Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are filibustering on a number of committees right now to prevent opposition members who have the majority from holding the government to account, from obtaining information, from calling witnesses and from receiving documents, essentially, to prevent them from doing their job, which is to determine what is going on and to ensure accountability for the government's administration and decisions. The committee I sit on is facing this situation. When I see that several weeks have passed since the Liberals decided to block committees where the discussion and debates are not to their liking, and when a motion to take control of the committees appears at the same time, a question comes to mind. Are the Liberals filibustering in committee to buy time?”
“Unfortunately, what is happening instead is that the Liberals want to give themselves nearly 60% of the votes on committees. Sixty per cent of the seats on the committees is equivalent to having nearly 200 members in the House, 199 to be exact, while the Liberals actually have 174. How can they explain this overrepresentation of a government whose majority is false to begin with?”
“Mr. Speaker, the motion before us is a gag order designed to limit speaking time on a fundamental issue, namely defining how Parliament and its committees operate. Normally, this is done in consultation with all the parties, out of basic respect for the principle of representation in the House. Representation is already questionable because the government does not have a true majority. Its majority has been cobbled together with floor crossers, but it gets even worse. If we used the Liberals' current majority, that is, if we were to recognize it, they would end up with roughly 50% of seats. That should come out to just slightly more than half the members on committees. Normally, the Liberals should have one more seat than the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois combined.”
“Obviously, we have not reached the point where democracy is at risk, but still, I find these actions troubling. They are leading us down a slippery slope. They are not constructive and they do not build trust.”
“Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member from British Columbia on her insightful and interesting speech. It is clear at times like these that all political parties have different perspectives to offer on the issues we are debating. I found the Green Party's perspective relevant and interesting. Under the circumstances, I was wondering about something. In her speeches in the House, the member often acts as the voice of Parliament's conscience. I think that is how she tries to do her job, at least sometimes. Does that famous conscience tell her that the government is on the right track or the wrong track right now? Personally, I get the impression that the government is taking advantage of its honeymoon period to take increasingly authoritarian action, and that is dangerous because it sets precedents.”
“Rather than being motivated by a desire for co-operation, as mentioned by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister , we wonder whether this motion might instead be motivated by a desire to take control and operate in an authoritarian manner, as we are seeing with the closure motion.”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on her speech. I also commend her on remaining, at least so far, true to her convictions and not crossing the floor, unlike many other members of Parliament. As far as today's motion is concerned, I have noticed in committee that the Liberals have been blocking our work for the past two weeks. They have been filibustering. That is the term that is often used. They are doing everything they can to prevent votes from being held and to disrupt the proceedings. Now, we are considering a motion that specifically aims to unilaterally change the composition of the committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, earlier, I put a question to a member who I believe is sitting right next to my Liberal colleague. Since I did not get a complete answer, I will try asking her that same question. Members from my party, the Bloc Québécois, and members of the official opposition, the Conservatives, have worked hard on bills in committee on several occasions. We proposed amendments, worked in good faith, heard from witnesses and really did a thorough job. However, when those bills come back to the House, the Liberals just undo all that work and that is it. Is this indicative of how the government intends to manage its future majority?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. It is important to take an interest in what we are debating here in the House. While my colleague may take an interest in the debates here in the House, he is not, to my knowledge, a member of the committee that studied this bill. He can correct me if I am wrong. The committee members worked very hard on this. Bloc Québécois and Conservative members proposed amendments that came back to the House. It was not the first time that happened. I think we have seen that with other bills in the past. The government says it wants to collaborate, but it just dismisses the committee's constructive work once the bill comes back to the House. This does not bode well for the future when the governing party has a majority in committees.”
“Mr. Speaker, since the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith was the one who was speaking, I would like to take this opportunity to note that they were serving Nanaimo bars in the lobby today. I do not know whether this is a coincidence or a personal request. All joking aside, I have a question for my colleague. We are talking about democracy today, which is important. We are all here to represent our constituents. We have a role in this democracy, and it is a role entrusted to us by our constituents. Recently, there have been a significant number of people crossing the floor, people who have moved from the Conservative benches to the Liberal benches, even though that is not the mandate given to them by their constituents. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of people who abandon the mandate given to them by the people who vote for them.”
