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
Okay. It looks as though that is unanimously adopted, Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor again.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
First and foremost, I would like to thank Mr. Lawrence for that great idea.
The support we get is important, as I've often said. I've often mentioned the committee's analysts, the clerk, the technicians and all the people associated with the committee. In addition, we all have staffers here who have to put up with this, so what I'm about to say may be for those employees.
At the beginning of today's meeting, we all had a chance to wrap things up and let those employees devote their energy to helping their MPs get ready to advocate in other studies. That could be a good thing for their riding.
That's why a motion was amended to remove the production of documents. That's all. I didn't even add anything to it, other than to protect the witnesses' dignity by allowing them to appear in camera or in person.
Thank you for offering a meal to all those employees, but it would be much easier if they could all have their meals with their families. The same goes for staffers who are participating in this committee meeting. We could adopt the recommendation I made at the beginning of my speech and agree to remove the documents.
I talked about the structural solution the committee could adopt to get this over with. We could improve the regulations governing subcontractors in the trucking industry, because there are always going to be subcontractors.
I met a truck driver who owns his own truck, who is incorporated and who gives his name to one, two or three companies. He may work for the same company for six months, but, if he feels exploited, he is free to terminate the agreement. There is room for legitimate independent companies. I can tell you that I know this person. His truck isn't new, but he keeps it in good repair. He doesn't just wash it. He always takes really good care of it.
I can tell you one thing: Being an independent incorporated driver is a good business.
That's why we have to be careful about how we regulate the subcontracting of independent companies. Not all of them are bad companies and not all of them are bad apples. There are good drivers doing this work. I'm sure that some of these companies are not acting in bad faith. Toward the end of the month, they do what the others do. They let drivers go and hire Driver Inc. drivers and give them more responsibilities so they can make it to the end of the month. Companies that decide to be above board, act with integrity and keep their employees pay the price. It's extremely important to ensure the system is fair and protects workers and victims. That is where we come in. The importance of provincial-federal collaboration—
When people's lives are at stake, there is no room for grandstanding and exaggeration. We have an opportunity to move forward and make recommendations so that we have a responsibility to act. We have a right and an obligation to do our job, but also to do the right thing. We absolutely have to work together to put recommendations forward as quickly as possible.
When this study began quite some time ago, on October 7, Stephen Laskowski of the Canadian Trucking Alliance broke the ice. I remember him because his name is similar to mine. He and his colleagues told us that they have been sounding the alarm since 2018. In their testimony, they explained that the Driver Inc. model emerged in 2011 under the Conservatives following the introduction of a moratorium on T4As. They're the ones who gave us the figure I used today and in my previous speeches to convey how much this scheme saves businesses every year: between $20,000 and $30,000 per driver. Imagine what that means for businesses that have 20 incorporated drivers. These are substantial amounts that are not used to pay fees, contributions and taxes, or dues to the CNESST in Quebec and equivalent organizations elsewhere in the country.
Mr. Laskowski was accompanied by Geoffrey Wood and Jonathan Blackham, who shared their findings with us. They said this is a major crisis that has to be resolved quickly and that we have to help the Canadian Trucking Alliance, which represents a lot of businesses. Without solutions, they said, serious accidents are happening and Canada's social services network is being cheated of billions of dollars every year. Can we respond to that testimony from one of the largest associations? The Canadian Trucking Alliance is made up of seven provincial associations and represents over 5,000 carriers and suppliers. Can we listen to them? I think they're pretty important. The industry employs over 250,000 Canadians.
So we have a problem and we want to solve it. We wanted to know how it started, and I think we found out. As the Canadian Trucking Alliance and others have said, this scheme emerged in 2011, when the T4A moratorium was introduced. We know that now, because we've heard it over and over. These people have been alerting the government since 2018, and we're taking responsibility. We want to move forward and fix this. For that to happen, people have to act in good faith and accept the proposed amendment instead of blocking it. People are refusing to talk about it because it's too reasonable.
