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.