Evidence of meeting #16 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 lauzon.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
That's not a point of order, Mr. Lawrence, but I appreciate the comment.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
The amendment I tabled contains exactly the same elements as your motion, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, including the two two-hour meetings and the list of witnesses. We even subsequently agreed to add the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec. We voted for that proposal. My amendment proposes that, immediately after hearing the last witness, the committee issue instructions to make recommendations and move forward.
Today, my colleagues are saying that I am filibustering, but they challenged the chair's decision by saying that my amendment exceeds the scope of the motion, when in fact, I used the wording of the motion to ensure that it is directly aligned with the committee's needs. I removed the part about document production, which would be a lot of work for the government machinery, as you admitted, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. I spoke for 20 minutes about the administrative burden this could create. Today, I am going to prove to you that our public servants are working hard to solve the problem related to the Driver Inc. scheme and that they should not be assigned to other tasks. Whether it comes from public servants or ministers' offices, producing these documents will require incredible communication and effort, when we already have a lot of material. More than 40 witnesses came to share their views with us.
Lastly, about the link on the Bloc Québécois website to make donations to the party, the worst excuse I have heard is that they are not responsible for the website. Just tell the webmaster not to put pop-up windows asking for donations on a page where testimonies are published from people who lost family members in an accident. I know it is in the Conservatives' wheelhouse, since they even supported the Bloc Québécois' initiative by saying that it was normal to click on a button to make a donation, but you can choose where to place the button, and I will not back down on that. I did not overdramatize it. It is shocking to hear the truth, and I can tell you that the people who contacted me after visiting this website found it appalling. If you think this is a waste of time, think again. There are people who are offended by that.
Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we are at this point this morning, when there was a proposal on the table. They did not even want to discuss it. I came here with good intentions. I wanted to speak as little as possible. I proposed a reasonable amendment that is directly related to today's topic, but we cannot even get to the subject, because the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois have formed a coalition to use a standing order that requires the signature of a majority of members.
I know it is shocking when people say that it is collusion, that it is a lie, that it is a false truth or that it distorts reality by using a small part of a sentence for political purposes, but we need only read the comments on the Bloc Québécois website to see that they are not false allegations.
The Driver Inc. file is extremely important to us. I am therefore incredibly disappointed today, because I would have liked us to get ready to resume the committee's work on Thursday. We could move forward on our files. I would like to talk about ports, among other things. The Minister of Finance, who gave a speech in the House, prepared all the committees for what is coming. There are some extremely important elements in the budget, including $77 million to settle the Driver Inc. file, which the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois opposed when they voted against the budget. We have already started a first phase by assigning public servants to the T4A slip file, but we want to go even further and resolve the whole issue.
Ontario took the lead on driver training a long time ago, but it is now Quebec's turn to take care of it. In recent days, the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, the SAAQ, published on its website the new standards for obtaining a class 1 licence, which will come into force on December 15. This will ensure that drivers receive a minimum level of training. That is how you move the issue forward. These are the kinds of recommendations we want to ask the analysts to draft. The longer we delay the process, the less we will be able to make recommendations to improve road safety and help the road transport community and businesses.
Could we not give these businesses some breathing room, since they are facing a tax injustice that has existed since 2011? We have heard from so many witnesses that this needs to be addressed as quickly as possible, and I agree with that. I know that the other witnesses will tell us the same thing. To correct this injustice, investments have to be made and human resources have to be allocated to the right place. There is a way to do it together. It was as simple as that this morning. We could have moved forward. You would have had ample opportunity to undermine the process in other studies. You can do all kinds of things to hurt us, because you have the majority. As long as this nice coalition of yours is maintained, there will be no problem. You can decide everything. You can overturn the chair's decisions, as you just did. You can do anything.
No, we are not going to let you do that. We will stand our ground, for all the reasons I have given you, on behalf of public servants, committee employees, stakeholders and witnesses that we heard and who want us to make recommendations. The integrity of the trucking industry has been affected by the Driver Inc. scheme for too long, and we had the opportunity to solve a lot of things at once by supporting the proposal that was made this afternoon.
