Bill C-33

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends several Acts in order to strengthen the port system and railway safety in Canada.
The enactment amends the Customs Act to require that, on request, any person in possession or control of imported goods make those goods available for examination in accordance with regulations and deliver those goods, or cause them to be delivered, to a secure area that meets the requirements set out in regulation.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) add a definition of “safety” that includes the concept of security;
(b) prohibit interference with any railway work, railway equipment or railway operation, or damage or destruction of any railway work or railway equipment, without lawful excuse, in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations;
(c) prohibit behaviour that endangers or risks endangering the safety of a station, railway equipment or individuals who are at the station or on board the railway equipment and unruly behaviour toward employees, agents or mandataries of a company;
(d) authorize the Minister to order a company to take necessary corrective measures if the Minister believes that
(i) a measure taken by the company in relation to a requirement of a regulation made under subsection 18(2.1) has deficiencies that risk compromising the security of railway transportation,
(ii) the security management system developed by the company has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security, or
(iii) the implementation of the company’s security management system has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security;
(e) authorize the Minister to grant, refuse to grant, suspend or cancel a transportation security clearance;
(f) strengthen the administrative monetary penalty regime; and
(g) require a review of the operation of the Act every five years.
The enactment also amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 to, among other things,
(a) require persons who import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods to register with the Minister;
(b) provide to the Minister powers relating to the management of safety risks; and
(c) establish an administrative monetary penalty regime.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to, among other things,
(a) set out the Act’s purpose and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with organizations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act;
(b) set out regulation-making powers that include powers respecting threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system, the sharing of information and the establishment of vessel exclusion zones;
(c) authorize the Minister to make interim orders and give emergency directions and modify the Minister’s power to give directions to vessels; and
(d) create new offences, increase certain penalties and extend the application of certain offences and the administrative monetary penalty regime to vessels.
The enactment also amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that the Minister may use electronic systems in making decisions or determinations under an Act of Parliament that the Minister administers or enforces and provide that a power of entry into a place under such an Act may be exercised remotely by means of telecommunications; and
(b) reduce the threshold above which the Minister and the Commissioner of Competition must receive notice of proposed transactions relating to a port.
The enactment also amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) set out that port authorities are responsible for management of traffic and create regulatory authorities respecting fees and information and data sharing in respect of that management;
(b) provide the minister with the power to require, by order, the taking of measures to prevent imminent harm to national security, national economic security, or competition; and
(c) require port authorities to establish advisory committees, which must include representatives from local Indigenous communities, require periodic assessments of port authorities’ governance practices and set out new requirements respecting plans and reports relating to climate change.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act .

[Wade Sobkowich, Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is a national association of grain companies that handle over 90% of our country's bulk grain shipments. Grain transportation makes up roughly 20% of total railway revenue each year, making the WGEA members some of the largest users of Canada's railways and marine ports. Our thanks to you, Madam Chair, and the members of the committee for inviting us on this very important topic.

Canada's ability to compete in global markets hinges on our ability to rail product from the interior of our country to tidewater ports. The efficacy of rail service is therefore a critical component to the success of our supply chains. Air travellers in Canada often experience plane cancellations and delays, missed connections, lost luggage, exorbitant charges and lacklustre travel options. Now imagine there was only one airline available at an airport. That's our reality in rail service.

Above all else, financial accountability and enhanced competitive access regulations for the railways for service performance failures is required. Monetary penalties payable to the shipper for poor service would incentivize railways to put plans in place to avoid them. In addition, measures like extended interswitching that inserts competition creates a threat of loss of business that will drive better rail service.

We also need to recognize the importance of marine ports and vessel traffic to the national economy. With a growing crop, we face the challenge of moving more product each year. This is not a situation of trying to find ways to do more with less. In practical terms, we need to find a way to have more vessels ready to load in the port of Vancouver primarily. It's Canada's largest working port designed for commerce and must first and foremost be viewed through that lens.

Instead, we have Bill C-33 that is going to create a regulated system to restrict the presence of vessels in Canada's ports. Regulators and parliamentarians currently see the presence of vessels in ports and the operation of terminal facilities as a negative. On one hand, we're told Canada wants the economic benefits from exports to worldwide markets, but on the other hand, we're told there are too many vessels in ports and that activities associated with normal vessel loading are a problem.

Bill C-33 only addresses the symptom of vessel wait times, ignoring the root cause of inadequate rail service. If the federal government intends on passing legislation that positively impacts supply chains, it must primarily look at railcar supply from railways versus railcar demand from exporters on a week-to-week basis and introduce legislation that disciplines railways to meet that demand. Opportunity for Canada's exports must be set by customers, not by railways.

Labour disruptions for railway and port services are also hampering Canada's ability to reliably deliver to customers. Canada is about to face a strike on both national railways at the same time, and the consequences are going to be devastating. When strikes or lockouts occur at railways and ports, huge swaths of the economy suffer, not just those in the bargaining process. In a competitive environment, customers can find other options to minimize disruptions. Since railways and ports in the grain sector are singular options, the same threat of loss of business is not present. There are no competitive alternatives.

Whether it's wheat and oats for bakeries or pasta and breakfast cereal manufacturers, or canola and soybeans for vegetable oil, our products are the basis for everyday staple foods. Even short disruptions of supply chains can affect product availability and price, something the pandemic has demonstrated the world over. In this respect, the flow of essential goods necessary for the maintenance and preservation of Canada's domestic food and feed supply and global food security is required even when labour disruptions occur. The requirement for a maintenance of services agreement to be in place prior to a labour stoppage would become automatic with Bill C-58. We believe that parliamentarians should explicitly require these agreements to include movement of essential food products.

The national supply chain task force identified that over the next 50 years, investments of $4.4 trillion in marine and transportation infrastructure will be required to meet the projected growth in population. There is a critical need to step up investment in port infrastructure in Vancouver, especially to address fluidity, particularly with the addition of tanker traffic. There is also an undeniable need for Canada to scrutinize its regulatory and permitting framework, which is unnecessarily rigid, redundant, antiquated and inhibits commercial investments to improve supply chains.

Thank you.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, we've had a discussion. I moved a motion related to M-96 in this committee during our study on Bill C-33, when we proposed having the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Canadian Airports Council and others come before this committee to discuss the impacts that making a change of this nature would have. If we're proposing to have a discussion, I think we could have that discussion.

I would also say we've been waiting to have this meeting regarding the Lake Erie connector for a number of months now, so I would move that we adjourn debate on this motion. Perhaps we can have a discussion at a business meeting. However, I don't think we should get into the debate at this time.

[Robert Dick]

Good afternoon.

I am pleased to appear before the committee on behalf of Transport Canada in my capacity as head of the national supply chain office.

I am joined by my colleagues Colin Stacey, who is also with the office, and Christian Dea, chief economist and director general of transportation economic analysis.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am speaking with you today from the traditional unceded territory of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations.

As technology and transportation systems advance and the world economy becomes more connected and integrated, Canadian businesses are adapting to take advantage of the global factory and marketplace. They are also major suppliers of a number of goods the world depends on, from agriculture and agri-food to fertilizer and critical minerals.

As you can appreciate, Canadian producers can’t access global opportunities without transportation and logistics operators moving the goods each step of the way. Keeping the transportation supply chain flowing smoothly and efficiently isn't just essential for Canadian goods to reach international markets. It also keeps manufacturing costs down, which allows Canadian companies to price more competitively. For Canadian families, more efficient supply chains translate to more affordable goods that they use in their daily lives.

Although Canada’s supply chains work well most of the time, we have not seen significant improvements in productivity within the network in recent years, despite growing demands for access to the global marketplace.

We have also seen in recent years how vulnerable our transportation system can be to disruptions, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change and geopolitical conflicts. Given that future disruptions and trends are hard to predict, government leadership is needed to bring parties together to build the resiliency of our systems while also working towards more efficient and globally connected supply chains.

As a result, our former minister of transport appointed a national supply chain task force in 2022, charged with consulting broadly to gain industry perspectives on ways to improve Canada’s supply chains.

The final recommendations of the task force and Budget 2023 laid the groundwork to establish a national supply chain office.

Minister Rodriguez officially launched the office on December 1, 2023, with the foremost goal of increasing the fluidity, efficiency, resilience and reliability of Canada's supply chains through collaboration with industry, labour, other orders of government and other partners.

The work of the office will build upon the government’s recent investments in the trade and transportation systems, through the national trade corridor fund, and our ongoing effort to reform key legislation underpinning the network, such as through Bill C-33, which seeks to strengthen the port system and railway safety in Canada.

Over time, the work of this office will contribute to advancing other government priorities, including improving the affordability of goods for Canadians, more competitively priced export goods in foreign markets, and greening transport systems.

As we advance the work of the office, our key priorities are providing overarching leadership, coordination and external outreach to examine, and respond to, specific domestic and international supply chain issues, including during disruptions; supporting data sharing and digitalization as part of work to optimize systems and ensure smarter decisions; and developing and implementing a national strategy to drive collaboration across sectors on shared priorities.

Canada's supply chains are intricate and ever-changing. The office is working to understand the logistical and analytical needs of Canada's transportation sector operators and stakeholders, both geographically and for specific value chains. This includes talking directly to those in the know. Through external outreach, we will strengthen our understanding of what capacity is needed to support major projects, where system bottlenecks are, and what sorts of implications regulatory or legislative changes could have on operations.

Our engagement with the private sector will ensure that the government understands the industry perspective. To that end, we are also bringing industry expertise on board within the office.

Given Canada’s position as a trading nation, we fully appreciate the importance of healthy supply chains to the country’s economy and Canadian companies’ success in international markets. While this work will take time, we will take action on the domestic front to ensure that Canadian firms are well placed to connect with global opportunities.

I will conclude my opening remarks here. I'll of course be happy to entertain any questions.

Merci.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in relation to BillC-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I do believe that a map has been drawn up to confirm the boundaries. That was confirmed with the legislative clerks and the drafters who worked on the amendment at a couple of stages.

Maybe “legislative clerk” is the wrong word. The drafters insisted that we map out the coordinates as part of the exercise so that we could confirm that the areas do indeed reflect the areas of concern. We can provide that map if it's of interest to the committee.

With regard to Mr. Strahl's comments, what we also heard over the course of the debate on this bill was that one goal of Bill C-33—the government has assured us of this—is to make the supply chain more efficient. It's going to reduce congestion at ports and reduce the need for anchorages because of all of the many things that they've jammed in here to give the government additional powers to reduce blockages and direct traffic. Ports are moving towards active traffic management systems that are going to make them more like airports in regard to directing marine traffic.

I think all of those things are going to dramatically reduce the likelihood that we'll find ourselves in a situation similar to the one we found ourselves in during the pandemic, which saw an extraordinary amount of traffic backed up and anchored in areas, which had real negative impacts on people and on the environment.

Maybe we'll agree to disagree on this one. I know that this matter has a tremendous amount of support from the residents of those communities. They feel very strongly about this. We are talking about a very unique and precious part of the British Columbian coast that's home to all sorts of important species, including southern resident killer whales, chinook salmon and other species of concern.

I'll leave it at that and hopefully we can move on to a vote.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply the schedule, including the coordinates of the areas of concern in the southern Gulf Islands in British Columbia. I'll note that these coordinates reflect Parks Canada's proposed national marine conservation area for the Salish Sea and the ecologically and biologically significant area identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These are also areas that have been identified by the communities of the Gulf Islands as being of concern.

Our amendment does not prevent anchorage in those areas, it simply limits the duration of anchorage to two weeks and empowers the minister to require vessels to move along after a two-week period. We've seen long stays in those ecologically sensitive areas, and the residents of that area are extremely concerned about the impact of industrial traffic—marine traffic—not only on the ecology but on the quality of life in those rural communities.

I know Ms. Gladu offered to debate every latitude and longitude—which, as a former geography major, I would be happy to engage with—but given that we have already voted on the spirit of the amendment, I would hope we could pass this in due course and finish our work on Bill C-33.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I know we had some internal back and forth. Again, I'm not sure whether the legislative clerk could provide some guidance on what those discussions look like. I know that not all of the Bill C‑33 process has been collaborative, but this was one we all agreed we were going to look for some guidance on.

I would be willing to hear a time frame that is acceptable. If 12 months is too short.... It seemed like a reasonable time. I can't amend my own amendment, but there was some agreement, as I recall—back when we were discussing this—that vacancies are unacceptable after a certain length of time and there should be a remedy provided.

I don't know whether any colleagues are just going to vote this down, or whether we can make this work. I don't have the blues in front of me, but there was discussion about putting it into the hands of officials to capture what we were trying to come up with.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I'm unsure what we eventually came to. We gave this back to officials for them to come up with a way to get us where we wanted to go, which was to provide a remedy for lengthy vacancies where appointments have not been made—in some cases, as we heard, for several years. It was to provide an incentive, perhaps, for a minister to make those appointments in a timely fashion. It was suggested that six months was too short a time period, so we talked about one year.

Then we wanted to ensure that any amendments made to the bill—there were amendments made to the composition of boards, the nomination processes, etc.—would not be lost, and that it wouldn't be a way for boards to avoid their responsibilities under Bill C‑33, should it pass, and the changes that were made in terms of labour nominating directors, etc.

I don't know. We threw it back into the laps of the officials and legislative clerks. I'm not sure what they came up with, or whether they have any further comments. We stood it because we didn't want to get locked in on the six months. We wanted to make sure the changes made through the work of this committee were reflected and that this wasn't an end-around on the other nominating requirements.

I'll throw it back to the officials for commentary and would be willing to discuss the best way forward with colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 97 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue with the clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑33.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The members can attend in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite all members, as well as our witnesses, to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

Colleagues and witnesses, when speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute. That's just a quick reminder there.

Colleagues, to help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑33, I would like to now welcome back our witnesses, who have done a steadfast job thus far. We have, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy. We have Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy. We have Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services, and we have Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Once again we have joining us our legislative clerks, Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé.

Thank you again for being here.

Colleagues, I hope you had a wonderful break.

We'll now dive in with clause 125 with a CPC amendment. With that, I will open the floor for the first time in 2024.

Oh, it's 124, yes. We'll open up debate.

(On clause 124)

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My apologies, Dr. Lewis. The floor is yours.

As I was saying, what is very concerning is that Canada is one of the few G20 nations without a firm regulatory framework around cybersecurity. It's essential at this point, when we're looking at Bill C-33 and Bill C-26, that we keep in mind the need for Canada to act to protect the nation's critical infrastructure and the interconnectedness of these two bills.

We also know that in 2016, member states of the EU passed what was called the most comprehensive cybersecurity bill in the history of the EU. The bill was called the NIS Directive. The EU cybersecurity rules, which were introduced in 2016, were updated and later ratified in 2023. They continue to modernize and create this legal framework, which I think is quite instructive in the Canadian context. It keeps up and it increases the digitization...and the evolving cybersecurity threat, which is something we are attempting to grapple with in the present bills we are contemplating.

Expanding the scope of cybersecurity rules in the new sectors and entities further improves the resilience. We have dealt with resilience in the infrastructure context in this committee. This is also a very important part of what we're talking about in Bill C-33.

We have seen the problems that a huge infrastructure gap can cause, and one of the problems is the ongoing lack of transparency. We have seen, in our situation with the taxpayer-funded Canada Infrastructure Bank, an unacceptable performance over the last seven years. We want to build mechanisms into Bill C-33 to make sure we're not falling into the same traps and shortcomings we've had with other legislation.

Moreover, we have provisions in Bill C-33 that also raise concerns on cybersecurity and response capabilities of the public and private sector entities and competent authorities. In the case that I was discussing before, the EU as a whole can be used as an example of a model that Canada could adopt. When we're contemplating this bill, I think we should look at enabling legislation from different jurisdictions.

We know that most G7 member states are under the umbrella of the EU. The U.S. and the U.K. and Japan have separately implemented cybersecurity regulations to differing degrees, which I think are also instructive in how we confuse Bill C-33 with Bill C-26.

We also have to look at Canadian businesses and how they continue to be impacted by malicious cybersecurity and cyber-activity. This ranges from cyber-attacks to ransomware, and even things that we are exposed to on an everyday basis.

Many of these attacks include those on critical infrastructure. That accounts for nearly half of the attacks, and many of those go unreported.

This is very concerning. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security has identified attacks on operations networks. They've also identified attacks on how it would impact the physical safety of Canadians. That was published in their biennial publication, the “National Cyber Threat Assessment”.

Now, in this context, when we look at the Ministry of Public Safety, we know that they acted to introduce new legislation, Bill C-26, an act respecting cyber security. I believe it was at the first stage in Parliament sometime in November 2022, and it went through second reading, I think, on March 27, 2023. Bill C-26 currently sits in committee. I believe it's going into law, if it hasn't done so already. When we look at where it is, going through the committee stage, and we look at the fact that Bill C-33 is contemplating sections of this bill, we know that it's very important for us to focus on it, because it may have the capacity of adding teeth to the governance and compliance structure of cybersecurity in Bill C-33.

It's very important that we look at the interconnectedness of these two bills, especially inasmuch as is needed in the area of operational technology where critical infrastructure lies.

Although we don't know how the bill is going to necessarily impact on Bill C-33, between the absence of similar legislation in Canada.... We don't know what the impact is going to be, because this is new. This is untested territory, but we know there is an increasing trend toward increased cybersecurity regulation among our international peers.

Having practised international law for a number of years, I can see the importance of Canadian businesses being prepared. Contemplation of this aspect of the bill and how it will be infused in Bill C-33 is very important at this time.

Canada does not have an overarching governing cybersecurity legislation, let alone require the reporting of vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure breaches, which is extremely problematic. Bill C-26 would empower some regulators to impose fines or issue some summary convictions to ensure governance and compliance. This is something that my colleague, Mr. Kurek, spoke about. It's critical to turn our minds to that, especially as we contemplate this bill.

Now I'll go back to Bill C-26. In its current form it includes four critical infrastructure sections, which I think are related to the transportation aspect of Bill C-33. When we look at the transportation corridors that are contemplated in Bill C-33, we see, in Bill C-26, that it's very important to look at these four critical infrastructure sectors: telecommunications, finance, energy and transportation.

The requirements for organizations in these sections are threefold.

First is to implement, maintain and report on the cybersecurity program, which will essentially address the risks across organizations. It will address the risk in third party services. It will address the risk in supply chain—

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek. You ended on the exact note that I'm going to start on.

I want to thank my colleagues for highlighting the interconnectedness between Bill C-33 and Bill C-26. My colleagues covered the importance of parliamentary supremacy, checks and balances and the need to keep the executive branch in check. Mr. Kurek ended on the note of the importance of upholding critical infrastructure and ensuring that bills are conducive to that.

I'm quite concerned at this time about this particular bill and how it impacts on infrastructure and cybersecurity. I read a very good article on infrastructure and cybersecurity. It was by Frank Lawrence and Eric Jensen, published in the Fortinet journal.

When I read the article, what was concerning to me was that it revealed that Canada is among those G7 and G20 nations without a firm regulatory framework around cybersecurity. Canada must act to protect the nation's critical infrastructure assets, and the only way to do that is what we're doing here today—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find it interesting, the things that seem to trigger these Liberals, when it's their policy that triggers them. When it comes to the issue that we have here before us that speaks to the....

Now members from the other side are heckling, supporting.... Maybe they should try running on bringing back the Wheat Board. That would be quite something. That's certainly not what I'm here to talk about. I look forward to being able to continue this conversation around Bill C-33.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Sure. Thanks, Chair.

You're right, I was getting a little bit off topic there.

I'll tell you, it's easy to be passionate about the billions of dollars in economic impact that my people have—the people I'm proud to represent. It's billions of dollars that they have, yet, unfortunately, the Liberals seem to disregard that. They would toss it away for some dream that certainly is more of a dream than any reality, especially when we could be supplying our partners like Ukraine with clean, green Canadian natural resources.

When it comes to Bill C-26 and its relevance here on the Bill C-33 conversation, we have this connection that exists. Why I went down the path of talking about how proud I am of Canada's energy industry is that it's not always recognized how closely connected physical infrastructure and the security associated with that are to the cyber elements of how that works.

I would provide a local example, Chair.

A pipeline company just opened up a new control centre in Hardisty. This example is very relevant to both the physical infrastructure that Bill C-33 represents and the reference that it has to cybersecurity, which is referenced in Bill C-26. There's this close connection that exists. We cannot dismiss that. It goes further when it comes to our rail systems. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see how there's that close connection that exists between the cyber and physical security side of things.

If we don't see Bill C-26 addressing those things appropriately, if it's not responsive to the economic needs, if it doesn't take into account the privacy concerns of Canadians, if it gives too much power to a few individuals in our nation's capital who may not be responsive, or if, likewise, when it comes to Bill C-33 there's not this appropriate delegation of authority that takes into account.... I often refer to the word “tension” or what could be referred to as the Aristotelian mean. We have to find that correct tension or that mean place where we have that balance. I'm fearful that we simply don't get it when it comes to Bill C-26 and some of the elements that we have discussed at length, although most of the clauses have in fact passed.

There's been a change in who is in charge of the public safety file. I won't get into the host of criticisms that have been levelled by Conservatives against the ministers of public safety. They seem to come and go at an alarming rate.

I would, however, like to read from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when it comes to some of the concerns surrounding Bill C-26. Then I will be happy to cede the floor to my colleagues, who I know have a tremendous amount to add to this conversation as well.

Although this letter is dated September 28, 2022, there's particular relevance to what we're discussing here today. It's written to the former minister and the leaders of the opposition parties, including Ms. May as the parliamentary leader of the Green Party. I think she's now co-leader of the Green Party.

It is titled, “Joint Letter of Concern regarding Bill C-26”, and I'll read it directly into the record, Mr. Chair:

Dear Minister,

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to express our serious concerns regarding Bill C-26: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

In your press release announcing this legislation, you were quoted as stating “In the 21st century, cyber security is national security.” We agree, and we share your goal of helping both the public and private sector better protect themselves against cyber attacks.

Isn't this very agreeable up until this point?

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association goes on to say:

However, in its current form, Bill C-26 is deeply problematic and needs fixing.

I would note—because the stickers on my iPad triggered certain members of this committee, I won't show you—that it's actually bolded. Those previous words are bolded because the CCLA wanted to make sure they were emphasized in the context of this conversation.

It says:

As drafted, it risks undermining our privacy rights, and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process which are the fabric of Canadian democracy. The legislation needs to be substantively amended to ensure it delivers effective cybersecurity protections while safeguarding these essential democratic principles.

As you know, Bill C-26 grants the government sweeping new powers over vast swathes of the Canadian economy. We believe these powers need to be strictly delimited and accompanied by meaningful safeguards and reporting requirements to ensure Canadians can hold their government and security agencies to account.

Next, this is in bold again, Mr. Chair, and I reference that because it's obvious that the CCLA wanted to ensure that this was emphasized:

Put simply, with great power must come great accountability.

With a view to improving this legislation, we share with you the following specific areas of concern:

Opens the door to new surveillance obligations: Bill C-26 empowers the government to secretly order telecom providers “to do anything or refrain from doing anything.” This opens the door to imposing surveillance obligations on private companies, and to other risks such as weakened encryption standards—something the public has long rejected as inconsistent with our privacy rights.

Termination of essential services: Under Bill C-26, the government can bar a person or company from being able to receive specific services, and bar any company from offering these services to others, by secret government order. This opens the door to Canadian companies or individuals being cut off from essential services without explanation. Bill C-26 fails to set out any explicit regime, such as an independent regulator with robust powers, for dealing with the collateral impacts of government Security Orders.

It goes on to mention that it:

Undermines privacy: Bill C-26 empowers the government to collect broad categories of information from designated operators, within any time and subject to any conditions. This may enable the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations.

I would just note, Chair, that when it comes to the de-identified side of things, that's often an excuse that gets used. I know from my role on the ethics committee that we had a study that was undertaken when it was learned that the government had purchased a huge amount of data on movements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it was claimed to be de-identified, there were massive question marks associated with the amount of data the government received. I know that there was an overwhelming amount of concern that I certainly heard.

A number of people reached out to us when they did not hear back from Liberal members of the committee who didn't echo some of the concerns about how much information was being gathered: things like people knowing that the government could determine when people were going to the grocery store and liquor stores and other things. Certainly, in a free and democratic society, there were concerns about it. It was unclear. Canadians are pretty trusting, but they want to be respected. I talk about that tension or that Aristotelian mean that needs to be found, and I fear that this government has pulled that tension totally out of whack.

However, I digress. I will get back to what the CCLA has to say.

It goes on to say that there are “No guardrails to constrain abuse”.

Bill C-26 lacks mandatory proportionality, privacy, or equity assessments, or other guardrails, to constrain abuse of the new powers it grants the government — powers accompanied by steep fines or even imprisonment for non-compliance. These orders apply both to telecommunications companies, and to a wide range of other federally-regulated companies and agencies designated under the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act.... Prosecutions can be launched in respect of alleged violations of Security Orders which happened up to three years in the past.

I would just note that in a late show that I was a part of yesterday—and I know that my colleague was actually there, too—I was shocked that the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg North talked in support of a policy that actually sent farmers to prison. Now, I wouldn't want to go off topic here, so I won't get into the conversation around the Wheat Board, but my goodness, how concerning is it that the government would support policies that threw farmers into prison for wanting to sell their grain without the government controlling it? It is unbelievable that that's the point that these Liberals would go to, and that they still support it even after it was very clear that Canadians and farmers wanted the ability to sell their grain without the government controlling them. Truly it was an unbelievable level of control, which was specifically targeted at the west. It's quite something to have heard, and I'm sure my colleague here would agree with me that it was unbelievable to hear that be brought up in conversation in the House of Commons yesterday, that they would prefer to throw farmers in prison than to have a legitimate conversation around the impacts of, in that case, the carbon tax.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope everybody was able to have a good short break. I know that was seven or eight minutes of freedom that people had, but I'm sure they're thrilled to get back to the important conversation that we have here before us.

Mr. Chair, specifically due to the two-hour time change, of course, back in Alberta and the riding I'm proud to represent, I would note that my wife has probably just finished putting my kids to bed. To my boys, I love you guys; hopefully you're listening to your mama as she puts you to bed. I look forward to connecting with my wife post 11:30, after this committee wraps. That's one of the big things, when our families are back home holding down the proverbial fort.

Mr. Chair, I left off talking a bit about the wide-sweeping powers associated with Parliament when we live in a democracy where the idea of parliamentary supremacy is absolutely paramount. I believe I unpacked it adequately in the context and certainly I have a whole host of other things to say about that but wouldn't want to dive too deep into that in the short time that we have here.

However, I want to make sure that I get to the recommendations that this article references in terms of Bill C-26. It goes on to say...and I'll summarize this and then have a few other important interjections that I look forward being able to make.

The article said: “Given that the Bill has just been introduced,”—this article is a bit dated, but nonetheless very relevant—“its passage is not guaranteed, and additional changes to the draft law”—or in the Canadian context, bill—“may occur. However, and in the interim, if you are a provider of vital services”—which speaks to that vital connection that we have with Bill C-33 here before us—“and systems as described in the Bill, we recommend that you consider taking the following steps to improve your cyber resilience:

The first is:

Preemptively improve your security posture and processes to conform with the CSE’s best practices and guidance, or industry practices, and ensure that your contracts contain sufficient cybersecurity provisions to protect all parties in the supply chain; and

given the secrecy and potential immediacy of Government orders and directives, Telcos and Designated Operators should draft contracts to flow down potential cyber security risks appropriately.

That's almost unique in terms of some of the recommendations that have been made in the context of this bill. The authors go on to talk about how, if you are a supplier of products and services related to critical systems of designated operators as described in the bill, we recommend that you take the following steps:

Preemptively improve your security posture and processes as described immediately above in anticipation of more strenuous cybersecurity requirements requested by Designated Operators; and

I'll make a final point on this one, and then I'll look forward to getting into a few other aspects of debate here. The final point is:

anticipate shouldering more risk when contracting with Designated Operators and consult with your insurance provider accordingly.

A big thank you to Lisa R. Lifshitz—I believe I'm saying that appropriately—and Cameron McMaster, the authors of this. I believe it provides a good summary and a few very relevant recommendations in terms of the context.

I would note here as well, we're talking about critical infrastructure and, I know, specifically some of the larger conversations surrounding Bill C-33. We have the need for resiliency throughout every aspect of that, whether it's in relation to security, which is very important, or some of the challenges associated with climate. There has to be that security that does exist there, and we have to be mindful of that in the larger context of everything that we are discussing and how relevant that is.

On that note, Michael Den Tandt, if I'm correct on this—and I'm certainly happy to stand corrected—in an opinion piece to the Ottawa Citizen, which I believe is relevant especially for the Bill C-26 aspect here.... Michael Den Tandt ran for the Liberal Party in the 2019 election, if memory serves. He entered on December 4, so it seems like it's been more than a couple of weeks. Just last week, a column by him was published in the Ottawa Citizen.

Although it seems as if it's been more than a couple of weeks, he published this column in the Ottawa Citizen last week. I believe it would be very valuable to this conversation.

Den Tandt said the following in his column, “Canadian government must take the time needed to get its cyber security bill right”:

Bill C-26, the federal government's stab at shoring up the country's cyber readiness, passed first reading in the House of Commons on June 14, 2022. The legislation has two thrusts: first, to keep hardware from adversarial states out of Canada's telecom networks; second, to ensure our critical infrastructure is hardened against a plethora of new digital threats.

Nearly a year later, in late March of 2023, C-26 limped through second reading. The bill now rests with the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, for review and possible amendment.

That this law continues to languish at committee, 16 months after it first saw the light of day, encapsulates one of its core failings which, in fairness, is not unique to this piece of lawmaking: Despite showing signs of having been written in a hurry, presumably in hopes of keeping pace with technological change, it's emerging too slowly.

By the time it passes third reading, then meanders its way through the Senate to Royal Assent, C-26 may well have been overtaken by events. The threats it is intended to counter are multiplying far more quickly than the glacial pace of the legislative process appears able to match.

What are these threats? The latest National Cyber Threat Assessment from the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security encapsulates them in language that, for a government document, is remarkably direct.

Cyber-criminals are rapidly scaling up, evolving ransomware and other attacks into a trans-national enterprise, while state actors—specifically China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—are deploying vast resources to attack and undermine open economies and societies by eroding trust in public institutions and the factual foundation on which their credibility rests. “You may be tempted to stop reading halfway through,” writes CCSE Head Sami Khouri in the foreword, “disconnect all your devices and throw them in the nearest dumpster.”

As a note, Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to serve on the public safety committee for a short time in the 43rd Parliament. Hearing briefings from experts was eye-opening, to say the least, when we had examples. I believe it was CSIS, in their public report, that said there are 4 billion attempted attacks on Canadian cyber infrastructure in the course of a year. That's absolutely mind-boggling—the growing sophistication of the enemies of freedom and Canada, and the steps they will take to attack us and our infrastructure.

Den Tandt goes on to say the following:

To counter this, the draft bill offers two pillars: first, a revamp of the Telecommunications Act, giving the federal minister of Innovation, Science and Industry sweeping powers to order companies to ban certain products, clients or service providers, with possible daily penalties of up to $15 million a day if they don't comply; and second, the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCSPA), which would allow the minister and an appointed official to order cyber measures in federally regulated parts of the private sector considered essential to national security.

These include telecom, energy and power infrastructure such as pipelines, nuclear plants, federally regulated transportation, banking, clearing and settlement.

For all those questioning the relevance of this conversation, Den Tandt himself speaks about how closely connected this is to the conversation surrounding Bill C-33.

Seen from 10,000 ft. up, the broad scope of the legislation will appear justified to some; after all, don't significant threats justify dramatic action? But there's a difference between action that is on point, and action so riddled with gaps that it'll need a reboot the day it becomes law.

Christopher Parsons, in a dissection for The Citizen Lab, outlines six major concerns, any of which should be grounds for disqualification. These include an excess of arbitrary power, too much secrecy, inadequate controls on information-sharing within government, potentially prohibitive costs for smaller firms (the legislation draws no distinctions based on scale, or industry sector), vague language, and no recognition of Charter or privacy rights.

Brenda McPhail, in an October, 2022 analysis for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, echoes many of Parsons’ criticisms, noting wryly that the law joins “an increasingly long line of legislation that would fill a clear need, if only it were better.”

If the goal, broadly, is governance that promotes prosperity, security, accountability, diversity and equity in a democratic society—then C-26, as drafted, should not pass.

Is legislation urgently needed? Absolutely. But have its drafters gotten it right? No. Given the blitzkrieg pace of growth in cyber threat vectors, it makes sense to continue to manage these threats on an ad hoc basis, as the minister has been doing, with assistance from The Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the CCCS, and take the time needed to get the legislation right.

Thank you, Chair, for indulging me in that, because it's important context, and I would just note that the specificity of the criticisms that Den Tandt brings forward and the fact that he ran for the Liberal Party a short four years ago speak to two things I'd like to reference. I'm sure there's more, which maybe my colleagues would be interested in following up on, that references indirectly, first, that disconnect that exists between Parliament and executive government.

I would just note—and I know my colleague Mr. Strahl referenced this in a different context a number of times—that we had the conversation surrounding Huawei. Parliament, in fact, spoke up a host of times, telling the government that it needed to act. It wasn't a recommendation. It wasn't a suggestion; it was demanding action, yet we see still, in relation to the security of essential cyber networks in our country, that lack of action. The unwillingness for that action to take place sets Canada back what would be a... The pace that technology advances has set Canada back very significantly.

I know that it is key to ensuring that government is responsive not only to the demands of what Parliament is in terms of institution.... There's no other place in the country—and this is something that I think bears special emphasis—that every part of Canada is truly represented. I find it interesting that there seem to be a plethora of advisory boards and consultations, some of which have more legitimacy than others, but it's truly Parliament that is that voice for Canadians.

I'm always a bit hesitant, and maybe more than just a bit, when an advisory panel is set up. Specifically, I know that there are other bills that are before Parliament that set up some of these advisory panels, and this speaks to the disconnect that exists between Parliament and executive government. They set up these panels that sometimes are so disconnected from those who are impacted, and again, fearing that I would venture into something that would not be relevant, when it comes to critical infrastructure and specifically when you look at rail.... I have three main line rail lines that run through my constituency, and I represent about 53,000 square kilometres of what I refer to as God's country. It is a beautiful area in east central Alberta. It's a large area; in fact, it's about the same size as the province of Nova Scotia, just for context for those around the table.

I always find it very concerning when these advisory panels get set up, and they certainly don't often have the best interests of my constituents in mind, and we saw that and are seeing that played out in the so-called just transition.

Truly, there's no justice for my constituents, including the thousands and thousands who work in the energy industry. We saw that this was very directly the case when it came to the coal phase-out. The federal government promised to be there, and yet they were not. They failed my constituents. They failed the people who were told the federal government would have their backs.

I think that speaks to a disconnect between the role that Parliament should be playing—that ability to represent the people of our country—and the fact that quite often these so-called advisory panels end up being nothing more than a platform for the government to spout its same talking points. That's a deeply, deeply concerning trend that we have. One doesn't have to look any further than the appointments of these so-called independent panels.

Chair, there's a reason I bring this up. There's a specificity in relation to this. If we want to ensure that we are passing legislation, when it comes to Bill C-33 or some of the criticisms we've levelled at Bill C-26 and how the government clearly references both here....

They're expecting both to pass, although Den Tandt certainly has a host of criticisms to level at Bill C-26. I'm hopeful that my colleagues in the public safety committee will be fully engaged when this debate comes forward, but I would suggest that one needs to take very, very seriously the role that we have to play here.

That's part one of the criticisms I would suggest when it comes to where some of these things are. The second part here comes to how, as we develop an infrastructure, we have to take seriously our responsibility to ensure that this is done not only in terms of the demands of today, which is key, but also in building that for tomorrow.

I would actually reference something that I am quite familiar with. There are two industries that I am very, very proud to represent—and a pretty significant portion of it. Had we had the opportunity to debate the motion that I was so unfortunately shut down on, I would have talked at length about the impact agriculture has in the close to 5,000 farms, most of which are family-owned small operations or small businesses, not the big successful ones that the Prime Minister referenced in question period today. I'm not quite sure what metric he uses for that when they're paying the carbon tax, but certainly it's small operations.

We see how there is this demand for that infrastructure to be secure. That includes the cyber element of that. We've seen attacks that have shut down significant portions and left critical infrastructure in our country at risk.

I believe I was in junior high at the time, so this is going back a little while, when a power outage took place in the northwestern United States. It was deemed to be an accident, but it shut down New York City in terms of the power. It shut down a host of other jurisdictions, including some in Quebec and Ontario. It spoke to some of the interconnectedness that existed in our infrastructure.

More recently, a cyber-attack shut down the pipeline system on the eastern seaboard of the United States. Certainly, I mentioned agriculture before, but I also represent another significant portion: 87% of Canada's crude oil transits through Battle River-Crowfoot. Some of it is produced there, but 87% of Canada's crude transits through Battle River-Crowfoot.

When my colleagues wonder why I'm so passionate about our energy industry, it's because I get it. Unfortunately, we seem to have what my father would suggest is “city ignorance”. I won't venture too far down that path, but it's unfortunate that sometimes there's not a better understanding of how important some of this critical infrastructure is. That's not only in terms of our economy and the billions of dollars. In fact, if I look at the community of Hardisty, for those from Hardisty....

Who knows? They might be watching this right now. I know they're passionate about educating Canadians on the importance of energy infrastructure and how it is so unfortunate that—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I certainly look forward to hearing what Dr. Lewis has to say about this. I know she has a great familiarity with this subject matter.

Chair, perhaps I could continue, because I do want to ensure that this is added to the record. I just mentioned how telcos will not be compensated, and I believe I provided a brief interjection about some of the commentary that has been provided at other committees in relation to compensation for financial losses.

Certainly, in the highly regulated telecom environment that Canada finds itself in, that would be a massive conversation that we could have at some point, but that would be venturing into the territory of not being relevant, so I wouldn't want to go there.

I will, however, continue with this summary, which talks about how:

The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos' compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000...per day for individuals (such as directors and officers)....

Chair, that summary relates to a significant ability and discretion, and this summarizes from a legal perspective some of the commentary that was in the brief Mr. Strahl provided. I want to ensure this is part of the record, because they're endeavouring not to take a specific position but rather to ensure theirs is non-partisan. As hard as that is for certain members of the committee to believe, if they have seen my debates in the House, it's important and valuable that such a perspective be included.

It then goes on to say, in regard to information sharing and secrecy:

The CCSPA and the Amendments require Designated Operators, Telcos, and any other person to share confidential information with the Appropriate Regulators, and Governor-in-Council and Minister, respectively, in furtherance of the objectives of the Bill. This confidential information may be shared with multiple federal government organizations, provincial and foreign counterparts, as well as international organizations, to pursue the objectives of the CCSPA and the Amendments. While these information exchanges will be governed by agreements and memorandums of understanding between the parties, the Minister may disclose the information if [it] is necessary in the Minister's opinion to secure the telecom system.

Given the national security purpose underlying this Bill, the secrecy of the orders is paramount. The orders from the Governor-in-Council and Minister may be subject to non-disclosure requirements. Moreover, for the sake of secrecy and expediency, the orders and directions of the Governor-in-Council and Minister do not follow the complete process outlined in the Statutory Instruments Act, and thus, are not registered, published, or debated in an open manner.

Certainly when it comes to that relationship, it's important to acknowledge—I know we've had a number of discussions, including on one of the clauses we passed here when I think there was a desire for further debate, but it ended up being moved forward—that a tremendous amount of latitude is being given to executive government when it comes to some of the powers that are associated with Bill C-26 as it relates to Bill C-33, and one has to be aware of the granting of power to executive government. That is certainly something that Parliament is able to do under our Westminster system.

However, it's important to keep in mind the larger tension that needs to exist to ensure that we do not forget at the very foundation—and this is incredibly relevant, not only to this but to everything we do here—that the government is only a function of Parliament.

I know that's something that can be a bit lost in the midst of conversation. I know that this very statement has even been deemed controversial at different points in time. Earlier this week we celebrated the Statute of Westminster, the point at which we brought home the Constitution, and I would note that it was an incredibly significant moment in Canadian history. That is relevant to the conversation here today, because it's Parliament that enacts laws that give the government its authority.

I would just note how we have seen various instances throughout our recent history—in particular the last eight years—where there has been more latitude given than I would suggest is appropriate. There are times when we could ensure that Parliament is able to better fulfill its job by a government that respects the fact that whether it's committees, or whether it's the role that the House of Commons and the Senate play in terms of our bicameral Parliament in ensuring that it is the ultimate arbiter of the land....

In fact, our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually ensure that that is, in fact, the case with the notwithstanding clause, which I know the Liberals have.... In fact, I believe it was Paul Martin in a previous election—I was getting back to that. I couldn't even vote at the time, if members around the committee table can believe that. It was Paul Martin who, during a press conference, announced that he was looking at getting rid of that. I'm not sure that he understood the consequences, both in terms of the constitutionality or the amending ability of Parliament to be able to do that.

However, when it comes to the relationship to the issue before us, we have these wide-sweeping powers being given to executive government. If there is not the appropriate accountability, as the American Bar Association, in this article, is highlighting, it would be the.... We need to have clear direction to every element of what government is, to ensure that there is that check on executive government.

I do find it interesting. I'll get right back into the ABA. This article has a number of recommendations. I would just note that there are two quite distinguished lawyers who put together this article, which gives this overview of Bill C-26, and how it applies in the context of where Bill C-33 is.

Specifically, Chair, one can never assume that one will be in power forever, whether that's the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party. If we have the honour—and I certainly hope we do—we look forward to those days when we'll have the opportunity to govern on behalf of Canadians.