The purpose of this amendment is to address the alliance's concerns, find potential solutions and make recommendations, but some people are refusing to consider it. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois both challenged the chair's ruling today to prevent the amendment from being moved.
Canadian Trucking Alliance representatives told us that the situation has become a compliance crisis that enables companies with the best strategies to get around the system and be more profitable. The federal government and the provinces are working in isolation and don't talk to each other very much. Regulations differ among provinces, and there's a lot of red tape involved. Companies take advantage of all that to get around the entire system, and that compromises road safety. CTA representatives told us that these companies have figured out how to game the system to commit tax and social fraud. There may even be human trafficking involved. I was stunned when I heard that. In some cases, drivers are being used, under threat, to transport illicit substances from other countries. That's a violation of labour rights. I take these witnesses extremely seriously.
I was astounded to hear what's going on in the trucking industry with contraband and illegal cross-border shipments, among other things. This is a border issue too. Imagine how many studies we could do in the future, maybe not at this committee, but at others, like the Standing Committee on Public Safety. As such, can we get going with this one and make recommendations so we can look at these issues?
This mechanism is detrimental to the trucking system. It's what I call a scam mechanism. I may be making that name up, but I was struck by what Stephen Laskowski told us. We were told that companies are forcing drivers to incorporate even though they don't meet the criteria for independent operators. That puts their families at risk, puts their health at risk, puts their financial security at risk and puts the entire system at risk. I'm talking about the trucking ecosystem that brings us all the products and food that I talked to you about off the top, the goods that supply our businesses and that we depend on today.
This practice has consequences ranging from people being denied their rights under the Canada Labour Code to tax evasion in connection with T4As and the revenue losses associated with that. I was really struck by the CTA representatives' testimony about how much money companies that circumvent the system save: from $20,000 to $30,000 per driver per year.
Even once the committee has made its recommendations with the help of the analysts, it's not like the problem will be solved from one day to the next. It's not like Driver Inc. drivers will cease to exist and companies will no longer save $20,000 to $30,000 per driver. There's going to be a transition, but it has to start here. We need to make targeted recommendations.
One of the solutions recommended by the Canadian Trucking Alliance was to end the T4A moratorium for the trucking industry immediately. That's what we did. We've already taken action. There's also money in the budget waiting for approval. Canada Revenue Agency needs to implement measures to catch wrongdoers. There's also the biggest file, which mainly falls under provincial jurisdiction, as I've said repeatedly. However, the Canadian Trucking Alliance is asking for federal-provincial coordination on a misclassification blitz.
We can make some headway with that. All relevant organizations must work together, from municipal police services to Canada Revenue Agency, the RCMP and Employment and Social Development Canada.
We also need to improve roadside inspection points. Can the federal government help with that? We don't know how far we can go in making recommendations to help with roadside inspection in the provinces. To what extent can the federal government get involved? Just financial support? Can the federal government support the provinces' efforts by creating a Canadian code? I'm sure we can move on setting up a national database to monitor truck fleets for safety purposes, at the very least. In addition, we should find a way to accelerate the information exchange among the provinces and between the federal government and the provinces.
In short, we can work on many of the Canadian Trucking Alliance's recommendations. The CTA's representatives appeared here on October 7, which was quite a while ago. They were the ones who got the ball rolling. I was really impressed by what they had to say. I was looking forward to the day when we could make recommendations. Given that we all had some time to think things over and didn't have any meetings, and given the meeting requested under Standing Order 106(4), I was so sure that I could make a very simple request in good faith today.
The requirement to undertake a study on ports was removed. The wording of the motion was kept in its entirety. The Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec was added to the list of organizations invited to appear. Accident witnesses and grieving families were given the opportunity to testify, but in camera. It's not complicated. This is perfectly in line with our mission and what the three CTA representatives asked us for.
This is not an intractable problem. The only thing lacking is political will. These people have been sounding the alarm since 2018. We now have the opportunity to take action. The T4A moratorium has ended for the trucking industry. The number of roadside inspections is increasing. Penalties are set. Enough talk. We have the political will to protect truckers and restore equity.