“companies. I would like to know whether my colleague intends to apologize to me for his false accusations and whether he is concerned about what is happening in his party, namely that people are trying to influence policies and that this is not being done for the good of the public.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation for acknowledging in his speech that there is sometimes a risk of influence peddling in the political fundraising process that could be problematic and that it could even go so far as to threaten the integrity of government decisions or, at the very least, the electoral process. In that context, I want to mention that my colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where he once accused me of fundraising through the Bloc Québécois website when I was speaking out against Driver Inc. However, we eventually learned from the media that the shoe was on the other foot. It was the Liberal Party that allegedly received tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars from owners of Driver Inc.”
“There would no longer be a tax refund, and the money saved would be used to re-establish a form of political financing, which would mean that the measure would not cost the government anything. What does my colleague think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his speech. There is one issue that this bill does not address but that keeps coming up in the House election after election, at least since Stephen Harper's time. I believe that my colleague was a member of Parliament himself then. In any case, I am sure he is familiar with that time. I am talking about the system of political financing that was done away with by the Harper government at the time. Unfortunately, we see that, sometimes, people with deeper pockets can contribute more to certain political parties. They may even be engaging in some form of influence peddling. That is one of the things this bill seeks to correct. The House leader for the Bloc Québécois proposed eliminating the tax credit for donations to political parties.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague. The bill before us seeks to amend the Canada Elections Act. Over the past few months and weeks, we have seen a significant number of MPs change their political allegiance, despite having been elected under a different banner. Does my colleague think that this might be an opportunity to address the issue of floor crossing, given that we are currently seeing people failing to honour the mandate entrusted to them by their constituents?”
“Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague opposite on her speech. When she spoke earlier, the Bloc Québécois House leader, the member for Saint-Jean , addressed the issue of political party funding. She said that there is a zero-cost solution to improve democratic rules. She also talked about the possibility of making funding more equitable, particularly by eliminating the political contributions tax credit, which is currently costing the government money. If we were to do away with it, then that money could be redistributed based on votes. That way, rather than having to rely solely on how deep their supporters' pockets are, the parties would have the funding they need to make their voices heard and to run election campaigns that are more in line with the democratic will expressed by voters. Does my colleague think that is a good idea?”
“The government is funding pipelines even though it said it wanted to make the energy transition happen. In addition, the government is continuing to subsidize oil companies, even though, in its own election platform, it promised to stop subsidizing oil companies. What is more, the Liberals welcomed a floor crosser who, not so long ago, was opposed to banning conversion therapy, is reportedly against vaccines and is also against abortion. On the issue of principles, then, is the Liberals' problem essentially having—”
“Mr. Speaker, I found the speech by my colleague opposite very interesting. My colleague laughed a bit about the Conservatives getting all worked up about floor crossers. He said that the Conservatives seem to have fairly flexible principles when it comes to floor crossers. I think he made a good point. This brought up another thought, and I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about it. The Conservatives are flexible in their principles because they do not always seem to respect them when they need to put them into action. However, on the Liberal side, we see that, over the past few months, the government has flat-out eliminated the carbon tax. In fact, today the government is taking a Conservative stance on the issue of the fuel excise tax.”
“In that context, is the current rise in gas prices actually not a clear illustration of our dependence on fossil fuels, which we need to break free from and address more urgently instead of making short-term decisions, the way the government is now, that ultimately will not really change anything?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague across the way. He is boasting about his government's new policy, which was inspired by the Conservatives. It is, in fact, a direct response to what the Conservatives were calling for. It appears that some Conservatives are quite inspired by the Liberals too, as more and more of them are switching to the Liberal Party. That being said, the government's decision to reduce the fuel excise tax by 10¢ could have a positive impact on the finances of people who use their gasoline-powered vehicles every day, given the sharp rise in gas prices. I am not sure that those 10¢ will make a huge difference. We all know that the increase was much higher than 10¢.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised by what the Conservatives are proposing today. I am not surprised that it is yet another pro-oil proposal, as we are used to that, but I am surprised that they are proposing to increase the deficit by more than $7 billion with all these tax exemptions. Meanwhile, every time the government delivers a deficit budget, they get all worked up about it, although perhaps they have good reason to do so, since recent deficits have been quite excessive. The Conservative leader has said that every new expenditure would be offset by savings, but they are still proposing to add $7 billion to the deficit. Where are the savings the Conservatives are proposing, or are they suggesting that that government should simply run a bigger deficit?”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague accurately pointed out, this morning's Liberal announcement will not necessarily benefit the most vulnerable people specifically. It will also run up the deficit. Can my colleague expand on this and talk about how increasing the deficit could affect the most vulnerable because of inflation and other factors?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my Bloc Québécois colleague, who gave an excellent speech, in my view. We have a very good MP representing the riding of Joliette—Manawan, and we need more contributions from members like him. There is a lot of drama on the Conservative side. It almost seems as though they are blaming the government for the rise in gas prices, when in reality, if we look at the figures and data, the oil companies' operating costs did not go up when the price of a barrel of oil went up. The oil companies simply increased their profits. Rather than cutting taxes, are there any other measures that could target oil companies directly?”
