Transport Committee on Nov. 25th, 2025

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

—just to include irony and self-awareness from the Liberal Party of Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's not a point of order. Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I'll turn the floor back over to Mr. Lauzon. Very clearly, he has a lot to say on this issue.

Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Aside from Standing Order 106(4), which just came up, we could recommend compliance with the rules. We already have rules in place. Our best recommendation to this witness would be to start by following the current rules. Let's start by complying with the Canada Transportation Act, then begin by complying with provincial legislation for obtaining all the necessary licences and by making sure that the vehicles are insured and suitable for competition and efficiency purposes. That alone is a big step forward.

We took this matter a step further. Mr. Lawrence, you know how much I respect lawyers, so let's talk about lawyers. I'll talk about one lawyer, my employee, Timmy Jutras, who followed your example. He has completed law school and he's taking his bar exams as we speak. I released him from his contract. I would like to congratulate Timmy Jutras, who left my team.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Excuse me, Mr. Lauzon. Mr. Albas raised another point of order.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

I'm just wondering if you can enforce any sense of relevance, unless it's relevant that he's going through his Christmas card list.

[An hon. member]

It is.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

We're at his staffer; we're at Mr. Lawrence—two people who I believe deserve Christmas cards from Mr. Lauzon. However, I think that has zero to do with the motion at hand. Could you ask him to maybe get back on track?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

On that point of order, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm just going to dispense with this one first. I remind all members that we need to speak.... We are joking around about certain things, but let's try to bring it back to the subject matter at hand so that we can avoid points of order asking for relevance.

Yes, Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

It was actually on that point of order. I believe lawyers are always relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

On that note, thank you, Mr. Lawrence.

Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

It was to introduce the concept of lawyers.

We had a legal and technological analysis. On October 21, Ritesh Kotak came to share this perspective. We needed this analysis of a more legal nature. We were really looking at the ground level, with drivers, companies and business owners. We took the study a bit further into the political arena when the member critical of Driver Inc. came to speak to us. Now we're dealing more with the legal aspect.

He used words that we need to pay attention to, because this is really about legality. It's about trucking companies misclassifying drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. These words come from a legal expert. He studied the issue closely and told us that it's a misclassification. This model, which classifies drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, is damaging the ecosystem.

I spoke about some of the self‑contracted drivers whom I had the chance to talk to. They told me that they weren't bad drivers because they belonged to Driver Inc. I replied that we never said that. Drivers can be self‑employed. They can have their own truck, incorporate, do their accounting in the evenings and wash and maintain their truck on weekends. They can maintain their truck in the same way as companies, but work for different companies or for the same company for contracts of six to eight consecutive months. They aren't required to become a worker paid directly by the company. They are like subcontractors who become independent of their company. They manage their own companies properly.

Now, in the same context, this truck driver tells us about companies that misclassify their drivers. Truck drivers are classified as drivers in a truck owned by the same company, but that doesn't belong to them. The company imposes certain conditions on the drivers, such as driving for the company and registering with Corporations Canada. It takes over, like a T4A slip that becomes illegal.

For the companies, the goal is to avoid the costs associated with employer obligations. The lawyer explained this to us. According to him, the difference between an employee and an employer is the principle that I just explained to you. The lawyer told us that, under the employer's management, the methods, payroll, legal protection and imposed schedules don't exist. So, from an administrative perspective, all the paperwork, working conditions, insurance and responsibilities disappear. Everything is handed over to an inexperienced driver, who is often an independent contractor.

This is more or less the difference that the witness showed us while answering our questions. The lawyer was asked some excellent questions. He clearly showed us that independent contractors manage their own business, provide their own tools and take on the financial risks. There are no tax deductions or benefits. When a lawyer who knows the law comes to tell us this, we can measure the consequences. The consequences for these drivers are the loss of protection and everything that this entails, such as leave, insurance or safety. The risks are increased, because these drivers are more at risk than any other driver in the field.

The more that we make these drivers compliant, the more unfair the competition. We've had these discussions with an independent lawyer who knows the issue. The discrepancy between compliant companies and companies engaging in unfair competition is up to 30%.