It is important to respect the provinces' and territories' jurisdictions, especially when it comes to information sharing. We are already a model, but we have to do better. So I would like to see that in the recommendations.
The committee must be an advocate for the Drive Inc. file. We have to show that we are serious and make recommendations that will help. We have to stop using accident victims. That is primarily a provincial responsibility, not a federal one, as well as licensing, penalties, inspections and roadside testing. We have a role to play and we can have an impact on the overall picture, particularly on international and interprovincial trade, but we must use victims as guinea pigs during our study. We really need to listen to them and pay attention. We have to hear them in camera and offer them the opportunity to testify publicly if they want.
In freight transportation, an extremely important economic pillar is being affected as we speak. We heard from trucking companies that have been around for generations and that are now in bad trouble. As members of Parliament, we can really react and tell these companies that we are there for them and that we will support them. Today, we have the opportunity to send them a message. We have an opportunity to make recommendations to the government and to act in good faith by adopting the amendment I proposed at the beginning of the meeting.
Seventy per cent of goods are transported by truck. Drivers are the backbone of the economy. These are people to whom we should be grateful, because they have a certain responsibility to the Canadian economy. They are indispensable for the economy, for the supply chain and for food, as well. If you can eat today, it is thanks to them, because they bring the food to markets. They also transport materials and medications. It is a critical workforce.
I have always protected the trades workforce, including drivers and operators, such as crane operators. I have been a big advocate for trades workers all my life. I have been around drivers all my life, and I can tell you how important it is to have good drivers and workers who deserve to be recognized in the labour market.
There is also the issue of the labour shortage. We are not doing anything to help these people by not moving forward. It is a good thing that we had this study and that we started off on the right foot with a good list of witnesses. It is good that we listened to the witnesses and asked them the right questions. Until then, things were going well. However, not wanting to put an end to it is something else. We have a responsibility to finish the study, and we had a very good opportunity to do so today, at the beginning of the meeting.
The trucking model is broken. It is shocking to hear that if you want to be competitive, you have to cheat. That means that companies that are honest and do things right are penalized. That should not be the case.
The pressure of competition is intense. That is what we felt during testimonies. The companies charge per kilometre, but they have the same costs. We have heard from witnesses about the vehicle operating and maintenance costs, which are all on the rise. Parts are getting more and more expensive. However, there are people on the road who are less well trained and with trucks in poorer condition that have been subject to fewer inspections. Some drivers got their licences in 48 hours. It is like they found it in a Cracker Jack box. That is what we heard. It is inconceivable that this situation would be allowed to continue.
The Government of Quebec has taken action, and that could have been done a long time ago. However, once again, this is not a federal jurisdiction. We should not interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. In short, Quebec has taken a big step by improving training. The SAAQ changed course. As of December 15, which is 14 days from now, all drivers will be required to take mandatory training. They will not be allowed to learn on the job anymore. They will no longer learn French by reading signs. They will learn how to drive a truck at a recognized Quebec school or through other training. The hours are going to be mandatory.
So we are going to give drivers the professional role they should have. When health care professionals coming from other countries want to work in Canada, they have to retake almost all the exams they have taken during their schooling because they have to be certified. However, when a driver arrives from abroad and shows that he has a driver's licence, he is allowed to start driving right away. From now on, training will be required. The requirements will be more comprehensive. That should be one of the recommendations we will include in our report with the help of the analysts. Improving training will, I hope, have an impact on the number of accidents. Accidents involving trucks are serious accidents, because trucks are heavy vehicles that often carry extremely heavy loads. It is extremely dangerous.
Conservative
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
It appears as though the Liberal obstruction is going to continue.
I would ask the following questions: Can the Chair confirm how many resources are left today, and can the Chair confirm that there's a meeting scheduled for our regular appointed time?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Just addressing the first point, Mr. Lauzon is speaking to the subject matter at hand. He's expressing his point of view on this. He's obviously not in agreement with the motion put forward. I'm going to allow him to speak further.