“The petitioners place particular emphasis on the first recommendation: “That the Government of Canada re-establish a shoreline protection program...where erosion is due in large part to shipping, in particular where the channel is narrow and more exposed to wake...”. This is a major issue in my riding, particularly in the municipalities of Varennes, Verchères and Contrecoeur. The petitioners therefore call on the government to take appropriate measures to address this issue and to establish a relationship of trust and collaboration between the federal government, users of the seaway and shoreline communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I hereby table petition e-6836, which has been duly certified by the clerk of petitions. The petition, signed by 810 people, responds to the House of Commons vote on October 8, 2024, in support of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, entitled “Reducing the Impact of Commercial Shipping on Shoreline Erosion in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Corridor”, which was tabled during the 44th Parliament. Despite a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, the government has still not implemented the recommendations contained in this report.”
“Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary made a compelling case for electric vehicles. I must commend him for that, but I still cannot help but point out that his government basically gutted the transportation electrification industry over the past year, with disastrous results for the industry. Now, the government is trying to patch things up, but it is going to be difficult to turn this situation around. My question for the member is this. I am already convinced, but if he is so certain that the electrification of transportation is the way of the future, then why is his government still investing more in oil than in electrification? It seems to me that if the government believes that something is the way of the future, then that is where it would put the money. It would not be putting more money in the past than in the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, when I opened the newspaper last week, I was surprised to see that Ontario premier Doug Ford, a Conservative, had the audacity to ask Quebec to abandon its electric vehicle sales targets. Today, the Conservatives have put forward a motion that seeks to do pretty much the same thing. It uses different words, but the message is the same: There will be no more support for the transportation electrification sector. It seems that both Conservative parties, the federal party and the Ontario party, are joining forces with some sanctimonious people who want to undermine this movement in Quebec. What does my colleague, the Bloc Québécois environment critic, think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His argument in favour of transportation electrification and electric vehicles was certainly music to my ears. I could not agree more. However, over the past year, the sector has experienced a significant funding shortfall. The government unilaterally ended the EV funding program, and that caused a drop in demand. What does my colleague think about the fact that his government's actions slowed the transportation electrification market and caused major supply chain disruptions in Quebec and the industry as a whole, which is facing significant challenges as a result?”
“He talks about all kinds of things, but I get the impression he is not very familiar with the subject we are discussing today because he did not talk about it. Here is my question for him. Maybe, if he is unfamiliar with a subject, he could give other members who are familiar with it an opportunity to talk because he gets so many opportunities to talk. What are his thoughts on that?”
“Madam Speaker, I am going to dig a little deeper into the subject I touched on in my point of order earlier. The Chair did not consider it a point of order, so I imagine this will be fine as a point of debate. In his speech, the member talked almost exclusively about our relationship with the United States and with the Philippines. He actually had a lot to say about the Philippines. I think it was the topic of almost half of his speech. Honestly, I have nothing against the Philippines. My partner is from the Philippines. However, Bill C‑13 is about the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. The member makes endless speeches in Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speech by the member opposite from the beginning. I am rising because we are supposed to be discussing Bill C-13 , which deals with the United Kingdom's accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. However, most of the member opposite's speech has been focused on relations with the United States, the Philippines—”
“Mr. Speaker, since the start of the discussion on this subject and throughout today's debate, all the Conservatives have been loudly proclaiming that they are against hatred. What they are ultimately against, however, is the elimination of the religious exemption. I am trying to understand why there should be an exemption saying hatred is okay if it is for religious reasons. No one should make hateful comments, but when it is under the guise of religion, it would be acceptable. I am trying to understand what would justify placing religions above the law.”
