Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When I spoke to the motion, I talked a lot about the workers affected by the Driver Inc. phenomenon. I explained the nuance between social justice and tax fairness, because, in the budget, we have a solution to improve things and meet the needs of those who work in this field. I outlined a number of measures in the budget, including the T4A slip measure, the $77-million investment, and how to share that amount between social justice and tax fairness. It's really about ensuring access to the minimum protections under the Canada Labour Code, so it's directly related to the needs of drivers and it's a very good avenue to at least give some recommendations to the analysts.
When we were hearing testimony, I often said that the rules have to be the same for everyone, both little and big players. I believe every driver has to be in good standing. The minister, Mr. MacKinnon, made that clear in his testimony. He advocated for a collaborative approach with industry. I also liked when he told us that it was a matter of putting an end to fraud. The minister wants to fix the problem and says that his priorities are safety, fairness and competitiveness in the transportation sector, so I think his comments are directly related to the needs of this committee and those of the Minister of Jobs and Families.
I named those two ministers, but we also heard from the secretary of state. We heard from a number of witnesses. The Minister of Jobs and Families has clearly expressed her support for strengthening inspections and penalties to protect workers. Those two measures go hand in hand. The ministers came together to talk about solutions. I think it's important to focus on employer responsibility and fighting precariousness. Companies that are sounding the alarm must also be given certain responsibilities. We've heard heartfelt pleas from businesses on the right track that must comply with standards and meet the needs of their businesses and their drivers.
In our recommendations, we must therefore include responsibilities for businesses. What's important are the companies that promote the infamous Driver Inc. model. Companies that circumvent the system in one way or another will be subject to audits and penalties. That's what I'd like us to recommend, and I'm willing to work to recommend audits and penalties for wrongdoers. The solutions we've heard will ensure not only tax justice, but also social justice.
Companies that play by the rules shouldn't be penalized. On the contrary, they even need to be recognized. Why not set up a registry of companies recognized for their good behaviour, as suggested by witnesses and the Bloc Québécois? The Bloc Québécois has already recommended that certain registries be kept.
Can we work on this? Can we achieve our ends so that the analysts can tell us whether unveiling the names is in order, in line with the rules, and if we can do it? The ideal place to make such requests is in all the recommendations made through the analysts and the clerk.
Yes, it can be about messages. I agree again. I'm often agreeing with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval today. I think we're on the verge of grabbing a bite together. I can tell Mr. Barsalou‑Duval that our strategic message is to get to where we want to go and finish this study by issuing recommendations similar to those in his press release to move forward. We can examine them with members of this committee, the analysts and the clerk before tabling them in the House, but we have to get to that stage. We have to hear from the witnesses on the list, but we also have to respect the families' choice to testify with dignity and give them the option to testify in camera or in public.