ETHI Committee Meeting

     I'm going to call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

    Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, February 12, 2026, section 14.1 of the Lobbying Act and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, September 17, 2025, the committee is resuming the statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

    Before I introduce our witness, I will remind you that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. Please make sure you have the earpiece in if you need it.

    I'd like to welcome our first witness today from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. Dylan Hanley is here. He's the senior vice-president of public affairs.

    Mr. Hanley, you have up to five minutes to address the committee.

     Go ahead, sir.

     Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today.

     My name is Dylan Hanley. I'm the senior vice-president for public affairs at CIJA, the advocacy agent of Jewish Federations of Canada, representing hundreds of thousands of Jewish Canadians.

    Thank you for the opportunity to address you as you undertake the statutory review of the Lobbying Act.

     That's all the French that I will attempt. My apologies for it. I'm working to make sure my kids are properly bilingual.

    At its core, our concern is not about any single provision of the act. It's about whether Parliament's intent, clearly expressed through legislation and committee recommendations, is being upheld or effectively overridden through administrative interpretation by the Commissioner of Lobbying.

     We have concerns in two areas: sponsored travel of parliamentarians and parliamentary internship programs.

    First is sponsored travel. Parliament allowed sponsored travel because it recognized its value. Public office holders benefit from direct first-hand exposure to complex global issues they're asked to weigh in on. CIJA's missions to Israel are structured, non-partisan and educational. Participants engage with Israeli, Palestinian and Canadian officials, as well as experts, journalists and civil society.

     However, the current interpretation, advanced by the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, has created a clear contradiction. Parliament clearly permits sponsored travel under section 15 of the conflict of interest code, but the regulatory approach effectively prevents participation by including sponsored travel under gifts with a $200 limit. In practice, this has largely nullified the exemption Parliament deliberately created, undermining the will of parliamentarians.

    We are already seeing the impact. According to the Ethics Commissioner's most recent annual report, only 15 MPs participated in sponsored international travel in 2025, the lowest number in 15 years.

     Second is parliamentary internships, where the contradiction is even clearer. In 2002, CIJA established a multipartisan parliamentary internship program to give young Canadians first-hand experience working on Parliament Hill. The objective was simple: to expose participants to public service and inspire future careers in political life. In October 2018, the Ethics Commissioner issued an advisory opinion stating that interns placed by third parties constitute a benefit under the code, despite the code making no explicit reference to interns.

     The following month, the Commissioner of Lobbying issued a ruling concurring with the Ethics Commissioner that providing paid interns to MPs free of charge is a gift or benefit. It's also considered a gift in the context of rule 10 of the Lobbyists' Code of Conduct. In compliance with the rules, CIJA immediately suspended the program.

     Parliament has since spoken directly on this issue. In 2022, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose report was concurred on by the House, stated clearly that parliamentary internships are invaluable opportunities and recommended that interns be excluded from the definition of benefit. Yet, despite that clear expression of parliamentary will, the outcome remains unchanged in practice. While the Ethics Commissioner has moved toward allowing internships, the Commissioner of Lobbying's interpretation continues to prevent organizations subject to the Lobbying Act from offering them.

     Taken together, these cases point to a broader issue. The activities themselves are legitimate, educational and non-partisan. Parliament has either explicitly permitted them or, in the case of internships, clearly indicated its intent to do so, and yet regulatory interpretations made them impractical. This is not simply stricter oversight; it's divergence from Parliament's intent.

     We're strongly supportive of both safeguards and full transparency for sponsored travel, public disclosure, and detailed reporting of participants and costs. For internships, there should be a clear exemption for sponsored interns alongside public disclosure of the sponsoring organization, the intern and the duration of placement. Transparency can address concerns without eliminating the programs themselves.

     In closing, Parliament made its intent clear, both through legislation and through committee recommendations adopted by the House. We're concerned that current interpretations have, in effect, overridden Parliament's intent. We respectfully urge this committee to restore alignment between Parliament's will and regulatory practice.

    Thank you.

     Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

    We're going to start with our first round of questioning. We're going to go to Mr. Barrett for six minutes.

    Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

     Thanks very much.

     I'll note that in, I think it was 2022, I did go on the travel sponsored by CIJA, and that informs my view of the range of issues that were covered during the experience, but also on the subject of sponsored travel.

    I think that, at the core, the most important thing is the transparency that comes from the disclosures that are made thereafter. It's important that sponsored travel is reported. It's important that the reporting is transparent and that, for example, it's not necessary for me to say that I took that trip with my spouse because the total value, the details, the dates, are public. I think that's important, as is the case with all lobbying activity.

    When it comes to the question of whether or not it's a gift, do you think it would simplify the matter if members were given, through the House of Commons, through the consolidated revenue fund, budgets to engage in this kind of travel, be it with or without the coordination of third party organizations like yours, for example?

    The root of our concern is the opportunity for MPs to be able to go, experience and hear from folks on the ground. I think that would be an option that probably would make sense for Parliament to look at, at least in terms of increasing the funds that are available to MPs.

    Again, I think that, through transparency, everything that takes place is a matter of the public record, and we'd like to see it restored. We think that folks like you—and that was before my time back at CIJA—hopefully have benefited from the opportunity to learn and gather facts on the ground.

     I have colleagues who've participated in sponsored travel, parliamentarians representing all parties in the House, who have brought back different experiences as the result of sponsored travel. Some organizations, of course, are captured by the interpretation made by the commissioner. CIJA is one of those. Some government-funded organizations or governments are not captured by the interpretation made by the commissioner.

    We agree that transparency is the most important piece, that the reporting that's available to the public is important.

    What would you say to concerns about the risk of foreign interference? Some would say that perhaps in the case of CIJA, what's the straight line distance between the Government of Israel and the member of Parliament who's accepting the travel?

    The line is stark. We don't speak for or at the direction of or in any kind of coordination with the Government of Israel. We represent Jewish Canadians, hundreds of thousands of them, through Jewish federations across the country. The Jewish people have a unique, strong bond to the land of Israel. That is what we're looking at when we're hosting these sorts of delegations.

     I'd also note that sponsorship by foreign governments is allowed.

     Right, and I know that's sometimes one of the questions raised about sponsored travel, where it's sponsored travel by a government, like the economic office for Taiwan, which is publicly disclosed. It's for a legitimate purpose and that transparency exists.

    On the trip that I took with CIJA, I did the things that you referenced. I had the opportunity to meet with Palestinian officials, Israeli officials and Canadian officials in the region. I think I benefited greatly from that.

    What do you think the effect is on other organizations? Results Canada is an organization you'd be familiar with, sponsoring travel to countries in Africa. I know colleagues from all parties who have taken part in that. What do you think the loss is to the public discourse in the absence of a change that would either allow the permissibility of these trips or budgetary funding from the House for these trips?

     I think the loss is in members of Parliament's connections to Canadian civil society, but also global issues. When we're talking about clamping down on risks, we're talking about risk mitigation. There's no such thing as zero risk, right?

     When you buy an alarm for your house, etc., there's not zero risk. The transparency and accountability provisions that we have in this country are the strongest as far as I know amongst any peer country, the most stringent. I think here this is a balance between ensuring MPs have the ability to connect with the issues that they're going to be confronting as MPs, and also connect with Canadian civil society. I think it's very important.

     Thank you.

    You have the floor for six minutes, Ms. Lapointe.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Hanley.

    I participated in the trip with your organization in 2018 and I had a nice experience. Earlier, you spoke about some unique things, and so I would like to tell my colleagues that my riding has a very unique Jewish community, namely, the Tosh community, which was established in 1964 and is home to 3,000 individuals, including 350 families. It's very unique. Its primary connection is to New York city and not to Israel.