“Mr. Speaker, so far, several members of my caucus have asked Conservative members the same question, but we have not received an answer. The Conservatives are saying that existing laws are already sufficient to address these issues. However, here is a specific example. In October 2024, Adil Charkaoui called for the death of Jews in a prayer during a protest. It was an invitation to kill. The director of criminal and penal prosecutions said that he could not prosecute him because he was limited in the options available to him. Last weekend, people were calling for jihad in Montreal. Does my colleague think it is acceptable that threats of violence and calls for violence like that are constantly being made and that the police can do nothing about it because of issues in the Criminal Code?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have cut $5 billion from public transit. That means $5 billion less in a fund that has yet to provide a single penny to Quebec, while Ontario and the western provinces are stuffing their pockets. Strangely enough, $5 billion is the same amount as the Cúram cost overrun. That means $5 billion more for companies that are blowing the budget on underperforming software, and $5 billion less for public transit projects. Why are the Liberals not investing more money in Quebeckers in Quebec instead of making their consultants rich?”
“As it enters its 70th year, I offer my congratulations to the Symphonie vocale de la Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal and wish it continued success.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the 70th anniversary of the Symphonie vocale de la Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal, the Montreal police choir. Since 1956, this unique choir, made up exclusively of active and retired police officers, has been touching hearts with the power of its voices and the depth of its commitment. For seven decades, it has used music as a language of unity, emotion and friendship. Over the years, the choir has given numerous performances for community organizations and events, particularly at seniors' residences, at formal or festive ceremonies, and at funerals for members of the police force. I would like to highlight the remarkable contribution of musical director Rolland Côté and pianist Denise Roy, whose passion and professionalism have shaped the excellence of this ensemble.”
“Madam Speaker, I have a question for my Conservative colleague. Right now, I am working on the Driver Inc. issue, which involves dangerous truckers on our roads. It seems that some of these truckers do not necessarily have legal status in the country. Some do, but others do not. In one case, a driver killed someone on the road, fled and was brought back here to face justice. He will likely have to serve time in prison. Under my colleague's motion, this driver would have simply been deported. He would never have had to face justice and he would never have to serve time in prison. I am trying to understand. Is that really what he is proposing?”
“Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very impassioned speech and I get the sense that there is a topic he failed to cover. In fact, my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj , the Bloc Québécois immigration critic, raised this point yesterday during question period. The government reportedly accepted thousands of asylum claims without conducting any checks or holding any in-person interviews. Does my colleague think that is acceptable? In these circumstances, does he not think that the government needs to make some serious changes to the way it processes asylum claims?”
“However, it is not just a matter of developing resources, but also of protecting ourselves and protecting biodiversity and nature. In conclusion, it is shocking to see the federal government's frequent lack of action when it comes to these issues. In this context, we are pleased to see that a member is committed to trying to make things happen. We are pleased to be having a discussion on this issue today. Discussions lead to solutions. At the very least, discussions lead to more awareness and allow for action to be taken. (1255) I urge all members to reflect on this issue as parliamentarians to see what else we can do. I am thinking, for example, of the Magdalen Islands, which has developed expertise in recovering old—”
“The same goes for recreational boating, which lets us experience remarkable sights, or for commercial shipping, which carries goods essential to the vitality of our communities and our economy. However, we have to consider what happens when these vessels reach the end of their life cycle, too. This is not an issue to be ignored, on the contrary. We know that contaminants find their way into our environment, which can harm human health and compromise our constituents' quality of life. We do not want to see what has happened in some places. There are shocking images of plastics piling up in the oceans. We do not want to see vessels piling up in our lakes and rivers, lying all over the place. Ultimately, this prevent us from developing these resources on a long-term basis.”
“We are familiar with the well-known zero plastic waste initiative. We know that the oceans are full of plastic, and that it is accumulating. We also know of the challenge inherent in what is called “net zero carbon emissions”. Perhaps we should give some thought to a net zero shipwreck or net zero abandoned vessel initiative, since they also pose a major challenge. No one wants abandoned vessels cluttering our waterways, lakes and rivers. Obviously, without a vision, action rarely follows. Without a coherent vision, it becomes difficult to take coherent action on problems like this. In coastal areas, fishing boats are extremely useful. People need them to put food on the table, and they generate good economic activity.”
