I can understand why people don't want to talk about the motion and why they don't want the motion to solve the problem, along with our analysts and the clerk, for political reasons. However, what I'm explaining is directly related to the first and second parts of the motion. The motion mentions witnesses who have given us tools to find solutions and meet their needs, as did Harman Bhangu, who appeared before the committee on October 21.
We respect people who enter politics. He's an MLA from British Columbia, the critic for jobs and economic development. We had better listen to him, especially since he is an MLA from British Columbia. He told us about his experience in trucking and gravel, and the exploitation of temporary foreign workers. During his testimony, we realized that the issue was more political, but we still had very good discussions with him. Those discussions with a fellow member gave us a better understanding of what goes on in the provinces, especially since it's not my province.
It also taught me more about how the system works elsewhere. The member specifically told us about the risks to drivers in the province of British Columbia. He told us that Driver Inc. is becoming a standard, a business model. It's concerning when a member, like us, knows the file and says that the model is becoming a business model. In reality, it's also a legal loophole. Companies have studied ways to circumvent the system in order to become more competitive and avoid their tax and social obligations. In addition to knowing the subject, the member explained to us how the model works in his province.
Therefore, I have bad news, which is that it's the same concept as in the other provinces. The concept is that the driver sets up a company and is paid as a supplier, not as an employee. This is directly related to the concept of Driver Inc. in Ontario, Quebec and other provinces.
There are consequences to the lack of deductions at source. They don't pay EI and they don't pay for their pension plan, which is the Canada pension plan in that province. There's a loss of millions of dollars in tax revenue. We had a member of Parliament responsible for taxation come in and tell us that millions of dollars in tax revenue are lost because of the unfair competitive advantage of fraudsters. At first, he told us about circumventing the system, but later in his testimony, he talked more about fraudsters. It's pretty much the same language.
The effect on drivers in British Columbia is no different from anywhere else. They are deluded into thinking they have a better hourly rate when it's a false hourly rate.
The companies cut corners and tamper with the protection afforded to leave, overtime and insurance. The witness talked about accident insurance. Drivers are willing to take the risk, but not always. They often face pressure from these companies. They not only have a well‑paid job that fails to comply with the legislation, but they can't see beyond the end of their nose. They think that, if something happens to them, they won't be protected. That's more or less what this witness said. These companies are prepared to take greater risks for temporary foreign workers. The member told us that they're often forced to incorporate. We thought that this happened only in Quebec and Ontario. However, this witness comes from British Columbia.
We invited some truly insightful witnesses who showed us that incorporation affects Canada as a whole. The issue has been spreading since 2011, so we must really take it seriously. They clearly showed us that the issue has spread across the country. A provincial member came to inform us of the situation, possibly as a result of information that he received through certain committees, his portfolio or his officials. This is a major issue for the industry and the companies. The erosion of safety standards was demonstrated by the lack of training, maintenance and respect for hours. The witness focused on unfair competition and the efforts to undermine compliant companies. He told us that the more companies remain compliant, the less they succeed in business. That's more or less what he said. Non‑compliant companies are now becoming the norm, which is unacceptable. This witness kept referring to the threat to public safety and he focused a great deal on public safety.
We can draw conclusions from our discussions with this witness from another province, who does the same job as we do. He's a provincial member and he's responsible for this matter. Together, we could draw a clear line. If a driver is hired by a compliant company, we must support the driver. However, if the driver is incorporated, we must keep an eye on the driver, implement the T4A slip and ensure compliance with the rules. Everyone must pay their fair share of taxes and have access to tax returns.
We also share certain similarities, because we both want to strengthen the legislation. We want to strengthen not only the legislation, but also its enforcement. We can use some of the legislation already in place. The T4A slip is a good start. We can work with the provinces and territories to ensure that we have an even stronger tool in the form of deterrents. I mentioned a crackdown earlier. I'm a strong proponent of crackdowns. From school zones to highways to truck drivers, I'm a strong proponent of crackdowns. The witness talked about using deterrents to discourage drivers from committing offences, but they must be caught.