With regard to the additional time that was requested, I can confirm to the committee that we have until 6:50 p.m. I will use this opportunity as well to remind committee members that we have an opportunity this evening to try to wrap this up and find some form of consensus. We have supplementary estimates, and we would typically invite the minister. It's something that is appreciated by all members. I think we would all like to do that. I hope all members will find some common ground that we can work from and be able to get that done.
I'd also like to remind members that we have many potential studies we can embark on. I've received messages from multiple stakeholders, ranging from ports to the aviation sector, who hope that we can move forward with the study to address some of their needs, and I hope we'll be able to do that.
I will turn the floor back over to Mr. Lauzon.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Sorry, the second question I asked in my point of order wasn't answered. Can you confirm that there will be a meeting called for Thursday?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I can't confirm when the next meeting will be called. It is at the discretion of the chair to call meetings, but I hope we will find a solution to rectify the situation.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let us be clear. Today, we agreed that the committee should hear from all the proposed witnesses. We agreed to pass the motion as it is, except for the production of documents. That is the only thing we want to remove. I think that is a good arrangement. Now, we have to stop this and come to an agreement so that we can move on to all the topics you mentioned, Mr. Chair. I think we can move forward in a reasonable way after removing the document production requirement from the motion. We even failed to propose, through an amendment, that the committee conduct a study on ports. I had already mentioned that I intended to move that the committee consider this issue for its next study. This is an extremely important topic. However, I think we have shown our good faith. We agreed that the committee should hear from all the proposed witnesses, in addition to the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec. We need to get this over with in order to make recommendations and draft a report with the help of the analysts.
With regard to the Driver Inc. model, it was felt, during the testimony, that drivers had been pressured to set up a corporation. There were companies that had other companies set up that had only one driver. They are fake self-employed workers. This scheme was created for a number of reasons. One of them is the elimination of payroll taxes. You do not need to pay employment insurance, to contribute to a pension fund, to pay insurance premiums to the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail in Quebec, or to its equivalent elsewhere in Canada. So a company is created and pressure is put on its driver, who is responsible for maintaining his daily report card, which includes his driving hours. That has a direct impact. This results in major financial losses. Above all, this is unfair competition.
These are unprotected workers. That is what we heard. This afternoon, we have the opportunity to tell these unprotected workers that we are there for them and that we will support them. The committee has an opportunity today to table all testimonies with the analysts and to start making recommendations. Of course, we are not going to solve everything overnight. The economic pressure on businesses is not going to evaporate overnight. We are not going to instantly get rid of the legal grey areas regarding this issue. However, we can make good progress in order to improve equity between self-employed workers, employees and employers.
Nor is the lack of coordination between the provinces and territories going to be resolved overnight. However, we have to be able to tell those provinces that we are ready to collaborate and that we have recommendations to make. We need to table recommendations in the House so that we can say, “This is the work that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has done on the problem of the Driver Inc. scheme. We are here for you.” This is a clear message that we need to send to drivers, businesses and everyone who worked extremely hard to prevent companies from setting up fictitious small businesses. A driver of a small business that has only one client is in fact an employee.
We also have to talk about the direct consequences of this scheme on workers. They say there is a labour shortage, but we do not know what is going to happen. Drivers who take part in the Driver Inc. scheme are not entitled to employment insurance. Maybe one day they will need it. In addition, we talk a lot about the risk of accidents, but there are also diseases. Mental health is also growing concern. Employees are being abused. They are under pressure because a company has been created that does not really exist, and certain conditions are imposed that other drivers do not have, such as a list of responsibilities and mileage requirements. We have even heard testimony to the effect that drivers keep two daily cards at the same time so they can work more hours. The safety and health of these drivers are therefore at stake. They are certainly at risk of becoming ill, and if they do, they have no recourse, since they work for their own company.
