there's no mention of additional meetings in the motion. I think this is a separate debate that we began at our last meeting and that we can resume later. However, it was my understanding that everyone agreed to additional meetings.
With regard to privacy, the motion doesn't require the documents to be unredacted. If there are excessive redactions, that may come up later. I think the current provisions already protect the privacy of the individuals involved.
With regard to confidentiality, I think it is important that everyone has access to the information that the committee will have at its disposal. In my opinion, it is clear that the general public, including journalists, must have access to it. Since our committee is seeking the greatest possible transparency, I think our approach must be transparent.
Liberal
Liberal
Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to this motion, the committee has heard now from the relevant ministers, from senior departmental officials and from a whole range of leading stakeholders from across the country and many of the provinces most affected by the Driver Inc. model. I am not entirely certain what it is the committee would hope to gain from the provision of these documents given the testimony we have heard, the access we have had and what I would suggest is a very forthcoming response from the senior bureaucrats responsible for these files and matters.
With all respect to my colleague who has brought the motion forward, it does seem that this exercise would require a significant amount of work in order to produce materials that would substantiate the testimonies we've already heard. I'm not sure the committee would be particularly well served by that or by the additional time it would take, given the other matters we hope to turn our attention to as well in the coming weeks.
Is this necessary? What does it achieve that the committee has not already heard or received from the witnesses who have come before us?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Do you want me to turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval for a response to that, and then go to Mr. Kelloway?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval first to get his response.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
First, I'd respond by saying that when I moved the motion, I mentioned its purpose, which was to find out what more could be done on this issue as a committee, as Parliament, and as members of Parliament. I'm sure we will learn a lot about the government's approach, both what it has done in the past and what it intends to do in the future. Recommendations and possible solutions could have been provided to us.
The Bloc Québécois had specifically asked the Minister of Transportation to launch an investigation into the “Driver Inc.” phenomenon and the exploitation of workers in the transportation sector. Unfortunately, he declined to do so.
I think the testimony we heard was interesting, but it doesn't cover all aspects of the issue. There is still much to shed light on, and I think that with this information, we will be able to shed more light on the matter.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
I want to thank the Bloc member for that response. I'm with my colleague MP Greaves here, though. The reality is that we're at a point where I think it's absolutely essential to get the recommendations and report out now.
My concern—and I don't dispute the convictions of the Bloc motion—is as it was at the last meeting, when I said that I think we have a chance here of continuously—on a very important study, yes—moving the goalposts, and then two meetings—that's not in this motion and I appreciate that—become three meetings. What happens if we don't get production of documents in 30 days? Another delay?
I believe, and others can have a difference of opinion, and that's what makes this committee so great.... In my opinion—others can have a different opinion and I respect that—that would do a disservice in getting out the recommendations that we heard on the consistent themes in terms of things like how the logbook can be tampered with. Fatigue was another one. Also, of course, when we get to a certain point, there's listening to the victims, which is going to be important.
What we've heard consistently—and you see this in a lot of important studies like this essential study—is that when you get to a certain point, the information is important to have and the knowledge is important to have from all stakeholders in this study, but you see re-emerging things—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
My apologies. It is 10:15. I'm going to have to adjourn.
The meeting is adjourned.