Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was talking about the risks related to confidential data. I don't think the right way to protect people is to use them for political advertising and fundraising. I invite the people listening to us to go to the Bloc Québécois website, click on the “News” section and go see the news about Xavier Barsalou-Duval. The article says that the Liberals aren't nice because they don't want to hear from victims. That's not true. Then look at the ad soliciting donations at the bottom of the page. There, you can donate $10, $20 or $50 to the party to support its efforts. How charming.
I think the best way to protect citizens and vulnerable people is to finish this study and come up with solutions. While the entire public service is being mobilized to search for documents and check with legal services, it's not helping citizens. It's inconceivable. We need to finish this study as quickly as possible to serve Canadians as soon as possible.
Those listening to us can see that, on the Bloc Québécois website, the page featuring the article on that subject contains an ad soliciting funds. But let me tell you one thing. The committee's primary objective is to serve the public in relation to the Driver Inc. scheme. What is being proposed would snowball. That's a French expression. If such a request is made to the Department of Transport, it will impact all the other departments. It will affect public safety and human resources. The human resources department will have to assign employees to the task, and so on. There will be a mad dash within the various departments to figure out who will have to respond to the request. So it will have an impact.
I did a quick search and found that the request affects seven departments, including Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency, which is not surprising, since it also involves the T4A slip. So that would be the impact on the public service should this motion pass. I suppose some are pleased about that.
Imagine all the duplicate work required within the departments to verify and align all that. This is a logistical challenge that the government cannot undertake. It's not feasible. Certain elements of the motion are not even legal. Some of the information cannot be provided. Not to mention the effort for consistency among departments, which would have to consult each other about what they're going to present. That would result in an incredible overload of interdepartmental work.
I would have liked to estimate the cost of such a request. I tried to find figures, but it's not assessable. We can't quantify the cost of such a request to the machinery of government.
If every department received such a request, it would have a devastating effect on the proper management of our government. It would have a direct impact on service delivery. The best way to help citizens is to provide them with services. Service delivery must not stop. We must continue to serve our citizens properly.
With regard to the Driver Inc. model, we must continue to assess international permit applications, assess everything related to federal jurisdiction, including interprovincial matters, and verify compliance. Compliance must be assessed by the federal government, which has certain obligations. This is a matter for the Department of Transportation. The Minister of Transport made that clear when he came here. The Department of Transportation handles all sorts of things.
The committee has studies pending. We're getting letters asking the committee to do a study on ports. We're told that it is important for us to do this study soon because things are happening now. There are other files that require the committee's attention. We heard from the Minister of Finance that extremely important issues arising from the budget will have to be examined by this committee. So, once again, we have to look at other extremely important issues.
You can't have it both ways. You can't say on the one hand that you want to conclude this study and on the other hand make grand speeches saying that you are shocked that there were no meetings last week, that citizens are paying for this and that the Liberals don't want to hear from witnesses. We have to start by telling the truth, we have to start by telling the real story—and then we will be able to finish this study. Today, the session began with a lie and a procedural game. I don't want to play that game. That's not the kind of politics I want to engage in. The opposition parties must begin by apologizing to the families and telling them the truth. They must tell them that the Liberals were willing to meet with them, but in private. It is wrong to tell them that the Liberals did not want to meet with them.
It is important to continue providing services to citizens. Therefore, we must not shut down the government apparatus or use it for other purposes. If we use it to search for documents or redact them, other accidents might occur in the meantime. Anything could happen. We don't want any more accidents involving drivers taking part in the “Driver Inc.” scheme during our study because it's taking so long. There are solutions we want to bring forward. We can't fix everything overnight, but at least the committee can make recommendations with the help of our analysts. I am convinced that the analysts have enough material at this point to do their job.
Despite this, we agreed to hold two more meetings, but suddenly, they were no longer asking for just two meetings. They were potentially asking for three, or as many as there were witnesses. But it's easy to find as many witnesses as you want.
However, we accepted the proposed witnesses. All we asked was that we stick to the original motion. But they keep adding witnesses, and it's never enough. Even if we say yes to the original motion, they'll add more. If we go back to the basics and hold two meetings with the witnesses on the list, including families of victims of accidents involving drivers taking part in the Drivers Inc. scheme, we'll be able to finish this study and make recommendations. That's all we're asking.
It's important for the public and my colleagues across the way to know that we want the families to be able to come and testify in camera. It's a matter of dignity and respect.
Adopting the proposed motion could set a dangerous precedent for this committee and for other parliamentary committees. Imagine what would happen if the government received another such request from another committee. It would be forced to look for emails, exchanges and briefing notes for two committees, then three, then four, and so on. As a representative of the government, I'm telling you that is unacceptable.
If we let this pass and the committee receives documents that are mostly redacted, then it would seem as if the government has something to hide. However, it would simply be protecting the confidentiality of witnesses or vulnerable persons whose safety could be threatened if certain information were made public—but I suppose that doesn't matter to the opposition parties. Loss of life in an accident is serious. Everyone has said so. However, losing one's life or one's integrity publicly because of the disclosure of confidential documents is, I suppose, nothing serious for the opposition parties. It is serious for us. For us, the integrity of our citizens must remain absolute. There is no place for the disclosure of compromising documents that could put certain people at risk.
