Evidence of meeting #16 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lauzon.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much. I don't believe that's a point of order, Mr. Lawrence. It is a point of order, but is it in order? No.
I will turn the floor back over to Mr. Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
It will be a double break. Thank you, Mr. Albas.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We have a double point of order to allow Mr. Lauzon to take a drink.
There are 12 minutes left.
Go ahead, Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
As interesting as it would be to hear Mr. Greaves' thoughts on the pipeline to the Pacific coast, I want to reiterate that the point of order was on relevance. Unfortunately, Mr. Lauzon has strayed and is not coming back to the motion every three and a half minutes, like a pro. He's getting a little slow. I really want him to get back on his A-game.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
I think Mr. Lauzon just spoke about the importance of proper training for drivers. He was making the link to [Inaudible—Editor], but I will still remind all members to bring it back to the subject matter at hand.
Mr. Lauzon, the floor is yours. You have 11 minutes left.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I will bring it back in a few minutes. The relevance is there.
I was explaining that training is extremely important. In the various trades, requirements are so high. For a pipeline welder, every welded joint is X-rayed. If he misses three, he loses his qualification. That's what I'm trying to tell you.
This is a widespread model in Canada. When an X-ray of a welded joint shows that a welder missed something, not only does the welder have to redo the joint, but he also gets a ticket. After three failures, like demerit points for driving, he loses his licence.
In Quebec and Canada, there are point systems for licences. They just need to be organized and enforced. Road inspectors are asking us to do this. It could be among the committee's recommendations. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval may say that such recommendations go too far, but I am somewhat tempted to go there. The main motion we're debating aims to find solutions and conclude this study, then make recommendations. I want to tell the provinces to get involved in training and to go straight to where it hurts, which is demerit points, as with welders. When you get a ticket, you lose the opportunity to do your job.
Driving is a privilege. I told my daughter so. My daughter got her first driver's licence and her first car. This is her first winter driving. The first thing I told her was that driving is a privilege. I told her she had to pay close attention to her lessons, pass her tests, follow the rules, deal with bad weather and, above all, deal with reckless drivers. I had to tell her that she would have to face incompetent big truck drivers because she would be driving on Highway 50 every day. So my daughter is learning to drive on Highway 50. You can't prevent a child from expressing themselves or growing up because you live in a rural area. So I have to live with the consequences of my daughter facing trucks every day. So if I don't care about bereaved families and this committee, I'm in the wrong place. I wouldn't want my daughter to be in that situation. I wouldn't want anyone's child to be in that situation. I wouldn't want responsible parents to have their child's death on their conscience because they gave them the opportunity to drive at 17 and they had an accident because of a driver involved in the Driver Inc. scheme. I want this to be resolved.
That's why I'm making the link with welding. I'm just as passionate about qualification certificates to work on pipelines. I taught high-pressure welding for pipeline work for 21 years. I always told my students that welding certification was a privilege. The same goes for drivers, like the ones we heard from during this study. Those drivers made the effort to get good training, gain experience and learn how to drive well. They work for responsible companies and don't deserve unfair competition from other drivers. It could affect a family member. Now, in connection with the federal government's broader objectives, we must work together to fight the Driver Inc. model and protect workers' fundamental rights.
Very little has been said about Quebec's Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail and its equivalent occupational health and safety bodies in other provinces. This truly is an occupational health and safety issue. We must consider drivers' health, including their mental health. We must also consider their families. When a spouse drives a truck longer than the allowed maximum number of hours, their family is worried. It's holding the drivers hostage. They don't talk about it, because they're under pressure.
We can resolve this together. We can achieve our goals. We can ensure healthy and fair competition if we want to. We can also improve road safety indirectly. Road traffic controllers and provincial government representatives are asking for collaboration, standardized rules and information sharing. It's not just a matter of making lists and publishing them. What they want, and what the majority of the population wants, is for everyone to work together to come up with a solution to the Driver Inc. problem.
You know, Driver Inc. is not a fringe phenomenon. I must tell you that it's a real threat. I rarely talk about my concerns and my family, but every time I see Jade leaving on Highway 50, I feel a knot in my stomach that I shouldn't have, for many reasons. We can go back to the design of the highway. We could say it's a trucking route or it's because of reflection. If we went way back, we could say that it was because the Quebec government ran out of money, so it settled on fewer lanes and built a single road with adjacent lanes running in both directions. These days, they're improvising with temporary barriers and trying to put markers down the middle of the road. Every day, cars collide with the dividing markers. I have all kinds of reasons to be concerned. However, I wanted to convey to you today how important it is for me to resolve this matter, and to make it clear that I am not speaking lightly.
Thousands of trucks a year use our highways. I often mention Highway 50, but you all have a highway used by trucks in your riding. Wherever there are trucks, whether at ports or in large cities where truckers have to operate in very limited spaces to make deliveries, people are at risk. We need skilled drivers, with proper training, who receive fair and equitable wages from companies.