However, I find one always needs to look in the mirror. In fact, I've asked in the House quite a number of times about what the government would think, if they were in the opposition benches, about something that they were doing. It would not necessarily be the policy, because policy is one thing. You can disagree with policy. However, you need to be very mindful about how you approach the ability for a parliament to function in a manner that respects the very basis of what our democratic system is meant to be.

Chair, when it comes to the wide-ranging powers that are given to executive government, we do have to be very mindful that there's certainly a role that executive government needs to play in the administration of infrastructure, the administration of security and intelligence, and all of the aspects of what we're talking about here. However, when it comes down to it, Parliament is supreme in our country. We cannot forget that.

To ensure that I don't venture off into an area that would be deemed not relevant, I certainly won't spend time talking about a few examples of that, but there are some very pressing issues—one of which would be the designation of the IRGC as a terrorist entity.

Parliament spoke on that, yet we have an executive government that refuses to acknowledge.... I use that as an emphasis, not to get into the details of that issue, although it's certainly one that dominates a lot of our time in light of the atrocities that took place against Israel, and how Iran, and the IRGC specifically, funded and supports Hamas as a terrorist entity.... The fact that there's that disconnect is the point I'm making here. That speaks very closely to why we need to be very circumspect in the way we approach the role of executive government. There's that understanding. It has to come back to respecting Parliament.

If I had had the opportunity to talk about Bill C-234, I certainly would have, at length, talked about how that bill saw a great deal of support, including Liberal support by a few brave Liberals who were willing to support that bill.

Unfortunately, it was not able to get the support that it, I believe, should have received from the other place. Again, I wouldn't want to go into the area of not being relevant. When it comes to recommendations, I would—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm happy to address the point of order that was just raised. You know, it was not Conservatives who wrote this bill. When the Liberals did so, they did it with a reference to Bill C-26. If that member has concerns about the wider application of this bill, I would suggest he has an opportunity to get on the speaking list to ask those very questions. When it comes to the way in which there is that cross-application, certainly it bears relevance to it. Because of the way it was written, it provides that very application.

I will continue with regard to Bill C-26, Mr. Chair, as follows:

report cybersecurity incidents to the Canadian Security Establishment (the “CSE”);

comply with and maintain the confidentiality of directions from the Governor-in-Council; and

keep records related to the above.

To enforce these new obligations, the CCSPA grants to the Appropriate Regulators investigatory, auditing, and order-making powers, including issuing administrative monetary penalties (“AMPs”) of up to $1 million per day for individuals (such as directors and officers), and $15 million per day for other persons. Additionally, Designated Operators, and their directors and officers, may also be fined—or imprisoned if a director or officer—if either contravene specific provisions of the CCSPA; the amount of a fine is at the discretion of the federal court.

Now, that's the critical cyber systems protection act, but this article goes on to reference, in its summary of Bill C-26, the Telecommunications Act amendments. I found it very valuable in terms of that conversation and how, of course, when we talk about the application to Bill C-33, there is a tremendous amount of overlap when it comes to telecommunications and the critical infrastructure that our country depends on.

It goes on to say the following:

The amendments to the Telecommunications Act (the “Amendments”) establish new order-making powers for the Governor-in-Council and the Minister of Industry (the “Minister”) to direct Telcos to take specific actions to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. Specifically, the Governor-in-Council may, by order,

prohibit a Telco from using all the products and services offered by a specified person; and

direct a Telco to remove all products provided by a specified person.

The Minister, after consultation with the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, may, by order,

prohibit a Telco from providing services to a specified person; and

direct a Telco to suspend any service to a specified person.

Additionally, the Amendments grant the Minister the power to direct Telcos to do anything or refrain from doing anything that is, in the Minister’s opinion, necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system, including the following:

It then includes a number of points there.

I would just note and make the connection to some of the evidence that Mr. Strahl brought into the conversation, and some of the briefs entered into the committee, in the context of some of the concerns, especially from civil liberty and privacy groups. I know that there's been a host of experts. Again, as a member of the ethics committee, which deals with privacy, I know there's been a host of concerns brought forward. We have a great deal of them, especially because of the tech industry that has found its home both in my province of Alberta, where there's a huge boom in the high-tech sector, and in other areas across the country. In fact, I stand to be corrected here, but I believe the Ottawa area was known as “Silicon Valley north” at one point in time.

There's certainly the privacy and also the security related to that. There's a specific tension there. Some of the evidence that Mr. Strahl read into the record I think bears specific relevance to this larger conversation and how that applies to the transportation infrastructure of our nation.

The summary goes on to talk about Bill C-26, and it includes a number of summaries here that really succinctly identify some of what Bill C-26 talks about.

It starts off by saying:

prohibiting Telcos from using any specified product in or in relation to Telcos’ network or facilities, or part thereof;

prohibiting Telcos from entering service agreements for any product or service;

requiring Telcos to terminate a service agreement;

prohibiting the upgrade of any specified product or service; and

subjecting the Telcos’ procurement plans to a review process.

Mr. Chair, it goes on to say:

Interestingly, Telcos will not be compensated for any financial losses resulting from these orders.

As was noted, I believe, in the debate surrounding Bill C-26, they wouldn't anticipate there to be a large number, unless it started getting into the firms.... That's certainly an open question that I trust will be answered as Bill C-26 is further studied at their committee, but I wouldn't want to venture off the topic that we have before us.

It goes on to say:

The Amendments introduce new enforcement powers for the Minister of Industry to monitor the Telcos’ compliance with the orders or future regulations, including investigatory powers and issuing AMPs of up to $25,000–$50,000 per day for individuals (such as directors and officers), and up to $10–$15 million per day for other persons. Moreover, contravention of orders or regulations may result in prosecution whereby the Telcos, and their directors and officers, may have to pay fines (whose amount is at the discretion of the court) or face imprisonment.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I am having trouble connecting what my colleague is saying with Bill C‑33. Would it be possible for my colleague to enlighten us about the connection between the two, or else to shorten his preamble, in the interests of the efficiency of the committee?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Certainly, it's not only Conservatives who don't have confidence in those Liberals, but also an increasing number of Canadians who don't have confidence in the Liberals' ability to manage the country. I hear that on a regular basis. Again, if that member wants to be serious, I'm happy to have that conversation.

When it comes to Bill C-26, I'm glad to have the opportunity, after that member's push towards talking in circles, to get back to the matter at hand.

I have an article from the business law section of the American Bar Association that I think bears particular relevance to the conversation we are having. Chair, if you would indulge me, I believe it has context that is important to the discussions we are having. In particular, I find it interesting—and I'll jump into this article in a moment—how this provides important context.

The way the Liberals wrote the legislation does provide a great deal of latitude. There are two separate bills before Parliament, and certainly, they're taking great liberties when it comes to the assumption that things will pass, especially in a minority Parliament. That issue aside, the way the legislation was written, in particular, speaks to the larger conversation and especially to how it's different committees that study different aspects of these bills.

With Bill C-26, there was certainly some concern brought forward. I am a regular member of the ethics committee. There are some challenges in relation to this, and Mr. Strahl, in some of his interventions, referenced this. There are some specific noteworthy impacts. When it comes to the critical infrastructure being addressed in the context of Bill C-33, and the way the Liberals have taken liberty in writing the bill, which has a wide swath of expectations through to another bill, it certainly creates that context as to why this is so relevant.

This article that I will be referencing, Chair, and that I look forward to making part of this discussion, talks about the critical cyber systems protection act. It goes as follows:

The CCSPA introduces a new cybersecurity compliance regime for designated operators of critical cyber systems related to vital services and systems (“Designated Operators”). A critical cyber system is defined as a cyber system that, if its confidentiality, integrity, or availability were compromised, could affect the continuity or security of a vital service or system. Currently, the list of vital services and systems is comprised of the Canadian telecommunications system, the banking systems, and other federally regulated industries, such as energy and transportation. However, the Governor-in-Council may add new vital services and systems, and such Designated Operators will be governed by the CCSPA.

I would just take a brief pause there. I think the introductory paragraph of this article, which I am entering into the conversation, speaks to that direct relevance to the larger conversation related to Bill C-33.

The article goes on to say:

Under the CCSPA, Designated Operators must:

establish a cybersecurity program (details of which are more fully provided in the CCSPA and its regulations) within ninety days of an order being made by the Governor-in-Council;

implement and maintain a cybersecurity program, as well as annually review it;

mitigate cybersecurity threats arising from their supply chains, or products and services offered by third parties;

share their cybersecurity programs and notify appropriate regulators (namely, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Minister of Industry, the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canadian Energy Regulator, and the Minister of Transportation) (the “Appropriate Regulators”) of material changes related to the business of Designated Operators and their cybersecurity programs—

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Could we focus on Bill C‑33? I don't understand how the member's comments relate to it. He is going around in circles and we are wasting time.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I appreciate the remarks that my colleague Mr. Strahl made, especially in light of the interconnectedness of Bill C-33 and Bill C-26 and how, in light of those connections, it becomes incredibly relevant.

To address a few of Mr. Badawey's previous points, I find it perplexing myself how the Liberals seem to have this tendency to find concern with anyone who is unable to buy what they're selling hook, line and sinker.

Certainly when I hear from constituents, which I do on a very regular basis, they encourage me to do everything I can to ensure I am being their voice in the nation's capital. When it comes to some of the legislation that may not always garner the headlines it deserves—and certainly Mr. Strahl mentioned it in the brief he presented before this committee—I think it is important for Canadians to know how, with the discussions we have, whether before the transport committee or the various other duties that all of us undertake on a regular basis in the nation's capital, there are important connections that do in fact take place.

Just to note, if you would permit me, Mr. Chair, I endeavoured to have a discussion—and I even had an object lesson—on 2019 rural Alberta special areas wheat. I looked forward to discussing that in the context of Bill C-234. Now, I wouldn't want to be off topic from the conversation around the bill we have before us today, but certainly I would express my disappointment that we didn't have the opportunity to discuss that common-sense Conservative bill that would have brought needed relief to families and support to our great farmers from coast to coast.

I want to ensure that I stick to the conversation we have before us when it comes to the way that the bill this committee is studying and the impact that some of the.... As Mr. Strahl stated, when you have a bill that references a previously passed bill, one of the concerns that were highlighted—and certainly it's not limited to this one—is that when briefs are submitted, sometimes they don't get the due opportunity to be engaged in. The fact that Bill C-26 is currently being studied at committee, I think, speaks to this interconnectedness. I know that Conservatives have endeavoured to—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I am just getting started, Mr. Chair.

I will read this document to the end. Then I will probably have some other briefs that are very important and give some great insight into Bill C-26, which is extremely relevant. I will speak until I believe my point has been made. Evidently, I still have some work to do to convince some members of the committee that we should be concerned about this bill and its link to Bill C-33.

I'll continue reading this document until it ends. At the end of every brief that I submit to the committee and read into the record, I kind of take stock then and determine whether I believe the point has been received or whether there is further relevant information.

I'm sorry, but I can't give a more specific answer. I know we're eight minutes away from Mr. Iacono's next break. I will continue reading this particular document, because I know many of my colleagues are interested in my picking that back up.

The next section of this brief talks about privacy impacts and section 8 of the charter.

20. Bill C-26 proposes several new information collection and sharing powers, and may include the collection or sharing of personal information. Many of these powers are insufficiently bounded or defined. The potential privacy risks posed by the powers are heightened by the absence of key accountability and oversight mechanisms. The breadth of the unsupervised information collection and sharing powers heightens the risk that the legislation, if passed as drafted, could unreasonably interfere with section 8 of the Charter in at least three [or] four ways.

21. First, the federal government's Charter statement posits that Bill C-26 does not interfere with section 8, in part, as a result of the fact that the “the information being gathered and shared in this context relates to the technical operations of TSPs, which are commercial entities”, as opposed to “personal biographical information that attracts a heightened privacy interest”. However, Bill C-26 does not explicitly draw this distinction between technical information or other forms of personal information when defining collection or information sharing powers in the bill.

22. Instead, Bill C-26 provides authority to compel a broad array of information-holders to disclose a broad array of information. While the Charter statement for Bill C-26 emphasizes the regulatory nature of the scheme in Bill C-26, unlike other statutory inspection powers that have been subject to Charter challenges historically, there is no reason to interpret the statutory powers in Bill C-26 as applying only to information in which there is a low expectation of privacy. Rather, section 15.4 would provide authority to compel “any person” to provide “any information” under “any conditions that the Minister may specify,” so long as the Minister believes it is relevant to its order making powers. The persons and entities subject to this provision in many circumstances play an integral role in the lives of people in Canada, and may well be information-holders in respect of highly sensitive or personal information.

23. Second, while some aspects of Bill C-26 are regulatory in nature, Bill C-26 also creates criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for non-compliance with specified orders or regulations. Statutory powers authorize collecting and sharing information for the purposes of “verifying compliance or preventing non-compliance” with those orders or regulations. The legislation therefore creates risks that information will be compelled or shared during investigations pertaining to the criminal offences created by Bill C-26, or other offences. Furthermore, the breadth of the order making powers under Bill C-26 mean that the collection of information for the purposes of making such orders may cause serious consequences that are separate and apart from any regulatory or criminal prosecution.

24. Third, section 8 also protects privacy by requiring adequate accountability and review mechanisms to accompany information collection powers, even in administrative or regulatory contexts. The Supreme Court states that “[w]hile less exacting review may be sufficient in a regulatory context, the availability and adequacy of review is nonetheless relevant to reasonableness under s. 8.” Canadian constitutional law has long recognized that without clearly defined safeguards (often including prior judicial oversight), legislation that authorizes intrusions on reasonably held expectations of privacy is inconsistent with s. 8 of the Charter. In some circumstances involving searches that are not subject to warrant requirements, the Court still expects that additional safeguards will be established to ensure the requisite level of transparency and accountability, and to help ensure that such powers are not abused. For example, requiring notice to the persons whose information is affected allows the affected individuals to identify and challenge invasions of their privacy, as well as seek a meaningful remedy. Appellate courts have recognized a range of accountability measures when assessing the reasonableness of search and seizure powers, such as: notice requirements (including after-the-fact notice); reporting obligations (to independent institutions or Parliament); the availability of clear mechanisms for review of the exercise of collection powers; clear rules limiting collection powers to what is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate; and record-keeping requirements.

25. Part 3 of this brief will identify several mechanisms that are necessary to improve accountability surrounding the proposed powers in Bill C-26. For example, the draft legislation proposes broad information sharing powers with no notice requirements. This would mean that individuals and organizations whose information has been collected would have no way of knowing of the fact that information has been shared, thus thwarting review and challenge. Individuals who have private information held by, and collected from, third-party organizations would also not be aware that their information has been collected in the first place, let alone shared with other government entities.

26. Fourth, the extensive confidentiality provisions in Bill C-26 may actually further undermine accountability mechanisms surrounding the bill's proposed information collection powers in ways that would be difficult to reasonably justify under s. 8. Section 15.4 of the proposed Telecommunications Act authorizes the Minister to require “any person” to provide “any information” under “any conditions that the Minister may specify.” These conditions would foreseeably include conditions to extend confidentiality obligations to the Minister's use of collection powers. The secrecy provisions in Bill C-26, and the authority to extend those secrecy obligations through further “conditions”, could effectively chill or silence individuals or entities from notifying other persons that their personal information has been collected, or from challenging the exercise of government power. Furthermore, excessive secrecy surrounding existing—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Whether or not people are paying attention, I certainly have been riveted by the information that Mr. Strahl has been sharing, and I think he outlined very specifically after the previous intervention how this does in fact have relevance.

Of note, it was not Conservatives who wrote this bill: It was the government. It is a fact that the principles of relevance speak to some latitude that can be given, but I would suggest that is not even necessary in this case, because Mr. Strahl has been very articulately bringing forward a series of points that had been presented related to a bill that Bill C-33 refers to in its widespread application.

Chair, I would urge that this is not only relevant but very prescient of the larger conversation that we have here before us.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is important. Again, the title in Bill C-33 says “Coordinating Amendment”, and then the subtitle is “Bill C-26”. If Bill C-26, which was introduced in the first session of the 44th Parliament and is entitled “An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments other Acts”, receives royal assent, that is what I am talking about. The title does not say, “if clause 18 of that act receives royal assent”, but it talks about the bill, and clause 18 cannot be considered in isolation from the rest of the bill.

I'm sorry. Perhaps, Mr. Bachrach, when he gets the floor in a more extended way, can indicate why he thinks we should focus solely on a certain section. It's very clear in my reading of Bill C-33 that we are discussing whether or not we believe there should be coordinating amendments with a piece of legislation, Bill C-26, which, as the witness just said, is about cybersecurity. Clause 18 is about cybersecurity and it's about how we deal with threats to cybersecurity in the transportation space.

I've highlighted numerous briefings that referenced the transportation sector as being one of the key sectors that are impacted by Bill C-26. Certainly, I don't think we can consider one section of a bill. It's not a private member's bill that amends one section of a bill that we're considering here; this is the entire bill, as is said in the title, “Bill C-26”. If Bill C-26 receives royal assent, then these following issues happen.

I'm expressing, and putting on the record, some very serious concerns about Bill C-26. I remain hopeful as I continue to read these things from people who are very concerned about things like the implications on the rights of Canadians under the charter.

I know Mr. Bachrach is a fan of the charter. Certainly he would want to ensure, in any clause he voted on, that the concerns of individuals who spend their lifetimes defending charter rights are considered. He would want to have knowledge of the impact that this bill, which is referenced directly—the entire bill, not just one section, but the entire bill—could have on the charter rights of Canadians.

I will continue to talk about Bill C-26 in its entirety, because that is a piece of legislation that includes the relevant section that he's talking about. It's not a stand-alone clause that has been introduced by the government. This does not specifically indicate that if clause 18 remains unamended or if it's taken on its own, it could receive royal assent. It talks about Bill C-26 receiving royal assent.

I appreciate the latitude given to members of Parliament to raise their concerns and to share the concerns of Canadians when we're considering a piece of legislation as important as Bill C-33, which cross-references specifically, purposely, Bill C-26, which is also currently before the House.

I appreciate the spirit in which Mr. Bachrach's comments were made. However, I simply don't believe that you can consider clause 18 in isolation when considering Bill C-26. We would do Bill C-26 and what it means to Canadians a disservice if we simply talked about clause 18. I will get to that part when we break down the detailed analysis of the clause, but this is the information that I believe is relevant when considering whether or not we can support clause 124.

I will continue, because I know that it would be extremely out of order to rule that we weren't allowed to talk about a bill in our deliberations here that is specifically referenced by title in the first part of this clause,.

I will hopefully not omit any of the information that I had here. If so, I apologize to Citizen Lab for not getting all of their words in there.

I'll start back again at the text under Freedom of Expression and Section 2(b) of the Charter”, which states that:

14. The current draft of Bill C-26's excessive secrecy and confidentiality provisions jeopardizes the right to freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Charter. The government's Charter statement focuses on the speech of the commercial entities who will be directly regulated under Bill C-26. The Charter statement posits that because restrictions on commercial speech do not tend to implicate the core values of section 2(b), restrictions can be more easily justified. However, this analysis fails to account for how individuals' Charter rights may be impeded under the current drafting of the legislation. The excessive secrecy and confidentiality provisions in the bill also restrict the public's and media's expressive freedom in Canada.

15. The principles of open courts and open government are derivative components of section 2(b) of the Charter (the freedom of expression). The open court principle requires that court proceedings, including judicial reviews in federal court, presumptively be open and accessible to the public and to the media. Access to information about government actions can also arise as a derivative right to section 2(b), if a denial of access to government information effectively precludes meaningful public discussion on a matter of public interest. Where restrictions on access substantially impede meaningful discussion and criticism about matters of public interest, the government must reasonably justify its infringement of the freedom of expression.

16. Telecommunications and cybersecurity law and policy is undoubtedly a matter of public interest. There is a close nexus between human rights and public policy concerning the regulation of telecommunication services. Canada's telecommunications policy is intimately linked with the “social and economic fabric” of Canada and its regions. Equitable access to telecommunication services is sometimes described as a mechanism for “digital self-determination”, which speaks to the need to protect the potential for human flourishing in the digital era.

17. The recent Citizen Lab report, “Finding You”, highlights several ways in which excessive secrecy surrounding telecommunications oversight has itself endangered the public. The authors note historical deficiencies in oversight and accountability of network security, which have led to geolocation-related threats associated with contemporary networks. Excessive secrecy has contributed to the persistence of the “low-hanging geolocation threat” identified in “Finding You”:

Decades of poor accountability and transparency have contributed to the current environment where extensive geolocation surveillance attacks are not reported. This status quo has effectively created a thriving geolocation surveillance market while also ensuring that some telecommunications providers have benefitted from turning a blind eye to the availability of their network interconnections to the surveillance industry.

18. The geolocation surveillance threats discussed in “Finding You” disproportionately jeopardize human rights defenders and other individuals who face heightened risks of targeted security threats (e.g. corporate executives, military personnel, politicians and their staff, senior bureaucrats, etc). Industry has historically charged large amounts of money to receive information about well-known industry threats, with the effect of impeding non-industry groups such as security researchers and civil society from obtaining and disseminating information about the nature of the threats faced by at-risk individuals, or from advocating for the remedies that would benefit the security and privacy of civil society. The authors note that, in many instances, individuals cannot determine whether their own telecommunication provider has “deployed and configured security firewalls to ensure that signalling messages associated with geolocation attacks, identity attacks or other malicious activity are not directed towards their phones.”

19. Citizen Lab's research highlights the substantial public interest—

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know. Bear with me.

It seems like he's reading references to the act that don't pertain to clause 18.

Man, it's hard for me to maintain my train of thought here.

I'm quite fixated on clause18 of Bill C-26. I wonder if the witnesses could help us understand what is in clause 18 so that the chair may determine whether what Mr. Strahl is contributing is relevant to that clause, seeing that Bill C-26 is referenced in clause 124 in Bill C-33.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm really struggling, Mr. Chair, to follow what my colleague Mr. Strahl is talking about.

I'm looking at clause 124 in Bill C-33, which we're debating tonight. It reads:

If Bill C-26, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 18 of that Act and section 123 of this Act are in force, subsection 2(3) of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act is replaced by the following:

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

To this committee and to all Canadians, Mr. Chair, we're grateful for that service. I'm just going to make sure I don't miss any of this important article here.

Following the process of the proposed legislation...and its passing, Federal Government departments will communicate with the companies impacted in the focused sectors with details on how breaches are to be reported and the required timeline for reporting. Furthermore, the companies must “keep records of how they implement their cybersecurity program, every cyber [security] incident they have to report, any step taken to mitigate any supply-chain or third-party risks and any measures taken to implement a government-ordered action.”

Let’s be very clear, although only the four key sectors—Telecommunications, Finance, Energy, and Transportation—are considered in scope by Bill C-26, sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing are likely to be included later, as is the case in the EU. The Federal Government of Canada hopes this legislation will serve as a model for provinces and territories to implement similar legislation that regulates cybersecurity requirements for entities under their purview, including hospitals, police departments, and local governments.

To help companies comply with the requirements of Bill C-26—

They're now talking about their services, and I don't need to give them that free plug, Mr. Chair. I think we have an idea of what they think the merits of Bill C-26 are, as well as some concerns about it. You will note that the transportation sector obviously is mentioned as a key part of Bill C-26, which is likely why there is a reference in Bill C-33 in clause 124 to that piece of legislation. Again, we need to fully understand whether or not Bill C-33 should be coordinating amendments with a piece of legislation on which so many concerns have been raised.

I want to raise some other concerns. Obviously any time you're dealing with cybersecurity and so on, a charter analysis is going to be done. I referred to an article by the Citizen Lab in the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy at the University of Toronto, but I also want to get into the details of a submission that was made to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning a charter analysis of cybersecurity and telecommunications reform in Bill C-26. This again was referenced in the previous article. This is the base documentation that gave rise to that article. I want to make sure we're not just hearing an interpretation of a report but also considering it directly.

This report goes on to say that:

On June 14, 2022, Bill C-26, an Act respecting cybersecurity, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, was introduced in Parliament for the first reading by Canada's [now former] Minister of Public Safety, Marco Mendicino. Hearings on Bill C-26 are scheduled to begin in SECU on December 4, 2023.

That was very recently, Mr. Chair.

Kate Robinson, a Senior Research Associate and Lina Li made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security...regarding Bill C-26.

With an emphasis on privacy in particular, this submission tackles the issues Bill C-26 brings up regarding civil liberties and human rights. The fundamental tenets of accountable governance, due process, and our right to privacy are all at risk of being compromised by Bill C-26 in its current form. In order to better protect people’s right to privacy, this submission offers recommendations for how Bill C-26 can be implemented in terms of how the government and telecom companies define, manage, and safeguard people's personal information. The submission suggests that safeguards for the new government powers that the Bill establishes be included in order to address general shortcomings, such as issues with secrecy and transparency.

There is evidence that signaling protocols used by telecom companies for facilitating roaming services also enable networks to obtain incredibly detailed user data. Such extent of access with the telecom service providers poses an unprecedented risk to the privacy of individuals. Owing to the extent of data available with the telecommunications providers, the telecom sector has become a primal target for surveillance actors. In an attempt to address the concerns in the telecom ecosystem, this submission to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security provides a critical response to the federal government’s Charter statement on Bill C-26.

The Citizen Lab welcomes the opportunity to submit to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. Our submission highlights how Bill C-26 will impact equality rights and freedom of expression while providing recommendations to address a series of thematic deficiencies identified in Bill C-26. To ensure that its actions adhere to Canada’s democratic values as well as the standards of accountability and transparency, the government must make changes to its legislation.

Below is the Citizen Lab’s full submission to SECU regarding Bill C-26.

The next part is called “Part 1. Introduction and Summary”.

1. Citizen Lab researchers routinely produce reports concerning technical analyses of information and communications technologies (ICTs), the human rights and policy implications surrounding government surveillance that occurs using ICTs, as well as the cybersecurity threats and digital espionage targeting civil society. Citizen Lab research has also examined the openness and transparency of government and organizations, including telecommunications providers, with respect to the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information and other activities that can infringe upon human rights.

2. This month, the Citizen Lab published “Finding You: The Network Effect of Telecommunications Vulnerabilities for Location Disclosure”, authored by Gary Miller and Christopher Parsons. The report provides a high-level overview of geolocation-related threats sourced from 3G, 4G, and 5G network operators. Evidence of the proliferation of these threats shows how the signalling protocols used by telecommunications providers to facilitate roaming also allow networks to retrieve extraordinarily detailed information about users. These protocols are being constantly targeted and exploited by surveillance actors, “with the effect of exposing our phones to numerous methods of location disclosure.” Risks and secrecy surrounding mobile geolocation surveillance are heightened by layers of commercial agreements and sub-agreements between network operators, network intermediaries, and third-party service providers. Ultimately, vulnerabilities in the signalling protocols have “enabled the development of commercial surveillance products that provide their operators with anonymity, multiple access points and attack vectors, a ubiquitous and globally-accessible network with an unlimited list of targets, and virtually no financial or legal risks.”

3. “Finding You” highlights the importance of developing a cybersecurity strategy that mandates the adoption of network-wide security standards, including a requirement that network operators adopt the full array of security features that are available in 5G standards and equipment. The report’s findings also underscore the importance of public transparency and accountability in the regulation of telecommunications providers. As the authors note, “[d]ecades of poor accountability and transparency have contributed to the current environment where extensive geolocation surveillance attacks are not reported.”

4. In short, it is long overdue for regulators to step in at national and international levels to secure our network services. However, Canada's approach to the regulation of telecommunications and cybersecurity also needs to be transparent, accountable, and compliant with applicable human rights standards. One year ago, Citizen Lab published “Cybersecurity Will Not Thrive in Darkness: A Critical Analysis of Proposed Amendments in Bill C-26 to the Telecommunications Act”.... The report was authored by Dr. Christopher Parsons. Dr. Parsons critically examined the proposed draft legislation under Bill C-26, including identified deficiencies. In doing so, Dr. Parsons provided necessary historical and international context surrounding the federal government's proposed telecommunications sector reform. Canada is not the first of its allies to introduce new government powers as a result of heightened concern and awareness surrounding real and pressing risks to critical infrastructure. However, Dr. Parsons identified that although the draft legislation may advance important goals, its current iteration contained thematic deficiencies that risked undermining its effectiveness. This report is set out in Appendix B, and is the focus of this brief.

The main submissions in this brief are set out in two parts:

a. Part 2: Bill C-26 and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”):

You will be very concerned about that.

Part 2 of this Brief discusses the nexus between Bill C-26 and the Charter. It—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Continuing from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association's submission on Bill C-26—which, just to remind colleagues, is referred to in clause 124—we are deciding whether or not we believe that there should be a coordinating amendment with Bill C-26 in Bill C-33.

I am building the case for why I have concerns with that, and I'll just continue reading. Perhaps I'll go back just to make sure that information wasn't missed. It says:

Further, personal data can be anonymized or de-identified, but de-identified information requires additional protections. Anonymization involves permanently deleting identifying data, while de-identification involves stripping away and separating different bits of identifying information from one another or protecting identifying information through encryption or key (but not permanently deleting it). Anonymizing data is irreversible, while de-identified data can be re-identified. De-identified data requires greater protection than anonymized data, so Bill C-26 should ensure de-identified information is explicitly acknowledged as confidential.

As it stands, Bill C-26's proposed amendments to the Telecommunications Act do not designate personal and de-identified information as confidential under section 15.5(1). Nor for that matter does the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act (CCPSA), which under section 6(1) does not flag personal or de-identified information as confidential. In order to protect this information, both Acts contained within C-26 need adjustment to better align with our privacy rights, freedoms, and democratic values.

“Handling Personal Information” is a new section.

Bill C-26 gives the Minister overbroad powers for handling personal information. Telecommunication companies, and companies likely to be designated under the CCSPA, collect, process, and store vast amounts of personal data and metadata, including call logs, messages, financial data, and location data. But as worded, Bill C-26 allows the Minister to share this type of personal information with anyone they designate...or who is prescribed by regulations..... It is one thing for government to ask designated operators for information about themselves and how they are complying with orders, but there needs to be a significantly higher standard when ordering companies to hand over information about their customers. This is especially important for telecommunication companies, given the high volume of personal information they hold about the public, and how telecommunications data can be used to identify individuals, track their movements, and monitor their communications. Bill C-26 should better protect the privacy of personal information and communications by creating a more effective stopgap between this information and the Minister’s ability to disclose it. The legislation should be amended so that the government must first obtain a relevant judicial order from the federal court before it can compel a telecommunications provider to disclose personal or de-identified information.

Further, Parliament should strengthen the Bill’s privacy protections when it comes to telecommunication providers and designated operators sharing information with foreign parties. In the proposed new section 15.7(1) of the Telecommunications Act:

“Any information collected or obtained under this Act, other than information designated as confidential under subsection 15.5(1), may be disclosed by the Minister under an agreement, a memorandum of understanding or an arrangement in writing between the Government of Canada and the government of a province or of a foreign state, an international organization of states or an international organization established by the governments of states, or any institution of any such government or organization, if the Minister believes that the information may be relevant to securing the Canadian telecommunications system or the telecommunications system of a foreign state, including against the threat of interference, manipulation or disruption.”

The provision's breadth and vagueness would allow not only for tremendous ministerial overreach, but it could also lead to privacy risks that cross provincial and national borders, resulting as well in potential risks to life and security for affected individuals and groups. CCLA strongly urges the amendment of the Bill to preclude the Minister from sharing personal or de-identified personal information to foreign governments or organizations, and that the Minister should inform telecommunications providers and designated operators when—and to whom—information may be disclosed when the receiving party is a foreign state, agency, organization, or party.

Finally, Bill C-26 lacks strong provisions around data retention periods. Data should only ever be kept for as long as they are useful, and storing data indefinitely can increase the risks and harms of potential data breaches. Data retention periods are crucial for ensuring that any information obtained under either the Telecommunications Act or the CCSPA would be held only for so long as is necessary to make a legislative order, or to confirm compliance with such an order. CCLA recommends that the legislation be amended to make this data retention period as limited in duration as possible, and that the legislation include—to the extent that the legislation permits any data sharing—a requirement to attach data retention and deletion clauses in agreements or memoranda of understanding that are entered into with foreign governments or agencies.

The next section is “Ensuring Accountability for Mishandled Information”:

Bill C-26 lacks key accountability measures for privacy issues. Accountability is a core principle of effective government and should similarly be a core principle of Bill C-26.

A key accountability concern pertaining to privacy is that Bill C-26 does not allow individuals to seek relief if the government mishandles personal or de-identified information. Allowing for this recourse is an important step toward accountability for privacy violations. CCLA recommends that Bill C-26 be amended to enable individuals to seek relief if the government or a party to whom the government has disclosed their personal or de-identified information negligently loses control of that information and where that loss of control impacts the individual.

Their conclusion states:

In its current form, Bill C-26 undermines personal privacy and violates due process. Privacy and due process are not only essential to cybersecurity and the protection of our critical infrastructure but are also part of the very fabric of our democracy. The Bill gives government the power to collect broad categories of information about people, without adequate protections for information that should be deemed confidential. The Bill also threatens personal privacy and creates other serious risks and dangers to people by allowing government to distribute this sensitive information to domestic and foreign organizations without proper checks and balances. And the Bill contains inadequate mechanisms for people to seek appropriate redress in cases where their private information has been mishandled and abused.

In this submission, CCLA has recommended remedies to address these concerns while still enabling the legislation to fulfill its stated goals: bolstering cybersecurity across the financial, telecommunications, energy, and transportation sectors, and helping organizations better prepare, prevent, and respond to cyber incidents. We urge the Committee Members to adopt these proposals for strengthening Bill C-26.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has very grave concerns and has proposed some significant changes to Bill C-26.

Once again, for the purposes of clause 124, the first words are that if Bill C-26 receives royal assent, then on that day.... We go into whether or not there should be changes to Bill C-33. I think it's very important that we discuss whether or not we believe this clause should be passed, given the incredible concerns there are with Bill C-26.

IT World Canada is another one. If Mr. Iacono wants to go to that website, it's itworldcanada.com. I'll be reading a bit from that.

They have an article here, under their Industry Voices section, entitled “The Bill-C-26 Regulation and Its Implications for The Critical Infrastructures’ Cybersecurity in Canada”. It's by Frank Lawrence and Eric Jensen of Fortinet.

The article states:

As the last G7 nation and one of the few G20 nations without a firm regulatory framework around cybersecurity, Canada must act to protect the Nation’s critical infrastructure assets.

In 2016 member states of the European Commission (EU) passed what was called the most comprehensive cybersecurity bill in the history of the EU; the bill was called the NIS Directive. The EU cybersecurity rules introduced in 2016 were updated by the NIS2 Directive, ratified in 2023. NIS2 continues modernizing the legal framework to keep up with increased digitization and an evolving cybersecurity threat landscape. Expanding the scope of the cybersecurity rules to new sectors and entities further improves the resilience and incident response capacities of public and private entities, competent authorities, and the EU as a whole. Most G7 member states are under the umbrella of the EU; the US, UK, and Japan have separately implemented cybersecurity regulations to differing degrees.

Canadian businesses continue to be impacted by malicious cyber activity, ranging from cyberattacks to ransomware. Many attacks, including those on critical infrastructure that account for nearly half, go unreported. Concerningly, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security (CCCS) has identified attacks against OT networks as “the most pressing [threat] to the physical safety of Canadians” in their biennially published National Cyber Threat Assessments.

In this context, the Ministry of Public Safety acted to introduce new legislation, Bill C-26 An Act Respecting Cybersecurity. Bill C-26 passed its first step in Parliament in November of 2022 and went through its second reading on March 27th, 2023. [The bill]...sits in committee and is believed to go into legislation and law in the calendar year of 2023.

I'd say the article was a little optimistic there.

The primary focus of Bill C-26 is to add teeth to the governance and compliance of cybersecurity, especially in the much-needed Operational Technology (OT) area where critical infrastructure lies. Although the Bill has not yet received royal assent...between the absence of similar legislation in Canada and the trend towards increased cybersecurity regulation amongst our international peers, Canadian businesses would be wise to prepare.

Canada has yet to pass laws that govern cybersecurity, let alone require reporting vulnerabilities and critical infrastructure breaches; Bill C-26 would empower the regulators to impose fines or issue summary convictions to ensure governance and compliance.

Bill C-26, in its current form, includes four critical infrastructure sectors—Telecommunications, Finance, Energy, and Transportation. The requirement for organizations in these sectors is threefold:

1. Implement, maintain, and report on a cybersecurity program to address risk across the organization, third-party services, and supply chains.

2. Report any cyber incidents involving critical systems to the appropriate regulator and the Canadian Center for Cyber Security.

3. Use, or discontinue any specified product, service, or supplier.

The intended outcome of these requirements is to improve the standard of cybersecurity amongst critical operators and deepen the level of visibility the federal government has into the security operations of these organizations. It is known today that certain companies that are considered high-risk and vital to national security would become the federal government's focus.

Following the process of the proposed legislation (Bill C-26) and its passing, Federal Government departments will communicate with the companies impacted in the focused sectors with details on how breaches are to be reported and the required timeline for reporting. Furthermore, the companies must “keep records of how they implement their cybersecurity program, every cyber incident they have to report, any step taken—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

It's okay. I'll get this quote read eventually.

It reads:

Today's report should set alarm bells ringing on Parliament Hill. As written, Bill C-26 gives the government and its spy agencies a blank cheque to intrude on our private lives and endanger our fundamental Charter rights. Frankly, as currently drafted it is little more than a spy agency wish list. MPs need to fix this risky and deeply-flawed legislation so that it delivers the cybersecurity we need, while protecting the freedoms we hold dear. Canadians deserve nothing less.

That's from Matthew Hatfield, executive director, OpenMedia.

One of the groups he referred to in that article is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. They have also provided some detailed information on their concerns with Bill C-26, “an act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other acts”.

They made a submission that I'd like to share with the committee as well, because when we're talking about civil liberties and how this bill will be coordinated into Bill C-33, I think it's important that we consider whether or not we believe that we should—

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Strahl has just said that he was reading something. If that is the case, then he simply needs to provide us with what he is reading.

Mr. Chair, he made a comment about my colleague Mr. Barsalou‑Duval and myself that I find a bit out of line. Both of us have raised points of order to say essentially the same thing, but the member is starting over again.

He says he is reading something. Could we have a copy of what he is reading, so we are in a better position and are better able to follow what he is saying? He has said that Bill C‑26 is referred to in Bill C‑33. If that is the case, why not simply provide us with the document he is referring to?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would strongly object to anyone suggesting that they get to choose for another member what they bring to the table in terms of background information that should inform us on how we address a specific clause. The first three words.... If my copy of the bill is correct, the title of clause 124 is “Bill C-26”. There's the link for you.

Clause 124 says, “If Bill C-26”, and it continues on. I am talking about a bill that is specifically referenced in Bill C-33, and this is a coordinating amendment. I will raise my concerns with Bill C-26 and the idea that if we pass this clause, we are endorsing Bill C-26 with all of its problems.

Quite frankly, it's not my job to convince other members of Parliament that they, too, should be concerned about that if they're not listening to what I have to say, but I will continue to address the concerns related to this bill, which is specifically referenced in clause 124.

I will just go back to this particular thing that I was reading from. I will start the quote again:

“Today's report should set alarm bells ringing on Parliament Hill—

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

In fact, I had the chance earlier to raise the fact that my colleague was not talking about Bill C‑33, he was talking about Bill C‑26. He told us that he intended to get around to explaining the connection between the two, but I see that he is still telling us about Bill C‑26, not Bill C‑33 or the clause we are now considering.

I don't know whether you have the authority to intervene, Mr. Chair, for him to get around to making a connection with the bill now being considered.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What our colleague is talking about is very interesting, but I am unfortunately having trouble following it, because I do not have any document to which I can refer so that I can better understand what he is saying. Personally, I prepared for a discussion this evening on Bill C‑33. What he is talking about is a different bill.

If the member wishes to talk about a different bill, I will perhaps ask him to provide committee members with a few details and the relevant documents, so we are able to follow what he is saying properly. I want to feel useful this evening at the committee. I do not want to be here just to listen to someone else talk. If someone is referring to something else, it would be nice to have the documents in question. That would give us the same information about the subject as the member has so we could follow his comments better, and would give us some guidance for our own thinking.

So I am feeling a bit lost, because I have no document to refer to. I do not know all the details of the bill to which the member is referring.

I will leave it in your hands. We need a little more guidance. When we are speaking in a vacuum, we will get equally empty results.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chair, can you explain this for me, but I am wondering whether Mr. Strahl's speech and comments really relate to the content of Bill C‑33.

In my opinion, everything he has referred to since he started speaking concerns Bill C‑26. If I am not mistaken, that bill is at a later stage. It may even have been enacted.

I would therefore like some reassurance and I would like to know whether the member's comments are in order, according to your interpretation.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That bill is clearly still before the industry committee, I would assume. With cybersecurity, perhaps it could be with public safety.

I know that we had some serious concerns with that piece of legislation. I think we want to ensure that the rights of Canadians are always protected. When we're considering Bill C-26, which deals with cybersecurity, we know that this is an evolving field and there's an evolving threat level that comes with that. We know that the government, quite frankly, has failed to protect the rights of Canadians when it comes to their security—both personal security and in our communities. When it comes to the online environment, they've been lax. They've turned a blind eye, quite frankly, to threats to cybersecurity. I think we've seen that again and again.

We saw it when this government refused to ban Huawei from the 5G network for years in spite of overwhelming evidence that the communist regime in Beijing was using that technology in the Huawei network as a way to gain access to personal information. That was a security vulnerability.

We saw that our Five Eyes partners in the security establishment—our international partnerships with Australia, New Zealand and the United States—all took action to protect their citizens and their networks from cybersecurity threats. That's something this government did not do. It took them years and they fought it and fought it before they took the decision—much too late—to exclude Huawei from our cybersecurity networks. That resulted, quite frankly, in embarrassing situations where Canada was excluded from high-level meetings of the Five Eyes.