The witness also told us to protect vulnerable workers, who aren't necessarily all committing offences. Vulnerable workers are people who want to earn a good living to support their families and cover the costs of daily life.
However, they may be exploited by a contractor who leaves them no choice or else they lose their job. This means that vulnerable workers are illegal when they don't necessarily want to be. They fall into the category of irregularities through companies that make illegal drivers the norm.
We talked about immigration with an expert on foreign workers. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of foreign workers who arrive in Canada on foreign worker visas and who are promised a job with a transportation company, because they worked in this field back home. There are transportation companies everywhere, including in India and Mexico. The foreign workers come to Canada and find a prosperous country where they plan to settle with their family, raise their children and have Canadian children. They come here and place all their trust in a company. They're ushered into an office to sign papers and they're told that they'll have a truck. What recourse is available to temporary foreign workers within the four walls of an office of a company that will give them a job? They look at the salary, which is tempting compared to what they earned in their home country. In their home country, they worked for maybe $50 a week. When they come here, they're presented with a tempting amount of money. However, a number of conditions haven't been met. Yet they can't advocate for themselves and they face language barriers.
The company puts them behind the wheel of a truck and has them pass their driving test in 24 or 48 hours. The company then puts them on the road and entrusts them with 16,000 pounds of goods. They don't even know which road to take and they have trouble reading the signs. How can we expect these temporary foreign workers to know how to inspect their vehicles according to Canadian standards, when back home, maybe carriers pick up tires from all over the place and put them on the truck, because the truck must run? However, in Canada and in the provinces, standards must be met. The witness who spoke about temporary foreign workers asked us how we think that the workers can speak out against their exploitation in the trucking industry. The witness made a heartfelt plea for us to restore fairness for compliant transportation companies and to close the loophole that the Driver Inc. model is based on. This must be done.
This witness is a colleague, a member from British Columbia, who represents a department and who serves as a spokesperson for employment and economic development. His job is to gather as much information as possible and to champion an issue. The opposition's job is to take a critical look at every issue. All my colleagues do their homework. This witness did his homework on the transportation issue. He came to talk about the exploitation of foreign workers in the trucking industry.
We aren't experts on the topic, and we won't be. However, I think that we can make a difference starting today by mandating the analysts and the clerk to achieve our goals and to complete the report with recommendations to prevent the exploitation of temporary foreign workers.
We've heard all kinds of stories about foreign workers. There are several hundred foreign workers in my constituency. They aren't necessarily in the trucking industry. Some are, since I'm in a fairly agricultural area. I never miss an opportunity to get out and about in my constituency in order to meet with foreign workers and have good discussions with business owners. I often can't speak to the foreign workers in English or French, but they're hard‑working people who take their jobs seriously.
They make it possible for us to harvest our grapes and blueberries. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't even be able to bring in our harvests and we would lose our crops.
The same applies to drivers. These drivers include foreign workers who are entitled to training and a legal status. They have the right to receive wages in line with Quebec and Canadian standards. They have the right to the dignity of the transportation profession and the right to remain free from exploitation by companies that want to cut corners.
We spoke about this issue with the Canada Truck Operator Association's policy adviser. Arjun Vishwanth has taken a controversial position. He advocates for voluntary incorporation. Unfortunately, the moratorium on T4A slips implemented in 2011 has been removed. This means that the drivers who want to voluntarily incorporate must do so by the book. This witness believes that the position of a Driver Inc. driver isn't a legal status and that it doesn't exist under any legislation, regulations or court rulings. According to this witness, a void remains.
We want to fill this void and focus on the fact that the driver must remain compliant in order to hit the road. That's the bottom line. The work will be done in advance.
The witness's comments made my ears perk up a bit, especially the fact that small and medium‑sized businesses would face disproportionate audits. I have nothing against auditing a company. If a company has nothing to hide, it can show its accounts.