It went on after that. Angela Splinter appeared here shortly thereafter. She told us about the CEOs at Trucking HR Canada.
We also spoke to Canadian Trucking Alliance representatives, who gave us an overview of the big picture. The CTA represents seven different associations. It's the organization that works with drivers and has an impact on employee protection, recruitment and Canadian priorities. That gave me a different perspective. They told us that their role is to represent the entire human resources sector. It's actually a national workforce development council for the transportation and logistics sector.
To better understand what all this means, that is, what leads drivers to all the logistics related to their trade, it's important to know that this organization engages more than 10,000 stakeholders and provides labour market data. Trucking HR Canada told us, again, that the trucking sector is critical to the supply chain. Both witnesses made the same observations. For both of them, the starting point is that this service is essential to the supply chain. That was clear during the pandemic. Everything was shut down except for trucking, wasn't it? People needed food. There were lines drawn on the floor in stores. Grocery stores didn't even allow four people in at the same time. People had to follow lines on the floor. People didn't go to the back of the store, but truck after truck backed in to supply the stores. We needed truckers; they were important then.
Truckers are also important to our supply chain now. That's what Trucking HR Canada told us. They said truckers' work is critical not only to the supply chain, but also to Canada's economic growth. Trucking HR Canada also talked to us about economic growth. They told us that more than 340,000 truckers are active in Canada. Trucking HR Canada condemns the blatant violation of tax and labour regulations.
Ms. Splinter from Trucking HR Canada talked about protecting jobs, which is the organization's main role. She told us about the tax implications, of course. She also told us about how her organization helps protect employees from major repercussions. This is detrimental to workers' stability. Why? Because it impacts retirement readiness, paid leave and work-life balance. Those are all things that impact people. It impacts people's lives. It impacts people's ability to be a good mom or dad who has to be at home at reasonable hours. It impacts social security. It erodes employment standards and Canada's social safety net. It affects everyone. It affects families. According to Trucking HR Canada, no fewer than 340,000 drivers could be impacted by this phenomenon.
According to Trucking HR Canada, the entire sector's reputation is in bad shape and needs help. We have to do better.
I think the industry will have trouble attracting workers. It has a dilemma because the work is not attractive.
People want job security more than ever. They want a good, well-paid job, and they want to be there for their families. They don't choose to be MPs in Ottawa and be away from their families. They choose to be truck drivers because they want to be with their families. We made a choice; they make a choice. We have to respect their choice.
Because of those choices, companies will have a hard time not only attracting workers, but also retaining them. If we don't take steps to address illegal practices and prevent businesses from continuing to do these things, that's detrimental to compliant carriers. I'm very confident. Witnesses have told us that, generation after generation, they want to follow the rules. They want the employees who drive their trucks to be trained, to be well paid, and to have good working conditions. We think it's extremely important to move forward in the right direction. That said, there is good news.
However, the uneven playing field is affecting human resources. Imagine that. They represent employees, and they can tell there's an uneven playing field. They say that compliant carriers are at a disadvantage. Two witnesses pointed that out. We may hear about this from 43 other witnesses. Two witnesses just gave us the same conclusion: There is a threat to the viability of the industry, to the entire ecosystem and infrastructure in which drivers operate. It's not just about labour relations. It's also about ethics, fairness and national integrity. We need to put an end to this practice once and for all.
Sometimes, you're right: It's not easy to be in politics and achieve what we want to achieve. However, this is about fairness to the witnesses who came here. This is about national integrity and about why our government must put an end to the Driver Inc. model to protect truckers' rights and ensure fairness and competition in this sector.
I wasn't sure what would happen when the HR representatives came here. I didn't know how we would deal with this. However, the woman who spoke so earnestly from the heart convinced me. The sooner we can get what we need to do done, the better. After her, we heard from another woman, Johanne Couture. Ms. Couture is the executive director of the Women's Trucking Federation of Canada, and we asked her a lot of questions. She came with other members of the federation. In other words, we weren't talking to just anyone. As I've told you, I have a lot of experience in entrepreneurship and teaching, but only 21 years' worth. She's been in her industry for 31 years. She has 31 years of experience as a professional driver. She described how the Driver Inc. model denies drivers protection and endangers public safety. She told us that it's a threat to public safety.