“The people in the region represented by my colleague, the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon , were fed up with this situation, and understandably so. Abandoned vessels can cause all sorts of problems. There is rust in these vessels and possibly contaminants. Children may decide to go and play in the vicinity of these vessels, teenagers or homeless people could get hurt. There are people who will go and explore them out of curiosity, and we can understand that it might be interesting. It may be more the exception than the norm, but in some places, shipwrecks even become tourist attractions and draw curious visitors in regions such as the north shore or elsewhere, where people want to go and see the wrecks. Nevertheless, these wrecks cause significant damage to the environment and the surrounding area.”
“People often complain that the federal government is not fulfilling its responsibilities. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that respecting jurisdictions is very important. In fact, we sometimes find that the federal government interferes too much in our jurisdictions. Some things do fall under federal jurisdiction, but it seems as though the federal government is not interested in those things and is not taking care of them. In the case of the Kathryn Spirit , it is completely unacceptable that a ship has been left there as a wreck for seven years. It also proves that the federal government often does not do its job properly. It is not just a matter of political stripe, either, because between 2011 and 2018, there were both Conservative and Liberal governments in power, and that is how long it took for the ship to finally be moved.”
“There is also the issue of managing private mooring buoys, because sometimes it is unclear how to deal with them. The approval process for removing a derelict vessel is also slow and bureaucratic. I will have the opportunity to talk about this a little later, because there are some very concrete examples from certain ridings. There is also the obvious issue of cost. Removing wrecks is not free. It costs money. There is a specific case that brings to mind the issue of costs and red tape. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon experienced this first-hand in her riding. The Kathryn Spirit was beached on the shores of Lake Saint-Louis in Beauharnois from 2011 to 2018. The ship sat there for seven years. This is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, nobody in authority seemed willing to deal with it.”
“We welcome it. The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-244 so that it can be examined in committee. We will even try to improve it, if possible, because I think this is an important issue. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has examined this issue before and it tabled a report with a whole series of recommendations in the House on October 22. We may be able to draw on that report in committee to further improve the bill before us, since I am assuming that everyone in the House will want to send this bill to committee. (1250) The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans' report highlighted certain issues involving wrecked and abandoned vessels specifically, including vessel ownership identification. Sometimes it is difficult to know who owns and is responsible for a particular wreck.”
“This is what the new section 34.1 would say: It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person, if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. Responsibility is therefore assigned to an individual or organization during a transfer of ownership, in order to ensure that the person to whom the boat is being transferred will take care of it and does not intend to let it become a wreck. In my opinion, this is not a negative thing, quite the contrary. Of course, this may not be enough to solve the problem of wrecked vessels, let us be honest. Nevertheless, I think it is still an initiative that cannot be described as bad.”
“Bill C-244 seeks to amend that act, which essentially states that Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of Transport are responsible for implementing a framework for dealing with abandoned vessels. The act also gives the Coast Guard the mandate to keep an inventory of these problematic and dangerous vessels, which are scattered throughout the country. I would say that at first glance, this bill appears to be in the public interest. Its main provision is contained in clause 3. In fact, clause 3 basically sums up this bill, which aims to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by adding section 34.1, concerning transfer of ownership, after section 34.”
“I doubt my partner will consider that cheating. Today, we are discussing Bill C-244 , which was introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country in British Columbia. This member is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, so I would imagine that his role in committee may have led him to take an interest in the subject of his bill. Judging from the name of his B.C. riding, I also assume that he lives near the water. Bill C-244 deals with the issue of derelict vessels in our waters. It should be noted that this issue has been addressed under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act since 2019.”
“Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to speak in the House today, and since it is the last time before the big day tomorrow, February 14, I would like to take a moment to talk about Valentine's Day. I think it is an important day for many people. Obviously, it is very important to me. I would like to take this opportunity to send my love to my partner, to whom I am deeply devoted, as well as to my children, Ulysse, Malbaie and Marcéline. I would also like to wish a happy Valentine's Day to everyone in the House and to all my friends and acquaintances. I might add that today is one of the few days when the colour red does not annoy me, so people here might want to take note. Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to declare my love for my nation, my country: Quebec.”
“Mr. Speaker, in order to solve the problem, the Liberals should start by acknowledging that it exists and stop making it worse. Canada Post is doing business with at least 25 companies that hire Driver Inc. drivers. We gave the Liberals 10 solutions to get these dangerous drivers off our streets, but the problem persists. Not only are the Liberals not using our solutions, but the federal government actually hires Driver Inc. drivers through Canada Post. That raises a fundamental question that every family and every victim has asked but that has gone unanswered: Why do the Liberals not want to solve the problem?”