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.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
He already spoke about the dignity of victims—
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
—on the first day of his filibuster.
Mr. Chair, if he's being repetitive, you can actually stop him and simply say, “You no longer have the floor.” Then maybe we can have a discussion.
Let's hear from Mr. Kelloway.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
I do not have the memory of Mr. Albas, but I'm going to take him at his word that perhaps you did already discuss this, Monsieur Lauzon.
Mr. Lauzon, I want to remind you once again that we must discuss the motion at hand.
The floor is yours.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You know how important the families' dignity is to me. They need to have the opportunity to come and testify in camera. It's so important to me that I have no regrets about focusing on a strategic point.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
This is becoming vexatious. He's repeating the same thing over and over despite your asking him not to be repetitive in his arguments.
Mr. Chair, you can allow this and Mr. Lauzon's making a farce of himself as much as he wants, but you cannot allow this committee to become a farce of its own. Please enforce our rules. If he's using the same arguments over and over—contrary to your ruling—you should simply take the floor from him.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas. That's duly noted.
I will once again remind all members to speak to the motion at hand.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Today, we have strategic messages to pass on. My colleagues know where I stand. Now, today, we are taking action to protect truckers and ensure tax fairness. The federal government has an opportunity to close loopholes and improve safety on our roads. As committee members, we have the opportunity to make recommendations.
We have a strong, impressive industry. I'm thinking of the witnesses' data on the number of drivers and the huge quantity of goods they are responsible for providing to us. Moreover, it is a strong industry based on fair rules, which should be followed by everyone. We've learned at this committee that some of the rules are easily circumvented. That bothers us, and me in particular. People who are not on the straight and narrow bother me. Together with our partners, our goal is to build a fair and sustainable strategic transportation sector. We really need to find the solution to improve the ecosystem and put an end to the Driver Inc. model.
Let's remember the former police officer who came to talk to us. The last time, I ended my remarks by talking about his great testimony and his years of experience. I can say that I was pleasantly surprised to welcome Ken Adams. On October 7, 2025, he came to talk to us about his experience. He represents 40 independent schools and has 30 years of experience. The witness told us about the deterioration in the quality of training. I take training to heart. I won't repeat my training experience, but hearing about corruption and falsifying documents bothers me.
At the same time as this witness, we heard from Mark Seymour, representing Kriska Transportation Group. To refer to what I said earlier, he said that 50% of applicants request Driver Inc. status. That bothers me a great deal, because not only is it immediately profitable, but it is also a way to get around the laws, both for drivers and businesses. Mark Seymour runs a 47-year-old family business. When he joined the company, his father had three employees. Now they have 800 trucks and obey the rules. Imagine the burden of compliance by these companies for each truck. We've heard the figures: people can save $20,000 to $30,000 by bending the rules. That amount, multiplied by 800 trucks, is a huge amount of money that can have a huge impact on the company. He made the same comment as all the other witnesses, that he's just asking for fair competition. Fair competition must be applied not only to help this company, but also to help all companies in order to achieve a more balanced market and ecosystem. It starts with us.
My message is that if we don't act quickly on this issue, it could get confusing and lead us off course. Compliant companies like the one he represents are going to be increasingly difficult to run.
Competition must be fair and without shortcuts, because shortcuts jeopardize public safety on the road. Companies that follow the rules are more careful, inspections are better and drivers are better trained, but there is a cost. If we want to preserve businesses that play by the rules and quality jobs, we must ensure fair competition and act now to put an end to the Driver Inc. model and restore a level playing ground in the industry. We have to respect the testimony of the owner of a company that has come so far in 30 years.