    During that trip, I was happy to meet with government representatives, people from Parliament and Palestinians in a bid to understand why you need an organization that represents the interests of various Jewish communities. My understanding was that these communities are not homogeneous and that the Jewish community in my riding is very Orthodox.

    You welcomed the recent government announcement on the Canada community security program in light of the troubling rise of anti-Semitism. I should point out that Boisbriand has not experienced that over the past five years. That said, given that members of the Tosh community have a distinctive style of dressing, the people of Boisbriand have always been fairly apprehensive about them, even though they don't cause any problems and they keep to their community.

     We have seen a rise in anti-Semitism across Canada over the past few years, and so I would imagine that your organization has had significant opportunities to engage directly with the Minister of Public Safety and with departmental officials to express concern and to advocate for programs, such as the Canada community security program.

    With that in mind, would you say that this is a compelling example that illustrates the importance of a transparent and accessible lobbying regime that allows organizations, such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, to express their concerns, to make their voice heard and ultimately help shape policies that protect vulnerable communities?

    The community in my riding has received funding to set up security systems.

     Sure, and apologies for not being able to respond in French. One hundred per cent the Canada community security program funding that was announced in the spring economic statement and another tranche specifically for the Jewish community earlier in the spring are of significant importance to protecting the Jewish community in a very difficult time.

     For the last three years, and escalating in the last year, we've seen synagogues surrounded. We've seen schools and places of worship shot at, etc., and this is one of the responses. The other one is Bill C-9, which we hope to see brought forward, that will stop protest around places of worship and hopefully better protect Canadians. What we need to see more of still is enforcement of the law. We've been calling on the federal government to utilize the federal convening power to convene other levels of government and see greater enforcement. We're hopeful that over time we will see this. Of course, we work very closely with Minister Anandasangaree and, again, police forces across the country, provincial governments across the country, to try to make sure our community is kept safe.

    Do you think the first recommendation should have a distinction between an in-house lobbyist and a consultant lobbyist?

    Do you support the adoption of a registration by default process?

     I don't think we have any issues with being registered as lobbyists and with the distinction between in-house and outside. Obviously, I'm sure you've had representatives of private sector business and others coming in and talking about all of that. Again, I think that we're perfectly happy to be registered, in full compliance and 100% transparent about all the communications that we have with government.

    I would also like to hear your views on the second recommendation.

    You've looked at the recommendations, haven't you?

     Yes.

    The second recommendation is to amend the Lobbying Act to deem members of boards of directors employees of the organizations or corporations on whose boards they sit.

    Can you speak to the potential impact of this recommendation?

     I think, again, that when you're talking about regulating lobbying—which is an important thing to do, because transparency and accountability are important—it's an exercise in risk mitigation for us as a community organization and, I would imagine, for plenty of other non-profits and charities. I can't speak to private companies, because I haven't yet been invited to sit on a private company board. Maybe one day I will.

    These folks are volunteers, by and large, and the words “registered lobbyist” may instill hesitation in people to participate in those activities, so I would say we would not be in favour of seeing that regulation brought into place as long as the organization is following the rules and regulations that are put out there, which again go further than in virtually any other western democracy.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

    You have the floor for six minutes, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good afternoon, Mr. Hanley. Thank you very much for joining us today.

    You spoke about the rise in crime and acts against the Jewish community, and so I would like to start by saying that I share your concerns regarding this growing problem. We are happy to see the results of the efforts taken by the Bloc Québécois to prohibit the use of religion as a tool to commit acts or promote hatred, which we find unacceptable. We know that these acts have targeted Jewish communities, among others. I am underscoring that because I think it's important, even though it's not directly connected to the issue at hand.

    Furthermore, I'm sure that as the representative of the Jewish community, you champion the interests of your members and the people you represent, in compliance with the law, obviously. Nevertheless, some organizations do not comply with the law when they fail to disclose their activities to the Commissioner of Lobbying and also fail to register. These organizations could work against your interests even though you follow the rules.

    Recently, I worked on a matter involving low-cost truck drivers, among others. One organization had lobbied the government and Liberal members without reporting these activities. I filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Lobbying, and she told me that she could not tell us whether she was conducting an investigation. I find it mind-boggling to know that there has been no accountability and that there is no information about what happens to complaints once they are filed.

    Would you agree that it would be important for the Commissioner of Lobbying to tell us about ongoing investigations and the findings to instill confidence in her work?

    I think that if we don't know what she is working on, we can't know whether she is doing her job thoroughly and whether the laws that are meant to protect people when it comes to lobbying are actually enforced.

     Thanks very much for your recognition and concern for the community.

    On this particular issue, I'm not familiar with the Driver Inc. case, so I can't comment on it directly.

    The one thing I would say is that a move towards greater transparency in investigations would also raise a hesitation about the weaponization of a complaints process, and we've seen that utilized against our community in other fora, so I think there's a balance to be had there. We don't have a specific position on that piece of what's in front of you, but I would say that there's a balance there between privacy and creating perverse incentives that....

    Thank you for the answer.

    Mr. Chair, during my last appearance at this committee, I tabled a notice of motion, and I would now like us to debate the motion. I will read it out once more to remind everyone of the motion in question:

    Mr. Chair, allow me to say what the motion is all about.

    Just hold on a second, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Mr. Hanley, please stay on for a few minutes. We are going to debate the motion that was tabled.

    Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, your motion is in order. Please explain it.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I am moving this motion today because the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities undertook a study and discovered the much-discussed Driver Inc. scheme. Some of the people at this table may not be familiar with this scheme, and so I would like to describe it briefly.

    Basically, the scheme consists in integrating someone into an organization as a subcontractor instead of hiring them as an employee. That way, organizations avoid making contributions for various kinds of benefits, such as employment insurance premiums and pension plan contributions and they also avoid paying vacation pay. Normally, organizations are required to cover that. They also don't make income tax deductions because subcontractors are paid in cash directly.

    In addition, there is no coverage for work-related accidents. Because the drivers are subcontractors, they have to pay their own insurance, and they are responsible for their own operations. There is also no overtime pay or minimum wages, and as such, no matter how hard they work, drivers don't have guaranteed wage levels. They don't have job security either, because they are subcontractors. Organizations don't need to fire them and instead, they just stop giving them work.

    This creates a system that often puts victims of these schemes at a greater disadvantage compared to regular employees. We heard from witnesses who said that this system allows businesses to reduce costs by 30%, 40% or even 50%. Additionally, individuals who are paid through this method believe that they don't even have to pay taxes or report their income. This appears to be a prevalent idea in the sector. Obviously, it puts businesses that have salaried employees and comply with the law at an entirely unfair disadvantage.

    The system also leads to all sorts of abuse and exploitation. The required number of work hours comes to mind. There is no compliance with the minimum number of hours, and this contributes to extreme driver fatigue, which in turn contributes to accidents. Indeed, statistics bear that out. In 2020, there were 336 fatalities resulting from collisions involving commercial motor vehicles in Canada. There were 362 fatalities in 2021, 376 in 2022 and 399 in 2023. The number of fatalities increased steadily each year. In Quebec alone, the number of fatalities involving heavy trucks rose by 35% in one year, in 2023–2024.