We saw it very recently, when Australia had its deal with the United States to purchase submarines, for instance. There was an exclusion of Canada because Canada's networks were not deemed to be secure enough to allow us to participate in those very important, high-level meetings. These are examples where the government has failed to take cybersecurity seriously.

As I said, we have grave concerns with Bill C-26. It's troubling to see that this bill would cede power to another piece of legislation or have this coordinating amendment, so there would be two pieces of legislation that we believe are flawed coordinating with one another. I think this is the sort of thing where we should be considering what is in Bill C-26 as we discuss this. We can't simply agree holus-bolus to something in another act if we haven't considered that fully, here at this committee.

I think that this particular clause is one where, perhaps as the evening goes on, we will find a way to bring about an amendment or to look at ways we can make sure that the concerns we had with Bill C-26 are addressed.

The summary of Bill C-26 states:

Part 1 amends the Telecommunications Act to add the promotion of the security of the Canadian telecommunications system as an objective of the Canadian telecommunications policy and to authorize the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to direct telecommunications service providers to do anything, or refrain from doing anything, that is necessary to secure the Canadian telecommunications system. It also establishes an administrative monetary penalty scheme to promote compliance with orders and regulations made by the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry to secure the Canadian telecommunications system as well as rules for judicial review of those orders and regulations.

It continues:

Part 2 enacts the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act to provide a framework for the protection of the critical cyber systems of services and systems that are vital to national security or public safety and that are delivered or operated as part of a work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of Parliament. It also, among other things,

(a) authorizes the Governor in Council to designate any service or system as a vital service or vital system;

(b) authorizes the Governor in Council to establish classes of operators in respect of a vital service or vital system;

(c) requires designated operators to, among other things, establish and implement cyber security programs, mitigate supply-chain and third-party risks, report cyber security incidents and comply with cyber security directions;

(d) provides for the exchange of information between relevant parties; and

(e) authorizes the enforcement of the obligations under the Act and imposes consequences for non-compliance.

Cybersecurity, as I've said, is a growing concern for Canadians. It remains a national security concern. It remains an economic security concern. We know we lose when things like patents, trademarked information and secrets are lost because of a failure to ensure we have adequate cybersecurity in place. We know the government doesn't have a legal mechanism to compel industry action to address cyber-threats or vulnerabilities in the telecommunications sector.

Bill C-26 is another example of the Minister of Industry being given sweeping powers, as we heard with Bill C-33, where the minister is given sweeping powers to enact orders that, in his opinion, are necessary to protect port infrastructure, port operations, etc. We just dealt with that in a previous clause. I think this is another example where we need to ensure that the powers given in Bill C-26 are proportional—that there are checks and balances, and that the rights of Canadians are always protected when the minister is exercising the rights and powers given to him or her in the legislation. It's another example of giving the minister broad powers to enact the legislation.

Now, cybersecurity is something that Conservatives have been raising the alarm about for a long time. We did it when we first created, under a conservative motion, the Canada–China special committee. That was an issue that was raised there. In the context of Huawei, it is something we raised time and time again: our concerns that our 5G network was not being protected.

There are opportunities to strengthen our cybersecurity protocols. We need to ensure that not only are the privacy rights of Canadians respected, but that there's also no attempt at censorship for Canadian citizens when they are operating in the cyber-environment. We've seen the government go down that road as well, with Bill C-18 and with Bill C-10. They want to control what Canadians see, and control the algorithms of what will show up in their social media, for instance.

We have a hard time trusting the government when it comes to anything to do with cybersecurity or Internet regulations. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to sacrifice the rights of Canadians in order to promote their own narrow agenda.

Bill C-26, unfortunately, increases regulation and red tape, often, we believe, without adequate oversight and without votes in Parliament.

We've seen, even here today, that the rights of members or parliamentarians, the supremacy of Parliament, are things that this government does not put as the highest priority. If Parliament gets in the way, they simply try to bypass it.

I think Bill C-26 is another example of where that has happened. We have grave concerns with that, as I outlined briefly. There is also—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In this bill, there is a coordinating amendment—if the copy of the legislation I have is correct—that states:

If Bill C-26, introduced in the 1st session of the 44th Parliament and entitled An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, receives royal assent, then, on the first day on which both section 18 of that Act and section 123 of this Act are in force, subsection 2(3) of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act is replaced by the following:

Jurisdiction in respect of other Acts

(3) The Tribunal also has jurisdiction in respect of reviews and appeals in connection with administrative monetary penalties provided for under sections 177 to 181 of the Canada Transportation Act, sections 127 to 133 of the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act, sections 43 to 55 of the International Bridges and Tunnels Act, sections 129.‍01 to 129.‍17 of the Canada Marine Act, sections 16.‍1 to 16.‍25 of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, sections 39.‍1 to 39.‍26 of the Canadian Navigable Waters Act, sections 130.‍01 to 130.‍19 of the Marine Liability Act and sections 32.‍1 to 32.‍28 of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992.

I'm hoping that either the legislative clerk or perhaps some of the witnesses can indicate for me what the status is of Bill C-26. Has it received royal assent? If not, where is it in the process? This is just so we know how likely it is that this coordinating amendment will be utilized with Bill C-33.

Perhaps they could just tell me what the status of that bill is.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, I believe that my privileges were actually violated by your not giving me a chance to speak to a clause of a piece of legislation that we are debating by simply calling a vote on it and saying there's no speakers list. By not even calling for debate and simply moving to a question.... How are we to know that we were going to go back into the legislation, when Mr. Kurek was in the middle of debating a motion?

By failing to allow for a debate on a clause of a piece of legislation, you have violated the privileges of all members of this committee. I would like to move a motion that we debate whether or not my privileges were violated by the chair when he refused to call for debate on the previous clause before calling for a vote.

That is the motion that I would move. It's that you have violated my privileges by not allowing us to discuss a clause of this bill by simply slamming the door and moving to a vote.

That is not how we have operated for the entirety of this debate. That is not how we operated for the entirety of our consideration of Bill C-33. To get rammy now and start to push this through in a way that we have not operated in.... I recognize that the chair and the government don't like when members of Parliament in the opposition exercise our rights, use the tools at our disposal to hold the government to account, and move duly accepted and duly moved motions at the time of our choosing, as is our right as members of Parliament. They want to simply end that discussion and move on to something that they would rather talk about.

That is not what the rules allow for. The rules call for members of Parliament to have the opportunity to discuss, debate, consider, amend, propose changes from all sides and then make decisions. It is not for the chair to suddenly say “I call the vote” the very second that Mr. Badawey gets his way and a motion gets shut down.

Mr. Chair, I've always respected your commitment to fairness. I've always respected how you have been neutral in that position, but I can't quite believe what is happening here tonight, where there is a departure and a decision to simply ram these motions through without giving us an opportunity to debate.

You've ruled Mr. Kurek's motion out of order. There is another motion that deals specifically with the transport component of Bill C-26. That motion is in order and does specifically deal with this issue.

It is very clear that the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are protected by our Standing Orders. They are protected, quite frankly, by the Constitution. They are to be limited only in very extreme circumstances.

A privilege motion actually takes precedence. We know this in the House. A privilege motion takes precedence over all other matters. When a privilege motion is moved, all other legislation—anything else before the House—is set aside because the rights and privileges of members of Parliament are to supersede the rights and privileges of the government, which might not want them to be exercised. They are sacrosanct. They are, quite frankly, something that we should be very concerned about when any member, not just those who wear our team colours, is impacted by it.

This is the sort of thing, you can bet, that Liberal members of Parliament, when they were in opposition, would have raised hell about. They would never have accepted this sort of thing, clauses being rammed down our throats without the ability to even discuss them for a minute, or to have a single word brought forward before it was voted on. That supersedes, quite frankly, whether or not the chair is sustained by a vote. This is something that is bigger than that. It is something that touches the very core of what we do in this place.

I know the government is frustrated that there have been concerns raised with Bill C-33. We've heard it in the numerous meetings that we've had with testimonies, none of which spoke about the benefits of the legislation. They were all very critical of the legislation. I know the Liberals didn't like that. They didn't like that we were going clause by clause through the bill. They didn't like that a member of Parliament might want to speak about issues related to the cost of living and the cost of transporting goods. That's the sort of thing that Mr. Badawey shut down with the assistance of the chair.

Standing Order 116(1) states:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

It specifically talks about the end of debate. Standing Order 116(2) states:

(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

Mr. Chair, this is a very serious section. It says very clearly, “while there are members present who still wish to participate”, not who are on a list that didn't exist before debate was closed, before it was shut down. This is a very serious issue, and one that we will take very seriously, because, in attempting to get a bill passed by an artificial deadline, there is now clearly a violation of the rights of the members of this committee.

All of the members on the Conservative side of this table were prepared and willing to speak to the clause upon which debate ended artificially. Again, it says, “A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.” Quite frankly, it doesn't matter that once I stop talking there's an attempt to have the chair's ruling sustained, because, again, this is not a matter for a majority vote of the committee. Members' privileges are not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Members' privileges are protected by our Standing Orders, and they are protected by our role to represent the people who sent us here.

It would be quite something if we could, instead of having our rights protected, have our rights dictated to us by the majority of committee members, who find them to be inconvenient tonight. That is, quite frankly, something that we can't tolerate. This is something that should supersede any of the other things that we were going to talk about here tonight.

We have seen time and time again how there has been an attempt to shut down debate. We know that shutting down debate has been done in the House of Commons a record number of times.

There is a process in place for shutting down debate. In their election campaign in 2015, the Liberals promised they would never use the rules of the House to shut down debate. We've seen them break that promise time and time again, both in a majority and with the help of the NDP in a minority government. They've done that on numerous occasions. Hundreds of times they've shut down debate, but that is by a motion. That is using a process that is in place. The Speaker doesn't simply get up and say, “Debate is over. We're having a vote right now.” That is all—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was giving the member the benefit of the doubt in terms of where he was going to go with this, but as I listen to his intervention and look at the motion—I've done it three or four times now—I can't see how this motion is relevant to this committee.

I know that another committee brought this up sometime this week, whereby the same attempt was brought forward by the Conservatives to bring this motion. I believe it was at the international trade committee, and there they ruled it as not being relevant to the committee. Now that I see it being brought here, I have the same concern that this is not, in fact, relevant to this committee.

Therefore, I'm asking, Mr. Chair, that we rule it not relevant, move forward and get back to Bill C-33.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you for your testimony.

I'm trying to determine, from what I heard in your testimony.... I mean, we had a strike at the Port of Vancouver, and we had a strike at the St. Lawrence Seaway recently, both of which had a significant impact on our economy and our supply chains, which are of course what Bill C-33 is purported to help address—although, I would argue, insufficiently. I think what you're saying is that this provision would not actually apply in those two recent examples.

[Heather Moriarty]

That is another great question.

What I would say is that the time to advance the ports elements is now. The review concluded that ports were working well but more was needed to strengthen the governance of ports to make sure we had what we needed to prepare them for the future.

We don't know what other measures will be needed as part of the supply chain office or the report. These are a step in the right direction, and I'm sure that anything else will not only complement this but build on what we have here.

Bill C-33 obviously is more port-specific, whereas the supply chain office is very much multimodal, and I understand that there will be other elements coming from that as well.

[Heather Moriarty]

That's a good question.

I believe we've already tabled some information in terms of how Bill C-33 seeks to address some of the measures contained in the supply chain report.

I like to say that Bill C-33 is a bit of a down payment on what's to come from the supply chain office and from that report. This helps to protect supply chains and ensure fluidity, but we're not sure where the supply chain office is going. It's on its feet. There may be more coming from a ports perspective, but it may be more integration.

This will certainly help our colleagues in the supply chain office as they seek to move forward with their work, because it will give them a lot of what they need to advance and to ensure ports are those intermodal hubs that connect all other modes of transportation, to make sure they can do what they need to do.

[Rachel Heft]

The language in the proposed amendment would not be consistent with other Transport Canada acts. The ministerial order power proposed in Bill C-33 is generally consistent with other ministerial order powers found in other legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 96 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume consideration of clause-by-clause on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

We left off at clause 122 of Bill C-33.

To help us with clause-by-clause consideration, we have joining us, once again, representatives from the Department of Transport, as well as our legislative clerks.

(On clause 122)

To address clause 122, I will open the floor.

Mr. Muys.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I would like to speak on BQ-6.

I think the points Mr. Barsalou-Duval raised with this amendment are worth some scrutiny. One of the concerns overall is with the broad and vague ministerial authority that Bill C-33 gives the minister. It's an “Ottawa knows bests”, one-size-fits-all approach. This amendment hopes to provide a bit more clarity to that. I think he articulates a few different areas where that needs to be applied, all of which makes some sense.

Taken individually, national security is clearly a very significant issue. Economic security is obviously important, particularly when the whole objective of Bill C-33 is to look at national supply chains, which have been tattered and stretched. The bill clearly doesn't address that. This is an attempt to put some limitation on the minister when it comes to this.

I think that's worthy of discussion. I think we should continue to discuss this.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ‑6 proposes that Bill C‑33, in clause 122, be amended, in item (a), by replacing line 6 on page 78 with the following:

107.1(1) If there is a

Amendment BQ 6 also proposes that Bill C‑33 be amended in section 122, in item (b), by adding after line 28, on page 78, the following:

(6) For greater certainty, for the judicial review of an order made under subsection (1), the correctness standard applies to determine whether there was a risk of imminent harm to national security, national economic security or competition that constitutes a significant threat to the safety and security of persons, goods, ships or port facilities or the security of supply chains.

On page 78 of the bill, in section 107.1, it says that the minister has the power to make ministerial orders in certain specific cases. The specific cases are quite broad, and include national security, economic security, competition, and the security of persons, goods, ships, port facilities and supply chains. The scope for the use of ministerial orders is therefore very broad. What's more, in the bill, the article begins simply with “If the Minister is of the opinion that there is a risk of imminent harm [...].”

First, the amendment aims to remove the words “is of the opinion.” Second, we wish to add a sixth paragraph, according to which the use of such orders is expected to be made in an organized context and according to a standard. This ensures that the minister does not have unlimited discretionary power. I think that the use of such a power requires a tighter framework than what is proposed in Bill C‑33.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we've been here for the last couple of weeks to discuss Bill C-33. We're continuing to do that today. We're hoping to get that done prior to rising from the House on Wednesday.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to get back to work. I move that the debate now be adjourned.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much.

I would now like to move a motion I submitted to the committee in writing in both official languages on Friday:

That the committee undertake a study on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes (Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 303) allocating a minimum of three meetings to this study to hear from witnesses that include the International Association of Firefighters, the Canadian Airports Council and other interested parties, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

Mr. Chair, this motion comes out of the debate in the House regarding another motion that's before the House, motion 96, which was introduced by Liberal MP Ken Hardie.

The purpose of the motion is to amend the current Canadian aviation regulations to adopt the International Civil Aviation Organization standards for airport rescue and firefighting. Specifically, the motion in the House is to give firefighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or a mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less, but it also specifies that a required function of firefighters be the rescue of passengers.

These changes are coming at the request of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The effect of the motion and the change proposed in it would be to increase firefighting requirements at airports so they can be met by professional firefighters.

There is some divergence of views on this issue. The IAFF has been obviously supportive of this, and for some of the major airports in our country, this will not be a major issue. They already have professional, full-time firefighters who can meet these standards and meet the definitions as laid out in the motion.

As we've been discussing here today as we're dealing with legislation, there are processes that are in place for changing regulations. These things are supposed to take a number of months and years and are supposed to hear from all sides of an issue—all interested stakeholders, all interested Canadians.

What we have heard in our discussions following the introduction of this motion, which again is up for debate very soon for its second hour, is that there are many smaller airports across the country that would be economically devastated if they were forced to change their operating model to adopt this very stringent requirement. They already do operate under the Canadian aviation regulations, which do allow for airports to have their own firefighting and rescue services, including allowing them to have airport operations staff who provide this rescue service, as opposed to having professional firefighters on call at the airport within three minutes of the middle of the furthest runway.

The costs on small airports or even mid-size international airports like Kelowna and Kamloops and Abbotsford in my province of British Columbia would number into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to make this change. We already know, because we've seen reports this week out of the Montreal Economic Institute indicating that the fees that are imposed on Canadian airlines and passed along to customers through higher ticket prices are already much higher than they are in the United States.

This proposal specifically calls for a charge to be added to every ticket for every passenger for every leg of their flights. That all adds up when you add all of the other charges that have been going up and up, including increased carbon taxes and increased costs for fuel. Those are all passed on to Canadian consumers.

We've seen, over the last number of years, that the number of incidents at Canadian airports is down. The number of incidents requiring a rescue is certainly down.

We think the best way to address this issue is to have this committee conduct more robust meetings, rather than simply having a debate that proposes a one-size-fits-all solution for all Canadian airports. That's the part of this that is the most troubling—the one-size-fits-all approach. We talked about that in discussing Bill C-33, when we were talking about the different regulations applying in different ways to different ports.

We believe this motion, which has been introduced and debated for one hour and will soon be debated for a second hour, needs a more robust discussion. Should the Vancouver International Airport have the same regulations and costs applied to it as Kelowna, Kamloops, Abbotsford or many of the other, smaller airports across the country? Can they absorb that and still meet their mandates to balance their books? The answer in the past has been no.

We've heard examples of how taking away this flexibility to provide a rescue service.... No one is talking about reducing the firefighting regulations as they are—getting to the end or midpoint of a runway in a certain amount of time and providing the ability, for instance, to put out a fire on a plane that had an emergency landing. Those requirements are still there. They are currently in the smaller airports operated by a dual-purpose staff who can provide that service to Canadians and that assurance to Canadian travellers and those travelling into our country that they are safe and secure, that they aren't in any danger because of the current regulations.

We want to make sure there are discussions and that we hear from the CAOs of those airports about what the change would do to them, and from the larger airports, such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, in order to determine what their current practices are and whether this would have an impact on them.

I think there needs to be an overall lens on this, as well as to the cost environment for Canadian passengers and airlines. As I said earlier, studies out in the last week are indicating the wide discrepancy. What happens when there is a wide discrepancy in costs is that Canadians start to look to.... There's leakage. There are jobs and opportunities lost for Canadian airports, airlines and workers, because Canadian passengers look to airports near the borders. They look for cheaper alternatives in Bellingham, Seattle, Montana and Buffalo. We've seen numerous cases of leakage in the tens of millions of dollars. This additional cost would have an impact on families, business travellers, etc.

I think we always want to make sure there aren't unintended consequences when we have motions like this coming before the House.

Again, there would be three meetings where we would hear from the firefighters. We're not saying that.... Perhaps they have the right approach; perhaps this is the way that things should go, but again, there should be an appropriate regulatory process.

When we were asking about what the timeline would be, for instance, to bring in regulations to ban thermal coal, we were told that it would be a three-year process and that there would be a robust discussion with affected workers, affected companies and affected industry, and that it wouldn't be done prior to those regulations coming into force. What we have here instead of that, in this motion that's in the House, is simply an imposition, calling on the government to impose new regulations without having gone through that regulatory process.

We promised we would bring this forward when we were debating this because we want to hear from firefighters, and we want to hear from airports and from airlines and from the workers who would be affected by this if this change were forced onto airports by a simple motion in the House of Commons.

We think there's a better way. We think that this issue is important and that it deserves more discussion, and the discussion should start here. We should hear from those parties and then, crucially, report back to the House. I think it is our right as members to ask for those hearings to happen, ask for that robust discussion to happen and then report back with the expectation that the government will hear from us, hear what we heard and come back with a response. Hopefully, there will then be a robust regulatory discussion and not simply the discussion happening for two hours in the House of Commons.

I note, Mr. Chair, that the bells are ringing in the chamber. I guess we have to suspend until that vote is over.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I just want to say that, in the context of Bill C‑33, which deals with the activities of port authorities, we believe that an amendment should not be passed that will, for example, prevent cities from carrying out activities that may be essential. This is despite the fact that we don't like cities discharging their wastewater into waterways and we consider that this is not the right place to do so.

We don't see what this has to do with port activities. I thought that limiting the requirement to wastewater from port activities would be more reasonable in the context of the bill that is currently being studied.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motion, just so everyone has it here, would amend Bill C-33 in clause 120 by adding after line 30 on page 77 the following:

(3) Section 62 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) regulations made under paragraph (1)(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

I think certainly Conservatives have had the desire to ban the dumping of raw sewage. Since we've now decided that we are going to use transport bills to advance other issues, I think it's only appropriate that now we talk about the dumping of raw sewage into Canadian waters, waters that are under the jurisdiction of the various port authorities.

Certainly we were very disappointed that one of the first acts of the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, was to authorize the discharge of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing government to bypass treatment plants and to simply discharge raw sewage, which is disgusting and which no doubt has a negative impact on that waterway.

In previous campaign platforms we've called for a ban on raw sewage being dumped into Canadian waters. It's something that is not good for the environment. It's not good for Canada's image. If we're going to use Bill C-33 to advance other agendas, I think we should also make sure that we ban raw sewage discharge in waters that are under the jurisdiction of the ports. I asked about this previously in passing. Obviously, a lot of territory falls under the jurisdiction of port authorities when it comes to their activities.

To the witnesses, what is the current amount of discharge of raw sewage in waters that are under the jurisdiction of port authorities? Does a port authority have the ability to prevent that sort of activity from happening? For instance, again, with the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Liberals permitted eight billion litres to be dumped into that active seaway, which, as we know, has a very diverse marine ecosystem. A huge number of residents, millions of residents, live in Montreal and downriver from where that raw sewage was dumped.

Is there anything the port authorities could do, if this amendment were passed, to prevent this sort of dumping of raw sewage from happening again?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

The year 2021, like that election, was in the middle of a pandemic. I think we need to be careful that we aren't picking a number.... If we want to have a number that doesn't increase going forward, I think we have to respect what the volumes are since the pandemic ended.

Maybe I can ask the witnesses if they have current information. Do they know if the volumes for Westshore or the port of Vancouver in 2022 or 2023 increased, decreased or remained the same?

I believe I know the answer to that. I think they have increased their throughput since 2021, which is not unexpected. We saw unprecedented congestion and problems at the port of Vancouver that year, which caused them to be ranked near the bottom of the global performance indexes in terms of dwell times, wait times and port congestion. I think it's unfair to go back to a time that was not normal in terms of the business cycle.

Once again, we could get into the discussion about the impact on workers at the port. If their volumes for 2023 are significantly higher than they were in 2021, as was their right.... There's no reason why they wouldn't try to increase their volumes, despite the fact that a 2030 phase-out is in place.

To suddenly cap it at 2021 while telling them, as the committee has just voted, that we're accelerating the phase-out of thermal coal faster than what we said we were going to, is strike one against them. Then, by the way, while we are accelerating this phase-out, we're going to force them to reduce their throughput as well. We're going to hit them once, and then, while they're down, we're going to kick them.

I realize the ideological discussion that's happening here. Once again, you're impacting union workers. You're going to force layoffs if, through the royal assent to this, you have to go back to 2021, which will be three years in the rear-view mirror.

If we want to have that discussion about a maximum year over year, we should do it. I think picking 2021, which was an anomaly year in the middle of a global pandemic with a port slowdown and with parts of the port shut down, is once again being unfair to the workers and to a company that is not doing anything illegal. It is operating under the program that has been described to them by the government. There was no promise that there would be no increase in thermal coal exports between 2021 and 2030. There was a promise that by 2030 it would be over.

I realize that there's a desire here to signal some virtue or ensure that the government keeps its promises. Again, we're missing the target here and you're hitting the workers.

I don't know how to amend it. I think it's just unnecessary at this point. You already have your accelerated phase-out. That's what was just passed. You're using a transport bill, Bill C-33, to accelerate a coal phase-out, which will impact workers right across the supply chain across the country. We spoke against that.

Now, to say that it's not just in Vancouver but also in Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay, and not only are you going to have an accelerated phase-out but you're also now going to have to go back to pandemic-level export numbers I think is unfair to the workers. It's wrong-headed. They're already going to be disadvantaged by the amendment that just passed.

The idea that we would further impede their ability to do business in the very short time frame that has now been given to them—business that they are working on with the government to come up with a program that allows them to comply with the government's regulations—I think is unfair. It's unfair to working families. We can't support it.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've seen over the course of a number of meetings now this whole discussion, and various subamendments, and there have been a number of versions of new amendments today. I think, as we've said from the outset on Bill C-33, that this bill is the wrong place for the intended policy being put forward in this amendment.

This is a bill that's about ports and about supply chains. We have here an effort to accomplish something that the Government of Canada has said it's already going to accomplish by the end of the decade. The players who are involved in that are already working towards it in an orderly fashion. We're proposing an abrupt change to that or an accelerated change to that. Pick any of the amendments or subamendments; I don't think any of them bring any clarity.

Mr. Badawey asked some good questions to the witnesses, who confirmed that a lot of this stuff is already taking place under other auspices. It's like we're changing the rules of the game in the seventh inning with 350 union jobs on the line at Westshore Terminals, ILWU jobs. We don't know the number at Prince Rupert. We don't know the number at the port of Thunder Bay. We have 400 workers in Hinton, Alberta, who are impacted by this. I learned over the weekend there are another 150 to 250 direct jobs in Edson, Alberta, that are impacted by this.

That's already a significant number of good, well-paying jobs in the Canadian economy. Those are the direct jobs, not the indirect jobs, for something that doesn't belong in this bill and that is already being pursued by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

We're saying we should stick to the rules of the game as they were set out. Let's work towards an orderly transition for 2030. Let's leave it at that.

Thank you.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So far, we've had a lot of discussion about amendment BQ‑5. Much has been said, and I don't intend to add any more. However, I would like to commend the NDP, who have put forward a subamendment with the aim of achieving the maximum compromise possible, in order to gain the agreement of many members of the committee. I would therefore like to salute this approach.

What I see is that amendment BQ‑5 is weakened. Personally, I consider it urgent to deal with the coal issue. In my opinion, the 2030 deadline mentioned in the roadmap is too late. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the government keeps its promises. I'm fully convinced of the relevance of amendment BQ‑5, as originally tabled, and of the modified version, if any. It's better than nothing at all. As long as it remains a promise, it won't be enough. At least, if it's enshrined in law, it will have a little more force. It will be a step in the right direction.

As for the subsequent amendments that have been submitted to the committee, these are not subamendments, but amendments, and they will have to be debated. In my opinion, unless our legislative clerk says otherwise, the committee will be able to debate them at the appropriate time. I'm realistic about the outcome, but I think everyone wants to move the bill forward. We need a better framework, and it will be essential, it seems to me. We need to be sure that other measures will eventually be taken. It remains to be seen what the opinion of the committee members is on these amendments.

Right now, we need to discuss Mr. Bachrach's amendment, which was introduced by Ms. Zarrillo. It's time we discussed it so that we can finish studying Bill C‑33. That said, for my part, I still see this as a weakening of amendment BQ‑5.

I don't intend to drag out the discussion on the subject forever, but I wanted to mention that it would be better to keep the original version, in my opinion.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To quote Mr. Badawey, isn't this what's already being done? I think that's the point we've been trying to make now for several meetings. It's that the government has made this commitment to phase out thermal coal by 2030, however you want to define that, whether January 1 or December 31, 2030. I note the new date now.

Again, the concern continues to be that by putting an amendment.... Also, we just heard that Transport Canada doesn't have the authority or isn't the right government department to ensure that workers are protected, etc., which is why, I think, we've been arguing that this Bill C-33 is not the right piece of legislation to try to shoehorn this prohibition into.

This work is being done. The negotiations are taking place. The consultations are taking place among the affected groups to ensure that there is a transition plan and that they are working with Environment Canada and the natural resources department to develop plans that will respect contracts, respect workers, respect international contracts and law and trade agreements and all the things we've raised in the last number of meetings.

This subamendment talks about “(1.4) if no regulations are made under subsection (1.1) within 48 months”. It's essentially saying that the Governor in Council, the cabinet, must do it. If they don't, there's this accountability function. If they don't do this within four years, we're now advancing the transition by a number of years. If this law comes into force in 2024, which we assume it will, by 2028, according to this amendment, there must be regulations in place or the cabinet or the government of the day will have to table in the House and the Senate the reasons that they have not got the job done, so we're talking now about 2028 being this accelerated transition phase again.

Then going back to (1.3), it says it must be done by 2030. With this prohibition tacked onto this bill, as I read it, we are talking about any time between royal assent and 2030, with a slap on the wrist, a public humiliation or an explanation before the House and Senate as to why it hasn't already been banned. Once again, we are talking about accelerating the phase-out by a number of years with this amendment. It doesn't force the government to do it within 48 months, but it does create an incentive to accelerate it faster than had been laid out by the government.

I think it's a nice try to try to let the workers know that they will be consulted, which is part of the regulatory process already, so I would say that this is redundant in parts and certainly doesn't provide the protection that workers are actually looking for, which is that they will be given the time frame that has been promised to them to make that transition from thermal coal. In the case of Westshore Terminals, as we've talked about, it's to potash.

My first concern is that this subamendment is pushing this forward and accelerating it by a significant percentage. Going from six or seven years to four is not insignificant.

The second point is that there appear to be several other amendments that are going to deal with the first part of this. I'm not sure how to handle this, Mr. Chair, and how it works when an individual who has proposed an amendment that is now being subamended has now proposed more amendments.

Perhaps Mr. Barsalou-Duval can chat about his plan here. It appears as though we're now subamending an amendment that itself may be withdrawn or amended. By the end of this, I think we're going to really have to pause for a moment and get a very clear picture of what we're actually considering at this point, given the flurry of back-and-forth that it appears will happen on this section.

We continue to believe that the amendment and the subamendment are unnecessary and that this work is already under way. We've been told it's under way by both the union and the company. I have no reason to doubt them on that.

We are now into I don't know how many meetings in discussing this. I think it's misplaced to try to insert this ban into a transport bill when it should be dealt with by Environment and Climate Change Canada or NRCan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us once again with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome back our witnesses.

Joining us once again from the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Also, once again, we have our legislative clerk, Monsieur Philippe Méla. Welcome back.

Colleagues, we left off with new BQ-5.

I see a hand raised by Ms. Zarrillo.

Ms. Zarrillo, if you would like to get us started on that discussion, by all means, the floor is yours.

[Tim McEwan]

Thanks very much for the question.

I'm ill-equipped to speak to Bill C-33.

I would say that, generally, our association—and I personally—support free collective bargaining. It is constitutionally entrenched in this country.

In this circumstance, though, when matters bargain to an impasse, there need to be—and we're very pleased to see the review the minister is undertaking under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code—tools that can be used to keep parties at the table so they can come to a fair and equitable resolution. In some cases, that may mean binding arbitration, final offer selection arbitration or other means to resolve a dispute.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It's two things.

First, do you agree that negotiations are best negotiated at the table?

Second, for the current law presented, Bill C-33, are there things in there you agree with and think would help, or are there things you might want to see in there in order to make sure we strengthen the law?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're talking today about finding measures or solutions to ensure that, in the future, the negotiation process can continue at the table. I think that we all agree that the best negotiations happen at the bargaining table.

The government tabled Bill C‑33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

To make sure that we're all on the same page, I'd like to say the following. The bill aims to amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate; remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; expand Canada port authorities' mandate over traffic management; position Canada's ports as strategic hubs that support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth; improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and modernize provisions on rail safety, security and transportation of dangerous goods.

In its current form, the bill is a win‑win approach. Of course, the bill could be strengthened. That's our focus right now.

I want to hear the witnesses' views on this matter.

First, do they agree that the best agreements are made by the parties at the bargaining table?

Second, I would like to ask each witness to comment on the legislation. Some witnesses have already made suggestions, but others haven't yet had the opportunity to do so. What does it mean for the members and sectors that you represent?

Ms. Martin, I'd like you to answer the question first. The other witnesses can then respond.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a tiny portion of Canada's economy that relies on the import and export of coal. We all agree that it's not essential to the Canadian economy, but it is essential, for example, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. So, if we have the political will, we'll say that it has a minor effect on the economy, but a major effect on climate change. It seems to me that the equation is simple: a small gesture can have a very big effect with very few consequences. Isn't that wonderful? There would be few consequences for the economy, but many benefits for the climate. It's all very positive. So there's no reason not to go down this road.

However, where I'm most stunned—I simply can't believe it—is that there's a party, a representative of which is sitting on my left, which is supposedly left-wing and which, officially in its election platform, defends the environment. It tells us that it defends the environment, that we must reduce greenhouse gases, that we must make an effort. But let's look at the amendment tabled by the NDP. I had intended to discuss it. I thought we'd see what kind of compromise we could come up with.

The Americans have already stopped exporting coal through their ports because they figured it didn't make sense. How often we align ourselves with our American partners, whom we so love to take as examples. Logically, we should do the same and put an end to this export of coal, which makes no sense for the planet. We're lagging behind the Americans. Why don't we catch up? I don't understand it.

In fact, there seems to be no will to catch up, at least, not before 2030. What's more, the NDP amendment is even worse than what the Liberals are proposing. Maybe the NDP didn't realize it, or maybe they didn't draft their proposed amendment well, or maybe the translation is wrong; in any case, subsection (1.1) of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

(1.1) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the prohibition, by December 31, 2029, of the loading and unloading of thermal coal to and from ships in a port.

It doesn't say “must make” or “will make,” but "may make.” It means “maybe he will” or “maybe he won't.” In my opinion, it's not a very strong commitment; it won't scare a lot of people.

Next, in subsection (1.2), we're given guarantees in case subsection (1.1) doesn't apply.

Subsection (1.2) reads as follows:

(1.2) If no regulations are made under subsection (1.1) within 48 months after the day on which this section comes into force the minister must cause a report stating the reasons that no such regulations have been made and establishing a schedule for making regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that 48‐month period.

The text ends there. Then, I presume, they explain why the regulations aren't in place yet.

Generally speaking, despite the translation that seems to be wrong, we understand that the NDP wants the government to explain itself to Parliament if it doesn't do its job, if it doesn't keep its election promise to stop importing and exporting oil by December 31, 2029. It will have to explain why it decided not to and what its plan will be afterwards.

I'm very disappointed that the NDP seems even less ambitious than the government. The government has promised to end the import and export of coal by 2030. So, “by 2030” means it could be 2030, 2029, 2028, 2027, 2025, any time between now and 2030. So it could be before 2030. I understand that when we say “by 2030,” it may not be tomorrow morning. Earlier, I referred to oil instead of coal, but I was talking about coal. I don't want to be misquoted. That said, as far as oil is concerned, we'll have to get there one day as well.

With regard to such amendments, I was thinking that perhaps there had been a negotiation between the parties. Maybe the NDP and the Liberals talked to each other. Maybe they even talked to the Conservatives. Earlier, the Conservatives were telling us that if there was a predictable roadmap, they would agree.

I find it interesting to see Conservatives say they'll agree, if they keep their promise. However, that's not what we heard after the tabling of the NDP amendment, which has no effect and creates no obligation. This amendment just cancels amendment BQ‑5, basically, or it gives the minister the power to do something, maybe one morning, if he feels like it, or maybe do something on December 31, 2029.

So I need a serious explanation of how we could hold the Liberals to their promises. At least, if they keep their promises, we'll be able to talk. We'd like the dialogue to move faster. Faster would be better. I think everyone agrees on that.

We're talking about a single location, a single mine, which alone, with its coal, produces as much greenhouse gas as the entire Quebec car fleet. Yet we don't want to tackle this problem. I don't understand that. I don't understand it, Mr. Chair.

What's even crazier about all this is that this mine hasn't been in operation for 100 years. It hasn't been in operation for 50 years either. It's been in operation since 2019, four years after the signing of the Paris Agreement. We already knew that we were heading for the end of hydrocarbon exploitation. We already knew we were moving towards clean energy. That was the global action plan, including Canada's 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. In 2019, when this mine started up, once the investments had been made, its owners knew full well that they would eventually have to deal with the government's wishes. When you operate a business, there are risks. For example, the business might not operate; there might not be a workforce; there might not be a market for its products. When you decide to do business, that's part of the rules of the game. There are risks.

There's also the risk that a government will create regulations and laws that will mean our investment may not return as much as we would have liked. It may turn out differently. It's a risk that's part of the legislative environment, the governmental environment, the political environment. It's all part of it. When you invest in a company, you obviously hope that its environment won't change. But there's no such thing as a static environment. All environments change at some point. Nothing is eternally immutable.

Moreover, the government has announced that it intends to end the export and import of coal by 2030. What's crazy is that this mine wants to increase its production by 50%. It wants to do more—when what the whole planet is saying, and we agree, is that we need to do less.

The Conservatives are defending this company. I feel there's a bit of hypocrisy there. They're telling us they agree with the 2030 deadline, and that surprises me a bit. After the NDP tabled its amendment, which imposes absolutely no obligation and has absolutely no effect, the Conservatives continue to systematically filibuster around an amendment that is absolutely insignificant, ultimately, and poses no threat to this company.

In fact, I'm trying to understand the current situation. I get the impression that, around the table, there are simply three parties who are very timid and reluctant to make the necessary efforts to achieve the results to which they have committed themselves. At the very least, there are two parties committed to the Paris Agreement. I'm pretty sure that's the case for the NDP and the Liberal Party. We haven't heard from the Liberals yet. I can't wait to hear their comments. I can't wait to see how they vote.

To me, it's very clear that the NDP's proposed amendment, as written, is absolutely unacceptable. You have to have at least a little ambition.

For example, we could claim, as the Conservatives say, that we need predictability. We need it out of respect for the people who work in this field. On that, I agree. That's why, in Quebec, for example, when we put an end to nuclear energy and asbestos, we set up programs to help people working in these plants find other jobs. There were, for example, funding programs to help new businesses get established.

The Bécancour Industrial Park, among others, is becoming an extraordinary place, one that will give rise to massive investment in the economy of tomorrow, particularly in the electrification of transport. As we all know, the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant used to be located in this region. It's because of the closure of the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant that such projects are now taking place in Bécancour. In fact, programs have been put in place to help the economy of the future settle in these areas, rather than relying on the economy of the past. We told people we were going to help them look toward the future rather than the past.

However, what we're seeing now are Conservatives and New Democrats defending the extremely polluting energy production of the past.

I'm bitterly disappointed to see an amendment like this, and I hope we'll have a chance to give it some teeth. The Conservatives tell us that they agree with the 2030 deadline. In other words, the NDP amendment doesn't even go as far as what the Conservatives support. It just doesn't make sense. This is the NDP pretending to stand up for the environment.

I'd like to add something in connection with what was said about predictability and the need to stop exporting and importing coal by 2030. We say we want predictability and we want to respect the Paris Agreement. As I said earlier, one mine alone emits as much greenhouse gas as Quebec's entire automobile fleet. And that's not counting the planned increase in production, which will boost emissions by 50%. This means that mining and exporting this coal will produce one and a half times the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire Quebec auto fleet.

Moreover, we know that this coal is exported to China, which produces electricity with extremely polluting coal. I don't understand why we don't encourage China—this country that Conservatives hate so much and with which Liberals are currently at loggerheads—to make its energy transition. Personally, I have no particular aversion to China. Of course, I'm aware that their regime is different from ours. However, I don't think we have to fall flat on our faces in front of China either; nor am I sure that putting in place slightly stricter regulations would have much impact, in the end.

So, if we really intend to put an end to hydrocarbon exports produced from coal by 2030, we should at least start by stabilizing them and by saying that we won't be doing any new projects. You'd have to start by quietly reducing production, perhaps, but you certainly shouldn't increase it. That would make no sense. How can we reduce it if we increase it? Are we going to produce more gasoline-powered cars to have fewer of them later? Will there be fewer fuel-burning airplanes later if there are more now? Absolutely no one could understand such reasoning.

Logically, if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this implies a transition. This means finding different ways of achieving the same ends, and developing new technologies to produce as much energy as we do now. That's what we're talking about right now.

The good news is that there are already different sources of energy. There's hydro, wind and gas. I'm not so much in favour of gas, let me reassure you right now, but natural gas-fired power generation is a lot cleaner than coal-fired. There are so many solutions to replace coal-fired power generation that I find it hard to understand why we don't at least want to begin a transition.

We could start the discussion by talking about ways to initiate a transition and make sure the government keeps its promises. I don't think the government is going to tell us that it doesn't want to keep its promise. I hope they're going to tell us they're going to keep it.

So I'll start the discussion on that. I hope that my colleagues will reassure me, that amendment BQ-5 will be adopted and that Bill C‑33 will also be adopted, so that we all come out winners, collectively.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have a lot of time to talk about Amendment BQ‑5. I see that a lot has been said, and I have a feeling we'll be talking about it for a little while yet. That said, for the benefit of the people listening—and I hope there are a lot of them—I'm going to take the time to explain the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in.

The purpose of the proposed amendment to Bill C‑33 that we're discussing right now, Amendment BQ‑5, is to put an end to the export and import of thermal coal. Why do we want to put an end to this? Because thermal coal is probably the worst way in the world to produce electricity. I don't think there is a worse way. Right now, if I'm not mistaken, 31% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plants alone account for 31% of emissions. Canada is the world's seventh-largest coal exporter. So we're complicit in this. Canada is one of the main countries causing this extreme pollution on a planetary scale.

Interestingly, the government had already announced that it intended to end the export and import of coal at Canadian ports. That was good news. However, the bad news was that this would not happen until 2030. You might say 2030 is better than never.

The Conservatives got scared. They said we couldn't end coal production and that it didn't make sense. Finally, they tell us they agree on the year 2030. I'm surprised. I hope we can see that today, because we're going to put the Conservatives' word to the test. If the Conservatives tell us that they agree on the 2030 date—that's what we've heard—that means that, in theory, they'll vote in favour of a proposal to that effect.