On October 9, we heard from Chris McKee, executive director of the Atlantic Provinces Trucking Association, which represents 340 businesses. We heard from a police officer, a representative of 40 schools and a representative of 340 businesses employing tens of thousands of Canadians in the Atlantic provinces. I always focus more on Quebec and Ontario, because they are side by side and I know more about them. I've visited places and businesses in Quebec, so it's easier for me. Hearing this witness who represents the Atlantic provinces really struck me, because now I know that there is also misclassification there. As independent contractors, drivers meet the definition of employees under the Canada Labour Code. As I mentioned earlier, the Canada Labour Code lists certain rules that we must comply with. We work with the provinces and territories, but we are not on the lookout for tax fraud, social fraud, unpaid premiums and rule-breaking drivers, even in the Atlantic provinces.
We've heard a lot about under-the-table work. The topic has not been addressed by all the witnesses, but being paid off the books, as they say, meaning working under the table, is often synonymous with an underground economy. The underground economy was encouraged by the moratorium on the T4A slip introduced in 2011 by the Conservatives. The moratorium allows businesses to have only one company that works for a company while always driving the same truck from the same company. On paper, it's easy to get around. The government remedied that today.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
It's on relevance to the motion. The member keeps talking about an issue, but he's not talking about the motion, which is clearly about having witness testimony and a production order. Unless he takes issue with one or the other, he is far out of the bounds of speaking to the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Albas. I believe Monsieur Lauzon is directly quoting testimony from the witnesses to make his point.
Liberal
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I'm saying is, in fact, directly related to the motion. Real witnesses came to give recommendations to the analysts so that we could get to work and complete a report as quickly as possible. Therefore, it is directly related to the motion under consideration. We really want to make this happen so we can hear from more witnesses and get this report done.
I was saying that this has a direct impact on compliant businesses. One company said that the current solution was to reduce fleets, freeze the economy, lay people off and make employees lose their jobs because of too many irregularities related to the Driver Inc. model. Imagine having to tell an employee that we are following the rules, but that they have to lose their job because we have to reduce our staff, because the activity is no longer profitable and we no longer get contracts. Who are the contracts awarded to? They go to the bad actors who can charge less, who can cut corners and skip inspections. The witness told us that he is not able to rival the competition. Imagine how difficult it is for an employer to testify today that he is losing people and laying people off because he has a compliant company and wants to remain compliant. Is it possible to stay compliant? That's the question he's asking.
Can we give the analysts recommendations and the tools to make this happen and complete the study? In terms of the inability to compete, the witness talked about a loss of contracts to illegal carriers. This is reminiscent of the 1990s, not today. Back in 1990, compliant companies were starting to face this issue. These are companies that are passed down from generation to generation.
Since 2011, the government has put oil on the fire and wood in the stove. Through the T4A slip measures, the government added the possibility of a moratorium on the management of incorporated businesses working for the same company, which broke the camel's back. Since then, an illegal practice has built up over the years to get us to where we are today, which is that a witness came to us to ask if he could remain compliant, if he could do things properly without circumventing the system, while remaining competitive. There is no shortage of contracts. Trucking is a growing industry, except that the same companies are getting the contracts: the bad actors who charge less, do not comply with road safety standards and do not comply with standards related to working conditions. They're circumventing the system through fraud. Of course, we want to recommend continuing in the same vein as lifting the moratorium on the T4A slip.
The witness is not managing the Canadian budget that was just tabled, but he is already planning to ask for more resources for the Canada Revenue Agency and Employment and Social Development Canada to strengthen audits, fill the gap and solve the problem.
He also asked for information sharing. Can we encourage information sharing among departments? Mr. Barsalou‑Duval is recommending some form of information and document sharing. Can we send that recommendation to the analysts for discussion, to make this happen and complete the study?
The witness also asked the government to fast-track the creation of a national carrier database for transparency purposes.
The database needs to be set up. We have the power and authority to work with the provinces and territories to set up a national carrier database so that information on guilty parties can be shared among the provinces and territories to make our roads safer and ensure balance in the trucking market.
That said, our system depends on following the rules. As a government, we have a legal and moral responsibility to guarantee a fair and safe market, and that's why we want to lift the moratorium on penalties related to T4A slips. Let's strengthen inspections and enforce the Canada Labour Code to solve the Driver Inc. problem and protect truckers.