Imagine the context and the overall situation when she came to tell us that. She was the owner-operator of a business for 27 years. She knows truck driving, but she also knows entrepreneurship and how to do things right. She's also an expert on cross-border transportation. She also told us that she had a permit to transport dangerous goods. I talked to you about that last week. Dangerous goods transportation is an important public safety issue as it is, but the witnesses made me realize that it is even more important considering the risk of motor vehicle accidents related to Driver Inc. drivers. I already compared that to the rail accident in Lac-Mégantic. We must take dangerous goods transportation very seriously. Imagine an untrained Driver Inc. driver behind the wheel of a truck transporting dangerous goods. I can't even imagine how risky that would be, Mr. Chair.
These people came to testify on behalf of thousands of professionals, including drivers, owner-operators and instructors, but they did a good job of representing the owners of small trucking companies that transport specific goods. This particular witness doesn't transport bulk commodities; she transports dangerous goods.
As I see it, the problem was presented to us as a form of exploitation disguised as a practice that offers flexibility because pretty much anything goes. I'm not talking about innovation; I'm talking about finding ways to get around the system to be more competitive. That includes misclassifying drivers as self-employed workers. This practice deprives them of the protections and benefits to which they are entitled, as the two previous witnesses told us. That's three witnesses who talked to us about it. I'm repeating myself, but we have to respond.
I can't speak for my colleagues, but I, personally, sensed the distress that small and medium-sized businesses are experiencing as a result of the economic consequences. They're feeling this pressure on top of rates that are too low to cover ever-increasing operating costs. This compromises public safety and increases the number of fatigue-related motor vehicle accidents.
Now, think about how the increase in fatigue-related accidents and other risks will affect insurance premiums. We haven't talked about that very much, but it's a factor we need to consider. These trucks cost tens of thousands of dollars, and repairs are expensive. We can't put a price on people's lives and safety, though.
We have an opportunity to restore the image of truck driving as a profession. It's a pillar of the Canadian economy. We can make it a safe job and make drivers feel confident. How can we show them that we respect them and want to give the next generation some hope?
The industry has an aging fleet and has just gone through a labour shortage. Now we have an opportunity to fill schools that train future drivers and gain recognition for the truck driver profession as a viable, safe and socially equitable occupation.
The witnesses who came to talk to us gave us recommendations. I'm not saying we shouldn't take them into account, but it's also important to coordinate our efforts with the provinces to find solutions. One of my takeaways from the witnesses, who went even further, is that they want us to enforce laws consistently across all jurisdictions. That's a strong message. Those were not their exact words, but I'm paraphrasing. A sole proprietor told us to talk our problems over together, find solutions and talk to each other.
They want laws to be enforced consistently across all jurisdictions, including the SAAQ, municipalities, provinces and the federal government. They want good conditions. They want us to talk to each other. They want a fair and equitable system, safe roads and consistent inspections across the country. They want people to be proud to do this job. That's basically what they're telling us. They want us to protect workers, provide more support for compliant carriers and restore integrity to the sector. That was their message to us.
This is clearly not a labour issue at all any more. It's about public safety and the integrity of the trucking industry. Equity and safety are not optional. Every trucker deserves to have their rights respected, and every citizen deserves safe roads. Ending the Driver Inc. scheme will protect workers, the integrity of the industry and the safety of our children when they're on the highway, whether in Quebec or the other provinces. Our children need to feel safe on our roads. I get that my Conservative colleagues might find this funny, but I wouldn't want a truck driver who's not playing by the rules to crash head-on into my daughter's Kia one day. That's the last thing anyone wants.