There's a famous coal mine in Alberta. I'd have to find its name. The Conservative member mentioned it earlier today. The people listening to us, and those around the table, may not know it, but this mine currently produces 10 million tonnes of thermal coal a year. In terms of pollution, that's the equivalent of the Quebec car fleet. It's huge. It's enormous. It's monstrous. It's gigantic. A single plant produces as much greenhouse gas with its coal as the entire Quebec car fleet. Yet the Conservatives are rending their garments. They say we absolutely mustn't touch this. How, then, are we going to stop climate change? How are we ever going to mitigate climate change if we don't tackle this and we let one plant produce as much pollution as all the cars in Quebec? It's crazy.

And yet, the Liberals say we shouldn't touch it before 2030. I have the impression—we'll see—that the Conservatives say it should never be touched. If we follow their plan of action, we'll all die of asphyxiation before we manage to pass anything, Mr. Chair. I think that's pretty crazy. I feel like I'm witnessing a crude farce, because I think the Conservatives don't respect people's intelligence. An MP told us earlier that parents won't have any more diapers for their children if we close this plant. He became indignant when I laughed. It doesn't make any sense. People won't have diapers because we're not producing coal anymore. Is that it? It doesn't make sense.

There might be ways of doing things differently. In Quebec, we decided to put an end to certain industries we deemed harmful to the collective interest. We can do the same thing on a state level.

For example, in Quebec, the decision was made to end the use of nuclear energy, and the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant was shut down. People lost their jobs. That's true. However, there are others who still have jobs there, because the plant has to be dismantled to safely end its operations.

We also decided to end asbestos production, Mr. Chair, because it was causing cancer, killing people, here and abroad. At some point, we got smart, and figured it might not be a bad idea to end production of something that's killing people.

Coal kills people, Mr. Chair. What's more, it's not half of Canada's economy that's based on this industry, but a tiny proportion—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Okay.

I would also like to draw attention.... The further we get into this, the more ridiculous it seems that the government members would be supporting this amendment. I can understand how a Bloc member can, with no affected workers and a different goal in mind, but I'm very surprised that the Liberal members on this committee would allow this amendment and indicate their support for it, when it so clearly has not been part of the consultations done by the minister in advance of this legislation. Quite frankly, the work has not been done to justify any of the job losses proposed. It seems, in fact, that the information on the proposal in amendment BQ-5 has not been considered at any level—international, national, provincial or local—or by the unions involved.

I can tell you that when President Rob Ashton of the ILWU was before this committee, he did not bring it up. It was not brought to his attention. I can assure you that, had it been brought to his attention, he would have strongly advised that he would be fighting for the 350 jobs that will be impacted at the port of Vancouver alone. He certainly told us that. Since the government announced its intention to move forward with this Bloc amendment and support it.... The fact that he was here and was not asked about it, or given an opportunity to provide his input on it.... I think he would be quite surprised that he and his workers are being taken for granted. That's 350 in Vancouver. We don't know the numbers that will be affected in Prince Rupert or Thunder Bay. Maybe it's a handful. Maybe it's hundreds. That analysis has not been done, yet members of this committee are prepared to support an amendment that could throw the entire system into chaos and advance this thermal coal ban.

Again, no one is disputing that this is going to happen. What we are talking about is a professional, reasonable process that respects workers, the investments made, the contracts signed and the discussions that are currently ongoing in Ottawa, which are being undermined by members of this committee, who should and do know better. They're telling the workers one thing at one table and are prepared to come here and sandbag them at another. It's quite outrageous.

I want to go back to when the former minister introduced this bill. The whole point of Bill C-33 was this: “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act: Minister...introduces a new bill to make our supply chain stronger”.

I'll go through the list of what the bill aims to do:

amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate;

remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure, and resilient supply chain;

expand...Port Authorities' mandate over traffic management;

position Canada's ports as strategic hubs that support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth;

improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and

modernize provisions on rail safety, security, and transportation of dangerous goods.

Together, these measures seek to improve the supply chain, including the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and operations that are safe, secure, efficient, and reliable. The proposed measures would support the flow of essential goods and would implement tools to mitigate risks and impacts of future supply chain challenges.

I guess the question is this: How does advancing the thermal coal export ban by several years improve the supply chain?

How does it improve the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and operations that are safe, secure, efficient and reliable? How does it support the flow of essential goods and implement tools to mitigate risk and the impacts of future supply chain challenges?

Of course, the answer is that it does the opposite of that. I would argue that it actually throws a wrench into the supply chain. There are 170,000 cars that the rail companies have contracted to move goods until 2030, and suddenly that's slammed shut, and by several years they lose that traffic. They lose those trains. They lose those jobs. They lose that revenue.

I have no idea, nor does the government have any idea, how they will make up for that, or what the impacts on the supply chain will be.

Once again, we have heard evidence here that this is not well thought out, that this is not the place that the government, if it wants to change its mind and accelerate its thermal coal ban.... Again—I repeat it again and again—no one is disputing that thermal coal exports will be banned, but what is in dispute is the timeline.

By all measures, by all of the answers we've received, we don't even know what this will do, let alone what the long-term impacts will be. We don't know what it will do today. We don't have the information on the impacts today. I think it's completely irresponsible to consider moving forward with this amendment, given what we know and given what we don't know, which is significant, given what we've just been told.

Once again, I would urge members to think closely about what this will do and what we have been told this will do. This is not Conservative propaganda here. This is what we've been told by the longshore and warehouse union at the port of Vancouver.

We've been told that the impact on them would be devastating. We've been told that these are family-supporting jobs. We've been told that the company has been very responsive in working with them to try to find a way forward and to replace the jobs that will be lost by the thermal coal ban, by moving to a different commodity, but this takes time. It takes time that the government has promised to them.

The ILWU is very upset at the prospect of 350 of their members being out of work because the government has decided to support a Bloc Québécois amendment. That is what we're trying to put a stop to today. That's why we're talking about this, because of the impacted workers who have been told they have time to transition to a new commodity. On the one hand, they've been told the government will give them to time to make that transition, and on the other.... The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

They're telling the workers, “We've got your back. Don't worry. There will be a transition. We'll let you have time to make this changeover,” and then on the other side now, at transport committee, tacked on to a supply chain efficiency bill, a ports modernization bill, we have a government that is willing to throw those workers under the bus, because we've heard again and again that no matter how you dress it up, this will result in several years of less opportunity at those terminals at Vancouver, the port of Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay.

We've heard that very clearly. No matter how long the regulatory process is supposed to be dragged out.... We have no guarantee of that. We've seen this government use orders in council, use the power of the cabinet, to make unilateral regulations on a whim. We saw it when they banned 1,500 firearms, including many hunting rifles. They just did that on their own. There was no regulatory process involved there. That was the cabinet making a decision on their own.

We take no comfort in the fact that the regulatory process is slow, because the government has shown that when they want to make a change, they can make it quite quickly; they can be unilateral, and they can make a change on a whim based on what the Prime Minister's Office wants to have happen.

We take no comfort in the fact that it usually takes three years to come up with regulations. It might take three years, three months or three days, depending on what the government decides. This amendment gives the authority to the cabinet to make those changes as soon as this law receives royal assent.

We've gone from 2030, in the mandate letter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, which is what that department and Natural Resources Canada have been negotiating with.... The companies, including Westshore Terminals, and the workers have been at the table discussing how this transition is going to go. I would have assumed that those negotiations were taking place in good faith, but when we have something like this that completely undermines it, that has to be questioned.

Once again, on this amendment, while perhaps it is something people can support—that there's a thermal coal ban coming, so why don't we just use the Canada Marine Act to make it happen...? I don't blame Mr. Barsalou-Duval for putting it forward, but I think we've proven, through questions, answers and the lack of information, that the work has not been done to justify its passage. We are not fighting for anything but the process that will protect the workers, that will ensure that they have the transition time they've been promised and that the companies can do their work.

That is going to happen. If you talk to people in the industry, no new thermal coal mines in North America are being approved. This phase-out is a fait accompli. However, this timeline, which has suddenly been thrust upon this committee through Bill C-33, is disrespectful to the workers who will lose their jobs and to the companies that are talking to the government in good faith on one hand while this is happening on the other hand.

I really think that, again, this exposes Canada to a number of risks, of lawsuits that could cost into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. If we're talking about multiple-year contracts that are cut short by multiple years, Canadian taxpayers can expect to pay. That is not something this bill envisaged. It's not something former minister Alghabra spoke about in the House. It's not something Minister Rodriguez spoke about when he came before this committee.

This is a government playing politics and trying to jump on board to look like it is concerned about the environment and look like it wants to move this forward, but we've seen numerous examples where that is simply not the case, where there's no plan. This is another example of having no plan, a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants approach, which, again, has a devastating impact, on workers.

It might sound great, in an Ottawa committee room, to do this, to move ahead and to accelerate the timeline, but it doesn't sound great to the people in Delta or to the workers in Tsawwassen and Ladner, who face the prospect of losing their jobs because this will come too quickly for the adaptation to occur. The planning is already well under way.

I would say that the government—the Liberals and the NDP especially, as there are no Bloc MPs in British Columbia—will have to answer to those workers, and the hundreds more workers who aren't in the ILWU but will be impacted by any shutdown of Westshore Terminals. They can't just wait around with an empty terminal for years while the potash mine gets going and the volumes get ramped up. This is complex stuff that takes billions of dollars of investment and years and years of planning. For all that to be undermined by a one-line amendment thrown in on a clause in a bill that didn't intend to deal with this is unacceptable.

It seems that the government has made up its mind that it's going to go ahead with this, but it's a shame, and it's a shame that it isn't listening to the workers and the communities that will be impacted but, for political purposes, is charging ahead with this.

I won't assume to know why, but I think it probably has to do with keeping the peace with the coalition, and that's not any way to govern the country.

Again, this is irresponsible. It is something that has not been thought out. Consultations have not been done. Legal analysis has not been done. Economic impact studies have not been done. It will throw supply chain partners into chaos. It will negatively impact many of the partners we rely on to move our goods and the workers we entrust to keep our ports up and running.

If the government, the Liberals, want to go ahead with this, they can answer to the ILWU who, trust me, will have a lot of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I see. I think it's fairly clear that this has not been in Transport Canada's file, that this was never envisaged to be a part of this legislation, because I know that the public servants who serve the government in this country would do their due diligence and would have done all of that work, had they believed that the Canada Marine Act, in section 62, would be the method by which the government would choose to accelerate its own timeline for a thermal coal phase-out. I believe that there's too much professionalism, and that they would not leave a minister and the government and the taxpayers of Canada this exposed. They would have done their homework. In fact, it would have been a part of the bill to start with, had this been something the government intended to move forward with.

I want to go back now. The legislation we're dealing with, Bill C-33, comes out of a consultation process that was undertaken by the then minister in the ports modernization review. I'm wondering if we can go back to that to determine this. Did the transport minister.... In the summary of the evidence, in the summary of the hearings and what you heard from people who participated in the ports modernization review, was an accelerated thermal coal ban one of the priorities? Was that a priority of the people who engaged in the ports modernization review? Did this come up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 94 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume consideration clause-by-clause of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome our witnesses back. They include, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome to you once again.

Of course, we also have with us our legislative clerk, Monsieur Philippe Méla.

I'd like to welcome you once again.

Before we begin, colleagues, I want to inform members that, unfortunately, there was a small error that occurred in the last meeting. I have to bring it to the attention of members once again.

For the subamendment to NDP-15.1, there's a small correction that needs to be made. We had approved “In the case of a port authority specified in subsection 37.3(a)”. In the last meeting, I asked you to approve a small change. Unfortunately, that small change was also incorrect. I was just informed by our legislative clerk. He asks us to once again seek unanimous approval to replace “subsection 37.3(a)” with “paragraph 37.1(3)(a)”.

Do I have unanimous consent from all members?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, perhaps, am not as trusting of the government as Mr. Bachrach is, understandably. I do think he's heard a possible scenario, but these workers have also been told that 2030 is when this transition will be done by. I recognize that “done by” means it could be earlier, but I am not convinced that this is something that we should leave up to a cumbersome regulatory process in order to give those workers the opportunity to have the government live up to its promises.

Yes, the regulatory process takes time. With regard to the amendment, which I apologize for moving early—I misunderstood that—I want to be very clear that we are not talking about giving a free pass to thermal coal. We are simply talking about giving the workers the time they were promised for an orderly phase-out, as has been indicated.

That would be my question. This is not in, by the way, the Minister of Transport's mandate letter, as far as I'm aware. This is in the Minister of Environment's mandate letter.

Quite frankly, to tack this on to Bill C-33 without consulting with the ILWU and with the workers in Hinton, Alberta, is outrageous. We would never consider that this would be something that was appropriate.

I guess this would be a question I would ask the officials: Has Transport Canada entered into discussions with the ILWU or with workers at the Vista mine in Hinton, Alberta, to discuss the timeline for a phase-out on thermal coal exports?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I think I was asking some questions of the witnesses. I was told that no other commodities or goods have been prohibited under section 62. It hasn't been used previously in this way.

During the break for the voting, I was able to look up the number of jobs that would be directly impacted by this amendment's passing. I think we should be very clear that Westshore Terminals is aware that the government has a 2030 timeline. They are not trying to overturn that.

They are not trying to change the government's mind, even though they might have a difference of opinion there. They recognize the direction that this is going in and in fact are working with the government, but not at the transport minister level. This is being done with natural resources bureaucrats and with Environment and Climate Change Canada. This company is working with the government on their timeline.

The mining companies and terminal operators do not operate in six-month projections. They are planning out decades into the future, and I think what is so surprising about this is the timeline that's being proposed. It's not giving Westshore Terminals...which would lose, we've been told, anywhere between 125 and 350 ILWU workers, who would be out of a job, if this came into force as quickly as the Bloc amendment proposes that it does. They are, as I said, planning for a thermal coal free future. They are planning to bring on a significant volume of potash from a new mine in Saskatchewan that will not become fully operational until the end of the decade. Then they have plans already into the mid-2030s to move ahead and switch commodities and keep those 350 jobs and the untold number—hundreds more—of indirect jobs at the port.

I think the timing is a real issue here. The timing caught them completely by surprise, because they are currently negotiating with the government on timelines. In the last meeting we had, last Wednesday, when Mr. Badawey was explaining that they would be supporting this amendment from the Bloc, he talked about a phase-out, and he talked about the Minister of the Environment's mandate letter. A phase-out isn't six months. That's not a phase-out. That's slamming the door in the face of those workers and telling them to hit the bricks. There is no way to phase in potash when the mine won't even open for several years and won't have enough production for another decade.

That is a real insult to those ILWU workers that the government claims to stand up for, that the NDP claims to stand up for and that the Bloc Québécois claims to stand up for. It's a funny way to show it: to show them the door within six months if this passes, as we expect it would.

There's also the issue of a mine in Hinton, Alberta, the Vista mine, which is the only thing going, quite frankly, in that region. The community rallied around that mine, again with an understanding that thermal coal has a shelf life and that 2030 is the deadline for how long they can hope to export this commodity. We know that they are planning for that as well. There are 400 union jobs at stake and an entire community that believed they had until 2030 to continue to work at that mine, which supports their families and supports their community. In fact, to get it reopened, the community, the suppliers and everyone at that mine took a huge hit.

They were owed money when a previous iteration of the mine couldn't make it. They took less money than they were owed so this mine could continue to operate on the Liberal government's timeline, and I think that is the critical issue here. There is no one who believes the future of the mining sector in this country is in thermal coal, but we do believe in an orderly process. We do believe words should be kept and negotiations that are under way should not be abruptly cut off with this type of amendment, which has no coming-into-force provisions outside of royal assent.

I do have a subamendment, Mr. Chair, which has been circulated to a legislative clerk, which says that Bill C-33, in clause 125, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 80 the following: “(6.1) Section 120(3) comes into force on January 1, 2031.”

What that would do is honour the government's commitment to allow both the terminal workers and the mine workers to continue to transition away from thermal coal to other products, as has been promised by this government and is currently being negotiated by this government and these entities that are currently processing thermal coal.

That subamendment has to do with the main issue we have here—that an abrupt six-month timeline or even a year to come into force is still half a decade shorter, six or seven years shorter, than what these workers were promised. I think we need the government to keep its promises. It can still meet the objectives of the mandate letter. It can still honour their word in the negotiations that are currently under way. Simply saying that this comes into force when royal assent is achieved, I think, is extremely unfair to those workers and it's not what they have been promised by this government.

This amendment would ensure that, as of January 1, 2031, there would be no more thermal coal imports or exports, but it does allow for the time those companies have been promised and those workers have been promised to be honoured.

I'd be happy to hear my colleagues' comments on that subamendment.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

If this proposed subsection of the act were to be adopted at this meeting and, subsequently, by Bill C-33, when would it come into force?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I will probably be with you this Wednesday.

BQ‑5 concerns clause 62 of the bill.

I move that Bill C‑33, in clause 120, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 77 the following:

(3) Section 62 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must prohibit the loading and unloading of subbituminous coal and lignite coal containing less than 70% carbon to and from ships in a port.

Witnesses who took part in the committee's work told us about the fact that we're still allowing coal to be exported from Canadian ports, in addition to allowing coal to be used for electricity as well as for production purposes. This is a completely archaic practice, dating back to the last century, and it shouldn't be supported or encouraged by Canada. As a society and as an economy, Canada is trying to eliminate the source of energy that is oil, but we're talking about coal here. It seems completely incongruous to me that we're still in a dynamic that promotes the export of this type of energy.

However, the amendment makes a distinction. We're talking about thermal coal, or coal for heat production. We want this type of coal to continue to be exported so that the industry can continue to produce steel, because it needs it. We're not talking about steel‑making coal or high‑carbon coal.

I hope that all members of the committee will vote in favour of this amendment so that we have a better planet, to accelerate the energy transition to green and renewable energy, and to eliminate the energy sources of the past, which should no longer be used today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume consideration of clause-by-clause on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33 today, I'd like to welcome back our witnesses.

From the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

To help us with clause-by-clause, as well, we are pleased to be joined, once again, by our legislative clerk, Philippe Méla.

Thank you again for being here today.

Colleagues, we're now resuming clause-by-clause. When we left off, the committee was debating clause 120, and had just voted on amendment PV-5, which did not carry.

(On clause 120)

The committee will now resume debate on BQ-5.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for joining us here today.

I have two quick items I want to follow up on.

My colleague started by asking for an economic impact assessment document. I would like to get on record that you will be able to provide that document to the committee. Heads are nodding, so I'll take that as a yes.

Secondly, there was also discussion around Bill C-33 at the beginning of this committee. I want to follow up on some of the comments made.

Essentially, do the bulk exporters at the port support this active vessel management process being proposed by the Port of Vancouver?

[Sonya Read]

As announced in the course of Bill C-33, we are undertaking work regarding the complementarity of ports, and that work is under way. We will then be looking at things that will include work around the opportunities, challenges, risks and opportunities associated with collaboration.

[Sonya Read]

Bill C-33 proposes a number of legislative amendments, particularly related to vessel traffic management. It would provide greater capacity for ports to actively manage vessel traffic going in and out, and help improve the fluidity of the supply chain in terms of the presence of vessels unloading and loading cargo.

It also provides a framework for ports to collect certain types of data from port users to help support active traffic management. That is also an important input in terms of providing a line of sight into when vessels need to be at port, what cargo they're moving and how long they can be expected to remain in port.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

We all know Canada's ports play a significant role in the lives of Canadians, handling more than 90% of Canada's marine traffic. More than 343 million tonnes of cargo were shipped through our ports in 2021 alone. It's Canada's port authorities, or CPAs, that advance the growth and prosperity of the Canadian economy by managing these key marine infrastructures and services.

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of addressing the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. We heard directly from them about the value ports add in terms of getting their products to market around the world and the economic value of creating jobs right here in Canada.

I'd like to hear more from the witnesses here.

Could you share with our committee how Bill C-33 would optimize traffic management by Canada's port authorities, and the benefits that could be realized through this important legislation?

[Sonya Read]

With respect to indigenous consultation and involvement in terms of the process around anchorages, I think there are a few considerations.

The first is that we have, through Bill C-33, amended the CMA in a couple of ways to ensure that there's a recognition of the nature of indigenous groups. They're not just a stakeholder; they have a special status within the context of the CMA, and that's recognized through changes in the purpose of the act.

In addition, some of the changes involve adding indigenous groups as an advisory committee to broader port activities. That is another mechanism whereby indigenous groups can feed into the processes and the decision-making by the ports over time.

I would note that in the context of the southern Gulf Islands anchorages, we have begun a process respecting indigenous consultation that began in February of this year. In terms of the governance of anchorages and the potential management of those anchorages by the VFPA, that process is still ongoing. It is meant to be a very robust process that reflects the nature and the traditional activities of indigenous groups in those waters. It includes discussions in terms of their involvement and how those anchorages are to be managed into the future.

We are very cognizant of our obligations under UNDA and of the respective indigenous groups in the southern Gulf Islands.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at several amendments for this clause, from many parties. I'll just give our explanation for this amendment.

Bill C-33's language on the management of marine traffic presupposes that a centrally controlled government system is required to address anchorage and mooring issues. Not only is it highly unlikely that a regulated traffic management system will be required or the best approach in every marine port across the country, but we believe that it's an obligation of the government to consider the least trade-restrictive or commercially restrictive approach that still achieves the desired social or environmental outcome. This requirement recognizes that the government will consider alternative approaches.

Regarding the strikeout on fees, port-related fees are already applied and within the mandate of the port authorities. The addition of user fees in this section is duplicative with existing authorities and would inevitably cause confusion.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I thought I was going to have time to eat.

Thanks, Taylor. Yes, we support 90 days for the smaller ports. We want to be clear on that. The 60 days for the regular ports is simply consistent.

As Ms. Moriarty alluded to, the fact is that it's very fluid when it comes to the ports, especially with respect to their borrowing limits. In meeting with the port authorities, even beyond this process of Bill C-33 and especially over the last couple of days, this was a topic of discussion.

What I mean by “fluid” is that their balance sheets move around quite a bit and quite quickly. If it's a debenture that might be paid out or maturing, they then open up the ability to borrow more and to put more capital into their facility. This, in my view, would only benefit them at 60 days.

Again, it's consistent with business practice, but it will also benefit them with respect to having the ability, if need be, to fulfill their capital needs by having that borrowing limit expanded because of those debentures that might mature at that time, or other reasons, of course, that would open up some room for them to do more capital work for which they would have to borrow.

[Sonya Read, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Going back to the other amendment that was made, which would ask that the government specify in the letters patent the types of collaborations that can be undertaken by these entities, effectively I think the two pieces will work together.

There are a number of amendments in Bill C-33—existing and potentially as amended—that would require us to go through the process of revisiting the letters patent to update them to give effect to that. That would ostensibly be one of the things we would be consulting on, or we would engage with ports, I guess, on that collaboration in the context of those discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using, as always, the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us once again this evening with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would now like to welcome our witnesses, who include, from the Department of Transport, Ms. Sonya Read—welcome back—director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy—welcome again; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Ms. Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome, all of you.

I'd also like to welcome back our legislative clerks, Jean-Francois Pagé and Philippe Méla.

Oh, pardon me.

He isn't here?

Unfortunately, colleagues, we have only half the capacity of our legislative clerk department, but we have Mr. Méla joining us, and he has 23 years of experience, so we're in good hands.

(On clause 108)

Colleagues, where we left off at our last meeting was, I believe, at BQ-4.1.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk.

We had a subamendment that was proposed by Mr. Badawey, which I believe was submitted to all members.

For that, Mr. Badawey, I'll turn it back over to you to get things started.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You all have the text of amendment BQ‑4. I'll spare you reading it out and just explain the purpose of it and what it does specifically.

The amendment would delete all of section 17 from clause 105 of Bill C‑33. With respect to section 17.1, the amendment would delete the four words at the end, “without the Minister's approval”.

I think everyone around the table is well aware of the testimony heard in committee. Almost all the witnesses were concerned about the appointment of the chairperson of the board of directors. No one wants to get the impression that someone might be appointed to a position like this for political reasons and that this individual might be an instrument of the government or the party in power. All the witnesses seemed to indicate that the current process was preferable to the one proposed in Bill C‑33. That's why we are moving this amendment.

Of course, we could have also deleted section 17.1 completely, but we noted that the current bill amending the Canada Marina Act doesn't address the possibility of appointing an interim chairperson. Removing “without the Minister's approval” seems sufficient to me. This will allow the ports to operate with interim appointments, if certain circumstances require it.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we continue with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would like to take this moment to move a motion that was put on notice on Friday, November 24. The motion is as follows:

Given that, after almost seven years, the Canada Infrastructure Bank:

(a) has made significant investment announcements and commitments that have either been cancelled or failed, including the $1.7-billion Lake Erie connector project, the $20-million Mapleton water and wastewater project and four previously announced investments that have been cancelled in 2022-23 alone;

(b) has made investment decisions that call into question its ability to make sound and responsible investments with taxpayer dollars in projects that benefit the public good, including most recently the multi-million dollar deal for a private equity firm owner of a top luxury hotel;

the committee recognize that it has lost confidence in the Canada Infrastructure Bank to make investment decisions that serve the best interests of Canadians and meet the urgent infrastructure needs of Canadian communities.

Mr. Chair, I'm raising this motion at this moment, because we know that, at a time when carbon taxes are high and runaway deficit spending and inflation are forcing Canadians to attend food banks at rates we've never seen before, this government needs to be held accountable for the policies and how they are contributing to the pain Canadians are feeling. Future generations of Canadians are being saddled with billions of dollars in debt instead of being better off. They're being left with aging, deteriorating infrastructure.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank has clearly failed to make sound investment decisions for the best interests of Canadians, and it has failed by issuing billion-dollar projects, including $655 million promised to a multi-billion dollar company, Fortis, for an electricity project that ironically failed because of inflation projections caused by the Liberal government.

This out-of-touch bank thought it was appropriate also, during a housing crisis, to lend $46.5 million to one of Canada's most expensive hotels, so that it could retrofit its $500-a-night rooms. This is all in the context of a bank that has had seven years to get off the ground but has failed to build infrastructure for communities; this infrastructure is well needed now in order to fuel our economy.

That is why I am requesting the support of this committee to report this opinion to the House, which makes clear that we have lost confidence in the ability of this bank to make investments in the best interests of Canadians at this critical time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee meets to resume the clause-by-clause consideration on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would like to welcome back our witnesses.

We have, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director of ports policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Of course, we have with us today our legislative clerks, Jean-François Pagé and Philippe Méla, who I'd like to point out to our committee members celebrate 23 years in the House of Commons in service to Canadians today.

Before we begin, I see a hand up, and I think you're going to be referencing the sound we're hearing. I'm going to turn it over to the clerk to see if we can rectify the situation, because we're getting simultaneous translation on the speakers in the room we are in.

Colleagues, I apologize for this, but we're going to have to suspend for a couple of minutes, until we rectify the situation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a companion piece to NDP-8, and it will sound very similar. The reference number is 12721750. It moves that Bill C-33, in clause 102, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 68 the following:

(1.1) Paragraph 14(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent, including one individual nominated by the Minister in consultation with the labour groups selected by the Minister or with those mentioned in the letters patent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Once again, I have a ruling.

Bill C‑33 amends several acts, including the Canada Marine Act. The purpose of the amendment is to amend section 8 of that act, which deals with the content of the letters patent creating a port authority. The amendment seeks to add to those letters patent the manners in which port authorities may organize to carry on their activities jointly with other port authorities through another entity. Port activities are governed by subsection 28(2) of the Canada Marine Act.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion, for the reasons stated earlier, that the creation of mechanisms for port authorities to associate is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House at second reading.

I therefore declare this amendment to be out of order.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Okay. I think this is the right one: NDP-8. This is the same text here, I think. Mine looks different, but it proposes that Bill C-33, in clause 101, “be amended by replacing line 20 on page 67 with the following”. Then it's the subparagraph that I'm not going to try to recharacterize, because it has 14 roman numerals after it.

It also proposes adding, after line 31 on page 67, the following:

(iv) the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with the users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent, including one individual nominated by the Minister in consultation with the labour groups selected by the Minister or with those mentioned in the letters patent;

Mr. Chair, this relates to the testimony we heard regarding the need for labour representation on the boards of Canadian port authorities.

This amendment would make the appointment of a labour representative parallel to the other appointments in terms of its being at the minister's discretion but clearly in consultation with the labour groups, the assumption being that they would be the relevant labour groups; that is, the labour groups that are involved with the operation of the port. It could also be the labour groups that are mentioned specifically in the letters patent of the port authority.

I think it's fairly self-explanatory, but I'll leave it at that and see if there's any other discussion.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-33 seeks to expand the number of municipal appointments to the board of directors of a port authority, the municipalities listed in the letters patent. This would delete that clause and return to municipalities having one seat at the port. We believe that ports have a national scope, and focusing on the needs and increasing municipalities' influence necessarily dilutes the national scope of a port board. This amendment simply seeks to return to the status quo in terms of municipal seats on a board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I would like to let you know the decision of the chair regarding amendment BQ‑3.1.

The amendment proposes to amend section 7 of the Canada Marine Act, which deals with agents of His Majesty. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 771:

… an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 7 of the Canada Marine Act is not amended by Bill C-33, the chair is of the opinion that the amendment is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 90 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, the committee is meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome back our witnesses, beginning with our legislative clerks, Messieurs Jean-François Pagé and Philippe Méla. Welcome to you both.

Of course, from the Canada Border Services Agency we have Cathy Toxopeus, director general of transformation, planning and projects—welcome. Shawn Zinck, manager of the traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, is with us by video conference.

From the Department of Transport we have Ms. Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Aiden Ryan, director, marine security operations; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

I believe, colleagues, we left off at clause 61 and NDP-2, following a very lengthy discussion on that. I will now open the floor to any continued discussion.

(On clause 61)

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for St. Catharines. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin and Anishinabe peoples.

I am very pleased to be speaking about the topic we are discussing today, enhancing transparency and accountability for port fees. I will be talking about that.

Canada's ports are vital hubs in our country, in our supply chains and in all aspects of the transportation system. They are a vital part for my home province of British Columbia and our port network, which contributes over 30% of Canada's economy.

The transportation system is in some way connected to the operations that happen at ports every day. Ports help grow our economy, create good jobs for Canadians, deliver goods and support Canada's growing export industry. When our port system works well, it plays a crucial role in helping keep life affordable for Canadians and stores full of consumer products.

There are 17 Canada port authorities that manage our country's most strategic ports. While these port authorities are federal entities, they operate at arm's length from the government in a commercially oriented and financially self-sustaining manner. They also fulfill important public policy objectives, such as supporting national economic development and performing many regulatory functions relating to safety and environmental protection.

An independent board of directors is responsible for managing port activities. This includes ensuring that port planning and operations are made firmly within the public interests, meaning that the projects they embark upon and the decisions they make help ensure affordability for Canadians. Port authorities provide port facilities and offer services to port users; acting as landlords, they lease out port operations to private terminal operators.

For over 20 years, this governance model has served Canada well. It has provided Canadians with world-class services while ensuring that capacity grew in support of Canada's economy in a gradual and financially sustainable manner.

Ports are key gateways in the transportation system, and Canadians rely on them to get the goods they use and consume, as well as to get their products to domestic and international markets. However, as inflationary pressures strain Canadian pocketbooks and make life more expensive, Canadian companies and transportation industry stakeholders are concerned about the rising costs to move goods and do business, including fees that are charged by service providers, such as ports, as well as lease arrangements for the operation of terminals.

As Canada port authorities are part of the federal family and manage key public assets, there are opportunities to improve, to strengthen the governance framework, to make these entities more transparent in their operations and decision-making, and to make sure port users have a voice. Ports need to modernize approaches to enable them to thrive in an increasingly complex environment and be able to align their national mandate with local realities.

As we know, our government tabled Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. This would amend the Canada Marine Act, among other acts, to promote transparency in port planning and operations and to position the ports for success well into the future.

The Canada Marine Act amendments in Bill C-52 would provide a framework to reinforce port authorities' due diligence and foster more responsible planning and decision-making, building on the reporting and transparency measures put forward in Bill C-33. Enhancing public engagement, accountability and oversight is a key objective at the core of the government's approach to ensuring greater transparency at Canada port authorities.

It is with this perspective that Bill C-52's reforms to the Canada Marine Act would establish new processes focusing on port fee setting and establishing recourse mechanisms for those impacted by port decisions. These new measures would build on what already exists under the Canada Marine Act and expand the provisions to foster greater accountability and consistency in the marine sector.

The first proposal in the bill aims to establish a modernized framework to govern how the port fees are developed and implemented, and establish a complaint process. There is a need to ensure a stronger connection for port users, and for Canadians more generally, on how a port sets a fee. Just as important, when there is a concern about how fees are set and charged, that a process is in place for raising a complaint.

Amendments would establish fee-setting principles to provide port users and stakeholders greater clarity and better understanding of how port fees are set, which would support a consistent and standardized approach across all Canada port authorities. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about a lack of clarity when it comes to how port fees are established and this provision would directly solve the problem.

While I understand there may be some initial concern about how this standardization could impact the ability of ports to continue to pursue transportation infrastructure projects off port lands or even to advance community-based initiatives that are vital to helping ports be good neighbours to the communities in which they operate, I am confident that the measures I am bringing forward for the consideration of members today are sufficiently broad so as to enable ports to fix their fees and spend some of the revenues on these types of initiatives. It is not the intention of this government to constraint the ability of the ports to do the work they do for our country's trade and economy; it is about principles of fairness, transparency and accountability.

The port authorities would need to adhere to these principles, as well as an explicit methodology established and published by the port authority, when setting their fees. To support the capacity of ports to generate revenues, the principles would require that port fees be set at levels that allow the authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis and be fair and reasonable.

In addition to the new fee-setting principles, an associated public notice requirement would be established that would provide a formal public consultation process for any port user or stakeholder to raise concerns with a port authority. This would ensure their views are acknowledged in the entire process and provide greater accountability for fee-setting decisions made by port authorities.

In addition, the bill would establish a process where people who made written representations during the consultation process may file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency if they believe a port authority did not comply with the fee-setting principles or the public notice requirements. If the complaint is well founded, the proposed amendments would then enable the agency to order a Canada port authority to cancel the establishment or revision of the fee in question, reinstate the previous fee, provide refunds, reconsider the fee or take any other measure it would consider appropriate. This would help ensure that corrective measures are in place to respond to complaints when necessary.

This will reinforce the rigour and integrity of how fees are set by Canada port authorities. It will maintain the key principle of financial self-sufficiency for port authorities and their ability to generate revenues needed for future developments and investments that support port operations, including those outside the ports, while reinforcing their need to be responsive to users and transparent in the conduct of their activities.

The proposed approach to fee setting is not new for transportation services providers. It is consistent and aligns with the processes already established for pilotage authorities and Nav Canada, which are two entities that also have significant transportation public policy goals in the government's portfolio. The processes have provided both the entities and their users with more clarity in how fee-setting decisions are made as well as clear grounds for objections.

The second proposal in Bill C-52 would enable the government to make regulations establishing an alternative dispute resolution process for lease disputes that might arise between a port authority and port user with respect to leases for the operation of terminals at ports. This would help build fairness and transparency into the relationships shared by ports and their tenants. This may include a role for the Canadian Transportation Agency to administer and oversee the processes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are in the House today to debate Bill C‑52. It is a highly anticipated bill, as far as I am concerned anyway. There are a few things in this bill that we consider to be positive and we think are worth mentioning.

We often complain about the government. In fact, that is the Liberals' chief criticism of us, but that is kind of our role. We are in the opposition. We are across the way from the governing party. Our role is to hold the government to account. Obviously, when things are not going well, it is our job to say so.

Bill C‑52 has several objectives.

The first thing I want to talk about is the thing that excites us the most. It is the idea of introducing service standards for airports. These standards will help determine how long it should take a passenger to go through security, collect their luggage and get to their gate. This idea makes sense. I might have a chance later on to come back to why this did not exist before.

The second good thing that I wanted to mention about this bill is the noise management committees. Certain airports will now be required to set up soundscape management committees, which will force them to discuss the situation with the public, recognize the effects that aircraft noise can have on people and look at how they can mitigate the inconvenience to those living near the airport. We think that this is a positive step forward, but I will talk more about this measure later, because we think that it may need to be fleshed out a little.

The third thing that we want to highlight is the environmental obligations. Not so long ago, the House was debating Bill C-33, which is now being examined by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Bill C‑33 seeks to impose environmental obligations on Canadian ports to make them part of the climate change strategy, so that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. I think that it only makes sense that airports should also be part of that effort, that they should be subject to the same type of requirements and that they should prepare this sort of plan. I think that is a very good thing.

The last part of the bill is a little out of step with the rest of the bill. It amends the Canada Marine Act to provide port users with recourse against port authorities if they feel they are being charged too much. It seems as though this may have been left out of Bill C‑33 so it ended up in Bill C‑52. However, the two bills were introduced just a few months or weeks apart, and they were probably drafted at the same time. I have to wonder why it is not in the right bill. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to explore this question further.

First, I would like to emphasize the whole issue of service standards. Why is the government suddenly proposing the idea of implementing service standards at airports? The Liberals did not just wake up one morning with this idea in mind. There have been so many problems over the last few years that they could no longer be ignored. Many people have been traumatized by the chaos at airports and by what they have seen in recent years and even over the past few months.

We know there was a pandemic, and all the planes were grounded. Unfortunately, the reality is that an airport's primary source of revenue is takeoffs and landings, airport fees, the people using the airport infrastructure. It is the same for airlines. Their revenue comes from tickets bought by people who want to fly to visit family, sightsee abroad or take advantage of business opportunities.

During the pandemic, no one was selling airline tickets. This also meant that many staff members were suddenly told they were no longer needed. That included pilots, flight attendants, customer service agents and employees who worked in kiosks and restaurants.

There was no longer a need for pilots, air traffic controllers, customs officers and security guards. All of a sudden, all these people got sent home. For nearly two years, they all stayed home.

Service began to resume when it was announced that the pandemic was over and people could travel again. What were the companies to do now? Could they rehire the people who had just spent two years at home? Some of them had decided to do something else with their lives. They did not just stay at home and wait patiently to magically be hired back. The reality is that everyone has bills to pay.

The other reality is that, while much of the world did one thing, Canada did another. It decided not to help its aerospace industry. It decided not to help its airports. Airports and airlines therefore had to lay off their staff. They had to let them go, pass them off to EI or CERB. That caused a huge problem. The entire aerospace industry protested, wondering how they would ever get off the ground again.

It is important to note that, even if airports let all their people go, they still have infrastructure projects. How are they supposed to expand if they do not have revenue? They still have loans because they may have taken on debt to build that infrastructure. How are they supposed to repay those loans? The same goes for airlines. They have to pay for their planes and maintain minimum staffing levels. They had a massive problem. The government thought it was saving money, but, as it turned out, our industries, our airports and our airlines went into debt. They ran deficits during the pandemic.

For example, Nav Canada unilaterally imposed a 30% rate increase all at once. Even though planes were no longer flying, the airlines were being asked to pay more if they wanted to take off, because the government refused to help them. That killed air transportation, especially at the regional level. Far fewer people fit on a regional airliner than on large aircraft that fly transcontinental. It amounts to a difference of 300 passengers compared to six. A 30% increase gets spread out among a lot more people on a large plane than on a small one.

Clearly, the federal government's dismal management of the pandemic and lack of empathy for airline workers have had consequences. We saw this when travel resumed. Airports were in total chaos. Passengers would get to the airport only to see mountains of luggage piled as high as Everest. People were buried in luggage. No one knew what to do with it all. It was everywhere. The airlines said they had lost it, but customers reported that Air Canada had sent it somewhere. There was too much luggage. It had to be sent somewhere. Things had reached a point where the airlines were practically losing luggage on purpose just to make space. Some clever passengers put tracking chips in their luggage and were able to see where it ended up. This got the airlines in a lot of hot water.

When airlines were finally allowed to operate again, they wanted to make some money. They hired back as many employees as they could but, like it or not, when pilots have not flown for two years, they cannot be retrained overnight. They have to start practising again. The same goes for other staff. Security checks are needed. Not just anyone can work in an airport. There are security risks involved, as we know. Once again, the government was very slow to issue security permits, so airports were stuck. Airlines were also stuck. They could not hire staff. After that, because there were so many delays and late flights, the government blamed the airlines, which is kind of crazy. It was the government that had decided not to help them, but then it blamed those same companies that it had refused to help because they could not keep up with the demand. That is how the government managed things during the pandemic.

There was another problem. We were hearing that airlines were overbooking flights. I think there is some truth to that. If airlines do not have enough staff to handle the number of flights they want to offer and sell tickets for, of course there will come a point when they can no longer manage the same number of aircraft and flights.

The government blamed the airlines, but did not consider its role in this. Some of the problems are on the government. It could take hours for people to get through security. Why is that? It could take hours for people to get through customs. Why is that? Why were there not more air traffic controllers? Why did flights have to get cancelled because there was no one to guide the planes?

The government tried to blame the airlines and the airports saying it was their fault, not the government's fault. In reality, it forgot to consider its role.

We saw all those people in trouble, left on the tarmac. When they got to the airport they were told that their flight was cancelled. Could no one have told them that before they got to the airport? No, they had to wait until they got to the airport to be told that their flight was cancelled. It is totally ridiculous, but that is what happened.

Of course, this resulted in terrible congestion at our airports. People were extremely frustrated. There were people who were sleeping in airports without even a toothbrush, who were not offered a hotel room or anything to eat. There were people stuck in other countries, either down south or in other tourist destinations, who could not get back, and the airlines did nothing to help them.

What happens is that the same aircraft is often used for multiple flights. That means that, when one flight is delayed, the next flight is, too. What about lost luggage? The flight arrives late, but the luggage was supposed to be transferred to another plane. If the flight does not arrive on time and the connecting flight leaves before the plane with the luggage arrives, then the luggage does not get to where it is supposed to be. Imagine the chaos that created.

