Mr. Albas, thank you for your point of order, which gave me a break and allowed me to drink some water. It is very much appreciated.
Everything I am saying is directly related to the topic at hand, the motion and the amendment deemed out of order that we moved today. This amendment was directly related to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's motion. It would put an end to the precarious financial situation of drivers, which I was talking about before Mr. Albas raised his point of order.
I will pick up where I left off, on the excessive working hours.
We have been told that by changing a letter in their first name or last name, the driver can reset the truck hours to zero. As a result, the driver becomes increasingly vulnerable. We have clear evidence that drivers are working excessive hours thanks to this scheme. How do we counter that? I am going to be honest with you. We have heard a lot about the problem, but I am very much looking forward to finding solutions. Despite all the reading and research I have done since the beginning of this study, as well as the testimonies of the witnesses we have heard, I do not yet know what recommendations we can make to remedy certain problems.
I am thinking in particular of the problem of people cheating. They are using technology fraudulently. They modify an electronic document in order to work longer hours. By doing so, it is more profitable for them and they can compete favourably with good companies.
As a result, these drivers have less time to do professional training and, sometimes, to properly maintain their truck. Imagine, we set aside truck maintenance in order to be more competitive. According to the reports we have heard, a truck lost a tire while it was on the road, and it was proven that the inspection of the truck was not done properly. All of that has a direct impact on the driver and the companies.
In addition, it has a direct impact on the economy for our government. There are federal tax losses, as far as the Canada Pension Plan is concerned, and provincial tax losses, as far as the Quebec pension plan is concerned. We can also think of the losses related to employment insurance and income tax. Based on what we have heard, the difference in revenue a company can have as a result of these taxes not being paid is in the order of 20% to 30%.
There are also tax losses for the provinces. They affect us indirectly, because they are the same taxpayers. There is a loss of money for transportation companies, whether it be the SAAQ or any other. There is also less money for occupational health and safety across Canada, for Revenu Québec and for the implementation of Canadian labour standards.
The impact on competition really plays a major role, because companies with integrity and honesty pay the price. Honest companies are being penalized. We could address this impact by proposing recommendations, such as focusing more on the recognition of existing transportation companies in order to reduce the number of companies that use the Driver Inc. model.
What we have been hearing from the start is that performance levels have been lowered for a number of years. It is a race to the bottom. We require as little as possible to obtain a driver’s licence. We want to do as much transportation as possible by conducting as little maintenance as possible and providing as little training as possible. The goal is as much competition as possible, even if that means lowering quality.
Some things are the responsibility of the Government of Canada, not the provinces. I really agree with making good recommendations, such as federal tax measures. We need recommendations to prevent tax evasion and tax avoidance. Whether it be for the Canada pension plan, employment insurance or unpaid taxes, we need to avoid tax loopholes.
Targeted audits of Driver Inc. are needed. We really need to keep a record of the drivers involved in this scheme. I am convinced that it will be one of our recommendations to do so. What we have heard is that we are losing track of drivers who do interprovincial transportation or who travel to other countries, because they do not talk to each other. It is as if we were starting from scratch. Information is not shared.
There has been a lot of blame placed on temporary foreign workers, but there are also Quebeckers, Ontarians and British Columbians, among others, who are suffering harm caused by the Driver Inc. scheme. People from all countries are being manipulated and suffering the same harm.
What steps can the Government of Canada take to address this scheme? I think he took the right path by lifting the moratorium on penalties for T4A slips. Since 2011, this moratorium, put in place by the Conservatives, was a loophole. For 10 years, we thought we wanted to give businesses the right to manage their affairs as they saw fit. However, the government has often been blamed for that and accused of doing too much for businesses. We want businesses to be independent, but look at what happened this time.
As a result of this moratorium, cases of abuse have skyrocketed. They have accumulated over the years. We will not be able to resolve all this overnight, especially since transportation is mainly a provincial jurisdiction.
It is important to say today that we have the opportunity, if we keep our good faith, to use the original motion, remove the production of documents part and invite the witnesses whose names were on the list—including the victims—to appear and have the opportunity to testify in camera, out of respect for their dignity.
Now, what falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, such as Quebec—this problem started mainly in Ontario and then exploded in Quebec—is everything related to road safety. Do we want to put forward recommendations? I think so. Do we want to move forward and say that we want to work with the provinces to be able to set national standards, especially when it comes to information sharing? I would venture to say yes.
In fact, that is what the Government of Quebec did this month by harmonizing its tax rules. It was a recommendation from the federal government, which had been implemented previously and was used as a model for Ontario.
I mentioned Ontario, but I could also name several other provinces. I think eight provinces have regulations similar to the one that Quebec just passed in terms of mandatory training for a class 1 driver's licence.
Everything related to these famous accidents falls under provincial jurisdiction. In Quebec, there is the SQ and the municipal police, while the other provinces have a provincial police service. Garages mandated to do mechanical inspections fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is also the case for mechanical checks, roadside checks, road construction and maintenance, as well as workers' status. We have a national labour code, but in Quebec, workers are governed by the Quebec Labour Code. For example, the classification of salaried or self-employed employees falls under provincial jurisdiction. In addition, companies have occupational health and safety obligations. In Quebec, these obligations are administered by the CNESST, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail. Elsewhere, they also have obligations to similar organizations. In addition, everything to do with victim compensation falls under provincial jurisdiction.
Can we provide recommendations on a better way? Yes, we can. However, the SAAQ is already dealing with this issue in Quebec. Have cases already been brought before the provincial courts? Possibly. The Civil Code of Quebec would apply.
We are talking about people's lives, safety and vulnerable people who could be in danger. We are talking about the danger not only to those who drive a truck, but also to those who are on the road. Personally, I drive on Quebec highways quite often. I have driven outside Quebec, but I mostly drive in Quebec. My experience tells me that there are more and more drivers and more accidents. Those rates are still going up. As for roads and infrastructure, there is a very significant deficit in Quebec. The quality of roads is deteriorating.
If there is one thing we can do, it is to support the provinces, at least when it comes to truck drivers, so that those on our roads are responsible. We want to avoid an increase in accidents and problems with illegal drivers or drivers using the Driver Inc. scheme.
Could we recommend professional evaluations of how they get their driver's licence and how they drive on the road? I am not sure we can go that far. Could we set Canadian standards? I think so, yes. We cannot assess the drivers and those who inspect the trucks, but we can create Canadian safety standards. We can also share the best practices among provinces in order to consolidate information. The idea is to see how to amalgamate all the information across the provinces and territories so that each province can coordinate the Driver Inc. model.
The Bloc Québécois always tells us that it is the great defender of jurisdictions. This study was proposed by the Bloc Québécois, which is fine. When we make our recommendations, we will soon realize that a number of Bloc Québécois recommendations deal with matters related to Quebec's jurisdiction. Let us give ourselves the chance to adopt this motion. Let us work with the committee's analysts and present recommendations that may promote all the recommendations put in place by the Bloc Québécois. We will at least shine a light on what can be done and what cannot be done. We are not here to undermine the legal system and well-established companies in the labour market, nor to increase the labour shortage that already exists on the market, but we are here to find solutions.
Using victims for political gain should have no place here, Mr. Chair. We should listen to the victims, ask our questions, make our recommendations, but then we should not use—