Evidence of meeting #15 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 going.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much.
On behalf of all members, Mr. Secretary of State, I just want to say thank you to you and your team for being here this morning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow us to transition to the next round of witnesses.
The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, I'd now like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.
From the Canada Revenue Agency, we have Jean-François Fortin, deputy commissioner; Marc Lemieux, assistant commissioner, compliance programs branch; and Mohammad Rahman, director general of business compliance directorate, collections and verification branch.
Welcome to all of you, and thank you for being here this morning.
We're going to go straight into our round of questions, and for that, we're going to turn to Mr. Albas.
Mr. Albas, the floor is yours for six minutes.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our officials for being present here today and for their ongoing commitment to our country.
I asked the secretary of state a very pointed question. If the budget were to pass and if these provisions were to come into play, what is the timeline we would be looking at for implementation? We would like to understand when these measures would come into force.
Deputy Commissioner, Canada Revenue Agency
Upon approval from Parliament, we would be able to move forward. There is a moratorium in place. T4As exist already and the penalty system exists as well, so we could implement this in a very short time frame.
I would like to add that the second part of the proposal is also to add resources, or a compliance team focused on or devoted to that. We need to put that together, but we're already working on this issue, so it would add to the effort we are doing.
The first part would be on the T4A for the reporting of the truckers' corporations to make sure they are fulfilling this part of their obligation and responsibility, and to apply the penalties.
The second part of the compliance issue is Driver Inc. By the way, it's not an illegal model, but if you are with Driver Inc., you need to respect your tax obligations. You need to pay the taxes, and there are some deductions you can't claim. The tax rate is higher, but with the T4As we would receive, we would be in a position to identify those PSBs and be in a better position to intervene.
I also want to underline that education would also continue to be an important part of the equation. It's not only going to be about compliance and enforcement.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Okay, thank you for that answer.
Mr. Chair, I forgot to mention that I'm going to be splitting my time with Mr. Barsalou-Duval, so I'll pass it on to him.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In the last two meetings, we've had discussions about adding more meetings to this study to bring in witnesses and to get documents. I think it's important that the committee make a decision before the end of this meeting, given that this is the last scheduled meeting on the subject.
I'm going to move a motion that essentially combines the two motions that have already been introduced at previous meetings.
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 since January 1, 2018; and That the committee add two additional meetings of two hours each as part of the study of the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada, so that in the first meeting, it can hear testimony from victims of heavy trucks and representatives of Justice for Truck Drivers, the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSA), and the Joy Smith Foundation, and in the second meeting, testimony from representatives of 6S Trinity Transport, J+R Hall Trucking, Dan Express, Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, and Canada Post.
I think that summarizes the discussions that took place over several hours with people around the table at the last two meetings.
I invite the members of the committee to adopt this motion so that we have a work plan to properly complete this study.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to make sure that we can get that circulated and that everybody has a copy.
The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, is there any discussion on the motion put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval?
Mr. Lauzon has the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to thank the witnesses for their patience. We should, in principle, deal with this fairly quickly. Then we'll come back to our questions for the rest of the hour.
There are two very important things about this notice of motion. Obviously, cooler heads prevail. After the last meeting was over, I was able to reread my documents with a cooler head.
I really don't agree today that we should call the families affected by the accident. I think it's a bit much for this committee to be able to call vulnerable people, people coping with an accident as serious as this one. Given everything that's happened, we're all on the same side.
I know it's important for the Conservatives and the Bloc to get them here, but for once could we put partisanship aside? There are other ways to get good sources than calling witnesses from these families and making them relive this.
I think the part of the motion that calls on us to invite witnesses who have experienced a trucking accident is too much. We know what happened. We see that.
I would absolutely like to remove the reference to victim testimony, first of all, before we go any further.
That's the first point I'd like to make, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
To me, it's really shocking that we would have Liberals openly opposing having people here who have fundamentally had their lives changed.
Bloc
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I don't think there is anything wrong with having victims here and giving them a voice so that we can effectively finish our study with the whole range of views on it, Mr. Chair. I can't see why Liberals would be opposed to bringing victims in and having them here.
I just hope that we can quickly pass this motion and get back to our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Chi Nguyen Liberal Spadina—Harbourfront, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I note in the new version of the motion....
I know we have had some lengthy discussions about the opportunity here, from additional perspectives, to make sure that we round out the study and to hear the experiences of those who have family members who have experienced some of the consequences of unsafe driving, etc.
However, part of this motion is a bit concerning to me—around the production of documents. I think the officials talked a bit about the time resources and challenges around confidentiality required to actually do this. While it is really important to have that testimony, I think it would be helpful for us to make sure that we're focusing on the parts that will illuminate the study and help us move forward. It's not to suggest that the information wouldn't be useful, but given the complexity of it and its resource intensiveness, I would like to make sure that we're really focused on hearing the witnesses whom we need to hear from and that we're focused on that piece.
I'm not comfortable with the newly amended version of the motion. I would like to continue the conversation where we were previously.
Liberal
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start by addressing Ms. Nguyen's comments on the motion.