Among other things, we asked the government to tighten the rules for airlines. For example, people who want their ticket refunded when their flight is cancelled should get a refund, rather than being told they will be put on a plane in two or three days. Never mind the wedding they missed; that is their problem. If their business meeting did not happen because they could not travel, it is no big deal. They get 48 hours. That was the government's policy.

It was even worse before. During the pandemic, they got nothing at all. A credit for some day in the future. They were told that maybe they could get their money back when flights resumed.

Here is what we were asking for. First, we wanted people to be able to get their money back. Second, we wanted to shorten the ridiculous 48-hour deadline that was set last fall. Catching a flight two days later does not always work and makes no sense. Third, people should be able to eat when they are on the tarmac. Fourth, people should be compensated when there are delays.

Many of our demands were heard. Many things were included in this spring's budget implementation act and are soon to be implemented by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Pretty much everyone went through hell, but at least that part is good. We have reason to hope that we will see improvements and progress soon.

But the approach was the same. The government attacked airlines. It put the burden on airlines without considering it's own role in all this.

Service standards might be a stroke of genius. Perhaps the government has seen the light. It has realized that it has some problems to deal with, too. At least with service standards in place, things are measurable.

When a company has to refund a ticket or provide compensation to customers when their flight is late, those customers are not questioning whose fault it is. When flights are late or cancelled, customers want their money back. That makes sense. It is normal. It is what people expect.

That said, there is something wrong with telling airlines to compensate everyone because the government is not doing its job, because there are no air traffic controllers, security personnel or customs agents. That makes no sense.

The idea of service standards is a good place to start, at least. There has to be a minimum level of service that people have a right to expect.

We welcome the idea of implementing service standards. The bill states that the government will be able to impose service standards. That is fine, but we do not know what those service standards will be. Obviously, I know nothing about operating airports.

At some point, it is important to ensure that this makes sense. There is still no guarantee that this is the case.

We will see in committee whether any clarifications can be made or if we can get a bit more information on the direction the government wants to take on this. This bill could allow a lot of progress to be made and that is why we would like it to be referred to committee.

There is another part of the bill that I would like to address, the issue of noise management at the airports. Why do I want to talk about that? Obviously, it is not the strongest aspect of the bill. There are just a few paragraphs where it says that the airports will have to create noise management committees. The airports that use common sense already have such committees. This will not change much for them.

The bill provides a bit of a definition of the type of noise management committee the government would like to see. These noise management committees would bring together at least one representative from Nav Canada, which makes sense, an elected municipal official, an airline representative and a representative from the airport in question. The mandate of these committees would be to answer the public's questions and listen to people's grievances.

We think that the creation of noise management committees is a good thing, but we would like the government to take this a little further. I found out a little bit about what is being done elsewhere in the world, but I will come back to that later.

Under the bill, the obligation to create noise management committees will apply only to airports with 60,000 or more movements per year. I checked to see how many airports in Canada meet that criterion and only four airports do. I do not know exactly how many airports there are in Canada, but there are at least a hundred on the list that I have. I can understand why a small airport that does not even have employees would not be asked to meet this criterion, but these committees need to be set up in a lot more airports. That is what we think.

There are service standards for airports, and we think that there should also be sound emission standards to protect people who live near airports. Such standards do not exist in Canada. Airports can make as much noise as they want and the public has no say in the matter. The way this issue is being dealt with right now is rather unfortunate. There must be social licence for development.

Other countries around the world have noise emission standards. In the United States, there is a noise limit for people living near airports. In Europe, for example, there are noise emission standards. The World Health Organization has worked on noise emission standards to protect people's health. Why, in Canada, a G7 country that is a member of the OECD, modern and all that, are there no noise emission standards for people living near airports? It just does not make sense.

We think we need to move in that direction. We need to measure noise and report it. Noise is already measured, but is the method being used the right one, and can it be perfected? There is a theoretical calculation system for measuring noise, known as noise exposure forecast, or NEF. We think that this NEF system should also be available to the public. It would be great if people who are about to buy a house could find out how much noise they can expect at that location. If the noise exceeds set standards, measures could be put in place to reduce it. This would help everyone make better decisions while promoting community well-being.

That is one of the big changes we want to make to Bill C‑52. We hope everyone at the table will collaborate. We are here to work constructively to improve every bill introduced in the House for the betterment of all. Even though Canada is not our country, at the end of the day, as long as we are part of it, we will work to improve legislation. Our end goal, obviously, is to get out of it ASAP.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.

I won't need two minutes. I know that you all have a lot on your plates. I appreciate the indulgence of all committee members. I'm here under the terms of a motion passed by this committee that gives me the right to speak to the amendments I bring, which are deemed moved, but not to others, so this is a rare chance. I appreciate it very much.

I would just say to Mark Strahl that this is a weird thing that these anchorages are on our coastline, and nobody looks at them and says, “Well, there's a job I've got.” This is free parking. There is no benefit to the community whatsoever. The anchorages are not of benefit to any coastal community. They do detriment to quality of life and to the marine environment, pose threats to the southern resident killer whales from the noise of the freighters, and cause damage to the benthic organisms from dragging anchor. There are multiple issues here. We heard about them from one of the witnesses before the committee.

Specifically to NDP-2, I think what it's doing is drawing attention in Bill C-33, in that key portion where they are already looking, as Taylor has said, at questions of health and security, to the well-being of coastal communities and the security of marine transportation. These vessels, in a storm, can drag anchor. We've had collisions. We've had many near misses. We've actually had collisions in which we could easily have had an oil spill from the vessels colliding. There are numerous examples in real life, not hypotheticals, of where broadening the discretion of what the minister is looking at....

What's being looked at in this question is the environment and the well-being of coastal communities, which I think is really well expressed, including, of course, the health of the people on board. Frankly, it's in no one's economic interest to have these ships just sitting there. It doesn't help the grain growers in the prairies one little bit. The Port of Vancouver doesn't have a good, effective system right now for bulk goods. The two main types of bulk goods, grain and coal, have a history of backing up. As they back up and back up and back up, they sit in the waters of the Salish Sea up and down the coast of Vancouver Island, proliferating in number.

I'm going to shut up there, but anything we can do in Bill C-33 to give more scope to better solutions than the current practices would be much appreciated.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The original article that is the subject of this amendment reads as follows:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act, if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a threat or to reduce a direct or indirect risk to the security of marine transportation or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system.

The amendment's purpose is essentially to remove the word “believes”.

We therefore move that Bill C‑33, in clause 55, be amended (a) by replacing line 4 on page 38 with the following:

tion made under this Act, if im-

We think that the fact that the minister only needs to believe there is a threat or risk gives him significant power. He could therefore act simply on a belief, which he would not necessarily be required to prove.

We'd like to further circumscribe that power. There will be other similar amendments a little later today.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I know it was meant to be as friendly as possible.

Clause 12 of Bill C-33 does deal specifically with safety management systems. To the degree that we can disagree with the legislative clerks, it seems that safety management systems are very much within the scope of this bill that we're debating. If I remember it correctly, clause 12 provides the ability for the minister to direct rail companies to make changes to their safety management systems in instances in which those systems are found to be deficient. If the government looks into rail companies' safety management systems and finds deficiencies, under this bill that we're debating the minister can order the companies to amend or make changes to those safety management systems. It was because of that clause that we hoped that safety management systems would be deemed within scope. Certainly there are other changes and amendments we're considering that are similarly tangential but seem to be considered within scope.

I don't know, other than expressing my disappointment, how else I can argue this point. This is a really important change that would be a huge improvement for the way our rail sector manages safety. If it doesn't take place, what's going to continue to happen is that the primary system for ensuring safety is going to remain a black box. No one's going to be able to see how rail companies are regulating themselves and protecting rail communities, rail workers and our environment from disasters, like we saw in Lac-Mégantic.

Short of challenging the chair's ruling, which I know he made in good faith and in consultation with the experts, I don't know where to go with this other than to express my deep disappointment. With that, Mr. Chair, I'll hand it back to you in the hope that you will change your ruling—now would be the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I have a ruling on this particular amendment that I'd like to share with Mr. Bachrach and committee members.

Bill C-33 amends several acts, including the Railway Safety Act. The amendment proposes, through regulations, to require railway companies to publish the content of their safety management systems. The act is amended, in several clauses of the bill, to add the concept of security management systems without amending any of the provisions of the act related to the safety management systems.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair and in the context of the bill, adding a new regulation or new regulations to provide for the publication of the safety management systems is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I'd like to add a subsection to clause 8 in the bill, which would be subsection 10.

I move that Bill C‑33, in clause 8, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 4 the following:

(10) Any exemption granted under subsection (1) or (2) shall be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days after it comes into force.

That is the amendment I moved. However, there were discussions to find another way to achieve the same objective, i.e., to find a way to publish the exemptions granted to the railways and make them public. There may be other ways of doing so than through the Canada Gazette.

Perhaps you can advise me on how to proceed in order to produce a different version of the proposed amendment. Is unanimous consent required?

Do others already have an amendment to table? If not, I can proceed myself.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I can't support this, because, from what I'm hearing, this amendment would create a multitude or a cascade of other issues and the need to make additional amendments in other existing pieces of legislation, such as the Railway Safety Act. It would create more issues, which would require us to define “safety” and “security”—as I mentioned earlier in terms of my question—in every existing piece of legislation and in every clause that mentions “safety” and “security”.

Once again, I believe that Bill C-33 as written assumes that safety also includes security. It's there, and for that reason I will not support this.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On that comment, will Bill C-33 as it's written now assume that “safety” also includes “security”?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for the team we have here today.

What would this change mean for the bill and the acts that are being amended by Bill C-33?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I think we're all clear on this, colleagues. There is a desire to adopt the study as amended in terms of the wording and who's going to be appearing, so I'll go to a vote on this.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We're going to do one last turn around here to see if there's anything else that we would like to have presented or spoken to, before we move on to clause 2 of Bill C-33.

Seeing none, I'll go to our first vote.

Mr. Bachrach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, the first piece of legislation sent to our committee in this session, I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Toxopeus, director general, transformation, planning and projects, and Shawn Zinck, manager, traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, by video conference. From the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Stephen Scott, director general, rail safety; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Aiden Ryan, director, marine security operations; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome to you all.

We also have legislative clerks Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé joining us.

Welcome to you both.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, colleagues, consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. Therefore, I call clause 2—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I think we can discuss that. We obviously have some motions in the queue on things like recreational boating, etc., that are for future studies when it's the Bloc Québécois's turn to call a motion, so this would simply be a motion that we would consider when we were coming to that part of the calendar.

I know we have some things before us right now—Bill C-33 and finishing this HFR study—so it would simply be one of the ones we could choose from when we have a committee business meeting, but obviously we would like to have this as soon as possible, given the timeliness of the environment commissioner's comments yesterday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

That concludes our line of questioning for today.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing this afternoon and for sharing their testimony.

I'd like to invite all of our witnesses appearing online to log off. For those appearing here in person with us, I ask for your patience as we deal with some committee business, which shouldn't take too much time.

Colleagues, as you know, we've distributed the committee's budget for Bill C-33. I have put forward a motion to adopt the budget.

Are there any lines of questioning or comments?

I turn it over to you, Mr. Muys.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

That leads me to another topic I wanted to address with you, which is the distinction between large and small ports. I believe you were here earlier when I discussed the issue with the minister. He couldn't respond because my time had unfortunately elapsed. I hope we'll have enough time this time.

If I'm not mistaken, you've previously worked at the Port of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a very beautiful port, which I've had a chance to visit, but it's also very small.

Do you you think it would be acceptable for the new operating rules provided for under Bill C‑33 to be different for smaller ports?

[Wade Sobkowich]

Bill C-33 doesn't include dispute resolution with the port authority, so it doesn't. It's a bit of a stretch for us to say that there is proper dispute resolution in the rail sector, because if there was, we wouldn't have the rail problems we have today.

We are definitely pursuing additional amendments to the Canada Transportation Act through the rail review that's going on right now, but, no. We believe there should be a better, proper dispute resolution with a port authority for decisions they may make, because they are in a conflict of interest position. They are potentially in a conflict of interest position both as a developer and as a regulator. We saw some of that manifest itself in some of the decisions made by the Port of Vancouver in recent years.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Sobkowich.

In a news release issued on July 20, 2022, entitled “Canadian Agriculture Groups Ready for the Most Important Harvest in a Generation”, a campaign was launched called Canada's Ready.

You were quoted as saying:

We are working in a port oversight system that simply lacks proper checks and balances, in contrast to what we have in rail or air transportation where there are tools available to hold people accountable for decisions

In your opinion, do you believe that Bill C-33 addresses those concerns that you have spoken about?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Hall, I have about a minute left. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate. You raised data sharing concerns as well as concern about the ministerial powers in Bill C-33. Maybe in the remaining minute, you can talk a bit about that.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

We had a witness on Monday who said that, in their view, there was no material impact on supply chains from Bill C-33.

Would you agree with that? Do you want to speak a little bit about that?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Right. You talked about that because—and I was going to ask—railcars are part of the problem with supply chains, and you've identified that.

What does Bill C-33 do to remedy that? There's very little in Bill C-33 on rail. In fact, there's one little part about railway safety, and it's not even very robust at that.

I know you were cut off earlier. I don't know if there are other comments you want to make with regard to the integration of rail and the ports and how that's affecting supply chains.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both witnesses.

Mr. Sobkowich, you said that the spirit of Bill C-33 does not align with the the national supply chain task force, which is certainly a comment that we've been making as well, particularly given the urgency of the recommendations of that supply chain task force.

You heard the testimony. The minister said, when I asked, that the efficiency of supply chains and accountability were the two things that Bill C-33 delivered.

How would you react to that?

[Wade Sobkowich, Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is a national association of grain companies. We handle in excess of 90% of Canada's bulk grain shipments. Today, I'll highlight our views and observations on Bill C-33 in the context of the grain supply chain.

Alongside the lead-up to Bill C-33, as was pointed out in the earlier session, the supply chain task force report was tabled in October of 2022.

The task force report refers extensively to Canada's competitiveness and prosperity, the need to create a competitive transportation system and the need to address the power imbalance between transportation service providers and shippers. It rightly positions shippers and exporters as drivers of the national economy and places the needs of those who produce and sell Canada's resources as paramount.

It's the WGEA's observation that the spirit of Bill C-33 is in stark contrast to that of the task force report. We have some examples.

The first area of inconsistency is port governance. The federal government has the objective of increasing the volume of Canadian agricultural exports and is investing in infrastructure projects that help increase the flow of goods. At the same time, in the last 11 years, grain farmers in western Canada have grown nine of the largest crops on record, mostly through innovation. This is a good news story for Canada.

We have, however, seen past decisions by port authorities that were not in the grain sector's best interest. This led to our organization's advocating for changes to port governance to provide more representation for tenants and the provincial economies where the product has originated.

I feel like we're losing focus and sight on the fact that ports are there for the national economy, first and foremost.

Instead, Bill C-33 does the exact opposite. It increases representation from local municipalities and the provinces in which the ports are located. It raises a real concern for us that port operations are going to be governed by local issues rather than the national interest.

The second suite of concerns has to do with vessel management. With a growing crop, we face the challenge of evolving the supply chain to move more product each year. This is not a situation of trying to find ways to do more with less. In practical terms, we need to find a way to have more vessels ready to load in the port of Vancouver, not less. It's Canada's largest working port designed for commerce, and it has to be—first and foremost—viewed through that lens.

Bill C-33 will enable the creation of a regulated system to restrict the presence of vessels in Canada's ports. A natural consequence of increasing trade is an increase in vessel activity. As a country, it doesn't work to have conflicting objectives of growing exports but reducing the presence of vessels to move exported product.

A major contributor to increased days at anchor is the ongoing challenge for the railways to deliver enough trains on time and in the appropriate sequence. Some of those things are outside the railway's control and some of them are within, but Bill C-33 only addresses the symptoms of vessel numbers and vessel wait times while ignoring the root cause of inadequate, unpredictable and often poorly executed rail service.

I heard the minister speak earlier and say that the bill addresses end-to-end supply chain issues and needs to be looked at in the fullness of the supply chain, but we don't see that in the bill. If the government intends on passing legislation to help supply chains, it really has to look primarily at railcar supply from the railways versus railcar demand from exporters, on a week-to-week basis, and introduce legislation that provides discipline that matches railcar supply with demand. Vessels wait for railcars to arrive. That's why they're waiting in Vancouver. It's not because of poor management by grain exporters.

Demand for Canada's exports must be set by customers, not by the railways. Bill C-33 not only ignores this root cause but will regulate vessel activity to match limitations already in place due to the rail environment. Instead of liberating supply chains to operate commercially, we see this as restricting vessel activity to match the restrictions already in place in the rail sector.

The third suite of areas has to do with appeals and dispute resolution.

Bill C-33 falls short in establishing dispute resolution processes that are typical of legislation where a similar imbalance of power exists, as we find between ports and their tenants. It should include a straightforward means for tenants to appeal unfair or unreasonable decisions of a port authority. There are mechanisms in other sectors where the same scenario exists, but they're not there for the marine sector.

In addition, Bill C-33 should address the obvious conflicts of interest that arise in a port's dual role as a developer and a regulator. This is a topic on which the bill is silent.

I just have a few more comments. The fourth area—

[Christopher Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shipping Federation of Canada]

Thank you. It's a real pleasure to be here this evening.

The Shipping Federation of Canada is a national association that represents the owners, operators and agents of the ocean ships that carry Canada's imports and exports to and from world markets.

We support the government's efforts to modernize Canada's marine transportation system, not only through Bill C-33, but also through several other legislative initiatives, including the marine sections of Bill C-52, and the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act, which came into effect this June.

When viewed in conjunction with the recommendations of the national supply chain task force, these initiatives represent the most extensive transformation of Canada's marine transportation system in the last 25 years, and one that is long overdue, given the shocks, disruptions and challenges the system has experienced since then.

As it relates to the Canada Marine Act, we note that Bill C-33 provides updated language regarding the act's purpose, which now extends to managing marine infrastructure and services in a manner that maintains resiliency and safeguards national security, and for managing traffic, including moorings and anchorages, in order to promote supply chain efficiency.

We view the references to “resiliency” and “national security” as important additions that reflect the increasingly unpredictable nature of the environment in which our supply chains operate and the need for greater flexibility in responding to those challenges.

Although we also support giving ports explicit authority to manage marine traffic, we would caution that this represents a very small piece in a much larger puzzle of solving efficiency challenges at ports such as Vancouver. Indeed, these challenges cannot be resolved without considering the broader context in which ships operate, and where factors such as rail and road infrastructure deficits, labour availability, labour stability, productivity challenges and rail performance issues, to name a few, all play a major role.

Bill C-33 also gives the minister new regulatory authority to compel users and port authorities to share information and data in support of marine traffic management. This represents an important first step in developing a national supply chain data and digitization strategy, as per the recommendations of the national supply chain task force.

However, if this strategy is to be successful, it will be important to ensure that data-sharing commitments by stakeholders are based on incentives rather than penalties and that the strategy's primary focus is on connecting existing digital platforms rather than building new ones.

In addition, government departments and agencies, particularly CBSA, must also be prepared to join the digitization effort, ideally by migrating to a maritime, single-window reporting model for collecting data from supply chain stakeholders.

Finally, although we will not be making specific comments on the amendments that pertain to the governance and reporting requirements of the CPAs, we believe that these amendments will require additional scrutiny and consultation if they are to gain the level of buy-in from stakeholders that will be necessary for their successful implementation.

Turning now to the proposed amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act, we were pleased to see the addition of the new “Purpose” section, which articulates the act's overall objectives. However, we have concerns regarding the very broad criteria under which the minister may impose security-related measures, which essentially extends to any circumstance that creates the need to “deal with threats and reduce direct and indirect risks”.

Although we support the minister's enhanced ability to act quickly in response to threats or risks to the marine transportation system, the lack of specificity and details as to what qualifies as a threat or a risk makes it difficult to ascertain what constitutes a legitimate need for immediate action. This is important, because these broadly construed criteria serve as the trigger for the minister's ability to exercise the continuum of powers at his or her disposal under the act, which include not only the ability to make regulations, but also to issue interim orders, directions to vessels and emergency directions, which are outside of the normal regulatory process and the normal checks and balances that are accorded to it.

Finally, as it relates to the Customs Act, we note that Bill C-33 proposes amendments regarding the time and manner in which goods are to be made available for examination and the need for goods to be examined in a secure area, etc.

This raises serious concerns as to whether CBSA has the necessary facilities, infrastructure and personnel for conducting cargo examinations, and whether it has the necessary funding to address the significant deficits that currently exist in these areas.

This is a major and ongoing issue of concern in the marine mode, as it has been our experience that CBSA's current lack of resources not only impedes the efficient examination and movement of cargo but also hinders the development of new shipping services and market opportunities at ports across Canada.

This concludes my comments. Thank you very much. I'll take your questions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes. I think the vision behind this bill, and you said it, Mr. Badawey, is that we have to think of this as one system—one system that is integrated, one system that shares data, shares information and understands that it depends on the other. If one part is weak, the whole system is weak.

You're absolutely right in the sense that we have to see what we do with those lessons, not only on Bill C-33 but on Bill C-52 and others—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to try to be a lot more productive after the hour that we've just heard.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here, first of all.

I'm looking at Bill C‑33. As I mentioned to a lot of the witnesses....

By the way, a lot of the witnesses support a lot of the bill. I'm not going to buy the fact that no one supported it. A lot of them gave support to many parts of the bill. At the same time, they were giving opinions on other parts they thought could be changed.

We've noticed and recognized throughout the years in the ports modernization review, the rail safety review and the supply chain task force report... I'll even throw in the St. Lawrence Seaway review, because I consider that somewhat of a port, in terms of its trade corridor. We're working on Bill C‑33 and we have Bill C‑52 coming up. As you said, Mr. Minister, it's to update and modernize.

The whole concept behind reports coming to the committee.... I value the committee a lot. I've been on this committee since 2015. I've worked with and learned a lot from the partners we're dealing with today. With that said, and upon listening and learning.... Here's a bill that gives opportunity for the door to be wide open for people to walk in, to take all of those reports—bills included—and create the first part of a transportation strategy, integrating transportation logistics not just in Canada but also binationally. We heard from CP Rail-CP Kansas City the other day.

My question for you is this: As we move forward.... We heard a lot of the comments made tonight. We heard, more importantly, the comments from the partners. Do you feel this is just the start of the conversation?

In fact, in listening to those partners and witnesses, we expect this committee to simply do its damn job and come back with amendments, instead of bitching about everything they think they heard. We come back with amendments and present them to you and your team. Of course, with that, if there's an expectation of what this bill is going to be and accomplish, that will be done through the work of the witnesses, the testimony received and committee amendments. Then it's back to you. Of course, with that said, it's a bill that can hopefully make most or all more productive in the jobs they're doing within their port authorities, the rail sector and other...that this bill is attached to.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Yes, I understand, but, generally speaking, the committee hasn't seen any enthusiasm for Bill C‑33. No one told us they absolutely wanted this bill to be passed.

Now I'd like to discuss another important point: the right to strike.

Some labour people told us that they thought their right to strike might be threatened by certain provisions in the bill that seem to give the minister significant power and broad authority over port management, including the making of interim orders.

Mr. Bijimine said in previous testimony before the committee that he would be open to requesting a legal opinion on the matter. Has that been done? Can we assure people that the bill presents no potential threat to the right to strike?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

When it comes to data, digitization and investing in technology, it's all with the same objective: efficiency and accountability.

From the marine side, after hearing from many ports across the country and from witnesses here at the committee, who shared their concerns about the powers the bill would give you, many of the concerns are with regard to safety, such as not only anchorage, blockage, and those kinds of things, but also the right to protest. Specifically, Minister, Bill C-33 gives you some additional powers when it comes to emergencies.

Can you give us some context as to why those would be necessary?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, to our committee this evening.

You said, at the beginning of your comments, that the goal of the bill, of course, is efficiency and accountability. We've heard from many witnesses at these committee meetings, from marine ports, railways and so on, about Bill C-33. Many of them have made some good suggestions on how to improve the bill. Hopefully, at the end of the day, this will happen at this committee: recommendations that will lead to efficiency and accountability.

I want to ask you a question around data sharing because, again, a lot of them talked about that.

Minister, data sharing is a common element of Bill C-33. Can you please share with this committee why that's important to effective port operations, and how do you envision data sharing between ports, port users and the federal government to maximize results?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

There's a need for this bill. It's an important bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it a bill that everyone goes crazy over and says, “Yoo-hoo, we're supporting Bill C-33”? Not necessarily.

However, is it making structural changes? It is—for ports, for trains, and also for the environment. With regard to the link between the ports and the communities, the importance of striking those communities—those communities with community leaders, with indigenous people, with local governments—is fundamental.

Are you against that?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us this evening.

I'll start fairly generally.

It does seem as though this bill is mostly based on the economic needs of the supply chain and on the need to address some of the challenges we saw during the pandemic. It's certainly understandable that it speaks to some of the recommendations from the fairly prescribed legislative reviews that took place many years ago. However, there have also been very strong concerns from communities and people who are affected by the supply chain as they look to your government for more protection and more accountability.

Part of that work was this committee's study on rail safety, in which we heard from communities, unions and rail workers about their concerns. The picture they painted, as well as the picture the Auditor General has painted and the chair of the Transportation Safety Board painted, is a pretty bleak one. It leaves us with a lot of concern about the state of rail safety the tenth anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Yet of the 33 recommendations in this committee's report, Bill C-33 addresses none.

Maybe my question for you is this: How can this committee understand this as anything other than an insult to the work we've done? The recommendations in the committee's study came from the people who've been deeply impacted by the supply chain. They want changes. They want your government to have their backs. Yet the bill we see in front of us doesn't have any of that. Why is that?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

We've been studying Bill C‑33 in committee for nearly three weeks now. We've had time to hear from many witnesses, notably from labour, management, railway companies, port authorities, shipping companies, logistics companies and environmental groups. I was surprised to see that virtually none of those witnesses were enthusiastic about Bill C‑33. Your Liberal colleagues around the table even had trouble telling them anything positive about the bill. I'm not saying there's nothing positive in it, but, as a general observation, people either opposed it or were utterly indifferent.

Do you think it's normal that there isn't any more support for your bill?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Absolutely.

I said during my speech that ports not only play an economic role, but also, as part of their communities, they have an impact on those communities, which is sometimes positive and sometimes not that positive. They have to listen to what the communities have to say.

Through Bill C-33, we're asking the ports to put in place three different types of committees: one would engage with local stakeholders, the second with local governments/politicians, and the third with indigenous communities. They have to strike those committees to be able to hear concerns and suggestions, to be better connected with the communities they're in.

That's lacking, and I'm even surprised that it's not there. But with Bill C-33, we're making sure that we put that in there. They will have to create those three committees.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think that's a crucial question here, because it talks about the importance of the bill not only on the economic side but also on the environment side.

If you look strictly at the environment, there are a few things that are very straightforward. For example, Bill C-33 requires the ports to develop climate plans to reduce emissions, and not only do they have to develop those plans, but they have to make them public and the ports have to report on the progress, on what they're doing in terms of emissions, in terms of the environment. That is there. That's an obligation and will be monitored and will be public.

The other one you're talking about is related to anchorage. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and working on this, because I've seen some of those ships. I'm sure that Mr. Bachrach is interested in this. I know that a lot of friends around Vancouver are also. By giving the capacity to the ports to better manage traffic by making sure that ships arrive on time, spend less time there and leave faster, then you don't have all those ships waiting at anchor.

Anchorage has many impacts. One of them is that—and you said it—is that they have to keep their engines going, at least one, to keep the electricity and minimal functions on board. By doing that, they're polluting, and also, the noise of the engines has huge negative impacts on the whales. By being more efficient in the managing of the ships, you don't need that type of anchorage. I think it's a big step forward.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask one more question, because my time is winding down.

You talk about the cost of doing nothing, yet I asked you at the front end what is the number one thing that you think the bill will accomplish. I would actually submit that the number one thing the bill would accomplish is nothing at all.

We heard from witnesses. You don't have to take my word for it. I can replay some of their comments. Just on Monday, we heard a witness say that it would have no material impact on the efficiency of supply chains.... Let me repeat that: no impact on the efficiency of supply chains at all. Also, there are “missed” opportunities: we heard that numerous times from witnesses. One witness went so far as to say that having nothing—no bill—would actually be preferable to this bill.

Given these indictments—and look, I know you were saddled with this bill by your predecessor, so in fairness—would you commit today to withdrawing Bill C-33 and actually doing a proper consultation with stakeholders on an urgent basis, and then reintroducing it, yes or no?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask you this, then, Minister: At the first meeting studying this bill, we had some of your departmental officials here. Some of them are here again today. I asked whether a cost analysis had been done, because we're adding reporting requirements, new regulations, advisory committees and data-reporting requirements. The answer was no. There was no cost analysis done as to what impact—whether it's on a small or large port—all these new provisions were going to have. We asked some of the witnesses. We had varying answers, depending on the size of the port—from a cost of $200,000 to adding two additional employees when implementing the provisions of Bill C-33.

It seems to me as though you're adding all this cost. How do you justify the fact that no cost analysis was done up front and that you're just going to foist this upon the ports?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask you this, then: We heard from a witness on Monday afternoon about the port of Vancouver. You talked about the importance of our supply chains to our economy. Obviously, the port of Vancouver—our largest port, our gateway to Asia, with a significant portion of our trade going through that port—is absolutely critical. Yet, this witness indicated the port of Vancouver is ranked 347th out of 348 ports in the world. That's the second-worst-performing port in the world.

What is your reaction to that? How does Bill C-33 improve this?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think Bill C-33 is a very good bill because of the two reasons I gave you.

First, on efficiency, it will allow our ports to better direct traffic and make decisions on how to be more efficient. It will also avoid anchorage, because the ports will have information they didn't have before, which will allow them to guide traffic and keep boats for the least possible amount of time for loading and reloading. That increases the efficiency.

On accountability, there are all kinds of measures—which you know—to make sure the ports understand they have not just a very important economic role but also a role within their communities.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Efficiency and accountability.... Okay.

You talked about some of the chronology leading up to Bill C-33: the ports modernization review, which began in 2018; the rail safety review that started in 2017; and the national supply chain task force that was convened in January 2022—almost a couple of years ago.

The report of that national task force provided 13 immediate recommendations and eight, perhaps, longer-term recommendations. It had a fancy cover and a fancy logo. I should also add, by the way, that this very committee studied rail safety a year and a half ago. We had 33 recommendations, yet we only see one small provision regarding rail safety in Bill C-33.

After all that work, and over that length of time—going back six years—do you think Bill C-33 is the best you can come up with?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here as we conclude the witness testimony on Bill C-33.

Let me start with a fairly straightforward question. What, in your mind, is the number one thing that Bill C-33 is intended to accomplish?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone. Greetings, colleagues.

First of all, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak about this important bill.

I am pleased to be joined by representatives of Transport Canada: Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister, as well as assistant deputy ministers Serge Bijimine and Lisa Setlakwe.

I am really pleased to be here. I think this is an important moment. I am delighted that we have this opportunity to discuss Bill C‑33 and especially how it will strengthen our transportation supply chain.

Listen, I know you don't need me to tell you this, but over the past three years Canada's supply chains have really been put to the test and it's been a very difficult time. It is still difficult. COVID-19, increasingly frequent and intense weather events and Russia's war against Ukraine have caused and worsened supply chain disruptions.

The vast majority of Canadians felt the economic impact of those disruptions, many of which are still felt today.

All of which confirms how important it is to have a strong, resilient and efficient supply chain. Which, as you'll no doubt remember, is why we established the supply chain task force last year. We asked the task force from the outset to study ways to make the supply chain more resilient and reliable.

They conducted extensive consultations with industry representatives, and the group released a report with key recommendations. I'm sure you guys read it. Among these are that a national supply chain strategy be developed.

And Bill C‑33 will lay the groundwork for that strategy.

However, it is important to note that, even before the war in Ukraine started and COVID‑19 hit, Transport Canada had undertaken two separate reviews: the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review.

Those two studies are done. They clearly reflect everything we've been through during the past two years. They highlight the need to modernize Canada's ports and rail networks. We can't forget something that you guys all know, that the majority of our trade passes through our ports and our rail system, so we always have to be ahead of the curve to modernize them.

The ports modernization review clearly showed us that our ports needed to work for and with Canadians. We therefore listened to what ports representatives, ports users and ports communities had to say.

By way of a response, Bill C‑33 is designed to modernize the tools that the government, ports and railways use to support the entire transportation network. As we all know, the supply chain is profoundly interconnected. Our ports work together with our railways. They are inseparable from each other. We must therefore address all of that simultaneously.

That is why Bill C‑33 contains amendments that address both ports and the railway system.

The purpose of those amendments is, first, to enhance railway safety and security by means of an updated framework.

They are also designed to better equip the ports to meet today's complex needs. That includes taking steps to work with Indigenous communities and to support our climate change commitments.

Also, it will further improve the safety and security of the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.

With Bill C-33, we will ensure that the safety and security framework for operations is appropriate and up to date. All of these measures would make the Canadian transportation network safer, more competitive, more secure, more efficient and more reliable.

This bill, I have to say, is essential to our economy. We've been saying this for three years now. Supply chain issues raise Canadians' cost of living, which is already too high. Consequently, passing this bill is a major, even fundamental, move for our economy and an enormous step in the right direction. Which is why I am pleased to be discussing it with you.

I am now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders and, therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform all members of the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have been tested for today's meeting and passed the sound test for the benefit of our interpreters.

Colleagues, appearing before us for the first hour of today's meeting is the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Transport.

Minister, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this evening. On behalf of the members of the committee, thank you for being with us.

We will begin with your opening statement. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ursule Boyer‑Villemaire, Bill C‑33 includes climate change plans for ports. The latter should therefore have a climate change adaptation plan as well as a greenhouse gas emissions plan.

Do you think this responsibility should be only for the ports? Shouldn't there be a broader vision for the entire marine industry to reduce its carbon footprint?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

In that vein, we've heard from witnesses that Bill C-33 has no material impact at all on supply chains, that it's a missed opportunity and that nothing at all might have been preferable to the bill. How do you react to that?

You've talked about having the right people in the right place as probably being more important than anything else. Is this just more burden and more red tape that's unnecessary?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you in particular to Mr. McLellan. We haven't had the perspective of the short-lines yet in our study of this bill. I noted your comment that it's 20% of the Canadian volume. Obviously, that's a significant piece that hasn't had any representation. I was also struck by your figure of a 90% operating ratio, which is phenomenal.

I know the question's been asked, but some additional regulatory burdens are being added with Bill C-33. Does that concern you, given the tight ratio?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

My question will be for Mr. Campbell.

I feel very honoured to have you with us at the committee today, because I have read your book on Lac‑Mégantic. Anyone who reads this book gets very angry, because it becomes clear that the accident was really our own fault: there was a lack of oversight and mismanagement by the company, which caused a number of deaths.

Do you have the impression that Bill C‑33 will really change the dynamics in the railway sector?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Given that we're reviewing Bill C-33, of course, with the objective of making it a much better bill than currently exits, if you look at it from that perspective, would you have any specific suggestion on any particular part of the bill that you would like to, say, strengthen or improve? Maybe this is for Mr. Campbell and Mr. McLellan.

[Bruce Campbell]

My recollection was that they were first implemented post-Mégantic with the regulatory changes. Again, in the amendments to Bill C-33, anything that implies a penalty for a violation.... If you have the ability to oversee and determine that there's been a violation, then of course those monetary penalties are helpful.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you for clarifying that for us.

The other point I wanted to make is that Bill C-33 would amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to establish a regime of administrative monetary penalties and provide for fines and even the terms of imprisonment for failure to comply.

I'll ask you first, Mr. Campbell: Do you expect the proposed new regime of administrative monetary penalties to have a positive impact on compliance with the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

You talked as well about servicing Trois-Rivières. We certainly heard concerns from port authorities and other witnesses that Bill C-33 seems to have a one-size-fits-all approach and that it's not taking into account the unique situation in the local markets. For instance, you have the Port of Vancouver, which will be served by class 1 railways almost exclusively. As you said, you're providing a key service in Trois-Rivières. Do you think that Bill C-33 needs to be amended to ensure that those unique features of each port authority are taken into account? How would it benefit short-line railways if that were done?

[Rick McLellan, President, Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc.]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I am pleased to appear on behalf of Genesee & Wyoming Canada Inc., which is a shortline railway holding company operating nine shortline railways and two rail repair facilities in a total of five Canadian provinces.

We employ roughly 400 Canadian railroaders, operate 940 track miles and, above all, move more than 100,000 carloads a year.

Short-lines provide vital first-mile, last-mile services that connect customers to the broader North American freight-rail network via class 1 railways, as well as to remote communities and global markets. Twenty per cent of Canadian rail volume is handled, one way or another, by a short-line. Short-lines provide a safe, environmentally friendly, low-cost and reliable transportation option for Canadian businesses of all sizes.

Genesee & Wyoming is recognized as an industry leader in safety excellence. We regularly participate in and host tabletop and full training exercises alongside Transport Canada and first responders in the different communities we serve. We hold safety workshops, conduct internal audits and support industry-wide safety programs. All our meetings start with safety as agenda item one.

Genesee & Wyoming invests in safety. These investments are non-negotiable, and a commitment to operating safely every day is a condition of employment for every one of our team members. Whether it's infrastructure upgrades, asset replacement or award-winning training programs, Genesee & Wyoming Canada is investing with the goal of achieving targets of zero, which you can find on each of our locomotives, our vehicles and our equipment along our network. At Genesee & Wyoming Canada, we will continue to build a strong safety record and culture that our customers, partners and communities continue to rely on.

Before getting to the substance of Bill C-33, I want to highlight for the committee the many challenges confronting short-lines in Canada. High fixed costs, aging infrastructure, commodity price volatility and policy imbalances with other jurisdictions and along with other transport modes, combined with taxes and expanding regulatory burden are threatening the sustainability of short-line operations.

Short-line revenues narrowly outpace their expenses. The average operating expense-to-revenue rate for a short-line railway is roughly 90%. A high operating ratio limits the ability of short-line railways to invest in enhancing the capacity and fluidity of supply chains, especially because investments in safety are, rightfully, non-negotiable.

Short-lines compete directly with trucks on publicly funded highways for traffic while operating lower-density lines than their class 1 counterparts do.

Short-lines need predictable, consistent government support to remain a viable alternative to trucking.

Despite significant support in the United States in the form of a 45G track maintenance tax credit and various other programs, there is no dedication of federal funding or incentive for short-line railways in Canada. Instead, our tax system disadvantages railways compared with trucks, and Canadian railways compared with American railways.

I urge this committee to note in its report that the federal government must do more to ensure the sustainability of our short-lines. This brings me to Bill C-33.

This committee should accept the recommendations put forward by the Railway Association of Canada with respect to port governance and separating out safety and security definitions.

We rely on the efficient functioning of Canadian ports—big and/or small.

Our Quebec Gatineau Railway exclusively serves the Port of Trois-Rivières. The QGRY is a great example of the first-mile, last-mile benefits that short-line railways provide.

The QGRY moves products, from wind turbines to bulk solids to liquids. Our business is highly integrated with and dependent on the Port of Trois-Rivières.

The port's vision and leadership matter, and so do the vision and leadership of the other Canadian ports we serve and all ports across Canada.

Ports need leaders who have operational and commercial qualifications and experience. This group of experienced individuals should select the chair.

We share the concern that has been raised at this committee about the time it takes for the government to make appointments. That is another reason for the board to choose the chair.

Our company manages several comprehensive safety and security management systems that are renewed and submitted to Transport Canada and are internally audited by us for effectiveness as well as by Transport Canada.

I'd like to add my voice to what my colleagues said about the distinction can be made between the two concepts of security and safety.

I'd like to thank the committee for having given me this opportunity to speak.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Harvey, the matter I would like to discuss with you may not be directly linked to Bill C-33, but it is certainly a current issue. I thought it was important to raise it with you.

A few years ago, I attended a press conference with some union representatives who were condemning the transfer of employees from the railway control centre in Montreal to Western Canada. Not so long ago, something similar occurred again, this time for customer service employees, approximately 50 of whom were transferred to Western Canada.

On these two occasions, the main concern was being transferred to a region where most people did not speak French. Lots of people in Montreal speak French and lots speak English. In Western Canada, finding someone who can speak French is like searching for a needle in a haystack.

First of all, how come jobs are being transferred systematically from Montreal to the west, when we know that it will have an impact on the quality of service in French? Secondly, what is CN's commitment to Montreal? According to the terms of its privatization, CN has an obligation to provide services in French and to keep its headquarters in Montreal.

[Marc Brazeau]

Just to be clear, are you talking about rail police and its contribution to governance under Bill C-33?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cato, I want to go a step further and talk about vision and next steps. As was mentioned earlier, we have established a ports modernization review. A supply chain task force report is currently under way. We have the St. Lawrence Seaway review, Bill C-33 and Bill C-52 amongst reports that have been completed or are under way. To date we have those to update as well as to modernize.

This committee has completed two interim studies on establishing a transportation logistics strategy. In 2015 David Emerson completed a CTA review, making numerous recommendations, as I'm sure you've read.

You spoke about governance reforms within individual—individual—port structures to ensure that they're establishing and adhering to their individual strategic plans; governance that reflects supply chain experience, as you mentioned; but equally as important, experiencing and working in partnership with communities, other partners that are part of the supply chain to look at the bigger picture.

With that said, my question is this: Do you feel there should exist a binational body that would work toward establishing a binational transportation strategy that would strengthen a binationally integrated supply chain—operational in capital, moving away from protectionism, and with that, of course, ensuring that the fracture between capital transportation investments between both countries does not happen but that these investments are actually done together—and more toward an integrated North American economy, in turn strengthening our combined international trade performance?