That sums up our discussions with this witness. Chris McKee answered questions from the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals with very good information. His message was clear: Reverse tax and social fraud and the moratorium on T4A penalties. The same thing keeps coming up from one witness to the next.
Sometimes I have to repeat myself because the same witness repeated the same thing to highlight it. Saying something five times does not require it to be enforced, but when five witnesses say the same thing and exert a lot of pressure by reminding us that the same challenge comes up, we really have to take it into consideration.
Mark Bylsma, the president of the Ontario Trucking Association, met with us on October 9 for this study. We did not hear from incompetent people. Mr. Bylsma has 30 years of business experience in a small, 40-truck, family-run business in Ontario. I take into consideration what a representative of a 40-truck company says as much as what a representative of a 300- or 400-truck company says. I want to point out that I'm talking about his testimony before I propose anything else to you because it was alarming. He said that there won't be a second generation in his business. It hurts to hear that, because it means that when he stops working, his business will stop operating as well. Why? It's because he threw in the towel and thinks there's no future in the trucking industry in Canada. It hurts to hear that.
Can we save at least some companies that are brave enough to want to stay in business? Can we fix the problem? It hurts to hear a witness like Mark Bylsma, who has so much experience, say that he threw in the towel mainly because of the illegal model based on tax and social fraud known as Driver Inc. I felt like asking him to hang on a bit to see if we can give him hope in another way.
We're working on recommendations. Can this committee make recommendations to Canadians before Christmas? Can we make our recommendations a Christmas present? Today, we have to say no. We're not acting in good faith, but we really have to find a solution to address this problem.
The witness mentioned a small statistic that bothered me. We've often talked about data. For example, an illegal driver costs $20,000 to $30,000 less.
When I say “illegal”, that's semantics, but I mean a Driver Inc. or incorporated driver. I put it all in the same basket. Either way, Mr. Bylsma mentioned a figure and talked to us about tariffs. It's the people on the ground who talk to us about tariffs. He compared a rate of $650 per delivery, which he would have to charge, to an artificially low rate of $585. There is a substantial shortfall for each delivery, for each driver and for each company transaction, which erodes margins and makes compliant carriers lose contracts. I understand why he wants to throw in the towel and says that this is a real threat to law-abiding businesses in good standing. He risks bankruptcy. He dared to say the word “bankruptcy”. We're talking about the collapse of safety and training standards, a worsening driver labour shortage and worsening working conditions.
Mr. Bylsma reminded us that while Driver Inc. drivers are playing them, they're also playing us. They result in lost tax revenue for governments, so we're losing money. Still, the witness was brave enough to ask us to suggest potential solutions. During question period, we asked Mr. Bylsma how to improve things. The answer was simple: We just have to make sure that companies are law-abiding and in good standing.
What tool can we use to ensure that companies are in good standing? First, we have laws in place, so we have to enforce them, strengthen them and equip ourselves to ensure compliance. We started with the T4A slip measure, but we can do a number of other things to help the system.
Second, how do we protect the rights of employees and ensure fair competition? We have to find ways to protect the rights of employees and ensure that fair competition. Mr. Bylsma suggested that we follow the recommendations of the Canadian Trucking Alliance, because the associations talk to each other and try to find solutions. However, they need the help of our committee and the provincial parliamentary committees. They need the political will to follow recommendations.
What I take from the message, from Mr. Bylsma's heartfelt cry that companies will simply throw in the towel, is that compliance with the rules should not be optional. Our government has a responsibility to implement them. That is why we are lifting the moratorium on the T4A slip, we are going to strengthen inspections and we are going to enforce the Canada Labour Code to restore fairness and ensure a future for the trucking industry in Canada. To do that, we have to vote in favour of the budget, because $77 million is waiting for us.
I've obviously talked a lot about Quebec, but I'd still like to come back to the testimony of Véronique Gagnon, vice-president of Transport St-Pamphile Inc., a third-generation company. In the past, I have talked about businesses passed down from generation to generation at a time when there are fewer and fewer takers. Now some businesses are at risk of shutting down.