    We often see other issues associated with the Driver Inc. system. I am thinking of unroadworthy trucks that are not properly maintained and of poorly trained and underpaid drivers and immigrant workers who are forced to perform hazardous manoeuvres because of their status. As I said, there is also non-compliance with the maximum number of driving hours. We can also talk about fraud more broadly. There are tonnes of media stories about people who have been caught driving 50 or 87 hours straight. Unfortunately, this is becoming more common.

    Let us turn to the statistics. According to Statistics Canada, in 2015, there were 65,000 incorporated drivers in Canada, and over 100,000 in 2025. Quebec had approximately 9,000 incorporated drivers in 2015 compared to 11,000 today. Ontario had 27,000 incorporated drivers in 2015 and 53,000 in 2025. A look at the latest data shows the number rose from 33,000 to 53,000 between 2020 and 2025. That's an increase of 20,000. The number of incorporated drivers in Ontario has virtually doubled in five years, while the number has increased by 1,800 in Quebec and 26,000 in Canada. This means that 20,000 of the 26,000 incorporated drivers that were added between 2020 and 2025 were in Ontario.

    Mr. MacKinnon has told us multiple times that this issue falls under Quebec and that the province has to resolve it. However, these data clearly show that the main problem lies in Ontario. Indeed, 85% of the increase across Canada over the past five years is from Ontario. I believe that is as clear as it gets.

    Comparing the number of incorporated drivers with the number of employees in the transport sector provides a clearer picture of this situation. In 2025, there were 100,000 incorporated drivers in Canada compared to 200,000 employees. That means that approximately one in three truckers in Canada were incorporated drivers.

    There are 53,000 incorporated drivers in Ontario versus 66,000 employees. That's a ratio of 45%. Nearly one in two truckers in Ontario is an incorporated driver. Quebec has 11,000 incorporated drivers versus 47,000 employees, which comes to one in five drivers. Again, it's quite clear that the problem lies in Ontario.

    Furthermore, the data show that there were 215,800 trucking jobs in Canada in 2023 and 209,000 in 2025. Over 6,600 jobs were lost in two years. Why are jobs being lost in the trucking sector? Because businesses are literally going bankrupt. They can't support this system, which undermines workers and forces them to work in terrible conditions. Some businesses are following the standard rules, but they are being forced to transition to this system. Some 123 trucking and warehousing businesses in Canada filed for bankruptcy in 2020. The number rose to 424 in 2024. The number of bankruptcies skyrocketed and increased by 245%.

    According to the Association des professionnels du dépannage du Québec, 78% of traffic accidents and incidents are linked to low-cost drivers. Members of this association tow these trucks from the road. They are the ones who deal with the problem. They respond to approximately four accidents or incidents a day, and they are losing millions of dollars due to outstanding invoices. Unfortunately, quite often, companies that try to cut spending in any way that they can, including using unroadworthy trucks, underpaying their employees or exploiting immigrants don't pay their bills. As such, there are $3.8 million in outstanding invoices.

    A look at the data on temporary foreign workers shows that between 2016 and 2024, 43,000 work permits were issued in the trucking sector alone. That is quite a big number when you look at the overall data. According to some of the documents we received through a request for the production of documents at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, including correspondence between Employment and Social Development Canada and the temporary foreign worker program, 114 of the offending 149 employers were using the temporary foreign worker program. This means that 114, or 77% of the 149 employers that were using the Driver Inc. scheme were using temporary foreign workers, even though this is clearly prohibited. Anyone hiring temporary foreign workers is expected to hire them as salaried workers and not as subcontractors to work in hazardous conditions that put them at a disadvantage.

    The government has been aware of this issue for years. The trucking industry alerted the federal government about it and so did the U.S. embassy and unions, but nothing has changed. How come nothing has changed, Mr. Chair? That is our question today, and to some degree, it explains why I am moving this motion at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics today.

    We even found that Canada Post also uses low-cost drivers. In addition, through requests for access to information, we found that some agencies, including Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, have recovered millions of dollars and some $12 million in unpaid premiums were recovered between 2019 and 2024. Hundreds of millions of dollars in wages have not been reported. This is a systemic problem in Canada and in Ontario.

    Some organizations have a vested interest in making sure things don't change, that the system remains in place and that the laws are amended to allow this system, which leads to exploitation. Faced with industry demands, the government decided to implement a pilot project, and in 2021, Employment and Social Development Canada used a pilot project to survey businesses in Ontario to see whether this was an actual problem. A sample found that 60% of the businesses surveyed in Ontario were non-compliant.

    The government announced a $26.3‑million investment over five years in the 2022 economic update to address this issue and said that the funds would be provided to Employment and Social Development Canada. That was good news. However, the update also stated that further details would be provided in subsequent economic updates and budgets. What became of that? There was nothing in all subsequent government documents, including the 2023 economic update, budget 2023 and budget 2024, all the way to 2025. The only time something was included was last fall, when an announcement about T4A slips was made after we exerted pressure. I will speak to that later.

    A new lobby group was created after the 2022 economic update, and it organized a founding gala and threw a huge party. The lobby group is known as the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA. The association invited a variety of Liberal members. A look at photos from 2023 shows there was swift response to the 2022 economic update. The photos show Liberal members, including Sonia Sidhu, Iqra Khalid, Francesco Sorbara, George Chahal, Maninder Sidhu, Ahmed Hussen, Ruby Sahota, Rechie Valdez and Sukh Dhaliwal. Some of these members are no longer in office. More members may have been in attendance, but those are the ones I could identify in the photos that were taken at the founding gala. Obviously, attending a lobbyist's founding gala is not a crime. It does show that the lobby group is doing its job, that it's engaging with people and trying to influence them. However, seeing a big number of Liberal members attending the launch of a lobby group does raise some questions and can prompt you to dig deeper.

     Which businesses or organizations are behind the CTOA? We dug a bit deeper and found a group called Kapow Communications, which manages public communications for the CTOA, an organization that supports the Driver Inc. model and believes that the system has positive benefits, despite the information I have already shared with you. Other businesses include HK United Trucks, Harman Transport, KJS Transport, Sun Transportation Systems, JB Rand Express, Mig Freight, Air & Oceanland, Autobahn Freight Lines, United Group of Companies and Truck Solutions. The spokesperson, Mr. Jaskaran Singh Sandhu, is a close ally of the Prime Minister and used to be with the World Sikh Organization of Canada.

    In short, when we looked up the shareholders and senior leadership of these businesses, which are all members of the CTOA, the lobby group that supports the Driver Inc. model, we found that these individuals had something in common: almost all of them are Liberal Party donors. I don't know whether this is a coincidence, but it does raise a few questions, especially since an article published in Le Journal de Montréal last December reported that individuals behind the CTOA had contributed over $85,000. The latest information we could find shows that this amount is now in excess of $100,000.

    What business groups are behind the CTOA? Are they trustworthy businesses that can guarantee good, secure jobs? Let us talk about Harman Transport, one of the businesses I named. One of its drivers was involved in an accident on Highway 30 in July 2022 that claimed the lives of 42-year-old Nancy Lefrançois and 11-year-old Loïc. The driver, Baljeet Singh, fled to India and then moved to the United States. He was extradited to Canada and will now stand trial. The same company was involved—

    Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I will have to dismiss Mr. Harvey because he has a commitment at five o'clock, and then you can continue with your intervention.

     Mr. Hanley, unfortunately, I do understand that you have a commitment at five o'clock that you have to be at, so I'm going to dismiss you at this point, but I would invite you, sir, to provide a brief to the committee. Otherwise, since we are going to continue this study in September, I can invite you back if you like.

    Go ahead on a point of order, Ms. Chagger.

     Can we just hear from the witness how long he actually can stay? I do have questions that I would like respected.

