Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for setting the stage.
We'll start with some good news. We're going to let you speak today. We'll listen to you. We may have a solution to offer you. We have decided today to kick the ball back your way and put an end to this study. I will be tabling an amendment shortly. It is a significant amendment. It will be a very good compromise. I believe this amendment will allow us to achieve our goals together.
I'm glad to see a Conservative member and a Bloc Québécois member among the next people on the speaking list. They'll be able to vote on this amendment.
After tabling my amendment, I will put my name back on the list and we will decide whether we want to end the debate and vote on this amendment. Also, it will allow us to settle certain things that were said or done during committee meetings. I'm prepared to make a correction, if the clerk reminds us that we left out a Quebec towing company. It will be a good compromise with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Conservatives, who wanted to hear from a series of proposed witnesses. The chair disclosed that today.
This is a truly sincere attempt on my part. From the beginning, I have maintained the same position, and that is still the case. Even if I don't find it relevant, I agree that the committee should receive, with dignity, survivors of truck-related accidents involving companies that use the Driver Inc. model. They will be able to come and testify here, but we will have to give them at least the choice to do so in camera. That will be up to them. It will be up to the committee members to decide whether they want to offer these survivors dignity.
I think that's the best compromise we can make among ourselves. I'm not talking about requiring an in camera meeting, but about offering grieving families, or families affected by the events, the opportunity to testify in camera so as to avoid turning grief into a political weapon. That weapon can be just as harmful for politics as for families.
It will also prevent Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Bloc Québécois from using bereaved families as leverage to force the disclosure of information, such as private tax information, which could affect tens of thousands of Canadians.
Then, as a guarantee, we would be ready to vote, to make it easier today. It's not because I don't want to speak. Rather, I think we could get to where we want to go fairly quickly. I think the main purpose of this study is to adopt a report and then force the government to make it official. That's what our analysts have been waiting for all along. I've repeated it often enough.
If we continue at this pace, we won't achieve that result. Witnesses have travelled from all over the country. These people made sacrifices to prepare. For us, speaking for five minutes is nothing, but for other people, it can be more difficult. They did it to help us move forward.
What we are doing as a committee demonstrates a lack of respect for the witnesses. It's also important that we begin other studies.
I am thinking in particular of the port study, which we all care about and which closely or directly affects our ridings. That topic specifically concerns Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and me, particularly what is happening in Montreal.
We are talking about the original motions, which were tabled at the beginning. If we really wanted to invite accident survivors to testify before the committee, why did we not do so at the outset? Why did we not have that intention? It is because, as we were working on that file, the choice of witnesses was guided by the aims and the political agenda of some members, in order to potentially influence public policy. That should not be mixed in with decisions made at a committee. Instead of doing what we did, my colleagues waited and are now using survivors as pawns for a totally different purpose.
Here is what really bothered me. In the week I was researching the subject, I wanted to see the article. By clicking on it, a new window opened. It was a funding request. In other words, people are asked to make a donation of $5, $10, $15 or $25. I am talking about the article that says the Liberals do not want bereaved families or accident victims to testify before the committee. This is disinformation.
In addition, there is coordination between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on the fact that we have included in our motion the request for documents that have been drafted since 2018.
We all have a distinct role to play on this committee. However, our common role is to make recommendations as quickly as possible. We know that this is mostly a provincial issue, and the federal government has a lot of work to do. The Government of Quebec has already started taking steps, and so have we.
We started with a measure targeting the T4A slip. In addition, we have made investments and our budget provides for massive investments totalling $77 million over four years to continue working on the file.
We know that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives have joined forces. This afternoon, I think the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals could join forces and vote in favour of the amendment I am going to propose. The ball is in your court. This afternoon, I propose that you vote in favour of my amendment so that we can move on. We are all going to have a wonderful holiday season, and the analysts are going to have a lot of work to do. Then we can move on to another study. We are going to work to find good recommendations and move the file forward. It is important for the public to know that we are all here for the same reason: to get things done.
This shows a lack of respect not only for the public and the witnesses, but especially for all those who support the committee, including the interpreters and all the staff. I will not name them all now, but I could do so later. In addition, it shows a lack of respect for witnesses by preventing them from sharing their remarks. Their comments are extremely important and serve to find a solution. We have to get this done. They have all stepped up to the plate. They came to tell us exactly what they thought.
I was elected to do that work, not to filibuster. I was not elected to waste your time, my time and the time of all these wonderful people who support us. I was elected so that I could stand by my beliefs and get things done.
The Bloc Québécois is calling for the disclosure of personal tax information. These are potentially the documents of tens of thousands of Canadians and businesses, which would be targeted without their consent. In so doing, we are playing games with them. That would be putting businesses at risk, and that is not what we want.
We do not want to mobilize the public service. However, we need it to mobilize people to resolve the “Driver Inc.” issue. We need it as a pillar for communicating with our provincial and territorial partners so that we can move forward on this issue. It is not our job to mobilize it to do anything other than its work. If we really want to solve the “Driver Inc.” issue, we have the will and the opportunity to do so this morning. We have already started by lifting the T4A moratorium. However, this is only one step.
The Bloc Québécois tells us that it has 10 recommendations, one of which has been addressed. That is exactly the purpose of this committee: to propose recommendations and work with our analysts to get to the end of the study. It is the right way to make recommendations, as long as they are not unconstitutional, they do not encroach on provincial jurisdiction and there is no risk of getting into legal proceedings. We do not adopt recommendations by holding press conferences, but rather by proposing them to the committee, putting them on the table and finding solutions to the “Driver Inc.” issue.
You know I could go on and on. However, my objective today is to let you speak if you propose recommendations. I really set the stage to give you a chance to spend happy holidays, wrap up this study and move on to something else.
Please do not use witnesses in the wrong way. That is why, on Monday, after thinking about my business over the weekend, I tabled a notice of motion that will be admissible tomorrow around 3 p.m. I still want to read this motion to you for the record of this committee: “That the committee report to the House on its firm condemnation of the use of grieving families, victims and survivors to fundraise for a political party.” It is not too much to ask not to combine a page on the victims with a funding request, or to use it elsewhere. If you click on the link that I provided to you, that I provided to the public and to everyone, the first thing that jumps out at you when reading the article about people in mourning is a request for donations of $5, $10, $15, and $25. We should not use it like that.
I am getting to my amendment. It is simple. I will read the amended motion in its entirety for the clerk, and I will take this opportunity to ask the staff behind to send it to the clerk in both official languages so that he can distribute both versions at the same time, without taking a 15-minute break. I think you understand that.
That the committee add two additional meetings of two hours each as part of the study of the changing landscape of truck drivers in Canada, so that in the first meeting, it can hear testimony from victims of heavy trucks in camera, if witnesses would prefer, and representatives of Justice for Truck Drivers, the Caledon Community Road Safety Advocacy Group (CCRSA), and The Joy Smith Foundation, and in the second meeting, testimony from representatives of 6S Trinity Transport, J+R Hall Trucking, Dan Express, Carmen Transportation, Ludwig Transport Limited, Ontario Trucking Association, BC Trucking Association, and Canada Post.
That drafting instructions to enable the development of a comprehensive report to the House of Commons be provided by the committee immediately after this testimony.