In her remarks, Ms. Gagnon, co-owner of the company, which has been around since 1948, talked a lot about unfair competition.
She also told us about unqualified drivers, but she added another layer by telling us about uninsured drivers. I don't know her source, but she testified about the fact that drivers aren't insured, so I took it very seriously. Insuring the trucks and drivers is another cost that the compliant companies have to bear. Earlier, we talked about the skyrocketing cost of insurance across Canada. The same is true in Quebec. Vehicles need to be properly insured. You can't take out just any street-corner vehicle insurance, because it comes with responsibilities. Some companies transport hazardous materials, others have specific insurance and some have fairly long insurance records due to accidents or claims, so costs have increased. It's not just the overall cost but also the cost of the insured person and the insured truck.
These practices therefore lead to unfair competition. The witness told us that carriers have operating costs. She didn't compare the $500 rate to the $600 rate we talked about earlier, but she told us about ridiculously low rates that don't cover actual operating costs, which means that the companies that use these practices can bid and get contracts.
Intermediaries, which are the clients, have a role to play, because they have a certain amount of goods to deliver. The more they save on transportation and the more they save on costs, the more profitable the goods are. Intermediaries, the clients, shop around. The companies use a Canadian system, which is tendering. They issue calls for tenders. Through the calls for tenders, the law-breaking companies can already predict in the long term the number of drivers who do not necessarily meet today's standards, who make it possible to have lower costs than the competition in order to get contracts. This is alarming. This witness came to give us a heartfelt plea from a company that has been operating for several generations, since 1948.
How do we get there?
We have the means to resolve this problem today. We can decide to hear from the newly requested witnesses and the grieving families, but we also have to make recommendations. All we're asking for is to invite the families and give them the choice of testifying in camera or in public, in person or remotely.
What matters is answering this witness. She gave us some alarming examples, through which I learned that some drivers aren't even insured. To save on costs, companies take a risk and send uninsured drivers out on the road. They know that the information on bad driver profiles shared between provinces and different countries is hard to track, because drivers can leave Mexico and come to Canada. I have a lot of alarming examples. Some drivers are unable to conduct basic inspections. We've heard that from witnesses.
I used to have my trucker's licence, and I learned how to inspect trucks. Yes, in my trade, I drove heavy trucks. I got my class 3 licence, which is equivalent to class 1, except that I didn't do my exam on a truck over two axles and 45 feet. I did my exam on a five-ton truck, so I got my class 3 licence.
Having a class 3 licence involves doing an inspection. I had the same training as people who do a test for a class 1 licence. You have to learn a few basic mechanics. The skill of inspecting vehicles comes from training. I was self-taught. Today, in Quebec, two courses are required that are directly related to what we are experiencing. We want competent drivers who know how to inspect vehicles.
Ms. Gagnon told us about unfair competition. She was discouraged, because some drivers didn't even know how to inspect their own vehicles. Just so committee members understand, there's a well-known checklist that has to be followed. You have to check the pneumatic or hydraulic brakes, depending on the system, the tires, the fluids, the general condition of the truck, the tail lights, the headlights, the signals, the windshield wipers and the level of windshield wiper fluid, to see if everything is okay. I won't recite them all, but there is a list of all the checks that need to be done. However, Ms. Gagnon told us that truck drivers aren't even able to complete the checklist. How can compliant companies compete with that? This is incompetence. We have to stop this and find the bad actors so that drivers are legally qualified to drive trucks on the road.
The witness mainly talked to us about the increased financial pressure on compliant companies. All the witnesses have told us about the much-talked-about increased pressure. Ms. Gagnon's company could get by, because this is the third or fourth generation of a company that has been in business since 1948. In the past, the company made a profit. Ms. Gagnon didn't say this, but I assume that her company is living on its savings. They're trying to keep their head above water and breathe in order to stay in business because they believe in what they know best, which is trucking.