     Okay. My understanding was that the witness could stay five o'clock.

     I'm supposed to be on a call at five o'clock. If I need to be 10 or 15 minutes late, I could be.

    Okay. That's fine. I'll give you that option.

     Thank you.

    Go on, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Okay.

    Hold on a second.

    There's a point of order from Mr. Al Soud.

     I wonder if we might seek unanimous consent to go through a round of questions, out of respect for our witness, who maybe has another 10 minutes, and then we can resume debate for as long as Mr. Barsalou-Duval would like.

    He has the floor right now. If there is unanimous consent among the committee members, I guess we can go through one round.

    It's up to you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    I don't have any objection, Mr. Chair, provided I don't lose my turn. I think this is an important topic, and the committee should address it.

    As long as the understanding is that Mr. Barsalou-Duval will have the floor when we return, I'm going to accept that.

    Mr. Hanley, are you good with that?

     That will give us about 12 and a half more minutes, if that's okay.

    Do I have unanimous consent for the proposal by Mr. Al Soud?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you.

     On the list, I have Mr. Cooper, followed by Ms. Chagger and

    Mr. Barsalou‑Duval can have two and a half minutes after Ms. Chagger if he wishes.

     Mr. Cooper, go ahead, please.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

    I certainly concur with your position on sponsored travel and agree that what is key is transparency and public disclosure. With that said, is it your position that the disclosure requirements that were in place before the lobbying commissioner effectively issued guidance around sponsored travel were sufficient?

    We certainly think they were robust. We reported on the MP who was being sponsored and the cost of the trip that they were taking. We think that was robust. Again, under the registry, any time we're communicating with a designated public office holder, we're also reporting it. If you had come on a delegation with us and suddenly we had 600 communications back and forth, that would be out there and would be transparent for people to see.

     That was one of the concerns that the lobbying commissioner had expressed what she characterized as a transparency gap insofar as lobbyists are not required to disclose if in fact they're engaging in lobbying while parliamentarians are on these types of delegations.

     Sure. I think that when you're talking about any of these measures, again, it's risk mitigation. There's no way to get to zero risk. I think that, for us, we believe that the previous regime was the right balance. Again, these are structured, transparent and non-partisan programs.

    We're not advocating for funding, generally. This year, in the face of a massive wave of anti-Semitism, was an exception to that rule. We think it's a bit of a solution in search of a problem.

     The other concern in line with what the lobbying commissioner characterized as a transparency gap was that there was no requirement for lobbyists to declare that they had previously hosted a parliamentarian on a sponsored trip and then thereafter lobbied them. Is that something that should be closed, or do you not see it as a gap in transparency?

    I think it's a matter of public record—who has gone on a sponsored trip and then who has been lobbied thereafter.

    What do you say in response to the commissioner's overriding position, which is that sponsored travel reasonably creates an expectation or a sense of obligation?

     Again, we disagree.

    We take great care and pains to put together structured, transparent, non-partisan programs. There are no conditions attached and no expectations of alignment. All subsequent engagements are already governed by the Lobbying Act and reporting requirements. The issue here isn't influence; it's whether parliamentarians are allowed to access high-quality information and experience that help them do their jobs.

    Again, the will of Parliament has been to say that they would like to have that. I think that is the central issue we're looking at here, which is the framework overriding the will of Parliament.

     How many delegations of parliamentarians did CIJA sponsor on an annual basis, on average? How many parliamentarians would participate?

     I don't know the answer to that off the top of my head. I worked there many years ago. I've only been back with CIJA for about seven months.

    My guess is that it was a few trips a year, with eight to 12 individuals.

    We can get you a more specific answer, if you like.

    Okay.

    Now it's zero.

     Now it's zero. This is one of the considerations.

    Also, there's been an ongoing series of wars over the last few years that have made it very difficult to travel.

     Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

    Mr. Al Soud, you're next for five minutes, and I understand you'll be sharing your time with Ms. Chagger.

    Go ahead, sir.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Mr. Hanley, thank you for being with us today.

    I have no doubt that you and I likely don't see eye to eye on absolutely everything. I also, however, have no doubt that you proudly represent your community, just as I do mine. To do that, it's incredibly important that you are able to engage with that community, and that they feel they can engage with you, should they wish to do so.

    The stringent registration regulations, as proposed by the commissioner, would do the opposite of that, I fear. They would disable constituents—Canadians—from feeling they can engage with parliamentarians with confidence, and with community organizations. I trust we have the following in common: We want to hear from those we represent; we want them to come to us when they have thoughts, concerns or questions; and we don't want them to feel their system is working against them.

    Could you speak to us about grassroots lobbying, its importance to the work you do and what stringent regulations pertaining to registration might mean for you, for community organizations like CIJA and NCCM and for the numerous others that represent Canadian communities?

    I wholeheartedly agree that we have this in common.

    We especially worry about the ability of community organizations, non-profits, charitable organizations and civil society to come and have their voices heard without the chilling effect of being told that they're going to have to register as lobbyists. Again, what may be intended to try to prevent harm will do more harm. What's the adage? It's using a sledgehammer to hammer something in that's much smaller.

    I agree. I think it's important for the MPs here to be able to hear from community groups across the country. Obviously, I represent a community, and I'm sure all of you are in touch with your own constituents. To be able to hear from groups across the country that may come from other ridings or jurisdictions is very important.

     Thank you, Mr. Hanley.

    I turn to Ms. Chagger.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Hanley, thank you so much. I'm so sorry, but we have just under three minutes. We can go as quickly as possible.

    Can you let me know what your experience with the Lobbying Act and the code has been—even though we're primarily here for the act?

     We as an organization, and I as an individual, follow the rules and regulations very stringently. I think the Jewish community is a community of rule-followers, so we strive to be in.... Well, we don't just strive. We ensure that we're in full compliance at all times.

    Parts of this can be a bit arduous, but I think the transparency aspects of it are good and important. In a democracy, when you have the will of parliamentarians being overridden, it's a challenge. You folks have agency. In our system of government, Parliament is supposed to reign supreme.

     The Commissioner of Lobbying has proposed harmonizing the filing deadline for both consultant and in-house lobbyists to 10 days.

    Do you find that reasonable, or do you have an alternative recommendation?

     The administrative assistants in my organization who are chasing me for my stuff would probably have concerns about it.

    I think what's there now is reasonable. I'm not sure about the arguments made for making it more stringent. What's there now allows information to be out in a timely fashion. Again, this isn't the only job I've had in advocacy. It's a very accessible system. You can see who's been up to what and when, in a pretty quick fashion.

     Thank you.

    Could you speak to us about recommendation four, which addresses registration requirements in relation to “the awarding of grants and contributions”?

    I can't pretend to recall exactly what the substance of it is. It wasn't one of the recommendations that we pulled out as a challenge. I don't know if you want to....

    No, I'm going to continue.

    I know that CIJA is a registered lobbying group. That's what you do.

    I have a very active Jewish community in the Waterloo region, in the city of Waterloo and in the riding of Waterloo.

    Synagogues and so forth are not lobbyists. They want to work with government; they want to work with community.

    Could you help me differentiate between what you do and what they do?

    Synagogues are independent. They have their own agency. Obviously, we connect with them, and we connect with different rabbis from across the country.

    We represent Jewish federations across the country, which are like the United Way in the Jewish community. The federations are connected to synagogues but are slightly separate from them.

     Again, we are paid advocates for the community. Rabbis are different. They definitely are advocates for the community, as you well know.

    I don't know the distinction you're looking for.

    Thank you, Mr. Hanley and Ms. Chagger.