That is not what we want. We want these drivers to have access to an insurance plan, such as that of the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail in Quebec or that of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board in Ontario. We want to give them dignity so that they have the right to be sick and have the same rights as other drivers.
No compensation can be paid if the business ceases to exist. So what do they do? It is very simple: They close the business and open another one. They do it again until they get caught or until things go wrong. Some people change companies. At the moment, it is extremely difficult to find a driver who has shut down one company and started another under another name. That has a direct impact on businesses and workers.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
This is on relevance. We are debating Monsieur Barsalou-Duval's amendment, and the good ship Lauzon keeps tooting a different horn.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I believe Mr. Lauzon is speaking to why he's encouraging Mr. Barsalou-Duval to change his mind and perhaps make changes to the amendment so that he can gain the support of the Liberal members. He's explaining how important this is. I think it is relevant.
Therefore, I'll turn the floor back over to Mr. Lauzon to continue.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Albas, thank you for your point of order, which gave me a break and allowed me to drink some water. It is very much appreciated.
Everything I am saying is directly related to the topic at hand, the motion and the amendment deemed out of order that we moved today. This amendment was directly related to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's motion. It would put an end to the precarious financial situation of drivers, which I was talking about before Mr. Albas raised his point of order.
I will pick up where I left off, on the excessive working hours.
We have been told that by changing a letter in their first name or last name, the driver can reset the truck hours to zero. As a result, the driver becomes increasingly vulnerable. We have clear evidence that drivers are working excessive hours thanks to this scheme. How do we counter that? I am going to be honest with you. We have heard a lot about the problem, but I am very much looking forward to finding solutions. Despite all the reading and research I have done since the beginning of this study, as well as the testimonies of the witnesses we have heard, I do not yet know what recommendations we can make to remedy certain problems.
I am thinking in particular of the problem of people cheating. They are using technology fraudulently. They modify an electronic document in order to work longer hours. By doing so, it is more profitable for them and they can compete favourably with good companies.
As a result, these drivers have less time to do professional training and, sometimes, to properly maintain their truck. Imagine, we set aside truck maintenance in order to be more competitive. According to the reports we have heard, a truck lost a tire while it was on the road, and it was proven that the inspection of the truck was not done properly. All of that has a direct impact on the driver and the companies.
In addition, it has a direct impact on the economy for our government. There are federal tax losses, as far as the Canada Pension Plan is concerned, and provincial tax losses, as far as the Quebec pension plan is concerned. We can also think of the losses related to employment insurance and income tax. Based on what we have heard, the difference in revenue a company can have as a result of these taxes not being paid is in the order of 20% to 30%.
There are also tax losses for the provinces. They affect us indirectly, because they are the same taxpayers. There is a loss of money for transportation companies, whether it be the SAAQ or any other. There is also less money for occupational health and safety across Canada, for Revenu Québec and for the implementation of Canadian labour standards.
The impact on competition really plays a major role, because companies with integrity and honesty pay the price. Honest companies are being penalized. We could address this impact by proposing recommendations, such as focusing more on the recognition of existing transportation companies in order to reduce the number of companies that use the Driver Inc. model.
What we have been hearing from the start is that performance levels have been lowered for a number of years. It is a race to the bottom. We require as little as possible to obtain a driver’s licence. We want to do as much transportation as possible by conducting as little maintenance as possible and providing as little training as possible. The goal is as much competition as possible, even if that means lowering quality.
Some things are the responsibility of the Government of Canada, not the provinces. I really agree with making good recommendations, such as federal tax measures. We need recommendations to prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance. Whether it be for the Canada pension plan, employment insurance or unpaid taxes, we need to avoid tax loopholes.
Targeted audits of Driver Inc. are needed. We really need to keep a record of the drivers involved in this scheme. I am convinced that it will be one of our recommendations to do so. What we have heard is that we are losing track of drivers who do interprovincial transportation or who travel to other countries, because they do not talk to each other. It is as if we were starting from scratch. Information is not shared.