[Eric Harvey]

My understanding of it is that exemption requests and exemptions allowed by Transport Canada are not confidential within the meaning of the act. Now with Bill C-33, I believe Transport Canada would be given an opportunity to conduct consultations. At the moment, unions are consulted when we request an exemption. Transport Canada would now have the time, I think, to also consult other groups. We have no objection to that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks also to the witnesses here with us today.

I'd like to echo the words of one of my colleagues, who said that we had up until now spoken at length about ports in the study of bill C-33, but very little about rail transportation. I am therefore very pleased to have people from that sector here with us.

Mr. Harvey, a week or two ago I believe, we received some people from the unions who mentioned that they had reservations about the exemptions linked to the traditional safety management systems, namely for inspections carried out by people. That's the way it's usually done.

They went on to say that they would have liked the Transport Canada exemptions to be made public. I'd like to know whether it would bother you if the general public were to be informed, perfectly transparently, of the special exemptions you received from Transport Canada, so that they could reach their own conclusions.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I have one minute. Great. I get to ask one more question.

Any one of you can answer this. In your opinion, does Bill C-33 do enough to address the environmental risks that are associated with rail and marine transportation?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Because safety is number one throughout our transportation grid—not just with rail, but everywhere—do you feel that safety and security are being enhanced by Bill C-33? I know we already have a very robust regulation system in place, but do you think Bill C-33 enhances the security piece?

[Eric Harvey]

I'd like to start by saying that Transport Canada performs audits of the manner in which railways implement the SMS regulations and how they implement the processes mandated by the SMS regulations.

I don't want to comment specifically on what the Auditor General said at the time. What I can say, being involved with a railway and being exposed to the role and the monitoring of Transport Canada, is that Transport Canada, in our view, performs their reviews and monitors our compliance in a significant way.

In terms of improvements coming from Bill C-33, I would say that the decision or the proposal to include security will obviously broaden the scope of the review or the monitoring by Transport Canada to extend to that subject matter in addition to safety. Therefore, that should provide some visibility to the government about the work that railways and Canadian railways are already doing with numerous partners, be they CBSA or our own approach to security threats, etc. To some degree that will provide that visibility that is maybe lacking now.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome our friends. It's a pleasure to see you here once again.

The Office of the Auditor General of Canada in 2021 released a report and noted that Transport Canada had increased the number of risk-based inspections, but “did not assess the effectiveness of the railways' safety management systems”. Mr. Brazeau touched upon that a little bit in his testimony when he spoke about the SMS regulations.

I'm just wondering if I could hear from each of you your own perspectives. To what extent, if any, does Bill C-33 propose to address the effectiveness of railway safety management systems in identifying hazards and mitigating risks?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Okay, so there's no material improvement to supply chain performance.

Let me ask about cost analysis.

We were surprised by the Transport Canada officials who were before the committee at our first meeting studying this legislation. When we asked whether a cost analysis had been done for the all of the proposed change, like the committees and the regulations that have been added to ports, the answer was that no cost analysis had been done. We did hear from one of the port authorities that it could be $200,000 or two employees on an annual basis from their perspective.

Have you done a cost analysis from a railway perspective of how the changes in Bill C-33 would impact you?

I'll probably ask the same question of Mr. Harvey as well.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Does Bill C-33 fall short of achieving that necessary objective after all these years of reviews? Some of these reviews began seven years ago.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Because Bill C-33 is purported to be a response to supply chain issues, which you've raised in your opening testimony as well as in the previous question, are there things that you found lacking from CP's interaction with the National Supply Chain Task Force or even the supply chain task force report from your read of it in Bill C-33?

What's missing?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the witnesses who are here today for your testimony.

We hadn't heard the perspective of the railways yet for our study of this bill, so it's been helpful.

Let me start with you, Mr. Cato, because you talked about the port boards' governance. That's something we've asked the ports and the associated ports about when they were here. I'm interested to hear your perspective as a user of the ports.

You talked about how Bill C-33 is really a missed opportunity in your viewpoint when the minister is appointing the chair and when there's as much prescription as to what that board needs to look like. This is what we heard from the port authorities as well, that it's an impediment.

Perhaps you could elaborate a bit more on that.

[Nathan Cato, Assistant Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canada, Canadian Pacific Kansas City]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to the committee for the invitation to appear today regarding Bill C‑33.

I'm the Assistant Vice-President, Government Affairs, Canada, Canadian Pacific Kansas City.

On April 14, 2023, Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern combined to create the first and only class 1 railway network uniting North America by seamlessly connecting Canada, the United States and Mexico. The combined CPKC network allows us to offer safer, more reliable and additional competitive options for shippers, particularly now with unrivalled access to North American ports.

I will start with safety, because at CPKC everything starts with safety, every day.

Railway safety is foundational to everything we do.

In 2022, our legacy Canadian Pacific network once again led the North American rail industry in safety, achieving the lowest train accident frequency among all class 1 railroads for the 17th consecutive year, and our safety performance continues to improve.

Our 2022 train accident frequency is CP’s lowest on record. We are also achieving a stronger safety performance relative to our industry peers. In 2013—ten years ago—our legacy CP network had a train accident frequency rate that was approximately 29% below the class 1 industry average across North America. In 2022, our legacy CP network was 69% below the class 1 industry average.

In 2022, CP also achieved a 40% improvement for personal injury safety performance since 2016.

These safety results are driven by strong investment in people, processes and technology. In fact, our capital investment over the past decade, after inflation adjustment, is approximately 50% higher than it was in the decade previously.

CPKC supports the railway industry’s position that Parliament should amend Bill C-33 to include separate definitions for “safety” and “security” in the Railway Safety Act. As drafted, Bill C-33 would insert into the RSA a definition of “safety” that includes the concept of “security.” “Safety” and “security” are distinct concepts.

Security programs are designed to prevent intentional acts by individuals seeking to do harm or damage. By necessity, measures implemented to address security risks are different than those for safety, and information about them is significantly more restricted to maintain their effectiveness.

Including separate and distinct definitions for these two concepts in the RSA would be more clear, precise and accurate.

With respect to the amendments to the Canada Marine Act, we urge Parliament to amend Bill C-33 to require logistics and supply chain expertise for appointments to the boards of directors for Canada's port authorities.

Canada’s ports need to be more accountable to port users, including terminal operators, railways and vessel lines. If maximizing throughput is the goal for Canada’s supply chains, which it ought to be, then ports must be governed by boards that have deep experience and expertise with complex supply chain logistics.

The current governance structure has permitted ports to be governed by boards of directors that often lack expertise in port management, freight transportation, and business.

The lack of expertise often results in decisions that undermine the optimal efficient management of freight through Canada’s ports, which are critical elements of our supply chain infrastructure.

An example is the inefficient use of port lands, which constrains the ability of ports to accommodate growing volumes of freight. Canada’s supply chains need world-class ports. To achieve that goal, it is imperative that our ports operate in a way that optimizes and synchronizes maximum efficiency and throughput.

Improving port performance ought to be an urgent priority. The Port of Vancouver was recently ranked number 347 out of 348 on the World Bank and S&P Global's market intelligence container port performance index.

Bill C-33 as drafted is a missed opportunity to make meaningful improvements to port governance in Canada. Canada has world-class logistics and supply chain expertise. It's regrettable that this legislation does not embrace that expertise by confirming its importance through governance reform.

This is not a new concept for transportation in Canada. For example, many of Canada's airport authorities have bylaws that prescribe qualifications for appointments to their boards. Similarly, Nav Canada's bylaws prescribe specific requirements that users be appointed to a minimum number of board positions.

Parliament should seize the opportunity before it to improve the performance efficiency, reliability and throughput of Canada's ports by insisting that they be governed by boards of directors with deep supply chain expertise.

Thank you.

[Eric Harvey, Senior Counsel, Regulatory, Canadian National Railway Company]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

CN, the Canadian National Railway Company, would like to thank the committee for its invitation to appear today in connection with Bill C‑33, which amends various legislative provisions, including the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Marine Act.

As the operator of a railway which links the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean within Canada, and to the Gulf of Mexico in the United States, we are pleased to be able to provide our comments on this bill.

Generally speaking, we encourage the government to show restraint and to intervene in the transportation sector only where a rigorous analysis has shown that there is a problem that business interests can't resolve, and only when absolutely necessary to deal with that specific problem. It should also factor in the impact that one or more interventions may have on the whole supply chain. Every legislative intervention needs to look at the major investments required to maintain safe and effective railway services that meet the legislative requirements for the services we need to provide to all our customers.

With respect to the amendments to the Railway Safety Act, we understand the government's desire to provide a better framework for railway safety. I would underscore the fact that Canadian railways have for many years, of their own volition, established protocols to prevent the types of events covered by the bill and to respond to such events. We therefore view this proposal favourably.

I would nevertheless like once again to repeat the suggestion that the words “security” and “safety” be redefined separately rather than combined in a single concept, as Bill C‑33 proposes. This failure to make a distinction could lead to unnecessary debates over the scope of implementation or monitoring measures.

We have also taken note of Transport Canada's intention to add prohibitions with respect to the alteration, damage and description of railway facilities, in addition to dangerous behaviour at such facilities. These would constitute additional legal grounds enabling us to respond where necessary.

The Canada Marine Act requires ports under its jurisdiction to manage their affairs on a commercial basis to maximize the efficiency of their operations and support the Canadian economy. We understand that Bill C‑33 will not change this guiding principle, and we appreciate that this is the case.

There is no doubt that Canadian ports are critical infrastructure for our national supply chain. Their efficiency defines the throughput of that supply chain and goes directly to the bottom line of the Canadian economy. From our perspective, Canadian ports have delivered in a manner consistent with their mandate under the current structure.

We support the provisions of the bill that will declare port terminals to be to the general advantage of Canada. This will provide greater certainty with respect to federal jurisdiction over these entities so that data can be collected and used to increase port efficiencies. To maximize the existing available capacity, better coordination between port terminal operators, port users, railways and other supply chain participants through the exchange of real time information is needed. This provision is a step in the right direction.

Even though Bill C‑33 does not deal with this question directly, we would like to comment on an important point for which there is a broad consensus: the need for investments in the Canadian supply chain.

A recent report assessed that Canada needs, in the next 50 years, investments of $4.4 trillion in marine and transportation infrastructure to meet growth in population and in GDP. This conclusion is consistent with the consensus that there is an opportunity for all participants in the supply chain and various levels of government to work together towards a collective goal. We have made suggestions to the government to put this option in motion, starting with fiscal measures that would encourage investments by all participants in the supply chain. We reiterate this imperative today. We believe that this measure would encourage grain terminals in Vancouver, for example, to prioritize infrastructure that enables the loading of grain ships in the rain, an operation currently not efficiently possible at our country's busiest port but available just south of the border, which limits the capacity of the Canadian grain supply chain.

We'd like to thank you, and we are grateful for the opportunity we have been given to discuss any questions you may have with members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C‑33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have been tested for sound quality for the benefit of our interpreters, and all of them have passed the test.

Colleagues, appearing before us today from 3:30 to 4:30 for the first half of our committee meeting, we have, from the Canadian National Railway Company, Mr. Eric Harvey, senior counsel.

Welcome.

We also have, from Canadian Pacific Kansas City, Mr. Nathan Cato, assistant vice-president, government affairs.

Welcome to you as well, sir.

Finally, we have, from the Railway Association of Canada, Mr. Marc Brazeau, president and chief executive officer.

Welcome.

We will begin with opening remarks.

For that, I will turn the floor over to you, Mr. Harvey. You have five minutes, sir.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would simply say that experience has taught me, and has taught us as Conservatives, that supporting a bad bill at second reading is not a great strategy for improving the bill. The bill is flawed. We saw this with Bill C-33. We said the same thing. I heard the same comments from members of the Bloc and members of the government. They asked, “Why not support it to committee and then make amendments?” What we have heard confirms our position that the bill is fundamentally flawed. There are issues with that bill that cannot be resolved. The government did not consult, and the bill did not address the concerns of port users and port authorities.

We have very recent knowledge of a transport bill, which we were told to just fix in committee. Some bills are fundamentally flawed, and we believe they should be sent back to the drawing board. That said, if stakeholders come forward and propose changes, we will always try to improve bad Liberal bills. However, we believe that sometimes the best thing to do is just vote against them.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House today with respect to Bill C-52, on behalf of the official opposition and on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.

I think we are seeing a trend here with transport legislation from the government. It likes to put things into a press release that make it look like it is doing something, like it is taking action. When, in fact, we get into the details of the bill, no action is actually being taken.

The bill was in response to a disastrous summer 2022 travel season overseen by the Liberal government, when we saw unprecedented cancellations, delays and waits in airports. It was an absolutely catastrophic reopening after the government shut down the industry during the pandemic. In the fall of 2022, the minister brought together a group of airlines, airports and executives in Ottawa because that was apparently going to solve the problem. It reminded me, quite frankly, of the industry minister's calling up the CEOs of Loblaws and other grocery stores to address the affordability crisis. In the end, it did nothing. It did not affect food prices. It did not bring down grocery inflation. It was just a photo op.

The minister of transport gave the idea, assuring Canadians with a photo op he held with airports and airlines in the fall of 2022, that the winter holiday travel season would be different and that the Liberals would come together and solve the problems. We have seen that they had not solved the problems. There were more disastrous delays, cancellations and people sleeping on the floors of hotels because they could not even get into the airports to catch their flights. We saw unprecedented delays in that winter holiday travel season. We held emergency transport committee discussions about that. We called the minister before us and found out that he had not even bothered to pick up the phone to call the airports that were in chaos. He had not called the Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal airports. He had not called Via Rail when it had a massive shutdown that stranded passengers. The minister was missing in action and was called to account for that.

The government, having seen the disastrous summer and winter travel seasons, decided it needed to do something. That something was Bill C-52, which was introduced in the last days of the spring session of Parliament. Once again, we are supposed to take the minister's word for it that this would now solve the problems in the air passenger system. Quite frankly, we have no problem with some of this, but we do have a problem with what is in part 1 of the bill. The government indicates there would be data sharing, there would be visibility on the data, and service standards would be set. It indicates that this would somehow make things better for Canadian passengers.

What the bill does not actually set out is what entities would even be covered by the legislation. The bill would instead give power to the minister and the cabinet to determine which entities would be covered by the regulations. It would all be done by regulation, and there is very little in the bill that is actually defined. We are supposed to trust the minister and government that have presided over numerous travel disasters and numerous travel seasons that have been disrupted and have impacted thousands of Canadian passengers. We are supposed to trust them to get it right, because the bill itself provides a framework but does not provide the details.

There is not even an indication of what data would be captured, but there is also not an indication of what would happen when service standards are not met. It is fine to collect data, to share that data and to have service standards, but if there are no penalties for failing to meet those things, there are no teeth to the bill and passengers would not be better served.

One thing Conservatives have long called for is accountability for all federally regulated entities in the air travel system. Once again, the bill before us, while addressing some concerns, would not be strong enough to ensure that everyone who can impact a passenger's travel experience is held accountable. Airlines are held accountable through our air passenger protection regulations. However, these need to be strengthened, quite frankly, because too often there are cases where things within an airline's control are said by the airlines to be outside their control, and we agree with tightening that up. However, we believe that not only airlines should be held accountable but that entities like CATSA, the security service, also need to be held accountable. When it causes a delay because the security lineups are so long that people miss their flights, it needs to be held accountable.

Nav Canada also needs to be held accountable. When its staffing delays cause airlines to have to throttle down, delay or cancel flights, it is the passengers who are impacted and not compensated, because those issues are outside an airline's control. Another entity that should be held accountable is airports themselves. If their baggage handling systems break down or if they are unable to clear flights in a timely fashion and they cause delays and cancellations, right now they are not held accountable. That is a glaring omission in this bill. We want to see all of these entities included and passengers able to be compensated when those entities cause them cancellations and delays.

We see also that the Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, is not part of the legislation. We know that the CBSA's land border service standards are made public and show what its expectations are, but when it comes to airports, that information is not available and would not be captured by this bill. We know that when there were delays at customs halls caused by a lack of CBSA officers, people sat in planes on the tarmac or at gates, unable to deplane because a federally regulated entity, in this case the CBSA, was unable to provide services. Again, that means that passengers who are impacted by that are not able to be compensated because it is not included in the air passenger protection regulations and the CBSA is not held accountable.

We believe that it needs to be explicit that all of these entities would be captured by the bill and that there would be actual repercussions if they fail to deliver for Canadians. Airlines should be held accountable and so should all the other federally regulated entities in the air passenger system.

We have not talked about the Canadian Transportation Agency and whether it should have to share data on its performance, which impacts Canadian passengers. I would argue that it absolutely should be part of this accountability package. Right now, the backlog for the CTA is approaching 60,000 passengers. There are 60,000 people who failed to resolve a complaint with an airline, have gone to the next level and are now being told they have to wait up to 18 months to even have their complaint considered by the CTA. This is unacceptable. The backlog is growing by 3,000 complaints a month, and there is no plan that we have seen to clear this backlog or to hold the CTA accountable for its 18-month processing delays. Canadians who have experienced a delay or cancellation by an airline should not have to experience another 18 months of delay from a government entity to get that matter resolved.

We know that an airline has 30 days to respond to the CTA, and if they do not respond, they get a fine, but the CTA can wait over a year. We have heard of cases where all of the information has been submitted, the airline has responded to the complaint and the CTA is sitting on it for over a year. That is not right for Canadian passengers. This bill should have visibility, data and service standards laid out for the CTA itself.

I did find it a little interesting to hear the parliamentary secretary talk about the climate change policies of the government. I thought perhaps after yesterday's announcement that he might have deleted that section from his speech. The Prime Minister, after having voted numerous times to impose a carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians, on those who use home heating oil, came out yesterday and suddenly reversed his position. This is after his voting record and his actions, which have shown that he has no problem imposing a punishing carbon tax on Atlantic Canadians and those who use home heating oil. Now, just conveniently, for the next three years, until after the next election, he is taking that tax off of Atlantic Canadians.

That is great for Atlantic Canadians and those who use home heating oil, but it does not do anything for those Canadians who use natural gas and are suffering under a carbon tax, which is actually a cleaner burning fuel by 30%. Interestingly enough, choosing to give relief for something he will not even admit causes pain is quite a climbdown for the Prime Minister, but it does not go far enough.

That is why Conservatives would axe the tax for all Canadians, not just those the Prime Minister is concerned with, due to their plummeting support. Again, I think it is quite rich to have a Liberal government talk about how it is going to impose climate change targets or policies on airports when it has just shown that it would flip-flop, swallow itself whole and go against its own votes in the House of Commons when it is politically expedient to do so. We should not be expected to take the government seriously on this issue any longer.

I want to talk a bit about the marine section of the bill. We are currently studying Bill C-33 at committee. We have yet to find a stakeholder who is satisfied with this bill. The witness testimony has been extremely clear that the government did not consult with them, the government did not listen to them and the proposals contained within Bill C-33 on port modernization would actually impose a made-in-Ottawa solution. There is more control from Ottawa and less local control. There was no response to the concerns of those who use and run the ports.

We now have a marine section tacked on to Bill C-52, when the ink was not even dry on Bill C-33, which actually deals with port issues. It is interesting, to say the least, that a government that has a port modernization bill before the transport committee is already amending that bill through another bill in the House of Commons, which proves that the government does not have a plan and that it is not getting this right.

Overall, we have seen that in the approach of the government, and this bill is a hollow shell. All of the major components of the bill would be decided later on in regulation by the minister and cabinet. The bill is something to talk about. It is something to point to, but it actually does not do anything. When it comes to part 1, that would all be left to regulation.

I have feedback from some of the people we hear from, from time to time, such as experts on air passenger rights or aviation management.

John Gradek, a lecturer at McGill University's aviation management program, said, “There’s lots of stuff about data sharing but not much about what or who would be taking action and in what conditions would action be taken”.

Gábor Lukács, the president of Air Passenger Rights, said, “There may be penalties, but even those powers are left to the government to create”, rather than being set out in the legislation from the start.

In its analysis of the bill, McCarthy Tétrault said that the bill contains “vague language, and, most importantly, [gives] significant latitude...to the Minister and Governor in Council to enact wide-sweeping regulations.”

This is a bill that is vague and does not contain specific remedies to the problems that have been plaguing this system for months now. The bill would give way too much power to a minister and a government that have, quite frankly, failed to show leadership in this space for the last number of years. As we have seen with other bills, such as Bill C-33, for the bill we are currently dealing with, the government did not consult with the entities that would be impacted. It did not take their advice into consideration. Once again, it is an Ottawa-knows-best, Liberal-government-knows-best approach that would not serve Canadian passengers well enough.

However, there are some things in the bill that we can support. We have no problem with the accessibility and disability portions of the bill.

The marine stuff, even though it appears to be tacked on, is certainly controversial between port authorities and port users. Many port users are looking for increased accountability, and many port operators are indicating that they already have complex dispute resolution mechanisms that would be impacted by the bill. They anticipate, based on the record of the government, that it has not actually consulted with those entities directly and is just imposing its vision of what it thinks would work best.

We believe the bill is a missed opportunity. There could have been more done to spell out who would be held accountable, how they would be held accountable and that everyone in the air travel space would be held accountable. However, the bill fails to do that. Therefore, we cannot support it.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to speak today with respect to Bill C-52. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I come with respect for this land I am on today and for the past, present and future peoples who reside here.

Canada's vast and unique geography and comparatively small population necessitate an efficient and accessible national transportation system to move people and trade from coast to coast to coast. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed challenges in our national transportation network that have disrupted supply chains and left passengers bearing the brunt of delays, cancellations and frustrations resulting from same. These challenges exposed barriers to accessible transportation and highlighted a need for more collaboration, more accountability and more transparency within the system.

That is why I come today. We introduced Bill C-52, the enhancing transparency and accountability in the transportation system act. Today it is my pleasure to outline the rationale for the benefits of this proposed legislation. Bill C-52 would take concrete action to address transportation sector accountability, transparency and accessibility concerns that have had wide-ranging effects across our transportation system.

The bill focuses on three areas of the federal transportation system. Part one of the bill proposes a new air transportation accountability act. This proposed act would provide the authority to create regulations that would require airports, airlines and other operators to create service standards related to passenger flights. The activities for which standards are to be developed would be defined in regulation. They could include things that directly impact the passenger and their experience on a flight and activities that happen even beyond the aircraft itself.

Examples could include how it would take for a passenger's bag to arrive on the baggage carousel after the flight arrives or the expected wait times to enter security screening. In addition, air sector operators subject to these regulations would be required to publish their performance against these service standards and explain publicly the extent to which they have been met, to ensure transparency.

We have seen in the past what poor communication and a lack of accountability and transparency can do to our air transportation system. The congestion issues experienced across our large hub airports last summer and over the winter holiday period were significant. It is time that we strengthened the accountability and transparency of our air transportation system by creating service standards for air sector operators.

This regulation-making power would help ensure that there are clear standards to meet, proper coordination between the parties to meet them and clear information available about the sector's success or failure in meeting those standards. This would ensure transparency for travellers and operators alike and also support better co-operation and communication among operators to improve the customer's experience.

This proposed legislation would also enable the minister to request information from airport operators, air carriers and any entity that provides flight-related services at an airport. The intent is not to create new regular reporting requirements but rather to establish the ability to request information that may be necessary in the development of policies to improve Canada's air transportation system.

Canada is signatory to various international obligations through treaties, conventions and agreements, such as the Chicago Convention and bilateral air transport agreements.

Bill C-52 would help strengthen as well as maintain Canada's international connectivity by allowing the Minister of Transport to direct airport operators with scheduled global flights to take measures to uphold Canada's international commitments and ensure that there is a consistent approach across all airports with international commercial services.

I also recognize that aircraft noise is an area of great concern for communities located near airports, for travellers and for the aviation industry. That is why the proposed act would ensure that there is a consistent formal noise public notice and consultation regime in place. This requirement would be placed on airports meeting a threshold of 60,000-plus aircraft landing and take-off moments for three consecutive years. The airports that currently meet this threshold are Toronto Pearson, Vancouver, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg. As passenger levels continue to recover, more airports are expected to be captured by this noise notice and consultation process.

The proposed legislation would affirm the airport operator as the appropriate point of contact for the public regarding aircraft noise by requiring airport operators to establish a noise management committee if one is not in use presently. The committee would include representation from, at minimum, the airport operator, Nav Canada, the airlines serving the airport and the local municipality. The bill also outlines public notice requirements for temporary changes to flight paths or airspace design at airports and notice and consultation requirements for permanent changes. If requirements for public notice and consultation on noise were not met, the act would establish a complaints process to be led by the Canadian Transportation Agency. These changes would ensure greater transparency and accountability when it comes to alternative ways in which our airspace is designed and used and the related impacts on the surrounding communities.

The impacts of swift climate change are more apparent than ever and more needs to be done. Climate change adaptation plans are instrumental in addressing greenhouse gas emissions and preparing our airports for the anticipated impacts of climate change on their operations as well as their managed assets. Many Canadian airports are already taking action and have made significant investments to reduce their carbon footprint, namely by investing in infrastructure projects that are high-performing and efficient as well as resilient. Adopting electric vehicles for their ground support equipment and fleet has been a great start.

The proposed legislation seeks to strengthen the standards as well as standardize our airports' climate actions. This proposed legislation would require airport authorities with at least four million annual passengers to develop comprehensive, five-year climate change mitigation and adaptation plans. This threshold currently includes the Toronto Pearson Airport as well as Vancouver, Montreal and Calgary airports.

Under the proposed legislation, these plans would include the following. First, each airport authority would be required to send a greenhouse gas emission reduction target providing a clear direction towards a more sustainable future. Second, the climate change and adaptation plans would entail a detailed description of the current and anticipated impacts of climate change on the airports' operations and assets managed by the airport authority. Lastly, the plan would include a comprehensive set of actions to be taken to strengthen climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

These requirements, which are similar to the requirements for the Canadian port authorities under Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, would ensure that Canada's largest airport authorities are publicly transparent about the environmental impacts they have. Under Canada's aviation climate change action plan, Transport Canada and other key departments will continue to engage and work closely with Canadian airport authorities to support and advance their decarbonization efforts.

Finally, the bill contains provisions requiring that federally incorporated airport authorities publish information regarding the diversity of their directors and members of senior management. These provisions are consistent with requirements that already exist for companies incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. They are intended to ensure that federally incorporated authorities act in a way that is consistent with federal government standards and reflects Canadian society and our values here throughout this great nation.

Part 2 of the bill would introduce amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to support a transportation system that is barrier-free. Persons with disabilities currently represent approximately 16% of the world's population. In our country, more than 6.2 million people aged 15 and older have a disability. That is one in five Canadians. Of the 2.2 million Canadians with a disability who used federally regulated transportation in 2019 and 2020, 63% faced a barrier. We must do more, and we must be better, to ensure that persons with disabilities have the same rights, opportunities and quality of life as each and every Canadian enjoys.

Medical advances and new assistive devices and technologies have made it more possible for persons with disabilities to travel, meaning that an accessible transportation system is more important now than ever before. However, there continue to be incidents of persons with disabilities experiencing barriers in their travel journey, along with a lack of accountability and transparency by regulated entities.

As a priority sector in the Accessible Canada Act, Canadians expect a national transportation system that will help to advance the government's commitment to a barrier-free Canada by 2040. This means ensuring that there is a framework in place to identify and remove barriers and prevent new barriers, so that persons with disabilities can travel seamlessly throughout their journey.

That is why improved data on accessibility in transportation will provide important insights into the lived experiences and diverse needs of travellers with disabilities and the barriers they face. In fact, the absence of data was a key finding from the Auditor General's “Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities” audit report, published this past March.

The proposed bill, Bill C-52, introduces amendments to the Canada Transportation Act to enable regulations to be made applicable to federally regulated transportation service providers, such as air carriers and interprovincial ferries, as well as passenger trains; to collect and provide data on key accessibility metrics to the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency; and to set up a process for handling accessibility complaints to support an accessible transportation system.

The proposed changes would strengthen the accessibility performance and its monitoring as follows: First, they would create standards for reporting accessibility-related data to the Minister of Transport and the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency, which could include complaints, to support the realization of a transportation system without barriers for all persons. Second, they would allow the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transportation Agency to publish accessibility data, which would provide Canadians with a greater awareness of the barriers experienced by travellers with disabilities and direct decision-makers in taking the actions needed to achieve real change. Third, they would ensure that all regulated entities have a process in place for handling accessibility complaints and require that records of these complaints be retained.

Improved data metrics on accessibility barriers in transportation would allow the government to act appropriately and quickly on issues impacting barrier-free transportation. This would drive change for Canadians with disabilities. This is an important first step to ensuring that we make the transportation system more seamless, more accessible and inclusive for all.

Lastly, part 3 of the bill would introduce amendments to the Canada Marine Act to enhance transparency and accountability for Canada's port authorities and how they set their fees.

The Government of Canada is proud of its port governance system, which, in 1998, established the Canada port authorities and charged them with managing our country's most strategic ports as part of Canada's strategic trade corridors. While these port authorities are incorporated by the federal government, they operate under a carefully constructed governance framework. This allows them to make the strategic, commercially oriented decisions and act credibly in the marketplace.

As every Canadian knows, the ports are key hubs in our supply chains. Ports are where rail, road and marine modes intersect to support export and import markets. They are, in fact, where road meets rail, which meets water and air.

Now, more than ever, in the wake of a pandemic, supply chain disruptions, climate change events and labour unrest, our port authorities are being called upon to be more adaptable, as well as more responsive to a constantly evolving context, creating fluidity and, once again, strategically placing this country to perform and strengthen our international trade performance.

With adaptability and responsiveness, however, comes an increased need for transparency. Some port users and stakeholders have expressed concerns about the way Canada port authorities establish the fees that they charge to industries and sectors. Some of these same voices have raised similar concerns regarding lease rates for terminal operations.

The government recognizes and is committed to ensuring that port authorities have the tools they need to be financially self-sufficient and self-sustaining, as well as to meet their business plans, as established by their respective boards. At the same time, we are committed to having a transportation system whose operators are transparent and accountable to their users, as well as their stakeholders.

We recognize that there is room for improvement in terms of oversight of our Canada port authorities. That is why the measures being proposed to amend the Canada Marine Act seek to align Canada port authorities' actions with modern experiences and, more importantly, expectations of transparency and accountability.

As managers of key public assets, port authorities are expected to carry out their operations while remaining responsive to users, industry and stakeholders. Proposed Bill C-52 would require Canada port authorities to follow certain principles when establishing or revising fees, along with the related complaint process. Moreover, it would create an authority for the Governor in Council to make regulations to set out dispute resolution.

While the autonomous nature of Canada port authorities would be maintained, as well as their capacity to generate the revenues they need as critical components of their supply chains and the infrastructure attached to them, the overall proposal would strengthen the government's strategic oversight. It would also provide a consistent approach across port authorities to enhance their responsiveness to port users and to be more transparent to their operations with respect to fixing fees and leases.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again to our witnesses for staying so late and engaging with us on this topic.

I have a question for Mr. Wilson.

You spoke about decarbonization at ports, and I think everyone that we've spoken to has recognized the huge opportunity there. You also mentioned that many of those things are already under way in one form or another.

Bill C-33 empowers the minister to require that ports produce five-year climate plans, and that's in line with what the government is requiring of other sectors. I know they've proposed it for airports as well.

My observation is that a lot of corporate climate plans are PR exercises. They are a summary of things that are going on that can be roughly construed as falling into that climate action category, but they often lack accountability measures. They lack firm targets the kind of detail that allows the government or the public to hold the entity accountable. I'm not talking about ports in this regard; I'm just talking in general. Our experience over the last couple of decades with climate planning has been, I would say, fairly lacklustre in the corporate sector.

If this is to be a useful exercise, how should the government and this committee consider building accountability into ports' climate plans so that it's not just a summary of things that the port plans to do, but a road map to get to the kinds of emission reductions that we need to see?

[Duncan Wilson]

Yes, the measures in Bill C-33 will help us do that more effectively. Obviously, the regulation will spell out exactly how that is. We manage the anchorages on an interim protocol basis in the Gulf Islands and directly in terms of our jurisdiction, and the changes that are required are mostly in the areas where we don't have jurisdiction.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for being here this evening to share their comments and views on our study.

To begin, I have a question for the representative from the Greater Victoria Port Authority.

What do you think of the environmental measures in the bill?

Is he no longer there?

I have a question for Mr. Wilson then.

As a port located in a major urban centre, anchorages can be a major issue with nearby communities. How does the port currently manage its anchorage? Will the measures in Bill C-33 help the port to do this more effectively?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Yes, because you've talked about some of the things that you have done proactively over the course of time that are encapsulated in Bill C-33, but that it's taken time, effort and money, and now it's going to be imposed upon others.

I guess what you're saying is that it is a burden that other smaller ports or even medium-sized ports would face.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

All right.

I'll go to Mr. Wilson again.

We heard from one port authority that in his opinion nothing at all might be preferable to the proposed changes in Bill C‑33.. Do you share that opinion?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses who have stayed with us this long. It is a late hour, and I get the honour of coming in at the end of the discussion.

Mr. Wilson, one thing that struck me from your opening statement was the fact that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority deals with 16 local governments—and I missed the number of first nations, but it was a large number.

Maybe you can elaborate a bit. We have a bill that proposes that the minister appoint the chair—so that's Ottawa. I think there are lots of provisions in this bill where it's an Ottawa-knows-best approach to stuff that you're already doing, so what is the point of Bill C-33?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

We heard from port workers who told us more or less the opposite. They said they are forced to compete with one another, which can undermine cooperation. They said they would have liked to see changes in Bill C‑33 that would have allowed for such cooperation.

Would you agree?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Wilson and pertains to the way Bill C‑33 was introduced.

The bill was introduced by the government at the end of the parliamentary session last year. So that is a year ago.

On November 18, 2022, an article about Bill C‑33 appeared in the newspaper, La Presse. Roughly translated, the headline was: A bill to strengthen cooperation among Quebec ports.

This article explains that, with this bill, the minister intended to improve the supply chain and provide for greater cooperation among ports. When I read the bill, however, that was not necessarily what I understood.

Can you tell us about the features of Bill C‑33 that would strengthen cooperation among ports or improve the supply chain? That might be helpful to the committee.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I'm sure you've reviewed the testimony from the last meeting with your team about the concern about the Gulf Islands anchorages. We heard frustration in trying to get new anchorages in better locations—perhaps we can say it that way. This bill would give you some more authority over anchorages and how they operate, etc.

Can you describe some of the challenges with creating new anchorages and whether you believe Bill C-33 addresses them?

You're talking about a massive expansion at the Port of Vancouver. Removing anchorages doesn't seem to make any sense, but there are sensitive areas where, perhaps, they're not best placed.

Can you talk about the challenges with moving or creating new anchorages, which I think we'll need to do as the port expands?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

I'll go back to Mr. Wilson.

We've heard from railway companies in the past that have blamed their on-time performance struggles on the inability of grain ships to load in the rain in Vancouver. We heard at the last meeting as well, from people who are concerned about Gulf Islands anchorages, that those happen in part because we can't load grain in the rain in Vancouver. This has been a long-standing problem, and I understand the rulings, arbitration and situation that have gotten us here. Is there anything in Bill C-33 that would give us some hope that this issue is going to be resolved, or will it be resolved only when the terminal operators and the workers can either come up with infrastructure solutions or address the safety concerns that prevent that from happening? Maybe you can give us a bit of an update, if there is any, on how we can get ships loaded in the 170 days a year it rains at the Port of Vancouver.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me begin with you, Ms. Morin.

My question is about your main demand, which you outlined earlier.

You said an interpretation clause should be added to Bill C‑33, which we are considering right now. Certain clauses in the bill allow the minister to invoke powers to free up the supply chain, so to speak, or for safety reasons. There are various clauses that would allow the minister to intervene indirectly in port operations, of his own accord.

If that interpretation clause were not added or if we did not receive the legal opinion mentioned earlier, do you think the bill should be adopted nonetheless?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cox, or your counterpart there, how would you describe the relationship between ports and labour generally? Would you say that there's a need to create forums for ports to engage with labour such as the advisory committee that is being proposed in Bill C‑33?

[Duncan Wilson]

Bill C‑33 is maybe less about that specifically—but that digitalization is a huge focus for us. We have a program in place that we call Connect+, which is a combination of active vessel traffic management and a supply chain visibility initiative that are intended to work together to provide enhanced visibility of cargo movements across all sectors in and out of the gateway—again so that we can be more efficient, move cargo faster, reduce the impact on communities of things like anchorages and also reduce the impact of shipping on, for example, seven resident killer whales at risk.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilson, how do you see data sharing helping ports to become more efficient and more competitive? Do you think that Bill C‑33 will help end-to-end digitalization of our supply chain?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thanks, Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses this evening. It's great to see the folks here today, and we're counting on trying to produce a good piece of legislation, Bill C‑33, and are certainly counting on the knowledge, expertise and experience of people who are around this table this evening to give us some good guidance and to produce legislation that is going to effectively improve and enhance our supply chain.

My first question is for Mr. Lewis-Manning. Then, Mr. Wilson, I'll come to you with the same question.

Should Bill C‑33 pass, the federal government will have authority to make regulations with respect to how anchorages are managed at ports. What kinds of things would you like to see in these potential regulations?

I'll go to Mr. Lewis-Manning and then Mr. Wilson.

[Joel Kennedy, Director, Rail Sector, Unifor]

Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Joel Kennedy, Unifor's rail sector director, and I am here with my colleague, Mr. Graham Cox. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-33.

Unifor is Canada's largest union in the private sector, and represents 315,000 workers in every major area of the economy. Unifor represents 32 bargaining units and close to 10,000 members in the rail sector. This includes engineers, conductors, freight car and locomotive mechanics, electricians, crane operators, and a contingent of semi-skilled support workers, such as labourers and production workers who manufacture freight car, locomotive and track components. Unifor also represents 2,300 workers in the marine sector.

In the rail sector, Unifor members perform safety inspections on freight cars physically, visually, audibly, and sometimes even by smell. Our members perform brake tests and inspect the trains' mechanical components to ensure that they are working properly and are free of defects.

Current legislation requires these trains to be inspected and tested at the train's origin and destination points. However, regulatory exemptions have already been granted that allow rail companies to remove safety inspections and tests conducted by a qualified mechanic and to replace those with technology that is limited and largely untested and unregulated. We believe digital inspection creates some conflicts when the interests of the company's profits and that the inspection results do not align.

Unfortunately, technology and digitization is referred to in this bill in only the context of facilitating efficient supply chains and rule-making. Unifor believes this bill continues to and entrenches the “fox watching the henhouse” type of regulatory environment for the rail sector. We believe the large rail employers have taken advantage of this deregulated environment and are hiding behind safety to increase their bottom lines.

In an unregulated automation system there will be a lot of pressure for systems to be tweaked, not only for safety but also for convenience. Unifor believes that technology should be invested in and implemented to increase the safety and security of our supply chains. However, as it stands now, the focus has been on replacing workers while attempting to reach the same level of safety. There is even a current arbitration before the board about whether this digital safety inspection work is covered by Unifor's contract.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center, based on its research on rail technology, has said that "Replacing workers should not be the focus of technology implementation. Instead technology should be used to augment work, not replace it, to increase the safety of the rail system." It is our understanding that this is also the position taken by the U.S. White House. We submit that any change to Canadian rail legislation that oversees safety should include the principle of augmentation in the pursuit of increased safety, not simply the replacement of workers in search of increased profits.

Unifor is also concerned that the proposed amendments by Bill C-33 to the ability to consult with third parties is just language to support the outsourcing responsibility to a third party on regulations and exemptions. If the minister's office feels it does not have in-house capacity to make good decisions on rules and exemptions, it should invest in a publicly financed, independent research arm to look at the impacts of rules and exemptions granted in the implementation of technology, not a private third party.

Unifor is concerned that private third party recommendations will be based on private proprietary data. Safety management systems and security management systems are already black boxes because they use software as if software development is some alien process and cannot be regulated. Unifor maintains that rule-making and the exemption process should be made public: Therefore, data collected on the impact of rules and exemptions should also be made public.

Finally, we'd also like to echo concerns brought up by our comrades at CUPE and ILWU about the implications of new powers of the minister when it comes to sustaining supply chains. While we recognize that the language was written to deal with pandemic-like emergencies, we feel that the language is too broad and, although it's not the intention of the language, could be used to interfere with the right to strike.

We believe the best model for expanded powers for emergency should be done, though, through a list of issues and types of disruption that can constitute emergencies and actions impacting supply chains. We submit that such a list can be clear to the public while also being sufficiently broad to deal with security against external actors, without undermining charter rights and legitimate actions.

I would like to also say that our friends at Teamsters adopt our positions as well, and they couldn't make it here today for certain reasons.

[Marie-Christine Morin, Union Adviser, Syndicat des débardeurs, section locale 1375 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique]

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me.

You will notice that my vocabulary is quite different from that used by the people who spoke before me. I am here to represent the members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, who work at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Bécancour, that is, dockworkers of Trois-Rivières and Bécancour, local 1375, grain sector workers, local 5317, and rail workers, local 5598, of the Port of Montreal.

My main concern today is of course maintaining and improving working conditions for our employees in the shipping and rail sectors.

On October 16, 2023, you heard the concerns of my colleagues Robert Ashton and Michel Murray regarding the potential impact of Bill C‑33 on labour relations and labour law.

I noted the assurance provided on October 16 by the assistant deputy minister, policy, at Transport Canada, Serge Bijimine, who stated that Bill C‑33 is not expected to apply to labour relations.

Mr. Bijimine also agreed to obtain a legal opinion on the matter, if that had not already been done.

In any case, the best way to ensure that the bill does not interfere with labour relations or labour law is to add a clause to that effect right in the bill.

Consider for example the new clause 17.4 of Bill C‑33 which gives the minister full power to intervene if he is of the opinion that something has to be done to respond to a threat to the security of transportation, including the security of goods, which is very broad.