That's a wake-up call. Like the last witness who represents several hundred truck drivers, she warned us of the risk of traditional carriers disappearing, meaning that the trucking standard will become the Driver Inc. model. If we don't deal with this, if we don't make recommendations, if we don't move forward and if we don't work with the provinces, Driver Inc. is in danger of winning the battle and becoming the norm. Is that what we want, as members of Parliament? Can we make this happen and give our analysts and the clerk the choice to complete the study so that they can be proud to say that Driver Inc. hasn't won?
Our committee has some really good recommendations to put in place. Let's roll up our sleeves and give officials, provinces and territories the tools to work together. Let's bring all the police forces together and do roadside monitoring together. Let's share the information. That is Ms. Gagnon's heartfelt plea.
Despite all the examples I've given you, to remain within our federal jurisdiction, our solutions must be to strengthen monitoring. We want to verify the drivers' skills. After Ms. Gagnon's testimony, I necessarily want to add that we need to put in place a way to monitor insurance. The comments made by the highway controller that they have little or no way of knowing whether the vehicle is insured made my blood boil. Controllers don't necessarily have the reflex to call insurance companies to check whether the vehicle is insured, especially if it comes from another province. Vehicles arrive in Quebec, but controllers are not authorized to search their information. It's scary.
The message we are sending to bad actors, which was brought up by the witness we heard from, is that not insuring costs less and they won't get caught. Can the committee put in place better monitoring for insurance? Can plates be checked?
I had my vehicle inspected recently when I sold it. When I went to the SAAQ to register the plate change, they asked for a vehicle inspection. I had it inspected, and the result was that my vehicle was compliant. When I went back to the SAAQ with the customer to sell my vehicle, I gave them my vehicle's certificate of compliance, my licences and my registration. We put all of that on the table. I was then asked for proof of insurance. I had to show proof of insurance for my vehicle. Before leaving the yard, my buyer also had to show that the vehicle was insured with an insurance company. There are requirements for small private vehicles that truck drivers don't even have.
From what we've heard, there's no real way to verify that the trucks are insured. I'm focusing on this topic because few witnesses have talked about it. I was very struck by that, so I would like to have some research done on insurance. I'll come back to that later, because I have a number of points to address regarding the witness who talked about vehicle insurance, but I don't want to lose the thread of the testimony by Ms. Gagnon from Transport St-Pamphile Inc.
Ultimately, what we take from Ms. Gagnon's testimony is that law-abiding carriers are being pushed straight into the wall. That's one more witness telling us that. The witness made a heartfelt plea, saying that this situation must stop, not in six months, because the carriers don't know if they're going to make it that far. It has to stop now.
We need to act now, and our government understands that. We lifted the moratorium on the T4A slip, and we invested $77 million. Now, it is up to the committee to work on compliance with the rules, on a legal obligation for public safety and on a national responsibility. Why is our government acting? We started by lifting the moratorium on the T4A slip, but we need to strengthen inspections and enforce the Canada Labour Code to end the Driver Inc. model and protect compliant carriers. Our government is taking action to meet the needs of Ms. Gagnon, who testified here on October 9.
However, Ms. Gagnon was not the only one to make a heartfelt plea. On October 9, she was here alongside other witnesses. We've all heard the message loud and clear. Thanks to the witnesses, it was an extremely important day and I learned a lot. We thought we could sleep on it. I thought I had enough material to present to the analysts, but we knew that other good witnesses were expected. We've talked a lot about road safety. We wanted to know more about the economic impact.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
I see that Mr. Lauzon is rehashing the testimony of all the witnesses we've heard at the committee. However, not all the testimony in committee was related to the motion we are debating at the moment.