There is growing inconsistency regarding the urgency of addressing the issue of non-compliance in the trucking industry. On the one hand, they say they want to finish the study, and on the other, they are asking for the impossible. Why? Because they don't want to finish it. Yet all they have to do is say yes today. All it takes is to accept the solution by proposing an amendment to hold two meetings and invite the witnesses on the list.
During my first meeting with Mr. Barsalou-Duval, we discussed the fact that one aspect had been overlooked. I told him that I, too, thought I had overlooked other aspects. Indeed, we did not discuss the medical aspect. Drivers are at risk. I brought this up with my family doctor. I had a good discussion with her. As a diabetic, I told her that I had a concern about the “Driver Inc.” model, namely that some people might be less fit to drive. She replied that she had many patients who were truck drivers and that, when they were receiving proper treatment, were being monitored medically, and had good working conditions, with working hours that complied with standards, they could do their job very well without restrictions.
I was satisfied with my doctor's response. I did not mention it again to Mr. Barsalou-Duval. He had told me that it was not a bad idea to add witnesses to talk about diabetes, but he wondered where they could be added to the list of witnesses, given that we only had two meetings and the list was already getting long. He even told me that he was willing to remove a witness from the list so that we could invite a witness, perhaps from Diabetes Canada, to talk to us about the medical situation for drivers. However, my doctor convinced me that this might not be necessary and that diabetics have the right to live their lives as they choose if they have the right treatment.
I'm talking about diabetes, but that's just one example. I could talk about hypertension or any other occupational disease. I just gave you the example of diabetes because I'm a little more familiar with that disease. All of this is related to discussions that Mr. Barsalou-Duval and I had about going back to two meetings.
If we go back to two meetings, we have to look at the witness list. I, for one, have dropped some names.
During my first discussion with Mr. Xavier Barsalou‑Duval, he also told me that we had forgotten the towing companies. I took a step back and said that maybe we could invite them. However, as I told him, they arrive on the scene after the accident has occurred. They don't fall under any provincial or federal authority. Most of the time, they're called by the Sûreté du Québec, the provincial police or another police force, as the case may be. If necessary, we will hear from them, but personally, I don't see the point of inviting representatives of towing companies. I don't think these people will contribute anything further. I don't think the analysts will make recommendations that towing needs to be done better in situations involving Driver Inc. In light of all the aspects I've heard in the testimony, I don't think towing will have an impact. However, I respected Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's request and agreed to hear what witnesses from the towing family had to say. All of a sudden, a towing company was added to the list of witnesses. As for the others, they go off on a tangent, they head in a different direction and they add even more to the list. All these additions increase the number of documents.
Let's stop accusing the Liberals of wanting to shut down this study. In fact, what we want is to achieve our purpose. This motion is too broad, as my colleagues very well know. They are very familiar with political games. There are experienced members around the table who know exactly what I'm talking about. A motion that is too broad can quickly violate the meaning of the study we are currently conducting. In doing so, you can veer off on any topic and head off in any direction. Why do those members want to do that? They just want to nitpick. They don't want to solve the Driver Inc. problem, they want to find something that could somewhat embarrass a department, a public servant, a deputy minister or a minister. Who knows? They hope to find some nugget they can use for political gain. They want to be able to put it on their Facebook page or Twitter account, or on the Bloc Québécois website and attach a nice dollar sign to it. That way, they can show people what they found and use the opportunity to ask for money. They are using the families of survivors and saying that the Liberals are mean in order to ask for donations.
That's not what we want as a committee. We want something better. We want parliamentary practice to be used to solve a problem or an issue. We want to understand the file, obtain clarification from the witnesses and verify non-compliance. We also want to check everything that is going on in the trucking industry.
What do towing companies have to do with that? I have no idea. Perhaps we'll find out when their representatives come and testify. I'll prepare some questions. I could ask them if they can explain what caused the accident involving the vehicle they towed. They can speculate as much as they want, but they won't be able to answer my question, because that's not what their job is. They have nothing to do with it. Think about it logically.
Despite everything, they'll go ahead and say yes to that. Why? Because they want more witnesses.
They're missing the point. This lacks seriousness. They're not taking the right approach to achieve our goal.
Survivors' families are part of that. Why don't we meet with them in private, at an in camera meeting? We could listen to their stories of grief and suffering.
Of course, if it takes place in camera, unfortunately you won't be able to select excerpts and post them on Facebook and then solicit donations of $10, $20 or $50. You won't be able to do that if the meeting is held in camera.
If you really want these people to come and testify, they should do so in camera. That would be the most dignified way for a committee to hear from families who have lost a loved one.
There's nothing worse than misleading or lying to these families. Please stop looking these people in the eye and telling them that the nasty Liberals don't want them to appear before the committee.