Transport Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The meeting is suspended.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:50 p.m., Tuesday, December 2]

[The meeting resumed at 8:17 a.m., Thursday, December 4]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We will now resume meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members. First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

The committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, December 2, while debate on a motion was ongoing. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting and debate on the motion, as amended, of Xavier Barsalou-Duval, moved on Tuesday, November 6, 2025.

The motion, as amended, reads as follows:

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—

This has no relation to Mr. Albas.

—Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec, and Canada Post.

Mr. Lauzon had the floor, followed by Mr. Albas and Mr. Kelloway.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me get straight to the point. I have good news: This morning, I'm going to propose an amendment to the original motion. I'd like to explain how we got to this point in this study.

We have taken a constructive approach. We even accepted a friendly amendment. As the chair just said, we added the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec as a witness. We're prepared to go all the way to make recommendations. We all agree on the same goal, which is to enable the clerk and the analysts to finish their work and produce a serious report with real recommendations.

The heart of the problem is really in the last part of the motion. We tried to move an amendment, which was defeated at the last meeting. As the chair just told us, this motion requires the committee and asks the transport, revenue and employment departments to provide, within 30 days—which I think is impossible—all correspondence, reports, emails and documents related to the issue of non-compliance in the trucking sector. It's an unrealistic request.

At the last meeting, we may have missed the opportunity to propose a motion for a number of reasons, including the fact that we didn't have the cost estimates. I still don't have them this morning, nor do I know the number of departments. I did a bit of research, and I believe it may be around six or seven departments, because there are regular exchanges between departments.

We can see that there really is a coalition between the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party, which are maintaining their position on the documents requested as evidence. After all the meetings we have had, we can now clearly see the political strategy behind this. It isn't complicated: They want to block the work. We have clearly seen that both parties have agreed to the same goal, which is to undermine the end of this study. They're even going so far as to share their speaking time to achieve the same goal.

I think that them politically promoting each other in that way made it possible to justify a fundraising campaign by the Conservative Party on the Bloc Québécois site. Imagine how they could coordinate that between themselves. We can see from our records that the Conservatives are really protecting the Bloc Québécois when it comes to how it's raising funds through a website.

This morning, I think the Bloc Québécois is becoming the victim of this whole thing. It's normal for the Conservatives to stick to their habits and turn snippets of news into false information. We're used to hearing the same slogans repeated over and over again to avoid the truth. That said, the coalition is making coordinated attacks against the chair. That's where we're at. In recent meetings, we have seen them go so far as to challenge the chair by inventing an excuse that there was speaking priority. The Bloc Québécois was dragged into that lie to prevent the Liberals from getting the floor.

The Bloc Québécois isn't in the habit of colluding with the Conservatives. However, we can now see that they are in fact doing so. Their tactic amounts to a direct attack on the functioning of the committee and on the chair.

On its website, the Bloc Québécois published an article claiming that the Liberals are refusing to hear from the victims, which is false. On the same page, the Bloc solicits political donations—they even admitted it—on the backs of bereaved families. We talked about this at the last meeting. It's simple: We have a culprit, but we're blaming someone else, someone who manages the site. However, if you go to the Bloc Québécois website today and click on the article, the first pop-up that appears is a request for donations of $5, $15, $20 or $25. This is still being done online. I wouldn't be here today talking about funding request pop-ups if they weren't there anymore. If the situation had been corrected, we'd be somewhere else.

The coalition prevented our proposed amendment from being moved, even though it was consistent with the terms of the original motion. I took the exact wording from the original motion. We made some concessions, but the Conservatives once again challenged the chair to rule the amendment out of order, which is completely false. Once again, the Bloc Québécois played along. It's as if it were now dependent on the Conservatives, as if the coalition were leading it to address the Conservatives' needs. No serious administration would agree to produce all these reports, all these emails, all existing documents related to non-compliance in the trucking sector. We would never endorse such an extreme request.