Do you intend to make sure that Mr. Lauzon's comments are related to the motion instead of summarizing all the testimony that was heard?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
I think that Mr. Lauzon is using what the witnesses have said to back up his point. I think it respects the way we can talk here at the committee. I will therefore let Mr. Lauzon continue speaking.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I can understand why people don't want to talk about the motion and why they don't want the motion to solve the problem, along with our analysts and the clerk, for political reasons. However, what I'm explaining is directly related to the first and second parts of the motion. The motion mentions witnesses who have given us tools to find solutions and meet their needs, as did Harman Bhangu, who appeared before the committee on October 21.
We respect people who enter politics. He's an MLA from British Columbia, the critic for jobs and economic development. We had better listen to him, especially since he is an MLA from British Columbia. He told us about his experience in trucking and gravel, and the exploitation of temporary foreign workers. During his testimony, we realized that the issue was more political, but we still had very good discussions with him. Those discussions with a fellow member gave us a better understanding of what goes on in the provinces, especially since it's not my province.
It also taught me more about how the system works elsewhere. The member specifically told us about the risks to drivers in the province of British Columbia. He told us that Driver Inc. is becoming a standard, a business model. It's concerning when a member, like us, knows the file and says that the model is becoming a business model. In reality, it's also a legal loophole. Companies have studied ways to circumvent the system in order to become more competitive and avoid their tax and social obligations. In addition to knowing the subject, the member explained to us how the model works in his province.
Therefore, I have bad news, which is that it's the same concept as in the other provinces. The concept is that the driver sets up a company and is paid as a supplier, not as an employee. This is directly related to the concept of Driver Inc. in Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.
There are consequences to the lack of deductions at source. They don't pay EI and they don't pay for their pension plan, which is the Canada pension plan in that province. There's a loss of millions of dollars in tax revenue. We had a member of Parliament responsible for taxation come in and tell us that millions of dollars in tax revenue are lost because of the unfair competitive advantage of fraudsters. At first, he told us about circumventing the system, but later in his testimony, he talked more about fraudsters. It's pretty much the same language.
The effect on drivers in British Columbia is no different from anywhere else. They are deluded into thinking they have a better hourly rate when it's a false hourly rate.
The companies cut corners and tamper with the protection afforded to leave, overtime and insurance. The witness talked about accident insurance. Drivers are willing to take the risk, but not always. They often face pressure from these companies. They not only have a well‑paid job that fails to comply with the legislation, but they can't see beyond the end of their nose. They think that, if something happens to them, they won't be protected. That's more or less what this witness said. These companies are prepared to take greater risks for temporary foreign workers. The member told us that they're often forced to incorporate. We thought that this happened only in Quebec and Ontario. However, this witness comes from British Columbia.
We invited some truly insightful witnesses who showed us that incorporation affects Canada as a whole. The issue has been spreading since 2011, so we must really take it seriously. They clearly showed us that the issue has spread across the country. A provincial member came to inform us of the situation, possibly as a result of information that he received through certain committees, his portfolio or his officials. This is a major issue for the industry and the companies. The erosion of safety standards was demonstrated by the lack of training, maintenance and respect for hours. The witness focused on unfair competition and the efforts to undermine compliant companies. He told us that the more companies remain compliant, the less they succeed in business. That's more or less what he said. Non‑compliant companies are now becoming the norm, which is unacceptable. This witness kept referring to the threat to public safety and he focused a great deal on public safety.
We can draw conclusions from our discussions with this witness from another province, who does the same job as we do. He's a provincial member and he's responsible for this matter. Together, we could draw a clear line. If a driver is hired by a compliant company, we must support the driver. However, if the driver is incorporated, we must keep an eye on the driver, implement the T4A slip and ensure compliance with the rules. Everyone must pay their fair share of taxes and have access to tax returns.
We also share certain similarities, because we both want to strengthen the legislation. We want to strengthen not only the legislation, but also its enforcement. We can use some of the legislation already in place. The T4A slip is a good start. We can work with the provinces and territories to ensure that we have an even stronger tool in the form of deterrents. I mentioned a crackdown earlier. I'm a strong proponent of crackdowns. From school zones to highways to truck drivers, I'm a strong proponent of crackdowns. The witness talked about using deterrents to discourage drivers from committing offences, but they must be caught.