    Mr. Hanley, I want to thank you for appearing before the committee today. If, as an afterthought, you have any other things that you'd like to submit to the committee, please do so through the clerk.

    At the present time, we're going to continue on with the motion that was proposed by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

    Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, please continue with your intervention.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I was talking about some of the businesses behind the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, the lobby group that advocates for the Driver Inc. model. One of the businesses I mentioned is Harman Transport, which was involved in a fatal accident on Highway 30. It was also involved in an incident that derailed a train on January 12 because two of its drivers had the brilliant idea to park their truck trailers on train tracks, resulting in an accident that could have been fatal for the people aboard the train and the truck drivers. This business has also been shot at at least twice, in December 2025 and in January 2026. Again, we don't know the motive for the shooting, but it's certainly not the type of situation that inspires confidence.

    I mentioned other businesses, such as KJS Transport, which was dinged by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, or WSIB, for failure to report $3.9 million in wages.

    Another business is United Group of Companies, whose executive was issued jail time because when his vehicles were going to be seized, he was caught altering fleet serial numbers in the middle of the night.

    Then there is Sun Transportation Systems, which operates illegal trucking depots in the Caledon region, and Air & Oceanland, which operates illegal trucking depots in the Bolton region. What is an illegal trucking depot? These are truck yards operated by businesses on farmland or land that is not zoned for that purpose. Some businesses purchase land, top it up with gravel and park their trucks there. This is a real scourge in some regions of Ontario. The town of Caledon provides a map of these depots. I don't know the number of active cases right now, but the last time I checked the map, there were 72 illegal trucking depots in the Caledon region. The town has to fight against these offending businesses to ensure compliance with municipal by-laws. This matter is no joke, and the situation is pretty bad.

    How has the government responded to this phenomenon? As I said, in its 2022 economic update, the government stated that it would allocate funding to Employment and Social Development Canada to address this issue. We requested for documents to be produced at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and had to fight tooth and nail for months to obtain correspondence from the various departments involved. The correspondence revealed that on February 7, 2023, the office of the Minister of Labour and Seniors held talks in caucus about the impact of the Driver Inc. model on the trucking industry. Members expressed concern during these talks. Basically, they were opposed to the government tackling the Driver Inc. phenomenon. Many in the Liberal caucus felt it was not a serious problem, that it was important to focus on other issues, and that this was not a priority.

    We see that the Liberal caucus appears to have mobilized. Is this the outcome of the CTOA's lobbying activities? I would think so. It's up to them to tell us whether that is the case.

     That said, shortly after that, on May 23, 2023, the CTOA had a meeting with the Minister of Labour in the constituency office of Iqwinder Gaheer, the Liberal member for Mississauga—Malton. During that meeting, the Minister of Labour committed to prohibit the use of the term Driver Inc. and to ensure that there was no crackdown and that government action took the form of education and awareness. Basically, the minister pledged that no enforcement would occur and no punitive action would be taken. People would get a polite request to comply with the law, and there would be no repercussions. That is what the press release issued by the CTOA after the meeting says, and this is also reflected in the documents that we requested for at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which state that orders were given internally to prohibit the use of the term Driver Inc. The term was blacklisted and it can no longer be used.

    However, that is not the worst of it. These people are well connected. I said that many organizations have spoken out against this phenomenon. This includes unions, businesses and associations, such as the Canadian Trucking Alliance and the Association du camionnage du Québec. All of them have asked for meetings with government officials, but overall, it has been fairly difficult to get things done. Most of the time, it has been hard to secure meetings.

    However, the CTOA appears to enjoy a high level of access, because one of the documents we obtained states that the association met the Prime Minister directly on October 25, 2024. Mr. Trudeau, who was the prime minister at the time, allegedly met with the organization. I can assure you that none of the other legitimate, well-known trucking advocacy organizations managed to secure meetings with the Office of the Prime Minister.

    Unfortunately, it should also be noted that the Office of the Prime Minister, which was also covered by the request for the production of documents that we voted on, told us that they did not have any documents to provide. That is rather odd. We know there was a meeting with the Office of the Prime Minister, but the office did not have any documents to provide. The Office of the Prime Minister also sent an email to the Department of Transport to request for a briefing on this issue, but the office did not have any document to share. I must say I am a bit perplexed about that. Perhaps we will have an answer when we hear from the Liberal members on the other side of the table.

    What is the outcome of the Liberal government's action on this matter? In reality, fines go unpaid three-quarters of the time and offences go unpunished.

    Information available on Employment and Social Development Canada's website shows that most businesses pay the fines imposed by the department. The businesses that routinely ignore payment orders are in the trucking sector. A compilation of data on unpaid fines shows that non-compliance businesses are all in the trucking sector. It is rather odd that this has been allowed to happen.

    On top of that, we obtained a research report from 2022 indicating that Employment and Social Development Canada's employees were complaining about this situation and were saying that they could no longer do their work and that the system was not working. For example, 80% of their complaints were connected to the trucking industry. Employees reported that they were playing the cat and mouse game with some businesses that were not even picking up their calls. In other words, these businesses were mocking them.

    They spoke about cases where trucking business employees have been exploited outright. For example, immigrants are threatened that their wages will be deducted and some people have simply not been paid for years. Departmental employees are so discouraged and seem to have lost the motivation to do their work. I'm not making this up. These are real testimonials obtained by the researchers who prepared a report that they submitted to the government. The report is available for consultation.

    We have pushed to address this situation. We held a press conference last fall alongside the Quebec Trucking Association and the Syndicat des contrôleurs routiers. We had support from the Canadian Trucking Alliance and recommended 10 measures to resolve this issue.

    The measures include opening an investigation, eliminating the right of temporary foreign workers to incorporate businesses in the trucking sector, and implementing a mandatory, automatic audit conducted by Employment and Social Development Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency of all trucking companies within 18 months of their establishment. Clients should be held responsible for unpaid taxes.

    The measures also include creating a Canada-wide shared database of violations. Currently, Quebec has no way of knowing when a business has committed a violation in Ontario, and Saskatchewan has no way of knowing when a violation is committed in Quebec. Data are not shared, which means that violations can go on indefinitely and offenders can get away scot-free. Offenders who rack up multiple violations can just move to another province and begin the same scheme again.

    We also recommended creating a registry of valid insurance policies because many individuals operate vehicles without insurance and when they are caught, they just provide fake documents or expired insurance papers.

    We also recommended creating a public registry of companies with a history of violations and an employer certification program that would entitle employers to hire temporary foreign workers. The goal is to identify companies that violate regulations before they bring in and exploit temporary foreign workers and force them to work in conditions that border on slavery. Businesses should be validated in advance to prevent such types of situations, which have become all too common in the trucking industry.

    The last recommendation concerns amending the Commercial Vehicle Drivers Hours of Service Regulations and making it mandatory for companies to issue T4A slips.

    The government has only implemented one of these 10 measures. The work of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was obstructed for almost all of last fall by the member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation. The member took pleasure spewing all sorts of insults and falsehoods, going as far as to accuse me of conducting fundraising activities on the back of this issue, even though I have not raised a single dollar from that. The case is entirely different when it comes to the Liberals.

