Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, let me congratulate the interpreters on their work. I thank them for taking over today. We're very grateful. You know, it's an onerous task when nothing's written down and the person speaks at a rapid pace for an hour and 45 minutes. It's not easy for the interpreters, so hats off to them.
Let's now turn to the Driver Inc. issue. It's an issue that we all take very seriously and that is of great concern to us all here at the transport committee.
I mentioned some of the important aspects that were raised over the course of this study, specifically around road safety. We also mentioned tax fairness, worker protection and fair competition between businesses that have to find ways to turn a profit, offer appropriate services to their employees, ensure safety, give the proper training and so on. The first part of the meeting mostly covered these topics.
I also highlighted what was released publicly about the grieving family affected by the accident linked to the Driver Inc. phenomenon. In this time of labour shortage, truck drivers are impacted. They provide an essential service, but it's not all. We often think of the truck drivers and the companies, but there are also countless people and small businesses who support these companies with maintenance, highway traffic control, repairs, dispatch, etc. and who do amazing work. We did the comparison earlier with the aviation sector. Highway traffic controllers are not like air traffic controllers, but their work is crucial for road safety. I did some research and can confirm that. They have to determine which vehicle needs maintenance and what the situation is regarding permits and routes. Routes are very important. Plotting a course through a different highway can make the trip longer, which can have safety implications. Many risk factors are related to what we've been talking about since the beginning of this study.
As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. What we believe is important and what we want to see is a level playing field. We want the rules to not only be the same for everyone, but properly and consistently implemented. In short, we want everyone to play by the same rules to put an end to the Driver Inc. phenomenon. We want to do it properly and consistently all across Canada. The way we want to proceed as a government is to come up with recommendations as quickly as possible. We all agree on that.
We know all that there's some cleaning up to do, whether it's illegal drivers, temporary foreign workers or self-employed workers. Some of them are put under pressure by their employer, and that's what we've heard in numerous testimonies.
This practice has extremely serious consequences. We want to fix the problem. We want to prevent any more consequences. How can we do that? We have to come up with recommendations quickly in collaboration with our analysts and our clerk so that we can move on to something else.
Of course, there's the whole issue of duress. That has to do with payroll taxes, and it's up to us to do something about it.
Then there is the famous loss of tax revenue. This represents a loss of income for our government. In other words, there is a shortfall on the tax side. It is essential that we collect our share in order to make up for this shortfall.
We are also witnessing the erosion of fair competition. We have heard from representatives of companies that have decided to follow the straight and narrow path. They are committed to their work. They are listening to us today and asking us whether the committee can achieve these goals. I am sure that the guests who have come to testify before the committee as part of this study want only one thing: to see the solutions they have proposed included in our recommendations. Are we going to fix everything? No. Can we make changes quickly? I believe so. We can make recommendations to the provinces and territories to improve the situation.
Then we sensed that workers were becoming more vulnerable. They are at risk of injury or misconduct due to the influence of companies, which exert a certain amount of pressure on them. It's exhausting. We can easily recommend working with the provinces to find possible solutions with the aim of giving these workers jobs that are worthy of their skills and worthy of a supply chain that we greatly need. According to my research, 25% of drivers could make improvements. They are paid according to different models. In some regions, mainly in Quebec and Ontario, this is a concern. This practice is used elsewhere in Canada, but in Quebec and Ontario, it has developed more rapidly with the help of schemes like the ones we've heard about when it comes to obtaining licences.
Above all, this boils down to fair competition. Companies play by the rules and pay their fair share. They are proud to do so because they are part of a society and a state where there are rights and regulations that must be strictly followed. However, this comes with responsibilities. We have heard that some companies are going to lower their costs considerably. By cutting corners, they can reduce cost by 30% or 40%. In the interest of fairness and fair competition, it is essential to have a mechanism in place to reprimand offending companies. They must be caught and brought to justice, but the provinces have to do their part.
Then there is the issue surrounding the provinces, which have an important role to play. In our recommendations, I am eager for us to mention the example of Quebec. The first thing it had to do was transition from overly easy-to-obtain licences, while complying with the existing rules. First, complying with the existing rules is a step in the right direction. Let's start with the T4A form and the rules for obtaining a driver's licence. In the province of Quebec, we have francization. Licences can be obtained in either of the official languages, English or French. Interpretation services are available during the process to ensure compliance with standards and rules.
What's more, we always take worker protection seriously. People always forget that. We always talk about citizens and road safety, but worker protection is also a public safety issue. Workers have told us that they are afraid to drive on the roads. They're not afraid of the people who follow the rules. They are afraid of those who don't. If a worker sitting in a large truck carrying a huge load is afraid of his colleagues on the road, then we all have cause for concern. Protecting the workers is very important to the committee. Let's achieve our goals and make recommendations to restore confidence to these workers, these drivers.