Last time, when the discussions started, I mentioned that we were open to the idea of debating reasonable amendments. My colleague has had nearly a week to think on the matter. She may have some proposals for us.
As for having the victims testify, I have to admit, Mr. Chair, that I'm really surprised. It wouldn't be the first time that victims of an accident or issues in the federal scene have appeared before the committee. That should even be expected, generally speaking, especially when it's the will of those people.
We aren't forcing anyone to come and testify. We're just saying that it's up to them to decide whether they want to come, if they think this is a good way for them to testify about what they've experienced. They may want to share that with us so that decision-makers, those who write the laws and those who vote, are aware of what they've experienced.
I think it's legitimate, especially since people have requested it. We've received letters from groups of people who are victims of these situations, who have lost loved ones in their families and who would like to be able to talk about it in committee.
Maybe the Liberals are actually afraid to look them in the eye, Mr. Chair. Maybe the Liberals have something to feel ashamed about in this regard. Maybe that's why they don't want to hear what they have to say. In any case, I'm very disappointed with the reaction of my colleague across the way.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
I have Mr. Greaves next.
Mr. Greaves.
Liberal
Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, colleagues.
I would also like to speak to this motion. With all due respect, I'm trying to get my head around the perspective of an individual who has experienced a road accident, who has been in a vehicular incident involving a trucker on one of our highways.
We know this occurs. We know this is a serious problem in different parts of the country, but as an individual who has been in that situation, who has been on a fairly empty and underused stretch of the Trans-Canada and has had a trucker collide with my vehicle, I'm trying to understand what that experience would offer me in terms of a perspective on the business model and the abuses of the tax system, which is ultimately at the core of this study and the committee's work.
The testimony we've heard has covered a range of perspectives that speak to why we have, within the trucking sector, such a significant problem of misclassification of individuals who are, in effect, engaged in tax fraud. That is the core of the issue we're examining here, which arises in part because of the consequences of conditions on the road and truckers and individuals who, as we've heard from many of our witnesses, are not sufficiently trained and not been given sufficient preparation by their employers for their role or experience driving these large vehicles, by virtue of the fraud being perpetrated here.
The perspectives that victims would be able to bring to the underlying causes and structures of the Drivers Inc. model that would be pertinent to what we're trying to examine in this committee are not clear to me, Mr. Chair. In fact, it rather feels like an opportunity, as we've seen previously, for some members of this committee to politicize the deaths on our roads and to use the deep pain and grief that we all feel at the loss of life and other suffering associated with unsafe road conditions as something of a wedge, rather than looking for solutions that are going to actually help to mitigate the cause of the problem in the first place.
In addition to that concern, Mr. Chair, about the kind of contributions to problem-solving that deeply traumatized perspective of victims might bring, there is the practicality here about the use of government resources, the considerable demands on the time of the public service—and, at this point, I might suggest distracting them from other work that the opposition members are often quick to criticize and quick to point out is not moving as quickly as they would like, or is not moving to their satisfaction. It is a significantly resource-intensive exercise, Mr. Chair, for public servants to comb through years upon years of documents in order to make them available to opposition members for their sole purpose of seeking to find something in those documents to try to embarrass the government with.
It is not, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, something that will really serve the objectives of this committee to try to identify and to enact actual solutions for a tax fraudulent business model that has become endemic within this sector.
For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I think this committee would be well served to continue the questioning of our witnesses this morning, to continue to engage in this discussion based on the ample evidence and testimony we've already received. We also need to move forward, rather than looking backwards and having not only further delay in our committee process but also seven years' worth of material that, I would suggest, is of rather vague relevance to the issues at hand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response to my colleagues, I'd say that I'm a Liberal because I firmly believe that we have a duty to show humanity and to show respect for families. Those two things are part of our Liberal values.
There's currently some confusion between a committee and a court.
This committee's mandate is to conduct studies. During the week, we have the opportunity to prepare by reading our documents and reviewing the witness list. I don't see anything in the committee's mandate that justifies investigating a vulnerable family. I have a hard time accepting that idea. There's no point in turning away from reality. It's there, and it has to be dealt with.
There's nothing worse than the pain of losing a family member. That mustn't become a tool for political persuasion. That's my opinion, and it has never changed. I've been through this type of thing before in other committees. I've been a member of committees since I got into politics in 2015, and I can tell you that I've seen it all.
However, what I saw today, namely the fact that you shared your time with the Conservatives, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, is called a coalition. That's the first time I've seen that since 2015. It's fine to share pieces of information with each other. We've all done that, including among ourselves, but sharing time with the Conservatives to propose an amendment or a change to the motion is a first.
To get back to the matter at hand, we didn't even know what to do about these witnesses, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. We didn't want to have them testify before the other witnesses so as not to influence them or make them more unhappy. In that case, why should we bring them in if they can't be here at the same time as the other witnesses?
There are human reasons and grief-related reasons that belong to the family. In my opinion, giving grieving families a voice wouldn't help the committee make decisions about what recommendations to include in the report that it will have to produce.
My opinion won't change. I ask that you consider removing family members or witnesses connected to fatal accidents from the list of witnesses.
Liberal