    The obstruction of the transport committee's work went on until December 9, and the reason it came to an end on that day was that the Journal de Montréal carried a front-page article on December 9, 2025 stating that someone by the name of Tejpreet Dulat, a close ally of the Prime Minister, was now the spokesperson for the CTOA, the lobby group that represents low-cost drivers. This close ally of the Prime Minister supported him during his leadership campaign, worked on his election, has been involved with the Liberal Party for many years, and is a generous Liberal Party donor. The lobby group for low-cost drivers therefore has access to someone close to the Prime Minister. That person is so close to the Prime Minister that he was invited to his swearing-in ceremony. You don't invite a random person to your swearing-in ceremony. Members here know that you don't invite 500 people to a swearing-in ceremony. Normally, the ceremony takes place in a small, private room. This person was seated next to the Prime Minister, in the first row. That is quite something. This individual is now the spokesperson for low-cost drivers.

    In response to our request for information, Mr. Carney's office told us that it did not have any information to share, even though this is a constitutional requirement. When a committee makes a request for the production of documents, it has a constitutional right to receive that information. The Office of the Prime Minister did not fulfill its constitutional obligation because it did not give us any information, even though we are quite certain that, based on what I have referred to so far, it had that information.

    I am extremely concerned to note that interference has not stopped. It appears that members even requested briefings on government action from the Minister of Labour and accused the government of targeting individuals, despite the fact that data disprove that assertion. Employment and Social Development Canada activities often target non-compliant businesses. The data show that nearly 40% of businesses across the country are not compliant. Approximately 63% of businesses in Ontario are not compliant. This is a major problem.

    There is something about this situation that strikes me as particularly fascinating. At the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we heard from a variety of witnesses, and the chair was also present. Some witnesses told us about their relatives who have passed on and others told us that they had almost lost their lives in an accident. Businesses told us that this issue was almost driving them to bankruptcy. Many businesses in Ontario and other parts of Canada told us they were in a precarious position. Their survival is at stake because they risk going out of business if businesses with violations continue to operate their trucking activities with impunity. Finally, despite all that evidence, the committee chair went to parade himself at a party thrown by the association of low-cost drivers, knowing full well which people were going to be in attendance.

    It's pretty mind-boggling that after all the testimony we heard, the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had the gall to show up at the party. When I decided to raise this issue at that committee, by coincidence, yet again, I was not allowed to speak about it. Furthermore, the committee has been conducting its business in camera for close to two months to prevent me from talking about why the chair attended an event for a lobby group that represents low-cost drivers.

    However, I have a theory about why he was in attendance. One business based in his riding is very likely a member of the CTOA. That business, which goes by the name of Safex Transport, was at the party. The business has been involved in many accidents, including the accident that nearly claimed the life of one of the victims who testified before our committee. I did some research on the business and found one case at Quebec's administrative labour tribunal of a truck driver—I'm not sure whether he was salaried or incorporated—who did not speak English or French. That's really unbelievable. I wonder what kind of business decides to hire truck drivers that don't speak English or French.

    As I said earlier, this business was involved in an accident with Ms. Claudia Boucher and it was also involved in a massive vehicle pileup in New Brunswick on January 23, 2026. One of its trucks was filmed travelling on the wrong side of Highway 20 on January 25, 2026.

    On May 8, 2026, there was a video doing the rounds on social media across Quebec, and possibly in the rest of Canada, because some people thought it was funny, but it was not. The video showed a truck discharging its load and spilling grocery carts as it drove along Saint‑Joseph Boulevard in Drummondville. Some 150 grocery carts ended up in the middle of Saint‑Joseph Boulevard and could have struck a variety of people. A close look at the videos and photos taken by witnesses shows that the truck driver was wearing a Safex Transport jacket. That is quite a coincidence.

    I will now explain why I've brought this up. We dug a little deeper and found that the Quebec business registry shows that Safex is registered as having between 50 and 99 employees, whereas the U.S. Department of Transportation register shows that the company has more than 200 trucks. I don't know who drives the additional 100 trucks. That may well be the holy ghost, unless it is in fact low-cost drivers, which is more plausible because the business appears to be associated with the CTOA, as we can see from the lovely photos where Mr. Schiefke appears.

    I checked whether Safex shareholders were also Liberal donors. It's interesting to note that its two partners are Raminder Singh and Amandeep Singh, and together, they have donated approximately $25,000 to the Liberal Party over the years.

    I don't know whether the chair of the transport committee attended the event because he received an innocent invitation or he attended to make a generous Liberal donor happy, given that this business is based in his riding. I have been wondering about that. Unfortunately, the chair would not tell us.

    Victims wrote to the committee chair to complain and to tell him that it defied logic to see him rub shoulders with businesses that use the Driver Inc. scheme, and yet they had just testified about losing loved ones. They asked him why he was at the party. Unfortunately, the chair of the transport committee did not want to be accountable, either to the committee or to the House of Commons, and now we can't talk about this issue because the committee has been meeting in camera.

     However, we noted that the chair of the transport committee took the liberty to respond to victims on behalf of the committee. That is rather odd. I did some research, and according to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, as a general rule, the chair can direct the work of the committee. That is in paragraph 31 of chapter 20 on the role of chair. However, a little further down, it states that if “the actions of the Chair do not elicit any concerns or complaints from committee members, the Chair enjoys the implied consent of the committee”.

    The question that arises is therefore as follows: If I had already raised the issue in committee before the chair wrote to the witnesses on behalf of the committee, did he enjoy the implied consent of the committee?

     Unfortunately, we can't really tell whether he acted in compliance with procedure. Personally, I think this is unbelievable and even disgraceful. It shows a serious lack of judgment, especially after witnessing the events at the committee. Above all, it discredits all the work that has been done by the committee, which was expected to shed a light on the issue in the transport sector. The chair's poor judgment has undermined the committee's efforts to bring clarity to this issue. I hope he did not attend the event at the invitation of one of his generous donors, but that is what I fear. Quite frankly, that would be a great shame, because our work is to ensure compliance with the law and to work for our people.

    Unfortunately, it appears that this is not the case. We are seeing a lobby group funding the Liberal government that has its back against the wall. We are seeing a lobby group that has an increasing footprint pretty much everywhere. We are seeing unregistered lobbying activities. I filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Lobbying in relation to Tejpreet Dulat, a friend of the Prime Minister, who is the group's spokesperson. This organization was not registered with the lobbyist registry, and yet, it brags that it wants to influence the measures that have been introduced so far.

    Does this warrant an inquiry? I believe that it does warrant an inquiry. I believe the current situation is serious. Unfortunately, we have found that instead of finding a way to address the issue, the government is trying to sweep it under the rug. It doesn't really want us to talk about it. It is preventing us from talking about it, and that is why we have no choice but to raise this matter.

    We commenced a study at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to get to the bottom of the Driver Inc. matter. Eventually, we realized that the issue was not limited to low-cost drivers and road safety, and that there is a problem of proximity to the government and attempts to influence.

    I think it would be the role of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to undertake the necessary study to determine whether the government has close links to any of this. The links seem pretty clear, but I think the committee should hear from individuals who make contributions to the Liberal Party, who are behind the CTOA group and promote the Driver Inc. model. It would be worthwhile for us to hear from the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities so that he can speak to this issue. It would also be a good idea for officials from the Office of the Prime Minister to tell us why they don't have any information, even though other departments have the information relating to the Office of the Prime Minister. It would be useful to know, for example, how a Minister of Labour prohibited the use of the term Driver Inc. and said that this topic was off limits and that people did not have the right to raise it. To me, that is serious. Normally, if you want to address an issue, you tackle it head on, go all in and resolve it, instead of covering it up. That does not really build trust in government. I think some effort will be needed to restore trust.

    I think we owe this to every individual who puts in honest work along our highways to earn a living in a fair and proper manner and wants to do so safely. Right now, we are hearing trucking businesses saying that they will go out of business, and drivers saying that they no longer wish to go on the road for fear they are going to lose their lives because the roads are dangerous and anyone could be on the road.