We're up against a complete lack of will to complete the study. The Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party have no intention of finishing this study. The issue isn't the two meetings, because in all of our discussions, it has always been a matter of holding two meetings. We even proposed to meet with the witnesses from the bereaved families in camera, and the opposition deemed that out of order. It's as if there's no solution.

Are we going to have three, four meetings? Are we going to expand the list of witnesses and add amendments so that we can extend this study? We don't know the future, but one thing we do know is the goal. The goal isn't to restore road safety, but to block the end of this study.

A motion as broad as the one before us may violate the parliamentary principle of proportionality. According to parliamentary practice, a motion has to be proportional to the purpose. I'll explain it here. We're trying to understand a non-compliance problem in the trucking sector. That's what we want. We want to find out why drivers aren't complying with the rules, but we want to get a hold of all communications. We don't know why. It isn't even relevant. The committee is demanding non-targeted documents. This lack of targeting leads to unreasonable costs. We're talking about millions of dollars. It also becomes a tool for political obstruction or, quite simply, a tool for accountability.

We're in favour of transparency, but we oppose administrative overload that slows down action, costs taxpayers a lot of money and distracts the public service from the essential work it has to do to keep our roads safe.

This morning, we share the same goal: Achieve our objectives and draft a report. We want to make recommendations to help businesses, the other levels of government and the people in our ridings who testified about a serious issue that has been going on for quite some time.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment.

I have to move it for me, for the good of Canadians and for the good of Canadian financial management. Before doing so, I believe it's necessary, even imperative, to clearly explain why this amendment is necessary today. It has to be said: If we want to respect this committee's mandate and prevent certain people from diverting our work from its true purpose, this amendment is essential. We can't leave room for the slightest doubt about the importance of returning to a serious, responsible process that's in line with what Canadians expect of us.

For that reason, I'm going to explain the reasons behind this amendment. I will keep my turn to speak immediately after moving the amendment so that I can tell you about it in more detail. I'd still like to justify my proposed amendment. My amendment seeks to amend the motion by replacing “since January 1, 2018”, after the word “industry”, with the following:

and that the Departments of Transport, Revenue, and Employment provide to the committee the total cost and time required to prepare and present these materials

I think it's very important to talk about the magnitude of the costs required for sound financial management. I would like to take a few minutes to send you this amendment in both official languages. I obviously worked on it in French, but I'd like to send it to you in English as well.

I would ask for two or three minutes so that we can get the document to everybody.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We're going to suspend for two minutes to get that translated, and then we'll get to your point of order, Mr. Albas.

The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I have a point of order from Mr. Albas. Before that, I just want to confirm that everybody has the translated version of the amendment proposed by Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval is letting me know that that's the case.

Mr. Albas, go ahead on your point of order, sir.

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

I've looked at the motion, and again, it expands the motion in a direction that is not part of the original intent. The original intent is to get documentation from the government for the study. I don't believe our study is going to feature how much the study costs the government. Quite honestly, you can't put a price tag on democracy.

Our job is to hold the government accountable, not to let the government hold us accountable.

I have faith in our public servants, Mr. Chair. I would ask that you rule this as out of order because it drastically changes the intent of the motion, with the eye of the motion then focused on the work of the committee rather than the work of the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

My ruling is, I don't feel that it does. In my opinion, we typically attach timelines, dates or specific information to be as transparent as possible. In this particular instance, they're asking to add in what the cost would be of moving forward with this motion, so I would rule it in order.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawrence.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a number of issues with this, including that there's no definition of how cost would be determined. Most of the folks who would be doing this work are getting paid anyway, so I don't believe that, on its face, it's even interpretable. For this reason and for the reasons of my colleague, I'll have to challenge your ruling on this, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

I'll turn it over to the clerk.

[The Clerk]

The question is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

The chair was overruled, so the amendment no longer stands.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Lawrence.

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

I have a brief point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is why, when we called for the point of order earlier, the point of order should have been recognized before going to translation. I say this not to belabour the point but for future discussions. If, in fact, someone brings a motion, and a point of order is called for, it should be heard prior to the suspension for the translation, as we've wasted committee time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I appreciate that, Mr. Lawrence, I truly do. You know that I have goodwill on this.