Similarly, the new subclause 31(2) provides for the issuance of an emergency certificate.

There appears to be some confusion in Bill C‑33 as to the concepts of “security” and “safety”. This confusion was also mentioned for other reasons in the Railway Association of Canada brief.

Moreover, clause 107.1(1) of the bill provides that, if the minister is of the opinion that there is a risk of imminent harm, specifically to national economic security or competition that constitutes a significant threat to the security of goods or the supply chain, the minister may order a port authority to take any measure that the minister considers necessary to prevent that harm.

At CUPE local 5598, the Montreal Port Authority is my direct employer and that of the rail workers. You can appreciate our concern, especially since this clause gives the minister full discretion in certain situations.

In short, without basic parameters in Bill C‑33, we are afraid that the minister's new powers could be used to undermine fundamental rights, including labour rights. I am of course referring to the freedom of association in paragraph 2d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, in paragraphs 2b) and 2c).

Such parameters are present in Canadian legislation and jurisprudence, such as the Canada Labour Code. They are also present in international treaties and international jurisprudence, including those of the International Labour Organization and its International Labour Office, in convention 87, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

These are basic treaties linking us with the United Nations and other countries around the world. They serve to safeguard social justice and uphold fundamental rights, including the right to association, which includes the right to bargain and to strike.

That is why we are appearing today to appeal for the addition of an interpretation clause in Bill C‑33, along the following lines: “The interpretation and application of this act must not in any case interfere with labour relations and must respect: a) fundamental rights, including the right to association; b) the Canada Labour Code; c) international labour law and Canada's commitments in that regard.

If Bill C‑33 prohibits interference with labour relations, I think that should be spelled out to prevent any confusion. There you have it.

Thank you for your attention and your assistance.

[Robert Lewis-Manning, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Victoria Harbour Authority]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, I am the CEO at the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. I've just recently joined it in the last seven months. I've assumed the role with a background of about 30 years in shipping and logistics. I hope to provide with a somewhat unique perspective on Bill C-33.

Today I'm speaking to you from the territory of the Lekwungen people, the Songhees Nation and the Esquimalt Nation, whose historical relationship with the land and the harbour continue to this day.

Why is the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority unique? Really it's unique because it's not a Canadian port authority, despite the name. In reality, Transport Canada remains the regulatory authority under the Canada Marine Act in the city of Victoria, which is an important nuance when considering the legislative amendments.

When the federal government divested these port assets over 20 years ago, there was an intent for GVHA to become a Canadian port authority, but a number of challenges persisted. Notwithstanding that, we now steward the majority of harbour infrastructure, including a number of marinas, facilities, water lots and a strategically located deepwater industrial terminal with four vessel berths, a warehouse and a large lay-down area. If you were to compare us with the existing 17 Canadian port authorities, we would be a mid-sized port in Canada according to revenue, vessel movements and physical infrastructure.

We are the number one destination port for cruise ships in Canada, with over 330 large cruise ships and about one million passengers visiting annually, over 100 commercial cargo ships every year, and we have several unique services, including wet docking, underwater cable storage and deployment and support for a large-scale ocean clean-up effort. We also steward several iconic assets, such as the lower causeway in front of the Fairmont Empress Hotel, Ship Point and the Breakwater.

The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority has a unique governance structure, including six member agencies representing local businesses and governments that are essentially shareholders and, most importantly, two rights-holders, the Songhees and Esquimalt first nations.

Much of the intent of Bill C-33 is supported, including the need to meaningfully engage indigenous peoples and local communities.

The GVHA has adopted these principles since its inception and it has facilitated a high degree of trust and the ability to pivot quickly for unexpected challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Having indigenous leaders as part of the GVHA's board of directors has led to several opportunities that may not have been possible previously. We also have advisory committees and a high level of interest and involvement with local community stakeholders.

Likewise, the proposed requirement to have climate change and climate adaptation plans and reporting makes eminent sense considering the vulnerability of ocean infrastructure and the supply chain and its importance to the well-being of the Canadian economy and Canadians. The Greater Victor Harbour Authority is in the process of developing both of these plans, including a resiliency strategy tied to sustainable finance and low-carbon trading opportunities to help reinvest in physical infrastructure to mitigate climate impacts. Our electrification strategy is now under way and includes both cruise and cargo shipping. We will be making an application for federal funding in the coming months and GVHA is a partner in the Pacific northwest green shipping corridor project.

The GVHA is actually strategically located to support a more efficient supply chain, reduce overall impacts on the environment and local communities, and support preparedness and responses to incidents involving commercial shipping.

With respect to the cumulative impacts from marine shipping, we are aware of the significant dialogue between the federal government, ports in British Columbia and local communities regarding the impacts from supply chain disruption. In this respect, the proposed amendments do not appear to be sufficiently robust to directly encourage regional port and waterway coordination and the efficient use of regional infrastructure. The management of vessel traffic should not be made in isolation and should leverage regional capabilities. For example, our four deepwater berths could support awaiting cargo exports from other ports, reducing carbon intensity and impacts on local communities.

Regardless of this weakness in the bill, we are working with partners to make this a competitive option and an advantage for exporters in the future. We would encourage the federal government to adopt this type of approach in its developing of the supply chain strategy.

Similarly, the Canada Marine Act should better leverage existing infrastructure to support contingency operations. In 2021 the GVHA played a pivotal role in the response to the Zim Kingstonfire, providing a base of operations for salvage operations.

In closing, I think the preamble of the Canada Marine Act identifies the need for a systems approach. This legislation could be strengthened in order to provide that systems approach.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, An act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform members of the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have been sound tested for today's meeting and have passed the test for the benefit of our interpreters.

Joining us today, colleagues, we have, from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, Robert Lewis-Manning, chief executive officer, joining by video conference. Welcome.

From Vancouver Fraser Port Authority we have Duncan Wilson, vice-president, environmental and external affairs.

From the Syndicat des débardeurs, local 1375, of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we welcome Marie‑Christine Morin, union adviser, who is joining us by video conference.

Welcome.

From Unifor, we have Joel Kennedy, director, rail sector, by video conference; as well as Mr. Graham Cox, national representative.

We begin with opening remarks.

For that, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Lewis-Manning.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Do you believe this can be achieved by supporting the amendments to Bill C‑33?

I don't think that you have really answered my question, which was whether legislation or other means already exist. I didn't get an answer but I think that the federal government already has the means to prohibit vessels from anchoring in an environmentally sensitive area or a few metres from homes, which risks destroying people's quality of life.

To your knowledge, do the means to prevent this not already exist, rather than amending Bill C‑33?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McConchie, I must say that I'm quite sensitive to the picture you are painting for us. I live in a riding that borders the St. Lawrence River, and sometimes my constituents call me to tell me about a problem with vessels anchoring in front of their home. They tell me how unbearably loud it is at night and how they can't sleep. They see people walking on the boat deck across from them and doing all their daily activities. Sometimes, the vessels are anchored there for a long time.

You're here to talk about Bill C‑33, but I wonder whether the government doesn't already have the means, if the political will exists, to limit the anchorage of vessels in proximity to homes or in environmentally sensitive areas, or to require vessels to relocate outside those areas. If you have any good amendments to suggest, I'll support them, but I still wonder whether the government doesn't already have the means to resolve these issues.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You talked about the administrative burden for your members.

Do you feel that Bill C-33 actually adds to that rather than remedies it?

[Bonnie Gee]

What Bill C-33 does do is try to manage how ports handle disruptions. When we talk about the increased use of vessels at anchorages, we've had a significant number of disruptions in the last five years. We've mentioned that anchorages are a symptom of a supply chain that isn't working.

Other than that, I don't see a lot of other benefits in the bill's amendments.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Dekovic quantified three things: nimble, predictable and cost-effective. Bill C-33 is none of those.

What is your reaction to that?

[Justus Veldman]

It's a touchy subject. I will answer that as carefully as I can.

I think the opportunity to enhance the Welland Canal by way of having a change of management through the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is positive. We're happy to contribute, and I feel we are.

I guess the fact of the matter is that, over the last 50 years, Transport Canada has owned all kinds of lands along the Welland Canal and has had its port infrastructure basically.... The ability for vessels to stop along the Welland Canal has significantly decreased. Allowing investment into the Welland Canada through Bill C-33 and localizing some of the inland port investments I think will help not only the private companies along the Welland Canada but also the Transport Canada lands that the seaway corporation currently manages.

Yes, some change is required, because it hasn't worked for the last 50 years.

[Justus Veldman]

My quick answer is yes, absolutely. Some of the infrastructure along the Welland Canal corridor needs fairly significant capital upgrades. By levering the private sector's investment and Transport Canada's ability to now invest into some of these assets through Bill C-33, it would allow the Welland Canal to flourish and, by that, the Niagara region would attract more industry.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate all the witnesses for coming out today.

My question is for Mr. Veldman.

Mr. Veldman, you're very much involved in the economy of my area, the Niagara region, as well as many areas throughout the country from coast to coast to coast.

You mentioned in your presentation that the Welland Canal corridor is, in fact, a port, because of its partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, and with that is amongst the five biggest ports in the country. You also mentioned that it needs to modernize to fully optimize this Transport Canada asset. I want to emphasize this, because the Welland Canal is, in fact, a Transport Canada asset, currently managed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.

Do you feel that the Welland Canal corridor, being a port and this bill is attaching itself to modernizing ports, should be aligned with the intentions set out in Bill C-33?

[Marko Dekovic]

I can speak only to the one port authority where we operate, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. We did operate terminals in the ports of New York and New Jersey, but there is a very different approach there.

There isn't much in Bill C-33 other than perhaps that there will be a mechanism for the minister to appoint the chair, which, as I mentioned earlier, would then at least give some powers for tenants and users of the port to at least go to a political master of the port authority to ask for some remedies or at least to review our input. That is not provided right now, so that is potentially the only way that it can improve a situation where tenants, port authorities and users are maybe not collaborating or seeing eye to eye.

Historically, when terminal operators grow, port authorities grow, and there's a symbiotic, must-have relationship there. We've had some challenges and bumps along the way. I can report that, even with the recent leadership changes at the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, we're starting to see some change in how the Canada Marine Act is interpreted by the port authority and approached with the tenants.

There's some improvement and light on the horizon.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Dekovic, as a terminal operator, can you speak to some of the challenges you face in working with the port authorities? Do you think Bill C-33 will help improve the relationships between ports and tenants?

[Bruce McConchie]

It's not the case currently, and that's why we're hoping that the amendments come through.

I worked in the aviation industry for 39 years, and I'm very familiar with efficient arrival systems and especially non-efficient arrival systems. I can't understand, in this day and age, how the port of Vancouver cannot communicate with vessels that are across the ocean and schedule them in properly like an airport would do. Airports that didn't schedule properly paid the price. The ones that got their scheduling improved and expanded.... A good example is Chicago; it has excellent arrival systems. Other areas have poor arrival systems, with aircraft circling overhead burning excess amounts of fuel.

In essence, we have sort of the same thing. Unfortunately, I take a little exception to Ms. Gee's comments about ships needing to come and be checked and that taking time. Does it take weeks and months? We have to look at that kind of thing.

Bill C-33 needs to strengthen the ability of the port and demand that it improve its infrastructure, as I mentioned, with all-weather grain loading and those kinds of things.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. McConchie, I have the same question for you on the provisions in Bill C-33. Will it help the port better manage its traffic and also improve the overall situation with the anchorages?

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Does Bill C-33 change anything? Does it bring some improvements?

[Bonnie Gee]

The ports, and the port of Vancouver specifically, are already moving forward on allocating anchorages, so there are authorities within their current letters patent that enable them to direct traffic within their jurisdiction and vessels that are due into their port as well. Data is a big part of what we need to improve our operations. Our vessels definitely want to improve the port optimization. They also definitely don't want to be sitting around waiting for cargos.

I think we're all on the right track. We're moving in the direction of getting more data to better understand where the bottlenecks are, but I don't think that Bill C-33 necessarily changes the direction that's already under way.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome all the witnesses. Thank you for all your input with respect to Bill C-33.

Ms. Gee, do you think the provisions in Bill C-33 will help the port to better manage traffic? Do you think that this will improve the overall situation with anchorages in B.C.?

[Marko Dekovic]

In Bill C-33, it is not clear where it actually makes the operating environment for the private sector more cost-effective, more nimble or more predictable. Those are things that attract private sector investment, and it appears that it adds more regulatory advisory bodies, more hoops and challenges for anybody looking to invest into the gateway, more procedures, etc. It is not clear that this would be attractive to the private sector.

Furthermore, with regard to existing private sector operators, if limits to borrowing powers of port authorities are further removed, or if there is less accountability and fewer checks and balances, this will further provide a cold-water shower onto investment from the existing terminal operators because they won't know what the cost burden will be.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You talked in your opening statement, as well, about unleashing private sector investment. I think that's important if we're going to achieve what I think is the intention of supply chain fluidity and the economic potential we have. Obviously, the port of Vancouver is our gateway to Asia, and it's critically important to our economy. Maybe you could elaborate a bit more about that and where Bill C-33 may be deficient in that regard.

[Marko Dekovic]

Yes, the right balance is to be struck. I think that a cost analysis of these additional advisory bodies' oversights should be done. At the same time, additional powers that would be granted to port authorities to assess fees also need to be balanced with the kinds of powers they have and with transparency on what they do with those fees.

I think it's important to actually look at Bill C-33 in companionship with Bill C-52. It will be important to get Bill C-52 right so that the right level of transparency is provided to the tenants and the public about what port authorities do with the revenues they generate.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You raised the point that there are different sizes of ports. We've had witness testimony that it could be $200,000 per annum. That's what one group told us. There were a couple of additional employees from another group who told us.... You said at the outset that private companies like yours are assuming all the risks.

Do you see Bill C-33 adding to some of these burdens? Is it excessive? What's the right balance?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses here today for their contribution to our review of Bill C-33.

Mr. Dekovic, you talked about that continuum between government-like versus private sector market players with some government oversight.

Where do you see Bill C-33 pushing that continuum?

[Marko Dekovic]

Thank you for that question.

It goes back to what I mentioned earlier. Ultimately, Bill C-33 has to decide which way we want to go. Do we want to create port authorities that are more government-like and more government agency-like, or create them or push them to be more private sector market players with some government oversight?

What we have right now, though, which we have experienced in Vancouver, is that ultimately there is no direct link or accountability for when port authority leadership is not necessarily in line with what the priorities may or may not be of the government or the tenants. Many tenants had some challenges in Vancouver, and ultimately there was no mechanism to directly address that. By having the chair of the port ultimately accountable to somebody in government, that will increase that accountability or chain of command to the minister, so that at least the tenants, the private sector and users of the port can approach the minister and expect some answer or action. Currently, when that is done, the answer is that ports are at arm's length and nothing can be done. Of course, that's an example of where it's also a negative, where the government can potentially more politically influence the operations of the port and the leadership of the port. There are some challenges with that.

There is no perfect answer. The question is more this: Which way does the government want to push the port authorities, to be more government or more private sector?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dekovic, the appointment by government of chairpersons to the boards of directors of ports was mentioned a number of times by witnesses in previous meetings. This is an amendment being proposed in Bill C‑33.

As a client, your company maintains a business relationship with the ports. How do you view the government's desire to control the appointment of port authority chairpersons?

[Bonnie Gee]

Ports were devolved 25 years ago. They have different resources and they have the same aging infrastructure to maintain. My thought is that they probably need some better financing options to maintain the infrastructure they currently have. In terms of what's being proposed in Bill C-33 to add new advisory and indigenous and community advisory committees, many of these offices are very small in terms of their staffing and their capabilities, so to add those obligations onto the smaller port authorities is challenging.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

Turning to Mr. McConchie, should Bill C-33 pass? The federal government would have the authority to make regulations with respect to how anchorages are managed at the ports. What kinds of things would you like to see in these potential regulations that might be enacted to manage that?

[Marko Dekovic]

Thank you for the question.

To me, it is not clear which parts of Bill C-33 will ultimately improve efficiency. If we want to create a more efficient and resilient system, we ultimately need to invest in some spare infrastructure leading to and from our ports. I don't see how Bill C-33 does that.

I'm sorry. The second part of your question was...?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thanks, Chair.

Welcome to all of our witnesses today. It's great that you're here to give us the benefit of your experience and expertise as we're trying to tackle this study and get it right for Bill C-33.

First off, Mr. Dekovic, we've heard that measures like those in Bill C-33 will improve supply chain efficiency. At least, that's our hope. Do you agree that is the case? What measures in particular do you think would be most effective in optimizing supply chain outcomes?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Dekovic, I appreciated your perspective on the role of the private sector and your explanation on how ports operate. Obviously, Bill C-52 does allow for a little more transparency on how rates are set.

We've heard in previous testimony that the additional cost and administrative burden of some of the changes that are proposed in Bill C-33 could range up to $200,000 a year, for instance, for additional reporting and additional staff to oversee that. When the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority takes on a $200,000 additional bill, who pays for that in the end? Does that get passed down to you as a terminal operator? What is your understanding of how additional costs incurred by the port authority are paid for?

[Bonnie Gee]

Unfortunately, I think my camera is frozen. I'll try to reset it while somebody else is speaking.

With regard to managing disruptions, I don't expect that Bill C-33 would address labour disruptions. It was really meant, I think, to address some of the recent discussions we had with respect to blockades, wildfires and atmospheric rivers. I don't think we would expect Bill C-33 to prevent labour disruptions from happening, because we don't want to affect our labour force and their ability to properly negotiate and strike if needed.

I'm sorry. I forgot your other question. It was with regard to the St. Lawrence Seaway....

[Bruce McConchie, Spokesperson, South Coast Ship Watch Alliance]

Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good day. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the Canada Marine Act.

I am representing the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, which is the collective voice of eight coastal communities within the southern Gulf Islands and adjacent Vancouver Island coastlines.

This is important work you are doing. Your dedication to the goal of preserving our environment, despite being from different political parties, is very much appreciated. I am here to encourage you on behalf of my fellow islanders, our children and grandchildren, and the indigenous peoples of the west coast to further your work and preserve a very special part of Canada with over 300 species at risk.

The narrow waterways surrounding our islands are being used as an unnecessary overflow parking lot for the port of Vancouver. Currently, there are 33 anchorages for large cargo ships designated for vessels waiting for a berth in the port of Vancouver. Almost all ships using these anchorages are bulk carriers arriving empty to load coal and grain. They often arrive too early for their berthing times in the port, staying for weeks and occasionally months at a time. The increase in use has been staggering—from only 19 ships in 2009 to 476 ships last year, staying for 5,900 anchoring days.

The negative environmental impacts of this anchoring are significant and increasing.

Our air is being polluted by the constant spewing of diesel exhaust from large on-board generators—up to 10 tonnes of greenhouse gas per ship per day. This is in a region declared by our provincial government as a high smoke sensitivity zone.

Excessive noise both above and under the water is created by these cargo ships at anchor and during transit to these anchorages. Underwater noise disrupts the feeding, breeding, navigation and communication of marine species, especially the threatened southern resident killer whales. Above water, the very health of coastal residents is being affected.

The seabed ecosystems of our Salish Sea are constantly being scoured by large anchor chains. We are living with the constant fear of a major incident as a result of ships dragging their anchors during winter storms. The resulting oil spill would be catastrophic.

We are concerned that the consequence of the word “anchorage” in proposed paragraph (f.2) of Bill C-33 would be to allow the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, an industrial entity, to implement its plan to expand its jurisdictional boundaries to include cargo ship anchorages within the southern Gulf Islands and the adjacent Vancouver Island waters. This should not happen.

These anchorages are unnecessary. If the port of Vancouver implemented a modern vessel arrival system and restricted early arrivals, as is done in ports elsewhere; if the Minister of Transport would demand the port require all-weather grain loading—currently, grain cannot be loaded in the rain in Vancouver; if the federal government would suspend shipping of thermal coal, a major contributor to climate change; and if the supply chain to the port was optimized and the many inefficiencies addressed, we would see an end to this attack on the fragile ecosystems of our Salish Sea.

For years now, the indigenous peoples and coastal residents of the Salish Sea have been sounding the alarm about the ever-increasing attack on our marine environment, air and health. Bill C-33 has raised our hopes that our government will finally strengthen that important clause of the act under “Purpose”, paragraph 4(d): “provide for a high level of safety and environmental protection”. We support the marine transportation industry and its contribution to the Canadian economy as stated in the purpose of the act, but no economic gains can buy back our environment.

It was five years ago this month when my fellow coastal resident Chris Straw passionately addressed this committee on this same topic. Unfortunately, he passed away without realizing the dream of eliminating these anchorages. On his behalf and that of all islanders in the southern Gulf Islands and the adjacent Vancouver Island, we need your help now to protect the Salish Sea.

Thank you for your time.

[Marko Dekovic, Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the committee for inviting me to appear before you.

I'm the vice-president of public affairs at GCT Global Container Terminals, headquartered in Vancouver. We are the largest majority-Canadian owned container terminal in the country, and we are a tenant of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

Bill C-33 was born from a chorus of voices from the private sector, labour unions and indigenous communities, all calling on the government to address the functioning of our supply chain and, specifically, the network of Canada port authorities. Since then, Bill C-52 has also been introduced. In some ways, it better addresses some of the shortcomings of Bill C-33.

Today, my comments will focus exclusively on the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act within Bill C-33.

It is of utmost importance for all members of the committee to understand the current workings of our port system. Private sector companies operate port terminals handling various goods, including bulk, breakbulk, containers and autos, to name some. They assume all of the risks associated with investing in terminal infrastructure, acquiring and retaining customers, and navigating economic fluctuations. These private companies are tenants of port authorities, and port authorities impose rents—and collect rents—escalating fees and regulations upon those private sector operators, all while assuming little to no risk themselves.

As you review and potentially shape Bill C-33, I implore the committee to consider a fundamental question. Do you wish for port authorities to function as governance and regulatory bodies overseeing the supply chain with transparency, or would you prefer for them to remain as they are now, operating opaquely as monopolistic quasi-market players generating revenue for themselves without any real accountability?

This decision is crucial, as it will shape how you approach every aspect of Bill C-33.

For instance, consider the recommendation to modify the borrowing limits for port authorities. Increasing the borrowing limits for port authorities does not necessarily stimulate private investment; rather, it can deter it. This happens because port authorities must repay what they borrow with interest, and this cost ultimately falls on the shoulders of terminal operators, which in turn pass it to their customers, leading to potential inflation.

Port authorities should rarely need to borrow if they're fulfilling their mandate correctly, which is to facilitate trade and grow their private sector tenants. When the private sector is assured of its growth potential, it will invest. Port authorities can also use their lease agreements with tenants to encourage them to take on greater investment risk, thereby reducing the need for port authorities to borrow.

Consider the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority as an example. Over the past 20 years, its borrowing limit has increased three times faster than the volume growth, growing by 385% while volumes grew by 98%. Given this incredible borrowing, one would assume that the port functions incredibly well, but as many of us will have seen, recent global rankings have shown that's not the case. Therefore, it is evident that increasing borrowing by port authorities is unlikely to improve supply chain outcomes. Instead, we should focus on facilitating the private sector's desire to grow and expand. Port authorities should be asking, “How can we assist growth?”, rather than dictating what must be done and, at times, directly competing with private money.

Along the entire west coast of Canada, private sector terminal investment projects are waiting to proceed. The primary obstacle is most often government regulation and often port authorities' individual interests.

I commend the recent announcement by the port of Prince Rupert, which seems to have found a balanced approach. It's unlocked over $750 million in investment by collaborating with private terminals and rail operators and listening to customers.

Not to use a cliché, but the customer's always right. This is because, ultimately, the customer ends up paying. If we take that approach with our supply chain at a national level, we will succeed and potentially save a lot of taxpayer dollars.

In summary, it is crucial to get Bill C-33 right. To achieve this, you must decide whether you want port authorities to determine what is best for Canada or you want the government to have more input and provide guardrails. You must choose whether to unleash private investment or send a message that it will become more expensive to be a customer or a tenant of a Canada port authority due to increased regulatory burdens.

You must decide whether you want to potentially risk more taxpayer dollars by giving port authorities more borrowing powers, or you want to push increased collaboration and the identification of the right investment opportunities with the private sector.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today.

[Bonnie Gee, President, Chamber of Shipping]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee once again.

The Chamber of Shipping represents ocean carriers, shippers and service providers that move Canada's trade to and from international markets.

Since the introduction of Bill C-33 in November 2022, there have been some developments that should be taken into consideration with respect to the initial intent of the bill. These include the passage of Bill C-47, the budget implementation act, the introduction of Bill C-52, and the establishment of the supply chain office that will facilitate the development of a national supply chain strategy as recommended by the national supply chain task force.

Bill C-47 amends the Canada Transportation Act, which enables the collection of information from any users of the national transportation system to ensure the efficiency and proper functioning of the national transportation system. Bill C-52, introduced in June this year, seeks to further amend the Canada Transportation Act, as well as the Canada Marine Act, to enhance transparency and accountability in the setting of port fees. These bills, together with the national supply chain office, should take precedence and are foundational to strengthening ports in Canada by supporting a cohesive and transparent data strategy that will improve supply chain responsiveness and agility.

While we recognize the intent of Bill C-33 is to improve how the Government of Canada manages disruptions, we would caution that taking a piecemeal approach to legislative amendments, without a national supply chain strategy, may result in some unintended consequences and create even more of an administrative burden for our members.

My comments will focus on the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, Marine Transportation Security Act and the Canada Marine Act.

The Chamber of Shipping supports the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, as we understand the need to expedite the movement of containers identified for secondary exams to immediately address potential health, safety and security risks. We strongly urge the Canada Border Services Agency to move forward with the adoption of less intrusive technologies to expedite the examination process and reduce the costs of the exams. CBSA, as the lead agency for public safety, must be adequately resourced to support the expansion of container facilities across Canada in a timely manner.

A report recently released by the City of Delta last month associates increased container traffic to the proliferation of drugs and elements of crime in communities. The report highlights concerns with the Marine Transportation Security Act, MTSA, and the fragmented approach to port security responsibilities. Amendments to the MTSA in Bill C-33 fail to strengthen the security framework and rather focus on expanding the mandate of the act to include direct and indirect risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system and provide additional authorities to direct vessels.

Expanding the MTSA to regulate health risks that are already regulated under the maritime occupational health and safety regulations appears unnecessary. Furthermore, if there is a need to issue an emergency direction to a vessel of concern for health safety reasons, authorities exist within the Public Health Agency of Canada under the Quarantine Act. The intention and desired outcome of the expanded mandate of the MTSA require further explanation and clarification on how a health risk would be assessed and determined under the act.

We continue to raise concerns about the overlapping and duplicative regulations and authorities, particularly in the marine transportation sector. Canada takes a multi-agency approach that involves a network of departments, which often, from an industry perspective, results in confusion and inefficiencies in decision-making and direction. A country surrounded by three oceans requires a clear maritime authority that can eliminate gaps and confusion in marine safety, security and environmental protection, and strengthen Canada's global position as a trading nation.

The expanded purpose of the Canada Marine Act in the proposed amendments is supported. It will enable port authorities to maintain security and enhance the resiliency of supply chains in a manner that safeguards national security and promotes healthy competition dynamics.

With reference to the added purpose that enables port authorities to “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage, in order to promote the efficiency of supply chains”, this is only relevant to vessels with import cargoes. It should be clear that vessels typically seen at an anchorage are waiting for Canadian export cargoes to arrive and are a symptom of an inefficient supply chain. The direct management of export vessels has no direct influence on improving the efficiency of the supply chain, but they are often used to improve the fluidity of supply chains by taking partial loads.

Other amendments to the Canada Marine Act appear to address governance concerns that are only specific to Canada's largest port, and, therefore, proposed amendments in Bill C-33 may be rather onerous for smaller ports. The bill does not address the variability in the size, operations and resource capacity of port authorities, nor does it assess each authority's capability to meet their legislated mandate. These recommendations, together with the suggestion to consider the complementarities of regional ports, were also documented in the “what we heard” report during the ports modernization review and were not captured in Bill C-33.

In western Canada, the 2022 revenues for the four port authorities range from $4.8 million to $305 million. The status of the existing 17 port authorities and possible new port authorities should be reviewed.

Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I look forward to the questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 83 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss its study on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and are able to join us remotely using the Zoom application. Before we begin, I wish to inform all members of the committee that the witnesses appearing virtually have been sound-tested for today's meeting for the benefit of our interpreters and have passed the test.

Colleagues, appearing before us today by video conference are the BMI Group, Justus Veldman, managing partner; the Chamber of Shipping, Bonnie Gee, president; and GCT Global Container Terminals Inc., Marko Dekovic, vice-president, public affairs. From South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, we have Mr. Bruce McConchie, who is joining us in person.

Welcome, everyone.

We'll begin our opening remarks with you, Mr. Veldman. I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, please.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Do you think what we're trying to do here with Bill C-33 will get us to that stage?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

I have a question for Mr. Gooch.

When you were here at committee on March 23, you indicated you had prepared a letter to the then minister of transport with a number of questions on Bill C-33 and you were awaiting answers. It was three or four months prior that you had sent the letter. You've articulated some lingering questions today, and you still had some outstanding questions as recently as a month ago.

On March 23, you said that depending on the answers to those questions, it would inform your opinion as to whether Bill C-33 was “a modest improvement” or “actually...quite negative”. Where do we land now? Where are things at?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the other challenges facing ports and their infrastructure is the fact that international import-export is growing, so there is a need to grow the smaller ports because the larger ones are not going to be able to handle the growth capacity.

Places like Sarnia—Lambton, which is my riding, have a port. We have now an oversized load corridor to import and export large fabricated vessels, etc., and we have capacity to grow.

Is there anything in Bill C-33 that you feel would hurt or help the growth of smaller ports?

[Jacques Paquin]

I can add to Mr. Hamilton's answer.

Bill C‑33 introduces greater uncertainty about our borrowing capacity. In dealings with financial institutions and business partners, the last thing anyone wants is uncertainty, so this bill does not create conditions conducive to getting projects done.

[Ian Hamilton]

Thanks.

We don't believe there's anything inside Bill C-33 that improves our access to capital. There's a commitment around additional reporting, which suggests that there should be.... That additional reporting should make the process of changing borrowing limits and accessing that capital more streamlined and easier. However, the bill doesn't actually go that far. It gets to the reporting side of it.

As we talked about earlier, some of it is a financial burden or, I guess, a red-tape burden. The reality of it is that we're being asked in the bill to report as if we're a publicly traded company, but at the same time, we're not able to take advantage of any of those investment vehicles made available to publicly traded companies. I think that's the contradiction of the crossed threads.

I'll pass it over to Jacques. He has some real examples of where.... Nothing is going to help him get his projects completed.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us even though it's so late.

We've heard quite a bit about a borrowing limit process. I'm wondering if I can ask the port authorities.... I'd like to learn more about the approach that is being used to balance between borrowing money for growth and financial responsibility. Do you think there are any measures in Bill C-33 that can help support that balance?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I want to talk to Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Paquin.

You both mentioned that the bill doesn't actually do enough to encourage or facilitate integration or co-operation between port authorities. Did the bill just fail to add sections that would allow that, or does the bill actually actively prevent that from happening?

Is it an error of omission or addition? What is stopping you from integrating as much as you would like to? Are there specific changes to Bill C-33 that could be made to address those concerns?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk a bit with Mr. Gooch.

I noted Ms. Murray indicated some concerns with the Port of Vancouver. I'm sure that when they appear—I hope they're coming—they might have a different perspective.

A lot of what has happened in this bill.... There are two new board positions. One goes to local government and one goes to provincial government. These ports are located in communities, obviously, but the port of Vancouver is the most important port for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It serves the national interest.

Can you talk about perhaps the tension there and whether you see Bill C-33 actually watering down the importance of recognizing that federal ports are supposed to operate in the national interests? They do serve more than just the community in which the port facility is located.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm sorry to cut you off. I have one final question.

Does Bill C-33 do anything to address the supply chain issues and the labour dispute issues that were of concern?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's great to be back here.

Thanks to the witnesses for joining.

It's been not quite a year since I was on transport. However, the last time I was here we talked about the state of the nation with respect to ports.

The port of Vancouver was ranked 368 out of 370 in the world. The port of Montreal was ranked 311 out of 348 in the world. It was clear that the ports needed assistance from the federal government. There were concerns about supply chain disruptions and labour disputes. Bill C-33 was supposed to be addressing the gaps the ports were facing.

Let's talk about some of those things. Clearly money is going to be key in order to modernize the ports. I've heard discussion about the borrowing limit.

Why do we even need a borrowing limit? If private investors and banks are willing to invest in the projects, do we even need one?

I'll start with Mr. Gooch.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

That's significant.

When you had your annual meeting and community meeting back on May 10, unfortunately I was here in Ottawa, but I sent three members of our team.

You have great plans for the future. As part of this committee we toured the Hamilton port back in March.

I want to drill down on your comments in the opening. I recognize you had a short period of time, so you might want to elaborate on that.

You're doing great work. You've clearly explained how the current process for borrowing limits and financial flexibility and the proposed changes in Bill C-33 are insufficient. You've been waiting a year. What would be better—or nothing at all? I mean, why don't we unleash your potential?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you. Yes, it's certainly a muddied answer from the Transport Canada officials and the intent is unclear.

Switching gears, let me ask you this, Mr. Hamilton, because I'm a Hamilton MP and you're doing fantastic work. While we do claim ownership of the Hamilton port, of course we recognize it's in Oshawa and Niagara. Frankly, it's an economic driver for all of southern Ontario.

One of the questions I asked Transport Canada officials on Monday was whether they had done a cost analysis on all these different regulatory burdens, committees and changes that are being proposed in Bill C-33, and the answer was that no cost analysis had been done. Mr. Gooch mentioned that perhaps a larger port estimated that at $200,000 per year.

Do you find it surprising, or is it concerning? Have you done any analysis as to what the cost impact of this would be on HOPA?

[Amy Nugent]

What Bill C-33 proposes now is that port authorities individually go away to develop GHG targets. That doesn't make a lot of sense when every other economic sector or certainly the vast majority of economic industrial sectors in Canada are subject to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that you reference. That act requires 40% to 45% reductions by 2030 of all industrial sectors, yet we're asking ports to go away to think about and develop within a year their own GHG targets. It doesn't make sense in terms of the capacity, and I think someone referenced that, maybe Mr. Gooch, in terms of the role of consultancies.

Let's use the targets that are backed by science, by a need to hold warming to below 1.5°C, and then embed those targets for ports, albeit it's not easy, and there's a need for very significant energy and infrastructure supports to get there.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Ms. Nugent.

Following that, I'm interested in your observation that Bill C-33 should include explicit reference to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and the targets and milestone years contained within. One of the interesting things, thinking about ports, is that this act, I believe, relies on the 2005 base year as a way of defining targets.

Could you provide your thoughts on how targets should be set for port authorities and what order of magnitude reductions we should look for from port authorities over the planning duration of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act?

[Amy Nugent]

Thank you so much, Member.

I think I left off on agreeing with other witnesses on the importance of large-scale investment. I was going to say that the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States has invested $3 billion over four years to support their clean ports program.

We understand that Transport Canada has a $165-million program in development over seven years. That's a good start, and the scale needs to be much larger, in addition to the flexibility spoken to by the port authorities. The quantum of the investment by the Government of Canada at this time in terms of decarbonization simply needs to be much larger.

I wanted to say very much on what witnesses were talking about with members in these latter questions. We see the administrative burden also in the numerous reporting mechanisms and agree that those can and should be simplified. When we say that decarbonization needs to be a criterion, that's not a layer on; that's to say that all these plans such as financial reporting, business planning, borrowing plans, and climate mitigation and adaptation plans should be part of the same planning cycle, which in good business planning they are.

Finally, in terms of the investments, we know what's needed at ports. Port authorities are telling us, and other ports internationally are leading the way with shore power, electrification of ports—and of vessels themselves—near shore, alternative fuel for ocean-going vessels, and renewables. I've spoken a little bit about energy needs and needing to get into the queue.

We're seeing leadership internationally, and we're seeing ports in Canada making those efforts, including in the closed basin of the Great Lakes. We would like to support that. Bill C-33 is a good start. Of course, we think it could go much further, and that responsibility is on the shoulders of Transport Canada in the very immediate future.

Thanks very much for letting me complete those thoughts.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

As I said in my notes, our colleagues in labour who appeared the other day really heightened our concerns about the governance aspects of Bill C-33. In response to questions on Monday, Mr. Ashton made it clear that he's not looking for labour expertise and input on the boards or the view of individuals with experience in labour, because that's already built in the process today. Indeed, it happens, and if the minister wants that type of perspective on boards, all he has to do is go out and say that he wants this perspective on boards. He appoints the majority of the directors.

What Mr. Ashton said is that he's looking for active union representatives to be appointed to the board. I think that suggests there's a lot of confusion about what the role of directors is on boards. It's not to run the port. It's not to interfere with the running of the port. It's not to serve a personal or professional agenda. They owe a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation itself.

It's clear there's confusion around the role of a director on a board, which is the other reason we have a real concern about active provincial or municipal employees being appointed to boards as well. We're concerned that they would also have that confusion around what their role is.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gooch, from the standpoint of supply chain optimization, do you think the measures included in Bill C‑33 promote greater efficiency?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, many of whom are finding out about our late committee slot here. It's good to see you participating late into the evening. We appreciate it.

Certainly, my takeaway from the testimony that we've heard so far this evening is that the government actually did a pretty poor job of consulting with the most affected individuals and organizations when they were developing this legislation. It was billed as a great panacea to supply chain problems. It was going to revolutionize the way the ports operated. What we're hearing, and what we've heard from every witness so far, is that this misses the mark. We heard that, in fact, this will make things more difficult and more politicized instead of streamlining and making our ports more effective and efficient.

I want to start with Mr. Gooch.

I was interested to hear both you and Mr. Hamilton indicate that the Minister of Transport and his office have already indicated to you.... He has yet to appear to talk to parliamentarians about Bill C-33, but we are hearing from witness testimony here today that they're already willing to make amendments to the bill. I assume they're responding to port authority concerns about the prescriptive nature of.... I think you mentioned it. Can you go a little further into that?

This is the first I'm hearing about it, that the Minister of Transport and his officials.... We had officials. They didn't make this known to our committee at the last meeting either.

Could you further enlighten us on what these changes are that the minister's office has indicated they're willing to make? Quite frankly, it's news to me and members of this committee.

[Jacques Paquin, Executive Vice-President, Trois-Rivières Port Authority]

Good evening everyone, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Trois-Rivières Port Authority.

The Port of Trois-Rivières specializes in solid and liquid bulk and general cargo. Strategically located midway between Montreal and Quebec City on the St. Lawrence River, it serves the needs of many key sectors of the Canadian economy, including manufacturing, agri-food, mining and energy.

We were eager to learn about Bill C-33 when it was tabled. Although the Canada Marine Act, 1998, has created a solid network of Canadian port authorities, improvements are needed to ensure that they can keep pace with new economic, social and environmental realities. In this sense, we applaud this step taken by the government.

However, we must respectfully draw your attention to the fact that the proposed overhaul would not make it possible to achieve this objective. It would also not create the conditions necessary to better equip the Port of Trois-Rivières for current and future challenges. On the contrary, Bill C-33 and its extension, Bill C‑52, restrict the Trois-Rivières Port Authority's ability to fulfil the mission entrusted to it by the Canada Marine Act.

These bills increase the burden of accountability, resulting in substantial costs, particularly for medium-sized ports. Bill C‑33 imposes a model for consultation, but each port must have the latitude to adopt consultation mechanisms adapted to its unique environment and organization. The bill introduces changes to the appointment of board members that will weaken the governance of the Port of Trois-Rivières. The Canada Marine Act is based on the user pay principle, yet these bills will erode our ability to apply this principle. The presentations by my colleagues Ian Hamilton and Daniel-Robert Gooch speak volumes about the shortcomings of these bills.

For my part, I will be focusing on how important it is for the ports to work more closely together. Although this is a clearly stated government objective, there are absolutely no measures in Bill C‑33 to encourage these closer ties. And yet, increasing Canada's competitiveness does require greater co‑operation between ports, particularly for the St. Lawrence ports that depend on the river to reach overseas markets. None of the St. Lawrence ports alone can ensure the competitiveness of this crucial transportation axis for the Canadian economy. They are interdependent.

For Canada, the adoption of a new governance model based on collaboration would make it possible to improve administrative and operational efficiency for the benefit of all port customers. Concerted strategic planning would enhance what the port network could offer, optimize infrastructure, and expand the range of services, resulting in better positioning in both markets and supply chains. It would also make investment projects more attractive and less risky for lenders. This co‑operation could even extend to infrastructure operation and joint business development. Such an approach is fully aligned with the federal concept of trade corridors. The Government of Canada must create the right conditions for such a rapprochement, by providing clear mechanisms in the law.

Dear committee members, the Port of Trois-Rivières has been firmly rooted in its community for 141 years. The port authority's mission is to ensure that the objectives of the Canada Marine Act are met through sound management of the public infrastructure under its responsibility, while promoting commercial activity and regional and national development. If there's one thing we agree on, it's that the Canada Marine Act is in need of significant updating. Unfortunately, we feel that the proposed changes do not provide the leverage we need to accomplish our mission in line with the new reality in which we are evolving.

In creating the Canadian port authorities, the government gave itself autonomous management structures to administer its strategic ports. The Canadian port authorities are expected to operate these facilities for the benefit of the Canadian economy, to the highest environmental standards, and to be financially self-sufficient. This is what the board and management of the Port of Trois-Rivières strive to achieve every day. The last thing we need is a framework that will hinder our efforts rather than support them.

In closing, I want you to know that we share the government's objectives for modernizing the Canada Marine Act, and remain openly willing to collaborate on improving Bill C‑33.

Thank you for your attention.

[Amy Nugent, Associate Director, Marine Climate Action, Oceans North]

Thank you.