The witness also told us to protect vulnerable workers, who aren't necessarily all committing offences. Vulnerable workers are people who want to earn a good living to support their families and cover the costs of daily life.
However, they may be exploited by a contractor who leaves them no choice or else they lose their job. This means that vulnerable workers are illegal when they don't necessarily want to be. They fall into the category of irregularities through companies that make illegal drivers the norm.
We talked about immigration with an expert on foreign workers. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of foreign workers who arrive in Canada on foreign worker visas and who are promised a job with a transportation company, because they worked in this field back home. There are transportation companies everywhere, including in India and Mexico. The foreign workers come to Canada and find a prosperous country where they plan to settle with their family, raise their children and have Canadian children. They come here and place all their trust in a company. They're ushered into an office to sign papers and they're told that they'll have a truck. What recourse is available to temporary foreign workers within the four walls of an office of a company that will give them a job? They look at the salary, which is tempting compared to what they earned in their home country. In their home country, they worked for maybe $50 a week. When they come here, they're presented with a tempting amount of money. However, a number of conditions haven't been met. Yet they can't advocate for themselves and they face language barriers.
The company puts them behind the wheel of a truck and has them pass their driving test in 24 or 48 hours. The company then puts them on the road and entrusts them with 16,000 pounds of goods. They don't even know which road to take and they have trouble reading the signs. How can we expect these temporary foreign workers to know how to inspect their vehicles according to Canadian standards, when back home, maybe carriers pick up tires from all over the place and put them on the truck, because the truck must run? However, in Canada and in the provinces, standards must be met. The witness who spoke about temporary foreign workers asked us how we think that the workers can speak out against their exploitation in the trucking industry. The witness made a heartfelt plea for us to restore fairness for compliant transportation companies and to close the loophole that the Driver Inc. model is based on. This must be done.
This witness is a colleague, a member from British Columbia, who represents a department and who serves as a spokesperson for employment and economic development. His job is to gather as much information as possible and to champion an issue. The opposition's job is to take a critical look at every issue. All my colleagues do their homework. This witness did his homework on the transportation issue. He came to talk about the exploitation of foreign workers in the trucking industry.
We aren't experts on the topic, and we won't be. However, I think that we can make a difference starting today by mandating the analysts and the clerk to achieve our goals and to complete the report with recommendations to prevent the exploitation of temporary foreign workers.
We've heard all kinds of stories about foreign workers. There are several hundred foreign workers in my constituency. They aren't necessarily in the trucking industry. Some are, since I'm in a fairly agricultural area. I never miss an opportunity to get out and about in my constituency in order to meet with foreign workers and have good discussions with business owners. I often can't speak to the foreign workers in English or French, but they're hard‑working people who take their jobs seriously.
They make it possible for us to harvest our grapes and blueberries. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't even be able to bring in our harvests and we would lose our crops.
The same applies to drivers. These drivers include foreign workers who are entitled to training and a legal status. They have the right to receive wages in line with Quebec and Canadian standards. They have the right to the dignity of the transportation profession and the right to remain free from exploitation by companies that want to cut corners.
We spoke about this issue with the Canada Truck Operator Association's policy adviser. Arjun Vishwanth has taken a controversial position. He advocates for voluntary incorporation. Unfortunately, the moratorium on T4A slips implemented in 2011 has been removed. This means that the drivers who want to voluntarily incorporate must do so by the book. This witness believes that the position of a Driver Inc. driver isn't a legal status and that it doesn't exist under any legislation, regulations or court rulings. According to this witness, a void remains.
We want to fill this void and focus on the fact that the driver must remain compliant in order to hit the road. That's the bottom line. The work will be done in advance.
The witness's comments made my ears perk up a bit, especially the fact that small and medium‑sized businesses would face disproportionate audits. I have nothing against auditing a company. If a company has nothing to hide, it can show its accounts.