Please, it would be much better if these issues were not exploited for political and partisan purposes through the feelings of a bereaved family. Today, we have an opportunity to correct a significant flaw. I know there's not much time left, but I want to say one more thing before I leave. If we absolutely want to come back to work together and settle this matter, I ask you, if possible, to accept the following solution. I propose that we hold two and a half meetings, two of which are related to the list of witnesses we have. Then I propose that we hold a half meeting to hear from the bereaved family, and each of us in turn can offer them our condolences. We will have the opportunity to talk to them, to look them in the eye and to offer them our condolences. We will have the opportunity to tell them that we are working on the issue. I will never tell them that it is the Bloc Québécois' fault for telling lies, and so on. This is not the time to play politics. It's time to grieve with the families, but it must be done in camera.
It's also important to remove the request for disclosure of communications concerning the trucking sector. No such request should be made to the government.
Now, we absolutely must adopt this motion in earnest and address the study on ports, which would be of great benefit to us. Together, we have a chance to achieve a strong “win-win-win” outcome for the Port of Montreal and Contrecoeur projects. They represent hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. There are thousands of jobs in your community, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. It is a viable and profitable project. It is for the good of the organizations, the community, and the businesses in your community, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. It would be extremely profitable to move forward and address this study so that we can look at—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.
It's now 6:47. I'm going to suspend until the next meeting. Then we'll continue the discussion.
This meeting is suspended until the next meeting.
[The meeting was suspended at 6:47 p.m., Tuesday, November 25]
[The meeting resumed at 15:32 p.m., Tuesday, December 2]
November 25th, 2025 / 6:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We will now 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 take a few moments to make some comments for the benefit of members. First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, please click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation of 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. I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
As members will recall, the committee suspended its meeting on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, while debate on the motion was ongoing. Therefore, we are resuming this meeting. The following motion is still on the floor.
For the benefit of members, the motion reads as follows:
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, and Canada Post.
We left off with Mr. Lauzon having the floor, followed by Mr. Albas and Mr. Barsalou-Duval. Members, if you would like to add your names to the list, by all means say so, and I will add your name.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.
Conservative
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I thought we had something about the tow trucks association of Quebec. Did I miss that?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I will ask the clerk to verify whether it should be in here, and if it should, Mr. Albas, I'll fix that and confirm with you.
Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for setting the stage.
We'll start with some good news. We're going to let you speak today. We'll listen to you. We may have a solution to offer you. We have decided today to kick the ball back your way and put an end to this study. I will be tabling an amendment shortly. It is a significant amendment. It will be a very good compromise. I believe this amendment will allow us to achieve our goals together.
I'm glad to see a Conservative member and a Bloc Québécois member among the next people on the speaking list. They'll be able to vote on this amendment.
After tabling my amendment, I will put my name back on the list and we will decide whether we want to end the debate and vote on this amendment. Also, it will allow us to settle certain things that were said or done during committee meetings. I'm prepared to make a correction, if the clerk reminds us that we left out a Quebec towing company. It will be a good compromise with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Conservatives, who wanted to hear from a series of proposed witnesses. The chair disclosed that today.
This is a truly sincere attempt on my part. From the beginning, I have maintained the same position, and that is still the case. Even if I don't find it relevant, I agree that the committee should receive, with dignity, survivors of truck-related accidents involving companies that use the Driver Inc. model. They will be able to come and testify here, but we will have to give them at least the choice to do so in camera. That will be up to them. It will be up to the committee members to decide whether they want to offer these survivors dignity.
I think that's the best compromise we can make among ourselves. I'm not talking about requiring an in camera meeting, but about offering grieving families, or families affected by the events, the opportunity to testify in camera so as to avoid turning grief into a political weapon. That weapon can be just as harmful for politics as for families.
It will also prevent Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and the Bloc Québécois from using bereaved families as leverage to force the disclosure of information, such as private tax information, which could affect tens of thousands of Canadians.
Then, as a guarantee, we would be ready to vote, to make it easier today. It's not because I don't want to speak. Rather, I think we could get to where we want to go fairly quickly. I think the main purpose of this study is to adopt a report and then force the government to make it official. That's what our analysts have been waiting for all along. I've repeated it often enough.
If we continue at this pace, we won't achieve that result. Witnesses have travelled from all over the country. These people made sacrifices to prepare. For us, speaking for five minutes is nothing, but for other people, it can be more difficult. They did it to help us move forward.
What we are doing as a committee demonstrates a lack of respect for the witnesses. It's also important that we begin other studies.
I am thinking in particular of the port study, which we all care about and which closely or directly affects our ridings. That topic specifically concerns Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and me, particularly what is happening in Montreal.
We are talking about the original motions, which were tabled at the beginning. If we really wanted to invite accident survivors to testify before the committee, why did we not do so at the outset? Why did we not have that intention? It is because, as we were working on that file, the choice of witnesses was guided by the aims and the political agenda of some members, in order to potentially influence public policy. That should not be mixed in with decisions made at a committee. Instead of doing what we did, my colleagues waited and are now using survivors as pawns for a totally different purpose.
Here is what really bothered me. In the week I was researching the subject, I wanted to see the article. By clicking on it, a new window opened. It was a funding request. In other words, people are asked to make a donation of $5, $10, $15 or $25. I am talking about the article that says the Liberals do not want bereaved families or accident victims to testify before the committee. This is disinformation.