    Obviously, some of the issues in the trucking industry are outside the federal jurisdiction, but I think the federal government has some responsibility in this matter. I think it is the federal government's job to get to the bottom of the issues in its own backyard instead of saying that the provinces have to address their own issues. The federal government needs to do a great deal of work to address this issue, but unfortunately, it is deliberately turning a blind eye. It would be great to know whether this wilful blindness stems from partisanship or simple naivety that must be addressed.

    As I noted in the motion, the demand is for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics to undertake a study on this matter. I hope I will have support from all my Conservative and Liberal colleagues. I think that even though the motion refers to the Liberal Party, among others, it's actually in the interest of the Liberal Party to undertake this study to show that the party is beyond reproach. If the Liberals are beyond reproach, they will want to address the issue of low-cost drivers. They will also want to tell us why they have so many ties with businesses that promote this model. It may well be that a few sheep have lost their way. Perhaps it's about a few individuals. Perhaps ultimately, the lobbying efforts were not successful, but I don't know about that.

    I think integrity must be restored when it comes to these activities and especially when it comes to the perception of ordinary Canadians. I think it's important to build trust, and this trust must be based on transparency.

    That brings me to the end of the substance of my intervention. I'm sure I could have spoken about this for hours. I can sense some disappointment on the other side of the table, but if the members are disappointed, they can vote in favour of the motion and we can speak to this issue and get to the bottom of things.

    Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

    Mr. Hardy, you have the floor to speak to the motion.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We did not necessarily expect the motion to be moved today, but I'm happy to speak about it. I have listened to the remarks closely. I agree that there are many elements on the Driver Inc. phenomenon, a matter that clearly falls under the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. However, today we have heard about many issues, and I believe they fall under the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I will skim through the elements of the motion and I will also share some of the notes that I took. I think it's important to raise this issue here and to get to the bottom of this matter.

    The motion talks about the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA. It says that the CTOA is the only trucking organization to have refused to provide information and that supports the model. This committee often deals with cases where people may not want documents to be made public. The lack of transparency is something we hear about regularly. All the commissioners and all the witnesses who come here speak to the need for more transparency. There is a problem when we see an association that doesn't want to provide its documents.

    We have learned that the association has very close links to the Liberals. Again, that has raised some eyebrows in the committee and we think we need to dig deeper to see if there might be something there.

    I also learned that the CTOA was not registered with the lobbyist registry. We are reviewing the Lobbying Act, and then we realize that there have been events involving a number of ministers and members of Parliament, and yet the commissioner doesn't know about them. What is going on? That's another element. The role of elected officials includes knowing the people you're cozying up to. They need to know that attending some events might be problematic and that it might be better not to attend. It appears that this was not considered in this case.

    There is the refusal to provide information to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

    Next, as I have said, the motion states that “numerous Liberal elected officials and ministers have repeatedly appeared […] at public events or lobbying activities”.

    From what we have heard here, the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is supposed to ensure the proper functioning of the committee, is also cozying up with the only organization that does not want to provide information. That would appear to be a major problem.

    Again, I am very surprised to learn that committee meetings are taking place in camera, even though members just want access to some information. In camera meetings are far from transparent. They are held when there is something to hide. I think it would be important to bring back transparency into the picture. If we want Canadians and Quebeckers to have confidence in Canadian institutions, we have to be transparent, make things visible, and give them access to information.

     The Minister of Finance appeared before the committee last week, and we asked him whether we could have access to documents pertaining to his recusal, but the Liberals did not agree with that. Ultimately, one of the things that bothers Canadians is to see that we don't have access to the information that we request for.

    Furthermore, now that we know that the CTOA had direct access to the former prime minister and that its new representative attended the incoming Prime Minister's swearing-in ceremony, we think there's a history of a cozy relationship and that they are good friends.

    Every Canadian and every police officer we have spoken with has told us that this is a serious issue. The Montmorency—Charlevoix riding has some shorelines and police officers often tell me low-cost drivers consistently park on the roadside and that this is dangerous. Their truck brakes are shot by the time they reach the lower stretch of the shoreline because they don't know how to handle our roads.

    We see this phenomenon across the country. Families and community stakeholders have said there is a problem. However, inexplicably, there is no end in sight to this phenomenon. Why is that so? There must be something in the way. We now know that some of the people who have made significant donations to the Liberal Party are very close to this group, and so there is definitely a problem. That is why the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics needs to address this issue.

    I took down some notes earlier.

    First, 78% of breakdowns and accidents are connected with low-cost drivers operating on our roads. I'll take my colleague's word on that because the police officers I have spoken with have told me that they deal with such drivers on a regular basis. Officers patrolling Quebec highways have even asked to carry firearms because interactions with low-cost drivers are far from peaceful.

    I also noted that 79% of members of the Association du camionnage du Québec have experienced lost sales. A third of the workforce has been laid off and 6,000 jobs have been lost in two years.

    Right now, we are in a recession under the Liberal government and people are struggling to pay their rent and gas and to buy groceries. The business model that is clearly supported by the Liberals is costing Quebeckers and Canadians more jobs. We have difficulty understanding the rationale. No one wants competition more than I do, because competition is good for Canadians. Competition means Canadians pay lower prices. However, competition must adhere to the rules. People must not compete unfairly or illegally, which is what is happening currently.

    To put it another way, this situation has a negative impact on eight in 10 individuals. Workers in the trucking industry have publicly come out to say that something needs to be done. The only organization that does not want to take any action is the one that has close ties to the Liberals. Once again, we have a debate about ethics and transparency.

    As a result, the government is dragging its feet and has a laissez-faire attitude. However, the laissez-faire attitude costs lives. In Parliament, we often speak about the rights of victims and when their voice will be heard. When will victims be given the right to be heard? When are we going to make laws to protect these victims?

    What is the point of making laws if, in the end, loopholes still exist? For example, we saw this recently with Bill C‑16. One can claim to be the toughest person to tackle crime, but leaving a big loophole in place means that person is not tough enough to tackle crime.

     As such, I believe it is important that we undertake this study. This business is not registered with the lobbyist registry. Our committee is reviewing the Lobbying Act. These individuals lobby the Liberals. There is a direct cause-and-effect relationship. There is no transparency. We have heard that the Office of the Prime Minister doesn't want to release the documents. We went through that last week and we are going through that now, as evidenced by what we have heard. That is a lack of transparency.

    I believe the motion makes sense. The committee's mandate gives it ample room to shed a light on the ethical problem we are seeing, which is directly linked to the Driver Inc. phenomenon.

     The Office of the Prime Minister doesn't have any information to share with the committee. That is serious.

    As to the meetings held in camera, again, I think it is very odd that the general public is not given the right to access what is being said during such an important study.

    That is all from me for today.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Hardy.

     Ms. Chagger, I have you next, followed by Mr. Barrett.

     Thank you, Chair.

     I want to begin by acknowledging that we stand with survivors and victims of exploitation through this trucking model, but let me be clear: Misclassification is illegal. That's why the government is taking decisive action to stop it. Through budget 2025, the government is investing $77 million over four years for the Canada Revenue Agency to crack down on employers who misclassify employers' employees. The government lifted the moratorium on T4A penalties in the trucking industry as part of a series of targeted measures to combat misclassification. In doing so, we are building on the work that has been done over the last number of years to protect workers and ensure that employers are responsible for their actions in preserving the status of true independent contractors.