There has been a lot of blame placed on temporary foreign workers, but there are also Quebeckers, Ontarians and British Columbians, among others, who are suffering harm caused by the Driver Inc. scheme. People from all countries are being manipulated and suffering the same harm.
What steps can the Government of Canada take to address this scheme? I think he took the right path by lifting the moratorium on penalties for T4A slips. Since 2011, this moratorium, put in place by the Conservatives, was a loophole. For 10 years, we thought we wanted to give businesses the right to manage their affairs as they saw fit. However, the government has often been blamed for that and accused of doing too much for businesses. We want businesses to be independent, but look at what happened this time.
As a result of this moratorium, cases of abuse have skyrocketed. They have accumulated over the years. We will not be able to resolve all this overnight, especially since transportation is mainly a provincial jurisdiction.
It is important to say today that we have the opportunity, if we keep our good faith, to use the original motion, remove the production of documents part and invite the witnesses whose names were on the list—including the victims—to appear and have the opportunity to testify in camera, out of respect for their dignity.
Now, what falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, such as Quebec—this problem started mainly in Ontario and then exploded in Quebec—is everything related to road safety. Do we want to put forward recommendations? I think so. Do we want to move forward and say that we want to work with the provinces to be able to set national standards, especially when it comes to information sharing? I would venture to say yes.
In fact, that is what the Government of Quebec did this month by harmonizing its tax rules. It was a recommendation from the federal government, which had been implemented previously and was used as a model for Ontario.
I mentioned Ontario, but I could also name several other provinces. I think eight provinces have regulations similar to the one that Quebec just passed in terms of mandatory training for a class 1 driver's licence.
Everything related to these famous accidents falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, there is the SQ and the municipal police, while the other provinces have a provincial police service. Garages mandated to do mechanical inspections fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is also the case for mechanical checks, roadside checks, road construction and maintenance, as well as workers' status. We have a national labour code, but in Quebec, workers are governed by the Quebec Labour Code. For example, the classification of salaried or self-employed employees falls under provincial jurisdiction. In addition, companies have occupational health and safety obligations. In Quebec, these obligations are administered by the CNESST, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. Elsewhere, they also have obligations to similar organizations. In addition, everything to do with victim compensation falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Can we provide recommendations on a better way? Yes, we can. However, the SAAQ is already dealing with this issue in Quebec. Have cases already been brought before the provincial courts? Possibly. The Civil Code of Quebec would apply.
We are talking about people's lives, safety and vulnerable people who could be in danger. We are talking about the danger not only to those who drive a truck, but also to those who are on the road. Personally, I drive on Quebec highways quite often. I have driven outside Quebec, but I mostly drive in Quebec. My experience tells me that there are more and more drivers and more accidents. Those rates are still going up. As for roads and infrastructure, there is a very significant deficit in Quebec. The quality of roads is deteriorating.
If there is one thing we can do, it is to support the provinces, at least when it comes to truck drivers, so that those on our roads are responsible. We want to avoid an increase in accidents and problems with illegal drivers or drivers using the Driver Inc. scheme.
Could we recommend professional evaluations of how they get their driver's licence and how they drive on the road? I am not sure we can go that far. Could we set Canadian standards? I think so, yes. We cannot assess the drivers and those who inspect the trucks, but we can create Canadian safety standards. We can also share the best practices among provinces in order to consolidate information. The idea is to see how to amalgamate all the information across the provinces and territories so that each province can coordinate the Driver Inc. model.
The Bloc Québécois always tells us that it is the great defender of jurisdictions. This study was proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which is fine. When we make our recommendations, we will soon realize that a number of Bloc Québécois recommendations deal with matters related to Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us give ourselves the chance to adopt this motion. Let us work with the committee's analysts and present recommendations that may promote all the recommendations put in place by the Bloc Québécois. We will at least shine a light on what can be done and what cannot be done. We are not here to undermine the legal system and well-established companies in the labour market, nor to increase the labour shortage that already exists on the market, but we are here to find solutions.