The committee wants audit reports, penalties and tickets passed on to all its members in order to include these items in its recommendations for improvement, without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. All matters relating to licences, fines and penalties fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Can we use these things to make progress? Yes.
We talked about breaking down myths. I think that we've heard from enough witnesses to know that these weren't myths. We hear that they're myths and made‑up stories. However, the Canada Revenue Agency is losing out on millions of dollars, so we must act quickly.
This witness spoke about false data, saying that we can easily talk about several million dollars. Even though I can't quantify the impact, since we haven't completed the study, this amounts to a great deal of money lost.
With the committee's analysts, we didn't focus on certain actions either. However, this witness said that we were basing our study on a flawed model. A witness told us that our study couldn't be based on flawed data or testimony. That said, many quality witnesses, both administrative players and people involved in the business activities, made a heartfelt plea. They told us that they need a helping hand and support in order to continue, because they're in danger of going bankrupt and closing their doors. To call all this data bogus implies that the data from the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transport Canada and other testimonies are false. The data are conclusive.
My takeaway from this witness's comments is that the incorporation remains legal and voluntary and that it's necessary to say yes to companies that want to have incorporated drivers in order to cut corners.
The major transportation companies themselves rely on incorporated drivers under the owner‑operator model in Ontario or in other parts of Canada, which constitutes a double standard. The major transportation companies often work with intermediaries. They don't know how these intermediaries manage their companies. They have a supply chain built this way and they have no control over the subcontractor. It's a world of subcontractors and transportation companies. The individual who provides the work or the manufacturer isn't necessarily mandated to regulate the driver subcontracted by a company to deliver the goods.
This witness told us that the major transportation companies themselves use drivers. It's true. We'll be hearing from a Canada Post official. Some Canada Post carriers do business with other companies. I'm anxious to hear the testimonies so that we can move forward. Can we meet with these other companies? Can we find out more about this issue? This is the norm. All agencies, companies and businesses use subcontractors to control transportation through bids. The bid doesn't require a company that employs legally recognized drivers. It requires a company that will transport the goods from point A to point B in compliance with the standards. Confidence is placed in the network. The provinces must issue the correct licences. The drivers must be insured and must have compliant trucks. There are inspection centres and monitoring stations for truck weights, along with highway inspectors and police officers trained to carry out these checks. However, the bids don't specify the secondary role of inspecting the truck for compliance. Contracts are awarded to companies that made bids and that won the competition. That's how the supply chain works.
The witness talked about highway safety. There's no correlation between highway safety and driver status, which is already governed by the National Safety Code. The code contains 16 standards. We hear about the lack of correlation between highway safety and the status of the driver, because the driver's status is already covered by regulations. I personally think that every province should work with us to identify illegal drivers. In my opinion, highway inspections should be a collaborative effort. We must work with the provinces to carry out audits of both offences and taxes.
We have things to check with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the court about licensing and prosecution jurisdictions. That said, we're still a long way from there. It won't be tomorrow morning. According to the witness, there isn't much to do. However, we have a great deal to do.
Of course, even if we start the process tomorrow, we won't resolve everything in a short amount of time. We must get the ball rolling as quickly as possible to find solutions. We need to take one step at a time. Let's start with highway safety. We need to work with the provinces. We also have the tax issue. Let's start there. Let the provinces issue the licences. Even if the witness had some contradictions, I still said that we could follow some of the recommendations and ideas that he put forward. Can we incorporate the notion of will into the rules? No.
We can't ask people to follow the rules on a voluntary basis. To me, a rule is a rule. When we have standards, rules or regulations, we must adhere to them. This committee is governed by certain rules. I'm very familiar with one rule, Standing Order 106(4). We can indeed follow the rules to establish a committee.
We need to understand today that the rules are already in place.
Conservative
November 25th, 2025 / 10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I'm really glad I can give Mr. Lauzon just a moment there. I would like to offer a particular olive branch to the Liberal Party. Perhaps we should amend the production order—
Liberal