If training and compliance are neglected, the risks are increased. We discussed this a bit with the witness. We discussed some aggravating factors. If I visit the website to incorporate in Canada, in a few clicks I can create a file and incorporate with Corporations Canada. Someone who has received training on the matter, who is comfortable with Canadian government software and who has the ability to register a person can enter the information to incorporate the future truck driver in a few clicks. The highly accessible process places pressure on the drivers. As soon as the information entered meets the requirements, the pressure is on the driver to accept incorporation. Some companies are experts in human resources when it comes to incorporating people. This shouldn't happen.

How do you find the people at fault? Let's make some recommendations in this area.

The lawyer believes that there's a blatant lack of legal education. We know that everything is vague. There's a lack of legal education, so drivers don't know their rights and obligations. Can we make sure that we recommend some form of education and training so that all drivers can have the same understanding of the risk of becoming a Driver Inc. driver and can know the benefits of working for a company? Can we give the provinces the tools needed to educate all the thousands of truck drivers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Excuse me, Mr. Lauzon.

After four hours of debate, I'm going to suspend for the day. We'll reconvene next week.

The meeting is suspended.

Thank you, everyone.

[The meeting was suspended at 12:00 p.m., Thursday, December 4]

[The meeting resumed at 3:31 p.m., Tuesday, December 9]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call the meeting to order.

We will resume meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of members.

First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

The committee suspended its meeting on Thursday, December 4, 2025, while debate on the motion was ongoing. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting and the debate on the motion by Xavier Barsalou-Duval moved on Thursday, November 6, 2025, as amended.

The motion as amended reads:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities request that the Departments of Transport, Revenue, and Employment forward to the committee clerk, within 30 days of the adoption of this motion, all correspondence, reports, emails, and documents relating to the issue of non-compliance in the trucking industry since January 1, 2018; and

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 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, the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec, and Canada Post.

Colleagues, the speaking list had Mr. Lauzon, who had the floor, followed by Mr. Albas and Mr. Kelloway.

I'm pleased to give you the floor today, Mr. Lauzon.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thanks.

Thanks to my colleagues from the Conservatives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank all the people who are here to help us with this process.

We all care about the same issue. We may have come to an agreement to find a way forward.

With this in mind, I would now like to move an amendment proposing five changes to the motion before us.

The first change would be to add “as well as the Prime Minister's Office” after the word “Employment” and before the word “forward”.

The second change would be to replace “30 days” with “60 days”, in order to provide a reasonable amount of time to prepare the documents.

The third change would be to replace “2018” with “2022” and to add “and that Departments and Agencies tasked with producing the documents apply redactions as per legal obligations under the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act”.

The fourth change would be to replace “two” with “three” in terms of the number of meetings. Given our witness list, we could fit this into three meetings.

The fifth change would be to add the following text after “Canada Post”:

and the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec; and in the third meeting, testimony from representatives of BC Trucking Association, Ontario Trucking Association, Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA), and the Alberta Motor Transportation Association; That, immediately following these meetings, the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), undertake a five‑meeting study on what is needed to support, diversify, and modernize Quebec and Canada's ports to find new markets to reduce reliance on the United States; that the committee report its findings to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

The clerk will distribute the amendment to the committee members.

Does anyone want to discuss these proposed changes?

Colleagues, I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to ensure that the clerk can focus on getting this out to members in both official languages.

The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Albas has a point of order to get us started.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are still in the same meeting that we originally started in. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, meeting number 16, sir.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Yes, and we have already voted on a port study and found it to be out of scope. Since we've already dealt with that particular piece of business, I ask you to rule that this is out of order, simply because the committee has already dealt with this business once.

This kind of vexatious behaviour, in which someone keeps raising the same amendment over and over flouts the will of the committee. I believe that if you check with the clerk—and I hope you do—you'll find that this piece of it is out of order. The rest of it, I believe, is worthy of discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, in the interest of turning this over to all of you for discussion, I'm going to rule that it is in order, because I would like to bring this.... It looks like we may actually have some kind of consensus here—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm still speaking, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Could you ask the clerk, please? It is a valid point.