Using victims for political gain should have no place here, Mr. Chair. We should listen to the victims, ask our questions, make our recommendations, but then we should not use—
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
You're speaking to an amendment to the main motion. I know the member has many concerns about the motion, because we've heard from him for the past three meetings, but I believe the debate should be limited to the amendment—
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
—or else there's no distinction between....
Did we pass Xavier Barsalou-Duval's changes?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no clear moving of an amendment by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Oh, okay. In that case, I apologize and I will resign at some point. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval made it clear that he didn't want the recommendation we put on the table about moving forward without the production of documents.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval simply said to take out a part. He would be prepared to take out the part about documents concerning the public service as a whole and keep only documents from cabinet. Those documents go back and forth. It's about activating the public service backward instead of forward.
All we wanted was to put forward a very reasonable amendment. We proposed that the committee hold two meetings with all the witnesses on the list. We also proposed that witnesses be given the choice to appear in camera or in public. That's all we wanted. We let a lot of other things go.
As such, this is directly related to our discussion.
What we didn't want was to mobilize the public service in some way, to exploit victims, to play political games at the expense of bereaved families by exploiting personal tragedies. That's all.
People are exerting artificial pressure on Canada. This coalition is a political stunt that is completely at odds with our objective. People are striving for political visibility. They want to make Liberals look like bad guys who don't want to produce documents and don't want witnesses to speak.
Just listen to what people have been saying since the start. It was extremely clear again today. We very simply and reasonably recommended meeting with victims and respecting their dignity by giving them a choice.
Some witnesses were clear, however. They talked to us about respect. They gave us the straight goods on everything that has been said and the whole Driver Inc. issue. They talked to us about driver's licences and inspections.
That even gave me an opportunity to go and see what a truck inspection is all about. I don't have my class 3 now, but I used to have it. From what I remember, it's the same responsibility whether it's class 3 or class 1. Every driver has to go over their truck, inspect, test the brakes, check the tires, do a visual. That takes time.
The witnesses told us that all of that was being ignored and that people were hitting the road in uninspected trucks. There is proof that training is sorely lacking.
The examples I just gave you all fall under provincial jurisdiction.
We can adopt recommendations that will enable us to work with the provinces, but what we need to do today is focus on our own jurisdiction and consider the amendment I proposed earlier.
What the federal government can do is provide better support for self-employed workers and strengthen oversight over money owing and tax evasion.
We can harmonize interprovincial rules. We have a role to play. Our Prime Minister is very active on interprovincial and territorial trade as well as international trade. Why not include a recommendation about harmonization, starting with provincial regulations, so everyone can be on the same page?
The regulations can cover licences or defective trucks from another province. Just because your truck leaves one province and goes to another doesn't mean it's fixed. The inspection doesn't follow the truck. It stays in the records of the province where it was done. Failure to comply in one province cannot be recognized as failure to comply in another.
That would suit me. I'm happy to work with my colleagues to make recommendations. The important thing is to improve interprovincial inspections. We can really make a difference on that.
We can ramp up Canada Revenue Agency audits. We've already started. Money has already been invested, and we've allocated millions more in the budget. I don't know if my colleagues have taken a peek at the budget, but we should consider what the minister said about how there might be some good issues to bring to the table. We invested money in addressing Driver Inc. The problem had to be solved at the Canada Revenue Agency, so public service employees have been tasked with solving the problem. They haven't been tasked with drafting documents; they've been tasked with rooting out tax evasion in connection with Driver Inc.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I assume that we're going to be here until 10 to seven and that we are forcing our staff to stay here until 10 to seven. My motion is to allow them to eat the bountiful food that is back there, if they should be hungry.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I think that is greatly appreciated by the staff members who are supporting us during this meeting.
I will say, however, just in the interest of members, that I encourage members to please go and make sure that you're fed, at which point I think we should leave it to support staff to go eat as well.
Does that sound good to all members?