The committee wants audit reports, penalties and tickets passed on to all its members in order to include these items in its recommendations for improvement, without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions. All matters relating to licences, fines and penalties fall under provincial jurisdiction.
Can we use these things to make progress? Yes.
We talked about breaking down myths. I think that we've heard from enough witnesses to know that these weren't myths. We hear that they're myths and made‑up stories. However, the Canada Revenue Agency is losing out on millions of dollars, so we must act quickly.
This witness spoke about false data, saying that we can easily talk about several million dollars. Even though I can't quantify the impact, since we haven't completed the study, this amounts to a great deal of money lost.
With the committee's analysts, we didn't focus on certain actions either. However, this witness said that we were basing our study on a flawed model. A witness told us that our study couldn't be based on flawed data or testimony. That said, many quality witnesses, both administrative players and people involved in the business activities, made a heartfelt plea. They told us that they need a helping hand and support in order to continue, because they're in danger of going bankrupt and closing their doors. To call all this data bogus implies that the data from the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Transport Canada and other testimonies are false. The data are conclusive.
My takeaway from this witness's comments is that the incorporation remains legal and voluntary and that it's necessary to say yes to companies that want to have incorporated drivers in order to cut corners.
The major transportation companies themselves rely on incorporated drivers under the owner‑operator model in Ontario or in other parts of Canada, which constitutes a double standard. The major transportation companies often work with intermediaries. They don't know how these intermediaries manage their companies. They have a supply chain built this way and they have no control over the subcontractor. It's a world of subcontractors and transportation companies. The individual who provides the work or the manufacturer isn't necessarily mandated to regulate the driver subcontracted by a company to deliver the goods.
This witness told us that the major transportation companies themselves use drivers. It's true. We'll be hearing from a Canada Post official. Some Canada Post carriers do business with other companies. I'm anxious to hear the testimonies so that we can move forward. Can we meet with these other companies? Can we find out more about this issue? This is the norm. All agencies, companies and businesses use subcontractors to control transportation through bids. The bid doesn't require a company that employs legally recognized drivers. It requires a company that will transport the goods from point A to point B in compliance with the standards. Confidence is placed in the network. The provinces must issue the correct licences. The drivers must be insured and must have compliant trucks. There are inspection centres and monitoring stations for truck weights, along with highway inspectors and police officers trained to carry out these checks. However, the bids don't specify the secondary role of inspecting the truck for compliance. Contracts are awarded to companies that made bids and that won the competition. That's how the supply chain works.
The witness talked about highway safety. There's no correlation between highway safety and driver status, which is already governed by the National Safety Code. The code contains 16 standards. We hear about the lack of correlation between highway safety and the status of the driver, because the driver's status is already covered by regulations. I personally think that every province should work with us to identify illegal drivers. In my opinion, highway inspections should be a collaborative effort. We must work with the provinces to carry out audits of both offences and taxes.
We have things to check with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and with the court about licensing and prosecution jurisdictions. That said, we're still a long way from there. It won't be tomorrow morning. According to the witness, there isn't much to do. However, we have a great deal to do.
Of course, even if we start the process tomorrow, we won't resolve everything in a short amount of time. We must get the ball rolling as quickly as possible to find solutions. We need to take one step at a time. Let's start with highway safety. We need to work with the provinces. We also have the tax issue. Let's start there. Let the provinces issue the licences. Even if the witness had some contradictions, I still said that we could follow some of the recommendations and ideas that he put forward. Can we incorporate the notion of will into the rules? No.
We can't ask people to follow the rules on a voluntary basis. To me, a rule is a rule. When we have standards, rules or regulations, we must adhere to them. This committee is governed by certain rules. I'm very familiar with one rule, Standing Order 106(4). We can indeed follow the rules to establish a committee.
We need to understand today that the rules are already in place.