In addition, there is coordination between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois on the fact that we have included in our motion the request for documents that have been drafted since 2018.
We all have a distinct role to play on this committee. However, our common role is to make recommendations as quickly as possible. We know that this is mostly a provincial issue, and the federal government has a lot of work to do. The Government of Quebec has already started taking steps, and so have we.
We started with a measure targeting the T4A slip. In addition, we have made investments and our budget provides for massive investments totalling $77 million over four years to continue working on the file.
We know that the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives have joined forces. This afternoon, I think the Conservatives, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals could join forces and vote in favour of the amendment I am going to propose. The ball is in your court. This afternoon, I propose that you vote in favour of my amendment so that we can move on. We are all going to have a wonderful holiday season, and the analysts are going to have a lot of work to do. Then we can move on to another study. We are going to work to find good recommendations and move the file forward. It is important for the public to know that we are all here for the same reason: to get things done.
This shows a lack of respect not only for the public and the witnesses, but especially for all those who support the committee, including the interpreters and all the staff. I will not name them all now, but I could do so later. In addition, it shows a lack of respect for witnesses by preventing them from sharing their remarks. Their comments are extremely important and serve to find a solution. We have to get this done. They have all stepped up to the plate. They came to tell us exactly what they thought.
I was elected to do that work, not to filibuster. I was not elected to waste your time, my time and the time of all these wonderful people who support us. I was elected so that I could stand by my beliefs and get things done.
The Bloc Québécois is calling for the disclosure of personal tax information. These are potentially the documents of tens of thousands of Canadians and businesses, which would be targeted without their consent. In so doing, we are playing games with them. That would be putting businesses at risk, and that is not what we want.
We do not want to mobilize the public service. However, we need it to mobilize people to resolve the “Driver Inc.” issue. We need it as a pillar for communicating with our provincial and territorial partners so that we can move forward on this issue. It is not our job to mobilize it to do anything other than its work. If we really want to solve the “Driver Inc.” issue, we have the will and the opportunity to do so this morning. We have already started by lifting the T4A moratorium. However, this is only one step.
The Bloc Québécois tells us that it has 10 recommendations, one of which has been addressed. That is exactly the purpose of this committee: to propose recommendations and work with our analysts to get to the end of the study. It is the right way to make recommendations, as long as they are not unconstitutional, they do not encroach on provincial jurisdiction and there is no risk of getting into legal proceedings. We do not adopt recommendations by holding press conferences, but rather by proposing them to the committee, putting them on the table and finding solutions to the “Driver Inc.” issue.
You know I could go on and on. However, my objective today is to let you speak if you propose recommendations. I really set the stage to give you a chance to spend happy holidays, wrap up this study and move on to something else.
Please do not use witnesses in the wrong way. That is why, on Monday, after thinking about my business over the weekend, I tabled a notice of motion that will be admissible tomorrow around 3 p.m. I still want to read this motion to you for the record of this committee: “That the committee report to the House on its firm condemnation of the use of grieving families, victims and survivors to fundraise for a political party.” It is not too much to ask not to combine a page on the victims with a funding request, or to use it elsewhere. If you click on the link that I provided to you, that I provided to the public and to everyone, the first thing that jumps out at you when reading the article about people in mourning is a request for donations of $5, $10, $15, and $25. We should not use it like that.
I am getting to my amendment. It is simple. I will read the amended motion in its entirety for the clerk, and I will take this opportunity to ask the staff behind to send it to the clerk in both official languages so that he can distribute both versions at the same time, without taking a 15-minute break. I think you understand that.
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 in camera, if witnesses would prefer, 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, Ontario Trucking Association, BC Trucking Association, and Canada Post.
That drafting instructions to enable the development of a comprehensive report to the House of Commons be provided by the committee immediately after this testimony.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
I have a point of order.
Mr. Chair, given that this is my first chance for weeks.... Hi. I'm glad to see you again.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
It's good to be back in this chamber.
My point of order is that the amendment—the so-called amendment that the member opposite has placed—substantially changes the original motion, so much so that it supplants the entire motion. I would like for you to rule it out of order because it substantially changes the intent of the original motion by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Albas.
I don't believe it does. I feel that this is an attempt by Mr. Lauzon to try to find common ground on this issue, which has had the committee seized for quite some time. I think it merits discussion to see whether there is a path forward here.
I see Mr. Barsalou-Duval's hand is up, so I'd like to give him an opportunity to speak to it as well.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I have a point of order.
These things could have been ironed out beforehand if there was any effort on the Liberal side to have dialogue with us. However, this is clearly out of order, and I challenge the chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Okay, there's a challenge to the chair. I'll turn it over to our clerk.
The Clerk
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 5; yeas 4)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Lauzon.
Ms. Nguyen, do you want your name on as well?
Mr. Albas.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Mr. Chair, I believe that he had his motion; it was put down, and now I'm putting my hand up to speak to the original motion. I think you had me down to speak after Mr. Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
No, I'm still on it. You just asked for a point of order.