My intent, colleagues.... Speaking as a Quebecker who represents a riding that is 50% French and 50% English, and having heard from Bloc members on multiple occasions that we typically brush aside translation as secondary, I will always get to a point of order.

If translation would allow members to better understand the issue at hand, I will always err on moving forward with the translation and then on ensuring that I can move to hearing whatever the members have to say. That's my default position on translation within the House. I just wanted to put that out there.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, I'd like to thank all the staff. As you know, we mainly work in French. However, in such a short time, the employees were able to translate an amendment to send it to the committee. That shows how dedicated they are, which makes our job easier.

You will understand that, since this amendment was defeated by the reversal of the chair's decision, there will be no vote. Obviously, I won't ask for a vote on a motion that doesn't exist. However, I still want to explain to you why I came to the conclusion that it was necessary to analyze the cost of preparing the requested documents.

I heard Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Albas say that there's no cost to democracy. However, there's a cost to politics. In fact, when this committee wants to go out into the field or hear from witnesses, it has to approve the costs first. Witnesses come from all over Canada. However, it seems that what's good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. We're simply asking for sound management. The motion calls for a number of departments to mobilize. I think that asking them to provide us with the cost associated with this request was the right thing to do to ensure sound and responsible management. That would have enabled the committee to make a decision. Perhaps the committee could have asked for fewer documents, for example, or targeted a specific request to minimize costs.

People are saying that employees are working anyway and are paid anyway. However, they aren't paid to do research, create documents, make PowerPoints, prepare themselves and speak with other departments to find documents. They're paid to serve our citizens. I would have liked to know how many hours of overtime would be needed to do what's requested in the motion within 30 days. It may be impossible.

Not only could we have the figures, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

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

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

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

First there is relevance, and then there is repetition, for the reason that the member keeps referring to a motion that has been dealt with conclusively by the committee. He may not like the fact. He is constantly going back to the same material.

Mr. Chair, a filibuster, as honourable as a filibuster can be, has certain conditions. I expect you, as chair, to make sure he is being relevant to the motion that is on deck and is speaking with new material.

If the member can't find new material, perhaps he can speak to his hard-working staff—we have them on both sides—and they can provide him with new material.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I would like to remind Mr. Lauzon that he has to speak to the motion at hand.

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to make a connection with the motion at hand. We're talking about the part of the motion that seeks to mobilize a number of departments. We're no longer talking about the amendment I proposed. We're talking about the part of the motion that's directly related to my amendment and that asks a number of departments to do research to provide the committee with internal and external emails, briefing notes, professional text messages, messages sent on the Teams application, transitory documents, drafts that had been exchanged and other communications between employees at various levels of the organizations. This is a considerably expensive request. The administrative cost of such a request comes mainly from sorting and checking. There are also legal checks to do, because it's important to be careful about what can be disclosed. Personal and sensitive information has to be protected.

This request represents millions of dollars. I know the Conservatives don't like it when I repeat the reasons why they challenged the chair to prevent my amendment from being moved. However, the part of the motion that calls on the government to provide documents to the committee goes beyond the committee's mandate. If this request is adopted, hundreds of public servants will be mobilized. That's thousands of staff-hours. During that time, those employees won't be doing their usual work. We have to implement programs and respond to Canadians. Mobilizing a single department in this way will hinder the entire supply chain of service delivery for Canadians. I was parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services, and I had the opportunity to tour across Canada. I can tell you that the employees are dedicated—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lauzon, there's a point of order.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

I would like to know if it's possible to vote on part of the motion then finish the debate, if that's the will of the committee. Perhaps the clerk could advise us on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's a good question. You can't do that. However, it's possible to withdraw the motion then propose two new ones.

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

Can we move to split a motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's possible to do so, provided that the committee gives unanimous consent.

If the committee members want to discuss this, I can suspend the meeting for two minutes. If that can help the committee, I think it's worth it.

Colleagues, maybe I'll suspend for two minutes. Perhaps we have a way forward. Maybe we don't, but it is the holiday season and I'm hopeful.

The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.