Many companies are also experiencing labour shortages. They are looking for workers because there is an exodus of drivers who want to do something else. According to witnesses, one of the reasons they want to do something else is that they no longer feel comfortable with this model. This model is broken, and this practice must be stopped as soon as possible. The best way to break this cycle of misconduct perpetrated by the “Driver Inc.” model is to go through the committee, which will make recommendations, and agree to hear further testimony at two meetings. We could have another half-meeting. We are in complete agreement on this. We could have an in camera meeting with the bereaved family in order to ask them our questions and show them our empathy. This would enable us to find helpful solutions for the future of this issue.
We could add a future study that focuses on ports.
Furthermore, removing all the requested documents requires tremendous work on the part of the entire government administration, which makes no sense. There is a way to do this: reach a resolution to that effect and move forward.
Next week or weekend, I would like to meet with the bereaved family and explain the Liberals' true position. I want to explain exactly what work we have done. I would never exploit the conversation I will have with them in private, if I have one. I would never exploit a conversation about someone who lost their life because of the “Driver Inc.” model by posting it on my social media or mentioning it in a publication. I won't do it, regardless of the type of publication.
I would like to come back to the economic pressure on businesses.
Beyond comments about illegal drivers, there is new pressure on drivers that did not exist before the pandemic. I know the pandemic has had a huge impact, and I'm tired of talking about it. However, it has led to increased costs and workforce destabilization. What is more, some people changed jobs, while others went back to school. There has been an upheaval in the trades. Transportation is one of the sectors that has been hit hard, for a variety of reasons, including the vaccine. I won't go over that again because we've talked enough about the pandemic.
The fact remains that some drivers work beyond the legal limits. Today, companies are facing difficulties due to skyrocketing costs, particularly for fuel and vehicle maintenance. Purchasing a vehicle has changed significantly. Keep in mind that each delivery requires the allocation of expenses, which include benefits, salary, operating costs and the purchase cost.
Companies have come to us to show that profits are declining from generation to generation. There are generations that have earned a good living, while today's generations are struggling to make ends meet. Not only are they under pressure because of illegal drivers, but they also face daily pressure from operating costs. Can we, at least as a committee, give all these companies a little help? Can we support them by making recommendations so that we can at least resolve the portion of the problem that falls under federal jurisdiction and then, in collaboration with the provinces, resolve the issue of the “Driver Inc.” scheme?
The more risks there are on the roads, the more vulnerable we are. There are several factors to consider. Some roads are in poor condition. There are ambitious infrastructure investment projects to improve user safety. However, there are more and more trucks on the roads as the population grows and, as a result, the number of services to meet the needs of the population also increases. However, infrastructure is not being improved. We need to do more for infrastructure, including maintenance. Before investing heavily in infrastructure, we must first maintain what we already have.
Let's talk about business operating costs. These businesses should expect this committee to make recommendations as quickly as possible in order to fulfill its mandate, which is to ensure that all companies operate on a level playing field. We can't do this alone. We can do it together, with all parties involved.
I agree with allowing the committee's recommendations to slightly encroach on provincial jurisdictions, because they are still only recommendations from the committee. We have seen this in other committees. We can work with the provinces and territories and collaborate with them to find appropriate solutions to improve a situation that falls under provincial and federal jurisdiction. The subject of our study is a good example of this, because some aspects of it depend on both levels of government. The primary federal responsibility is intergovernmental co-operation. I believe that this committee can be given a lot of weight and that it can play a key role in finding a solution.
As I keep saying, this is a shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government. We need to act very quickly on the tax front to make this more profitable, and we need to strengthen tax enforcement. We also have an opportunity to work with the provinces to harmonize all of this and to put standards and inspection mechanisms in place.
I had the opportunity to talk at length with an employee from Quebec's ministry of transportation and sustainable mobility. This is not my area of expertise, but I can tell you one thing: I learned a lot. He feels a little stuck with the limited information available in Quebec. Can we streamline communications, provide the tools needed for better collaboration between provinces, harmonize standards, and find inspection mechanisms?
I will go further than that. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval may call me to order, saying that I am talking about a subject that falls under provincial jurisdiction. However, I am an instructor by trade. I taught for 21 years, including at the trucking school. I worked in metallurgy, at a vocational training centre. Training is close to my heart. For me, training is the foundation of knowledge. I would not want our new pipeline to be welded by welders who have not been properly trained. There are requirements for welders. They are required to complete 1,800 hours of training and obtain high-pressure welding certificates. If they fail, they are fired.