    The government continues to monitor this progress closely, but for meaningful change to occur, the provinces and territories also have to do their part by continuing to work collaboratively with the government on education, inspection and enforcement. The baseless accusations that MP Barsalou-Duval is making against colleagues and the government do not support survivors or victims of the Driver Inc. model, but I will share what does—supporting measures that were in budget 2025. However, the Bloc, like the Conservatives, proudly voted against these measures and others included in budget 2025.

    Mr. Chair, as I sit here, I think everyone on the committee has had the opportunity to share how important this committee is and how we have a lot of work to do. I know that my constituents in the riding of Waterloo and all Canadians expect this committee to function. Hearing the comments of Mr. Barsalou-Duval and Mr. Hardy, I wonder if there should be a committee that oversees committees, because now it seems that whenever somebody's upset with what happened at their committee, they come to this committee.

    It states in here what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics studies:

    Then it explains what should go to PROC and others.

    I've noticed that members on this committee use the words “ethics” or “lobbying”, use whatever definition they want and believe it all of a sudden becomes relevant to the mandate of this committee, which is really unfortunate. I'll be very honest: I did expect the stunt from the Conservatives, but I was really disappointed to see the Bloc member play this in front of a witness.

    We know that these have been challenging times. We have people who are gainfully employed— taxpayers—coming and giving their time to committee after we've asked them to come. I was not a member of the committee when the name of CIJA was provided, for example. Last week we had similar shenanigans, I guess, taking place. Somebody comes to our committee. They have work to do. They have other commitments. All of a sudden, it feels like opposition parties believe the time of these people who have accepted our invitation to come is not as valuable as ours. I think that's disrespectful. We have other witnesses who we want to have come and who have not accepted our invitation. It's probably because they're seeing the way they're treated. People know that if they come to Parliament Hill, they might not leave after their hour appointment, because, well, somebody just might want to change the agenda.

    For the Conservatives to do it, it's just kind of become normal. I love my country with its 10 provinces and three territories. I know that the Bloc wants to separate our country, my country, which is something I disagree with, but usually when it comes to decorum and following rules, they're pretty clear as to where they stand. They often are a productive caucus. It appears that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has demonstrated, perhaps, the true intentions of the Bloc, and it's really disappointing.

    Last week, I had the last spot in the rounds. It was confirmed that the witness would be released after my time and that we would be going on to committee business. I pre-emptively got the conversation on committee business going. The Bloc member that day was really quick to come, pull me aside, confront me and say, “How dare you take away my speaking slot?” I said, “No, you can speak to the chair. You can speak to members. I was the final slot, so you did not have a slot after me.”

    Please confirm, because I wouldn't do that.

    I think most of us come to committee prepared. We come to ask questions. That's why I will say that I was disappointed the Bloc member last week did not want me to do that. However, today, the Bloc member has no trouble trying to override the questions that I and other members prepared. It's really disrespectful, and I would encourage Bloc members not to take that approach. I know they are really close to the Conservatives. Sometimes you can't tell them apart. I would let the Conservatives do what they're doing because some of us have to try to get some work done on Parliament Hill. Clearly, it's not the official opposition.

     I'm looking at the notice of meeting that the chair was kind enough to provide to us at the end of the workday on Friday. It said that, from 4:30 to 5:30, we'd be studying committee business, which is “Resuming debate on the motion moved by Michael Barrett on Thursday, April 23, 2026.” We should respect the fact that this is the agenda we have in front of us.

    With that, I have no other choice, Mr. Chair, but to move to adjourn the debate.

     Ms. Chagger has moved a motion to adjourn debate, which is a non-debatable motion. What that effectively means for people watching at home is that she is shutting down debate on this issue.

    Madam Clerk, please go ahead.

    The vote is on the motion that debate be adjourned.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

    Before I go to Mr. Barrett to resume debate on the subamendment we were left with, I need, from the committee, the adoption of a study budget in relation to the connection between the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and Alto. That study budget is $200.

    Do I have unanimous consent for that study budget?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Thank you. That's been approved. Madam Clerk has the signed copy.

    Mr. Barrett, we're on your subamendment.

    It says:

    That's the subamendment you proposed.

    On that, Mr. Barrett, please go ahead.

     Mr. Chair, we've spent a few minutes in a few meetings discussing this matter. I think it's important that, before we find ourselves in recess until September, we allow this transparency mechanism to move forward. We've seen that there is some willingness around the table to do this, but in spite of our attempts to seek a compromise, some of the important pieces of this motion have been removed.

    As we don't want perfect to be the enemy of good, I would like the motion to pass today. Assuming that all members around the table, even the Liberals, are in favour of this transparency mechanism, let's get it to a vote.

     I have nobody else on the list. We're on the subamendment by Mr. Barrett.

     First of all, do I have unanimous consent for Michael Barrett's subamendment, or do you want it to go to a vote? You want it to go to a vote.

     (Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

     We're now on the amendment of Ms. Chagger, which was proposed on Monday, May 25. I'm not going to read it. I think all members have it.

     Is there any discussion on the amendment? Seeing no discussion on the amendment, do we have unanimous consent to accept the amendment?

    They would like a recorded division.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The amendment is adopted. We're on the main motion as amended.

    Mr. Barrett, go ahead on the main motion as amended.

     Chair, I'd like to move that the motion be amended in part d) by replacing “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” with “appropriate officials from the Privy Council Office”.

    Would you like to have Mr. Cooper amend the motion, because it is your motion?

    It was actually his idea.

    That's what you're intending to do. Is that correct? Yes.

    Mr. Cooper, because it was your idea, I'm going to ask that you amend the motion. If you want to make it similar to what Mr. Barrett proposed, I would certainly accept that.

     Go ahead.

    The amendment is that the motion be amended in part d) by replacing “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner” with “appropriate officials from the Privy Council Office”.

     I think that's a fairly simple amendment. Is there any discussion on the amendment? I don't see any.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The amendment is defeated. We're now back on the main motion as amended. Is there any other discussion on that?

    Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

    I wonder if colleagues would give any consideration to removing part d). While I'm not able to move that amendment, I would like a further discussion of that potentiality.

    I can't accept that. If somebody wants to move that motion—

    It's just for discussion.

    You can—

     I move that the motion be amended by deleting part d).

    Mr. Cooper's amendment is that the motion be amended by deleting part d). If you want to have a discussion, now would be the time.

    I have Mr. Barrett on Mr. Cooper's amendment.

     I'm satisfied with the outcome of the discussion.

     Okay. That's great.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: We're on the main motion as amended.

    On a point of order, perhaps, Chair, you can confer with the clerk. When something's been added and it has been adopted, it cannot be removed. Can it be removed? That was part of the amendment that was added. It feels like that should have been out of order.

     It was defeated.

     I would like to know the rules so that I can follow them.

     Madam Clerk, if you want to clarify that, go ahead. If I erred in judgment, notwithstanding the fact that it was defeated, I'll accept responsibility for that.

     Go ahead, Madam Clerk, if you want to give an explanation.

     You're right. Technically, when something is adopted, the committee cannot come back to its own decision. If there's unanimous consent and people agree, you can go with it.

     I didn't see any objection at the beginning of that, so I accepted it, but I accept responsibility for that.

     We're on the main motion as amended. Is there any other discussion on the main motion as amended? Seeing none, we're going to a vote.

     Try to pass it unanimously. That was suggested earlier.

     I'm going to a vote on this, Mr. Barrett.

     Let's go to the vote on the main motion as amended.

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: I have no other business. We'll see you all on Thursday.

     The meeting is adjourned.