I took the time to listen to every witness. We asked them good questions, and they all impressed me, but we could not ask for a better witness than the one I just mentioned, who has 30 years of experience as a professional truck driver. Now is the time to implement initiatives to address issues related to security, equity and the fight against human trafficking. That alone will solve a lot of things. We can work on the immigration and temporary foreign worker issue, but, again, we have to keep in mind that there are some Quebec drivers who are incorporated and cut corners. This phenomenon is not only to do with immigration; it's to do with the entire trucking industry.
The witnesses raised some important points. They pointed out that driver classification is misleading. People fell for it, then realized that there are ways around everything in the system. Not only can people register, but they can get around the licensing rules and a lot of other things. There are many things our government has to act on, and I'm actually very proud that the Government of Quebec recently took action. As of December 15, new standards will reinstate the requirement for training prior to obtaining a class 1 licence.
Essentially, what we heard is that the risks are being transferred to workers, and these companies are not prepared to do that. Many businesses are telling us that they will be no further ahead. Some businesses aren't making a profit; they're sick of it. They want to work with the committee and all the authorities. As we've been told, all levels of government, not just certain ones, need to work together.
Another consideration is that only 4.3% of truck drivers are women. If we want to attract more women to this sector, we need to give this profession the dignity it deserves and recognize the benefits of being a truck driver. Never once did any of my three daughters tell me they wanted to be a truck driver. If one of them had, I would have been surprised and told her that we should take some time to talk about it, because it's a non-traditional occupation for women. I'm a very open person, so I would have listened. I would have told her that it might not be a good choice as things stand now, but that it might be a good choice in the future. This is the future. We have a chance to solve a problem now, not later. That's what we heard from the witness who came to see us, a trucker with 31 years of experience, and she was very credible.
On that topic, to add to the examples I gave earlier, I would note that, if a driver incorporates, that means she's not recognized as an employee by her employer and must have her own business and support herself. It also means she isn't eligible for parental leave. If she gets pregnant, she'll have to stop driving, so she won't have any work until she gives birth. She has no rights. That's not fair.
We have a chance to fix this and help women enter the workforce. Losing maternity leave can have devastating consequences for a family. It's also important to have a stable schedule. Some of these women are forced to work 60 hours a week or lose their jobs. That's a threat they face. There have to be accommodation measures for both women and men. This also impedes diversity. We want to increase the number of women in non-traditional occupations, so why not in trucking? Back when I was teaching, all the trades that wanted to attract more women were heavily promoted.
Truck driving schools promoted that as well. There were even internal competitions to encourage women to enter non-traditional occupations. At the time, there was a contest called “Chapeau, les filles!” for higher education and recognition of women.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
There's a lot of chatter, everybody.
We have a point of order from Mr. Lawrence.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
Mr. Grant came here and had to listen to Mr. Lauzon for two hours. He deserves to say something. Can he?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I think we just applaud him for having done it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, everyone.
I will say for the record, that wasn't a point of order, but I think it was important to note.
I will now pass the floor once again back over to our colleague, Mr. Stéphane Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
You know how important it is to the government to recognize women. In my previous career, there were incentives.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Excuse me, Mr. Lauzon.
Good afternoon, Mr. Garon. Welcome to our committee. It's a pleasure to have you here.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lauzon knows how much I admire him, because we talk often. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects.
Forgive me if I sound a bit uninformed. As you know, I'm replacing Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, and I don't think I have the right motion. Would it be possible to get the French version of the motion?
I'm trying to connect what Mr. Lauzon is saying with the motion, but I think I have the wrong motion. I don't have the motion on gender equality in the trucking industry. Would it be possible to get a copy of the motion in French, please?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Yes. I'll make sure we send the motion to you and other members who are replacing committee members.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
You're an experienced parliamentarian, so you can tell me if Mr. Lauzon is off topic, but I don't think that's his style. That said, I think I have the wrong motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I just want to make sure you have a copy of the motion that was moved by Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
It's unacceptable that you haven't received this motion, so I'll send it to you right now.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask the following question: Are we talking about a motion on the study of gender equality in the trucking industry?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
No. I think Mr. Lauzon was talking about what the witnesses said. Unfortunately, you weren't here at the time. That's okay, you're not a regular member of the committee.