Good evening, members, and thanks for this opportunity.

My name is Amy Nugent. I'm the associate director for marine climate action with Oceans North.

Oceans North is a Canadian charitable organization and world-leading ENGO that supports marine conservation and climate action in partnership with indigenous communities and coastal communities.

I want to focus my comments today on those sections of Bill C-33 that amend the Canada Marine Act.

We would urge members to pass Bill C-33 this year. We recognize and agree with other comments that the amendments are not perfect but that they are important. With respect to climate change, we can't afford to delay.

We urge three further steps to support Bill C-33 during the course of this presentation.

One is to include the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act explicitly in subsection 43(1) of the Canada Marine Act.

The second is that the Government of Canada should enable ports to play a role up and and down the supply chain by including decarbonization as a key criterion of land use and capital planning.

Three is that the Government of Canada should develop competitiveness incentives for the maritime sector, those that are competitive with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and competitive with other Canadian sectors like the automotive sector and oil and gas.

This past summer, while many Canadian cities were blanketed in smoke, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, set new targets: a 10% clean-fuel standard and a 30% GHG reduction target by 2030. These are important signals that our industry will need to fully decarbonize by 2050. Canada's formal submission to the IMO in fact advocated for even more ambitious targets, but we do not see, and we need to see, this ambition reflected in domestic policies and supports.

We echo the comments this evening and otherwise made that ports cannot be expected to be policy or greenhouse gas emissions experts, but they do have a critical role to play. Ports across the country support some of the communities most exposed to climate risk, of course, and as a linchpin in our energy and economic supply chains, ports can also support the uptake of zero-emission fuels and new technologies.

In the “Green Shipping Corridors” report that Oceans North completed with several partners, including the Vancouver Maritime Centre for Climate, we found that each port—and this is no news to people here—has a very distinct energy context and market demands. It is not only worthwhile but it is a requirement of a zero-emission future that we provide flexible pathways on how ports get there.

In terms of Bill C-33's specific requirements for climate plans, both mitigation and adaptation, we are, as I have said, supportive. GHG reduction targets, climate adaptation plans and progress reporting on actions are all necessary. Under Bill C-33, these are stronger than existing green marine voluntary measures, but it is impractical and unnecessary to ask each of Canada's 17 port authorities to establish unique GHG targets and complementary actions. Targets are already established under Canadian law. We need to use these targets.

Transport Canada should create guidance materials and what it has committed to in terms of a marine climate action plan and do so quickly. Ports can both be required and supported to comply.

We also recommend that, under subsection 28(2) of the act, a third section be added to enable ports to engage in energy planning. Our previous two speakers have talked about the role of ports in decarbonization. Let's enable that energy planning with municipalities to ensure that these ports can meet the energy demand of and at ports as a priority.

In terms of capital investment, we also, like we've heard tonight, heard from port authorities that access to capital is a barrier to decarbonizing, and we support increased financial flexibility as well as other borrowing measures that port authorities like Hamilton-Oshawa have suggested here tonight.

Bill C-33 recognizes a role for the Canada Infrastructure Bank in terms of public financing and equity, but that could be, in practice, strengthened. Oceans North recommends, analogous to other sectors, that the Canada Infrastructure Bank establish a decarbonizing ports investment and infrastructure advisory group within the bank, which would have a mandate to assist with commercial contracts for major clean energy and infrastructure projects. As you know, the Canada Infrastructure Bank also leverages private capital.

Oceans North also recommends that the Government of Canada act aggressively—

[Ian Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority]

Thank you very much.

Good evening to the members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here both as the president and CEO of the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and as the incoming chair of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Many of my messages will be reconfirming the information you just heard from Daniel.

Canadian port authorities are unique entities within the federal family. Known as government business enterprises, we are self-sustaining for-profits with a mandate to reinvest our earnings and to operate in the public interest by enabling industry and trade.

On behalf of HOPA's team of 65 staff and on behalf of my colleagues across the country, we are very proud of the work the Canadian port authorities do and the positive impact we have on our communities, Canadian trade and the economy.

The ports modernization review was an effort to build on that success and to position ports for the future. We believe the policy intent was very well-intentioned, with goals that included optimizing supply chain and assets, fostering collaboration between supply chain actors, and enhancing governance and financial management.

We have Bill C-33 before us. Upon review, it does contain some improvements, but in many ways, Bill C-33 doesn't quite deliver on the laudable original intent.

First, here are the good things.

Bill C-33 includes measures to allow for the development of inland ports. This is important so that many ports whose supply chains are multimodal can extend into the industrial zones.

It also provides for ports to play a more active role in vessel traffic management. Our harbourmasters are experts at managing the safety, security and efficiency of harbour operations. These changes are very positive.

The bill does have some room for improvement.

We understand from our interactions with Transport Canada that there was an intent to enable ports to collaborate more closely in order to develop streamlined and efficient supply chains. This would be especially valuable in the Great Lakes context, where ports serve in a highly integrated economic region.

For example, HOPA is building an integrated port network on the Great Lakes. HOPA itself is only four years old, following the amalgamation of Hamilton and Oshawa, but we are already seeing the importance of an integrated approach as we can make smarter decisions about infrastructure investment within southern Ontario.

We don't believe that Bill C-33 actually offers any additional tools for collaborating with our port colleagues. That's a shame, because we think there are abundant reasons for us to do so.

We understand that there was a policy intent to ensure that ports were responsive to community and stakeholder interests, but the way that intent was interpreted in the bill was to establish a plethora of one-size-fits-all committees, diverting energy away from the myriad creative ways ports engage with their communities today.

We understand from Transport Canada that the government is looking at modifying the prescriptiveness of the advisory committees as well as quarterly financial reporting requirements, and we very much appreciate those initiatives.

However, our greatest concern is the bill's failure to modernize ports' financial framework. We understand that the intent of the ports modernization review was to ensure that the ports would have the optimal financial capacity to support the Canadian economy and facilitate trade.

Yet again, Bill C-33 does not actually address the fact that Canadian ports today are held back by strict borrowing limits, much lower than those of private companies or even airport authorities of a similar size. As a result, we are not able to realize the national critical infrastructure projects outlined in our business plans.

At this moment, HOPA itself has a proposal before Transport Canada to increase our borrowing limit to align with our capital plan. We are almost a year in, and at this point it is not clear when we'll ever get a reply or when the study will be completed.

Bill C-33 proposes to change the process, to initiate borrowing limit reviews on a three-year cycle, but there's no prescriptiveness around how long that process will take or what criteria it will use to determine those borrowing limits.

It should be easier as well to establish joint ventures and to enter into public-private partnerships and equity partnerships with investors, indigenous groups and others.

Following on Mr. Gooch's remarks, we disagree with the proposal in clause 105 to allow the minister to designate an authority's board chair. We believe there is no benefit to politicizing the chair selection process. Currently, the board chair is elected by the board members themselves, consistent with good governance practices.

Members of the committee, I've outlined some of the reactions to the bill, and you have received detailed submissions from ACPA and others about specific sections, so I'll close with some final, general comments.

As you are reviewing the bill, I would encourage you to remember that as self-funded government business enterprises and the stewards of working waterfronts in the communities where we live and work, port authorities are delivering great outcomes.

I would ask you to consider, for each of the bill's provisions, whether this helps port authorities do what they do best, facilitate trade and support Canadian industry while protecting the environment and the public good, or are we attempting to micromanage these highly diverse, locally grounded organizations?

If you want to help port authorities do more of what matters, I recommend focusing on the following: consider financial flexibility so port authorities can enter into new business relationships and make the necessary investments in national critical infrastructure; enable a market-driven borrowing framework; maintain our flexibility to operate with a business mindset and be responsive to our stakeholders—and please don't politicize our boards.

These are the things that will enable port authorities to continue delivering great results for Canada and Canadians.

Thank you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you, and good evening.

Committee members, port authority colleagues, good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views on Bill C‑33. Canada's port authorities have long awaited modernization of the legislative framework they operate within, as it represents the single most important means of addressing Canada's impending and tremendous infrastructure gap. As announced last year in the final report of the National Supply Chain Task Force, this gap is expected to reach an estimated $110 billion over the next 50 years.

From a supply chain resilience perspective, Canada's ports must maintain existing infrastructure, support trade growth and be leaders in decarbonization of marine—already the most energy efficient means of moving goods.

Bill C-33 includes measures to allow for the development of inland ports. It creates the opportunities for ports to play more active roles in traffic management, and it clarifies that terminals situated within a port are works for the general advantage of Canada. These are all positives.

Bill C-33 also sends clear signals that the federal government prioritizes better engagement with communities and indigenous groups, with users, and a more active role in decarbonization.

Canada's port authorities are fully aligned with these priorities, but it will require significant infrastructure investment. This is where we have some concerns not only with Bill C-33, but also with Bill C-52, but that's for another day.

The sum of $110 billion in infrastructure at seaports over 50 years is a lot of money. Canada's port authorities have sought greater financial flexibility so that ports themselves would have the capacity to be nimbler in working with private investors and lenders in major infrastructure projects.

Ports are held back by strict borrowing limits, which is much lower than what private companies or even airport authorities of similar size can borrow, so projects are not funded at the needed level in a timely manner. Amending borrowing limits must be simpler, quicker and dynamic to changing conditions.

Unfortunately, it is not clear if the borrowing limit review process envisioned by Bill C-33 will be an improvement over the process in place today, which is time-consuming and lengthy. We're still seeking clarity on how this borrowing limit review will work and how it would be an improvement.

As members of the federal family, port authorities should be able to work much more closely with officials in Transport, Finance and Treasury Board, as appropriate, on things like this. It is our sincere hope that we will be brought into the room to help them develop this framework with the added insight of experienced port authority leaders. Literally billions of dollars are at stake, and we must get this right the first time.

We ask that this committee consider a motion as part of this review that port authority reps should be an integral part of the design of how borrowing limits would be reviewed if this bill passes.

Switching gears to governance, one area of grave concern to Canada's port authorities is the potential politicization of port authority boards through two clauses in the bill, both of which we would recommend that this committee remove. Comments from transport and from labour leaders on Monday reinforced our concerns on these proposed reforms.

Clause 104 of Bill C-33 changes the eligibility of port board directors to allow for active provincial or municipal employees to serve as directors. While the text does speak to barring those whose employment would result in a conflict of interest, we believe such a conflict would exist for virtually any active employee because of where their paycheques come from. While the risk could, in theory, be mitigated by strong guidelines on what constitutes a conflict, such guidelines would not have the force of law and could be changed or ignored by a future government. The only rationale we've been given for this amendment is that it would open eligibility for more candidates. That has never been a problem for our port authorities. Their biggest governance issue is having the qualified, user-recommended director candidates they put forward appointed in a timely manner.

Our biggest concern is with the ministerial designation of the port authority board chair in clause 105. We worked with the Institute on Governance to analyze the bill, and they found that this would be “significantly disempowering to the board given the strategic role of the chair as interlocutor with the CEO and the government”.

It must be remembered that the federal government created the Canada Marine Act and the Canadian port authorities back in the late 1990s for very good reasons: to make ports nimbler, financially self-sufficient and more responsive to user and community. These were worthy goals that the federal government at the time recognized it could not achieve when it was running the airports. Why would we want to undo that now?

We understand from the Minister of Transport's office that the government is willing to make two changes to the bill that we had requested: softening the prescriptiveness of advisory committee language so that it no longer requires three specific committees, and extending the deadline for quarterly reporting from 60 days to 90 days.

We appreciate the minister's willingness to make those changes, but we also recommend that clauses 104 and 105 of the bill be removed. They risk politicizing port authorities and undoing the gains government and ports achieved together since the Canada Marine Act was first put in place in 1998.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

I want to inform all members of the committee that our witnesses appearing virtually have been sound tested for today's meeting and have all passed the test.

Colleagues, appearing before us this evening in person from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer. Welcome.

From the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, we have by video conference Ian Hamilton, president and chief executive officer. Welcome.

From Oceans North, we have by video conference Amy Nugent, associate director, marine climate action. Welcome.

We also have with us today Mr. Jacques Paquin, executive vice-president of the Trois-Rivières Port Authority. Welcome, Mr. Paquin.

I will now turn it over to Mr. Gooch for five minutes for opening remarks.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

My next question is on this bill.

Bill C-33 contains a few measures to help with the coordination and logistics at Canada's ports. Do you think these changes will make it easier for employees to do their jobs, or do you foresee it adding hurdles or blockages to the fluidity or resilience of our supply chain?

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also thank our friends who are testifying here this afternoon.

I think it's really important to clarify something, and that it be on the record: strikes are legal in Canada. Passing Bill C‑33 won't change that. We've already heard the answer from Mr. Bijimine, the Transport Canada representative. I think we really need to be cautious and not let an opinion that isn't really the right one pass.

Mr. Ashton and Mr. Murray, how would you describe your relationship with the port authorities? Do you feel that they listen to workers, or do you find it difficult to make yourselves heard? It's related to what I said at the beginning. I'd like you to help me understand better.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

It's a balance that has to be struck. I was trying to get a sense of your view on that balance, but because time is tight, I will go to another question.

This has to do with the transportation of dangerous goods regime. In metro Vancouver and places like Surrey and White Rock, for example, I know there has been concern in the past with the transportation of dangerous goods. Bill C-33 makes changes to the regime with the establishment of penalties and other changes.

From your perspective, are these changes ones that you and your members support? Are there other things that you think should be done?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Bill C-33 gives the minister too much say.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Overall, in your testimony, you've pointed out a number of deficiencies in Bill C-33. Would you agree that Bill C-33 is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation?

Perhaps both of you could comment on that.

[Robert Ashton, President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada]

Thank you.

My name is Rob Ashton. I'm the national president for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada, which represents approximately 8,000 longshore workers who work in the ports of Canada's Pacific coast, including the Vancouver Fraser, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo and Port Alberni port authorities.

Bill C-33, which purports to be legislation for marine security, favours the economic interests of corporations and businesses over the rights of workers, who are essential to the productivity of the ports. In order to maintain a balance between the interests of employers, business and workers, ILWU Canada urges Parliament to promote labour stability by ensuring that a representative of labour is included on the board of directors for each port authority and, in amending the Canada Marine Act, recognize the rights of workers.

On the composition of the board of directors, Bill C-33 proposes to increase the maximum number of directors of a port authority from 11 to 13, increase the number of directors nominated by municipalities from one to two, and increase the number of directors to be appointed by provinces, as set out in the letters patent of the port, to two.

ILWU Canada encourages the government that Bill C-33 should include an amendment in section 14 of the Canada Marine Act that would include a representative of labour in the ports.

Port authority boards of directors favour business. For example, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority board is heavily represented by directors with business interests. Catherine McLay is the former CFO of TransLink and a former senior executive of Canfor and Howe Sound Pulp and Paper. James Belsheim is the current chair of the Coal Export Terminal Operators Association, the former president of Neptune Terminals in metro Vancouver and the former director of BCMEA. Bruce Chan is the director of BC Ferries and Kinetrex Energy. He was formerly in senior positions for almost 20 years with Teekay Corporation, which is one of the world's largest marine energy, transportation, storage and production companies. Craig Munroe is a labour lawyer representing employer interests. His law firm represents port users, including the coal terminals Westshore Terminals in Vancouver and Trigon Pacific Terminals in Prince Rupert. Mike Corrigan is the CEO of Interferry Incorporated, which is a global trade association representing ferry employers. He's the former CEO of BC Ferries and a former senior manager at Westcoast Energy.

Creating a requirement that a port authority's board of directors includes a representative of labour ensures a voice for labour, which will minimize potential future disputes, such as the expansion of the Roberts Bank terminal in the port of Vancouver.

Port authorities on the west coast of the United States have representative port workers on their boards of directors and they function quite well. At the Port of San Francisco, the five-person board of commissioners includes Willie Adams, who is the international president of the ILWU, and Gail Gilman, who was a CEO and activist for the homeless and social enterprise.

At the Port of Los Angeles, the five-person board of commissioners includes Diane Middleton, who is a labour lawyer and worker advocate, and Michael Muñoz, who is an organizer for the Teamsters and an activist with the Warehouse Worker Resource Center.

The next point I want to talk about is the recognition of the rights of workers. ILWU Canada's concern is evidenced by the recent collective bargaining experience on the west coast, which was that the economic interests of the ports are eclipsing the fundamental rights of workers to engage in free collective bargaining.

Our concern is magnified by the proposal in Bill C-33 to add resilience in supply chains as a purpose of the Canada Marine Act. Supply chains are important to trade, but the economic interest in supply chains cannot be permitted to override free collective bargaining, which the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized as a fundamental freedom protected by section 2(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If Bill C-33 is amended to recognize the role of supply chains as a purpose of the Canada Marine Act, ILWU Canada submits that the CMA should also include as its purpose the recognition of free collective bargaining. The Canada Labour Code sets out this goal in the preamble to part I:

Whereas there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes;

Including the same language in the Canada Marine Act would send a message that Parliament does not intend business interests to outweigh fundamental rights.

In conclusion, labour organizations are stakeholders in port security. Amending Bill C-33 to ensure that ports are governed with worker interests as a consideration is necessary for Parliament to maintain consistency with international obligations such as the ILO and IMO port security codes, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and security legislation.

Thank you very much.

[Serge Bijimine]

There are a couple of things on how it promotes private sector investment.

In the first instance, what we are trying to do in Bill C-33 is promote the right type of private sector investment. There is a proposal in there to reduce the current threshold for review from $93 million to $10 million. I would just note that reducing the threshold does not impact our trade agreements with the EU or the U.K.

What we are trying to do is put in place a system that allows more of these projects to be scrutinized to make sure that they meet our national economic security objectives, given the fact that ports are strategic enablers of the Canadian economy. That's the rationale behind that.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

To switch gears, maybe you can elaborate a bit on how Bill C-33 promotes private sector investment and involvement in the transportation sector, particularly in response to the ports modernization review. One of the objectives there is unleashing the potential of the private sector.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Strahl talked a little bit about anchorages. He presented what I think could be characterized as the view of the port authorities, which is that they need more room to park vessels when there's congestion.

I'd like to present a contrary view, that of communities, particularly communities in the southern Gulf Islands, which have seen incredibly ecologically sensitive areas very close to their communities turned into industrial parking lots. I know that this is a concern you're familiar with.

Does Bill C-33 include provisions that allow the minister to intervene on behalf of communities and prevent those areas from being used as industrial parking lots by shipping companies?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you for being here with us today.

I'm interested in the comment on introducing this bill, Bill C-33. You talked about the core of this being efficient, safe, secure, resilient supply chains and transportation, but you also mentioned the port contributions to climate objectives. I would love to hear what form that would take.

Has there been any discussion or preparation to advance the transition from fossil fuel power, for ships that are anchored, to clean power through the provision of clean power at the port? Also, is there any work, any discussion internationally or through Transport Canada—or in this bill—that could lead to a greater use of cleaner energy, as opposed to bunker C fuel in the vessels that come into the port and use its facilities?

[Serge Bijimine]

I'll mention a few things in the bill that benefit the supply chain, and then I'll talk about the advisory committees.

One key element of Bill C-33 is around data. There are two parts to it. One part is data for operational efficiency, so, for the first time, ports will now have access to data for operational efficiency. The second part is data for visibility. Having that data will allow the ports to better plan and manage traffic and ensure the fluidity of the port operations. That is a very crucial part of it, combined with other measures that we're hoping pass through this bill to give those ports additional access and power to help traffic beyond their current waters. I would say those are really key things that will be helpful.

On the advisory committees, we also think that, at the same time that ports are focused on supply chain efficiency and fluidity, the input of the community should be taken into account. The current bill proposes that three committees be established: a local committee, a stakeholder committee and an indigenous committee. We really think having those three committees at the table, along with a focus on supply chain efficiency and fluidity, is the right approach to take. The port has numerous stakeholders, numerous shareholders—small-s shareholders—and making sure that all those folks are on board as these activities start taking place will be the right way to ensure that it's done successfully.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

Let me pick up on the discussion of supply chains. We all know the importance of the fluidity of supply chains to our economy. We saw that particularly during the pandemic and following the pandemic. That has an impact on prices for consumers. It's lost opportunities for our economy and lost opportunities for our farmers.

My friend and colleague mentioned 21 recommendations of the national supply chain task force. By the way, 13 of those were immediate. That was 21 months ago. I know you've indicated that some of those are included within Bill C-33.

Maybe you could explain exactly how new advisory panels, new regulations and new powers for the minister actually benefit supply chains and not just Ottawa bureaucrats.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Is there a legal opinion to back this up?

I ask because I consulted the documentation. It seems to me that there was an analysis of the effects of Bill C‑33 on charters, but that aspect wasn't mentioned anywhere. So I was wondering why not.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being with us.

Mr. Bijimine, earlier, in your opening remarks, you mentioned that you were concerned about safety, but also about the fluidity of the supply chain. You also said that Bill C‑33 was intended to improve things, in particular by giving the minister more powers to intervene in this area.

Has the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice or any other department done an analysis to determine whether the additional powers that the provisions would confer on the minister could have consequences or have an impact on the workers' right to strike or their right to free association?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

I would appreciate that.

Bill C-33, in a few different places throughout the bill, adds reporting requirements on ports. What kind of data is the government looking for and how might it be used?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Is it fair to say that of these 21 recommendations from that particular report, a fair number have been incorporated into Bill C-33?

[Serge Bijimine]

Sure. Thank you for that. That is a great question.

The supply chain task force report came out last October, I believe, and had a series of recommendations, 21 recommendations in total. I think one in particular was around the ports and the role they play in the supply chain. When we received the report, we were right in the middle of writing our “What we heard” report for the port modernization review, which had started back in 2018, so what we did is that we incorporated elements of the supply chain task force report and basically came out with another report that laid out five key streams of work.

The first one was supporting the competitiveness of Canada's economy by facilitating the movement of goods, and this bill attempts to do that. The second was strengthening relationships with indigenous peoples and local communities, and this bill attempts to do that as well. The third was around promoting environmentally sustainable infrastructure and operations, and this bill attempts to do that as well. It is also enhancing port safety and security and optimizing governance and financial management.

All that is to say that the work we're doing through Bill C-33 is really a down payment on the upcoming national transportation supply chain, and the national supply chain task force report is a report that we often use to feed the policies, regulations and strategy we're hoping to develop in the coming months.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

We had certainly hoped that Minister Rodriguez would be available to lead us off on this study of Bill C-33. We understand he's coming much later. Unfortunately, he's not here to lead off the discussion, but we appreciate the officials' being here.

Obviously, our concern with the bill is that it appears to—and it does—increase Ottawa's influence in the port system, specifically with the minister's appointment of the chair, which used to be done by the board of directors at the ports. That's now been taken over by the minister, so it's a bit of an “Ottawa knows best” attitude here.

Part of the concern I have heard from port users, port authorities and others impacted by this legislation has to do with the made-in-Ottawa solutions. It's a solution in search of a problem, to be quite honest. I'm sure we'll get into that more as we debate this and propose amendments and critiques over the next number of meetings.

I want to specifically get into some of the issues at the port of Vancouver. One primary issue that has been raised, or an issue that has become an increasing concern, is the lack of available anchorages for marine vessels coming into and going out of the port to safely anchor and wait for their turn to load or unload. They use anchorages and because of backups in the supply chain, they're using some anchorages that haven't been used all that often over the last number of decades.

This bill really does provide, in my view, an opportunity to shut down some of those anchorages. As we're expanding port capacity and looking to increase vessel traffic to improve economic outcomes for Canadians and to improve on the supply chain, this bill provides a mechanism to shut down anchorages. This is kind of like building a bigger shopping mall and reducing the parking lot. That's how it's been described to me.

Why does Bill C-33 provide for more gatekeepers to shut down more anchorages when, in fact, we need every anchorage that's available? Some are suggesting we need even more.

[Serge Bijimine]

That's perfect. Thank you.

I did hear someone from the committee say they will go easy on us, so we're looking forward to that.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. You did a good job when you introduced the people accompanying me and who will be able to answer questions.

Today we are basically going to talk about Bill C‑33, the Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act.

Bill C-33 is the combination of two mode-specific reviews that were launched by Transport Canada in 2017 and 2018. The first one was the Railway Safety Act review, and the second one was the ports modernization review. With both reviews completed, and lessons learned from the past year, including the pandemic, we are positioned to modernize the tools used by government, railways and ports.

As you said, the bill contains reforms to six acts: the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act.

With respect to the proposals in this bill that are aimed at strengthening the rail safety and security regime in Canada, these proposals are meant to do a few things: first, provide Transport Canada with the explicit authority to consult with any interested party on a proposed rule; second, foster the testing of new technologies that would serve to enhance the efficiency of the rail network; third, introduce compliance tools to the regulatory regime; fourth, which is something quite minor but important, broaden the definition of safety to include security; fifth, allow for the introduction of transportation security clearances in the rail sector, which already exist in the aviation sector but we want to bring them into the rail sector; lastly, prohibit dangerous or unruly behaviour on board trains or at stations and prohibit unlawful interference with railway operations.

That's what the rail safety and security side of the bill is meant to do.

On the marine side—ports, in other words—reforms would provide enhanced tools to improve governance and operational performance, and to support a secure marine transportation environment.

In 1998, the Canada Marine Act established the current Canada Port Authorities governance structure. Bill C‑33 presents the first opportunity in 25 years to reform Canada's ports system to meet the needs of Canadians today and in the future.

Specifically, the bill proposes six changes. The first is to reposition ports as strategic gateways critical to the efficiency of national supply chains and transform them into data and analytical hubs. The second is to modernize tools to enhance the minister's ability to consider the impact of port investments on Canada's gateways. The third is to enhance port responsiveness to, and management of, local issues. The fourth is to advance the reconciliation agenda with indigenous peoples. The fifth is to buttress Canada's ambitious climate change commitments. Lastly, the sixth is to support a resilient transportation system that is safe and secure.

Over the last few years, Canadians have experienced supply chain challenges and the associated economic impacts first-hand, including from the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme climate events and changes in trade patterns. These repeated stresses have tested Canada's transportation system and have underscored the importance of supply chain resiliency going hand in hand with system resiliency.

Bill C-33 proposes to serve as a first step—almost a down payment—for a national transportation supply chain strategy.

In closing, I would like to note that, through this bill, the government is committed to improving the competitiveness and efficiency of Canada's supply chains and advancing a transportation system that is safe, secure and resilient.

Thank you.

I'm happy to take any questions.

[Graeme Hamilton, Director General, Traveller, Commercial and Trade Policy, Canada Border Services Agency]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee this afternoon.

As introduced, I am Graeme Hamilton, director general, traveller, commercial and trade policy, at the Canada Border Services Agency. I am here to speak specifically to the changes to the Customs Act that are included in Bill C-33.

I am joined this afternoon by my colleague, Cathy Toxopeus, who is director general of the transformation, planning and projects directorate.

I will perhaps turn it over to Mr. Bijimine, who will provide remarks on behalf of the entire panel, if that is acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 81 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss its study on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act, and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person and joining us using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, appearing before us for the first hour today, we have, from the Canada Border Services Agency, Graeme Hamilton, director general, traveller, commercial and trade policy; and Cathy Toxopeus, director general, transformation, planning and projects. Welcome to you both.

From the Department of Transport, we have Mr. Serge Bijimine, assistant deputy minister, policy; Lisa Setlakwe, assistant deputy minister, safety and security; Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; and Stephen Scott, director general, rail safety. Welcome.

Witnesses, welcome, on behalf of the committee.

We will dive right into it, and I will turn the floor over to Mr. Hamilton for his opening remarks.

You have five minutes.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, September 21, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Langley—Aldergrove to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-33.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Division deemed demanded and deferred

It being 4:35 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Housing.

The hon. deputy House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, on July 6, 2013, a Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway train derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, killing 47 people in one of the worst rail tragedies in our history.

Philippe Falardeau made a documentary entitled Ceci n'est pas un accident or this is not an accident. This disaster could have been predicted as a result of government policies that were initially introduced by the Conservatives but then maintained by the Liberals.

Unfortunately, Bill C-33 does not fix anything. Self-inspections, the lack of a two-driver requirement and the absence of requirements for brakes on these vehicles mean that a tragedy like this could happen again.

Are the Liberals open to amendments in committee to ensure that this type of tragedy never happens again?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened in 2013, and Bill C-33 was introduced in 2023, 10 years later. Ten years passed between those two events, and the Liberals were in power for eight of those 10 years.

Why is it that, even in urgent situations where people are in danger, the Liberal MO is always to put things off indefinitely, introduce a bill that is too weak and spout a bunch of empty rhetoric only to sit on its laurels and justify doing nothing for another 10 years?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to speak in this venerable House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, which, for those who do not know, is in downtown west Toronto.

I am here to talk on Bill C-33. The formal title is very long, but I am going to say it. It is an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, which is being called the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

It is a really long title, but basically it is a bill that would modernize a number of bills that impact our supply chain here in Canada. It would enhance our competitiveness as a nation, encourage more investment, allow for more input from local and indigenous stakeholders, improve environmental sustainability, integrate more environmental considerations and so many other things.

The global economy continues to be in flux as we have a war going on in Europe, which is impacting the world, and inflation, which we are all trying to tackle, and as there continues to be global power shifts. As all of these things continue to dominate what is happening in our world, it is absolutely imperative that we strengthen our internal economy and do all we can to be more resilient within our country. Strengthening our supply chains is one key way for us to be able to do this.

Of course, there are so many other ways to do this. There are some members in the House who know I am a huge supporter of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and harmonizing regulations, and it is one of the other ways we could build resiliency into our economy and grow our GDP, at no to low cost, but that is not what I am here to speak about.

I will continue to focus on Bill C-33. With whatever time I have left, I am going to focus on three key things. One is what this bill is proposing to change and why. The second thing I want to talk about is why this bill is important for the residents of my downtown west Toronto riding of Davenport, and third, I will talk about why these changes are super important for the Canadian economy.

On what this bill is proposing to change and why, we have spoken a lot about this, not only today but also on other days we have debated this bill, so I am not going to be saying anything new, but over the last few years, Canadians have experienced supply chain challenges and the associated economic impacts first-hand.

Government and industry have also struggled to adapt in the face of disruptions, and there have been many. We have had the pandemic. We have had extreme climate events, which are not going away. This is going to be the new normal. We have had changes in trade patterns, which will continue. We have also had Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has had huge implications agriculturally on energy supply and many other things.

All of these numerous stresses have exposed limitations and weaknesses in our national transportation system, which has been absolutely the backbone of our economy. It has also underscored the importance of supply chain resiliency going hand in hand with system efficiency.

As a result, our federal government has engaged in a number of reviews and talked to a number of stakeholders and industry leaders, and we are proposing a number of changes to improve our supply chain resiliency across our country. One of the many changes we are proposing is Bill C-33.

Bill C-33 would do the following: amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and rail transportation systems operate; remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; expand Canada's port authorities' mandate over traffic management; position Canada's ports as strategic hubs to support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth; improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and modernize provisions on rail safety, security and transportation of dangerous goods.

All of these measures would also support the flow of essential goods and would implement tools to mitigate risks and impacts of future supply chain challenges. Taken together, all these measures would improve the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and support operations that are safe, secure, efficient and reliable.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-33. In terms of the second part of why this bill is important for the residents of Davenport, colleagues may find it surprising that, in my 12-square-kilometre riding in downtown west Toronto, I have three separate railway tracks. One is owned by Canadian Pacific and the other two used to be CN lines, but they are now owned by the local regional transit system. In any case, these three lines are part of our lives in my riding.

The first reason I care about this bill is that safety is top of mind for Davenport residents. We know that lots of materials and chemicals are being transported by the CP line that is running through this riding. This bill actually gives the Minister of Transport the ability to better protect Davenport residents. There are a number of different provisions that allow him to do that. It also gives the minister the flexibility and agility to respond to any changing situation along the railway lines, whether this is due to flooding or any other climate impacts, extreme weather events or other exceptional circumstances.

The other thing the bill would do is allow our government an increase in flexibility to quickly mitigate security threats to supply chains and to further enhance resiliency of our supply chains during times of emergency. That would also enhance the safety in my riding of Davenport; safety is important.

I will also say that a big issue for my riding is learning to live right on top of, not just next to, these railroads. A lot of the provisions that we are changing have not been updated in over 50, 60 or 70 years. The act will be changing provisions in a way that will allow our government to be a lot more responsive and a lot more agile in making changes, ensuring that we are considering the public and other stakeholders who will inform decisions around our rail safety regime and that it is more up to date and reflects the realities of today.

Maybe the last thing I would say is that, in my riding of Davenport, I have a lot of wonderful businesses. Any time there is an issue with ports or railroads, the businesses are impacted, and I hear about it if there is a hiccup in any way. When we had issues with the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver, I definitely received calls from a lot of worried businesses in my riding. A huge stress for businesses is when railway lines are not running as efficiently as they could be. They are absolutely elated that we are introducing this bill and that we will be making a number of improvements.

Why are these changes important for the Canadian economy? I think we have heard a lot about that. I will add maybe four things from my perspective.

The movement of people and goods is absolutely critical for our economy. Ensuring that our ports and our railroads are working as efficiently as possible is critical for us. The more reliable they are, the more it is going to encourage national and international investment in our railroads, our supply chains and our ports, which we absolutely need at this point in time. That is the second reason. Businesses do not like surprises. They like everything running on time, so having these changes that are being proposed is absolutely vital.

I will also say something that comes directly from Davenport residents, who have said, “Julie, I had a business. I didn't think about expanding.” However, more reliable ports and railway lines will actually allow businesses in my riding and right across Canada to update or expand. That will be really helpful to us and to our economy, both now and in the future. Overall, as I mentioned initially, we should be doing all we can to create a more reliable and resilient internal economy.

I will conclude by saying that, over the last few years, we have experienced a lot of supply chain challenges. They have had huge impacts on our economy. That is why we have introduced Bill C-33 in order to make sure we start addressing those issues. Our government will always take concrete action to strengthen our supply—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-33, legislation that would amend several acts and pertains to Canada's ports and railways. The legislation was initiated following reviews by the government, beginning in 2017 and 2018, respecting railways and ports, as well as the issuance of the final report of the government's national supply chain task force.

It is no secret that we have serious supply chain issues in Canada that have been exacerbated under the Liberals. After eight years of the Liberals, is it any surprise that our supply chains have worsened? Of course it is not, because after eight years of the completely incompetent Liberal government, everything in Canada is broken. Housing is no longer affordable. We have seen 40-year high inflation, an unprecedented spike in violent crime and a supply chain crisis. That is what we get after eight years of the Liberals. It is a total and utter disaster for Canada.

Consistent with that, what we have from these incompetent Liberals is the bill before us, which they have touted as the solution to modernizing Canada's transportation systems and strengthening Canada's supply chains. The best that can be said of the bill is that it is a missed opportunity.

Do not take my word for it. Take the words of key stakeholders. For example, CP Rail characterized Bill C-33 as a whole bunch of nothing. What a ringing endorsement from one of our largest national rail lines. This is in the face of what the government's own task force on supply chains characterized as a breaking point when it comes to the transportation supply chain system in Canada.

As bad as a whole bunch of nothing is, Bill C-33 is likely worse than a whole bunch of nothing because, in fact, the bill would likely exacerbate supply chain backlogs as a result of more red tape, more fees and more government. That is the position of the Chamber of Shipping and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Indeed, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities said in respect of Bill C-33 that what we do not need is more government. However, that is precisely what we would get with Bill C-33: more government, in the way of more red tape, additional regulatory burdens and duplicative reporting requirements for our courts.

Last March, when the then minister of transport, the member for Mississauga Centre, spoke to the bill at second reading, he claimed that it would reduce cost pressures, thereby making life a little more affordable for everyday Canadians. How can the member for Mississauga Centre, the failed and now former minister, square that assertion with the reality that is Bill C-33? It means more red tape, more regulatory burdens and more reporting requirements, the combination of which is going to increase costs that will be passed down to everyday Canadians. They are new costs in the face of a cost of living crisis manufactured as a result of the disastrous policies of the government, from out-of-control inflationary deficit spending to carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, which are increasing the cost of everything, including essentials. Now we have this.

For this bill, the key objective of which is to purportedly address supply chain challenges, more can be said about what is not in the bill than about what is in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that provides for railway service reliability. There is nothing to address long-standing challenges between our railways and shippers. There is nothing in the bill that provides for port authorities to make decisions based on what is in the national economic interest and the best interest of supply chains. There is nothing in the bill that addresses issues of labour disputes and the impact that such disputes may have upon supply chains.

Last summer, in July, we saw the very significant cost of labour disruption with a weeks-long strike at federally regulated B.C. ports. It was a strike that was completely unavoidable. It was a strike that was entirely foreseeable for those with regard for a simmering labour dispute once before.

Where were these incompetent Liberals? They were asleep at the switch until it was too late, and there was a significant cost in major disruptions to workers and businesses. Each day the strike lasted, there was nearly $1 billion in trade that was tied up and impacted. It cost the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. It was a half-a-trillion-dollar hit to our economy, not to mention the damage it did to Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. That is what we get with these incompetent Liberals. In the bill, predictably, there is nothing to address situations like this, and it is not just the strike that happened last summer. We saw other strikes. We saw other blockades. We have seen inaction and indifference from these Liberals.

While the bill would do nothing to address supply chain issues, despite the rhetoric of the government, it would provide for more Ottawa in the way it would centralize decision-making. It would add to port authority boards representatives from government entities, diluting representation from port tenants. That means that the suppliers and shippers, who know best about supply chain challenges, will have diluted control, all while increasing control for Liberal-appointed, Ottawa, know-nothing bureaucrats.

Then there are advisory boards that the bill would provide for that are poorly defined in their powers, but they could have the impact of impeding decisions of port authorities to grow, expand and modernize, which is exactly the opposite of what is needed to address real supply chain issues. Then we have the minister appointing chairs of port authorities, as the minister said, to align port authorities with decisions of the Liberal government instead of what their mandate ought to be, which is to advance the national economic interests of Canada.

This is a badly thought-out bill, a badly drafted bill. The Liberals ignored much of the feedback they received during the consultation process. The appropriate thing for them to do would be to scrap the bill, go back to the drawing board and get it right.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that the member opposite has a tremendous beard, and I mean that with all sincerity. He has been growing it over the summer and it looks “Tom Mulcair-esque”, but I know he will not appreciate that comment as much.

The government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation this week that are non-cost in nature; they are legislative reforms. One was Bill C-33, but there was also Bill C-49, which is about enabling tremendous economic opportunities in the energy sector in Atlantic Canada.

Has my hon. colleague opposite had the opportunity to talk to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester or the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame about whether they are in support of this bill? This is what the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for, as is the premier of Nova Scotia. Has he had a conversation with them?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to debate the important issues that Canadians face.

Before I jump into the subject matter of Bill C-33, I would note that yesterday represented the second anniversary of the 2021 election. In that regard, I would note my deep appreciation to the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for the opportunity to continue serving them in this place, to be their voice in Canada's Parliament. A big thanks goes to my wife, Danielle, my kids and my whole family for their support, as well as my staff, volunteers, campaign team and everybody it takes to make elections happen.

It is interesting that the Liberal Prime Minister, in the course of the last election, promised that if he were elected with a minority, he would call an election after two years. That is another broken promise by a Liberal who cares more about power than he does anything else. He also promised, I would note, after which I look forward to jumping into the substance of Bill C-33, that he would not join a coalition with the NDP, despite Conservatives suggesting that this would be an inevitable result. They laughed at us then. We turned out to be the ones who were telling the truth, and the Liberals were exposed for once again misleading us and holding on to power at any cost.

As we get into the debate on Bill C-33, once again we have before us a bill where, if we read the preamble, there is very little to disagree with. I have said this often when it comes to Liberal bills. The Liberals are great at making announcements, proposing things and saying they are doing things, but when we dig into the substance of what we have before us, it certainly falls short.

We have a bill that touches on a whole host of different things when it comes to our rail sector and our ports, including some of our deep sea ports. There are seven acts that would be affected. In Canada, as a country, both the rail and sea transport sectors are absolutely fundamental to the success of our nation. We have to be able to transport our goods and resources, whether the raw resources that come from the ground or the value-added resources in every segment of the economy that are produced everywhere across our nation. We need to have a transport sector that we can trust and that is reliable, safe and secure and that not only Canadians can trust, but also, when it comes to investment, our customers around the world can look at our system and know and trust that it is doing the right thing.

Concerns have been highlighted. Transport ministers seem to fall at an astonishing rate. In 2017, a few transport ministers ago, the now-retired Marc Garneau, who was then transport minister, launched the statutory review of the Railway Safety Act. Over the course of the last number of years, we have seen different steps in that process. It was in October of last year that the previous transport minister received the final report from the national supply chain task force; now we have this bill before us. However, when it comes to whether this bill deals with the concerns that have been highlighted, we are increasingly hearing that it does not, pure and simple.

I would note that one of the first issues that I dealt with, as did many of my colleagues after we were elected in 2019, was the rail strike just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were blockades and protests that had virtually ground our economy to a halt. In fact, it would have been very interesting to see what the impact on the economy of the Liberals' mismanagement of that situation would have been. We did not have the opportunity to see direct impacts of that. Of course, we know that in the aftermath, we immediately went into the COVID pandemic, and our focus for the last number of years obviously changed dramatically.

The bill we have before us would change aspects of railway safety, including security. There are prohibitions and some changes to the way that things would be classified. We need to ensure that railway companies are able to address security and, when it comes to ensuring that appropriate clearances for the staff of rail companies are provided, as well as that there are continual reviews.

I would just note that when it comes to the review portion, it is great to ask for statutory reviews but I am sure I am not alone, like many in this place, who would note that statutory reviews rarely happen when they are scheduled to. I will be asking the Library of Parliament to go through and look at all of the statutory reviews that are currently missing.

It is great to talk about a statutory review, but it is nothing more than boilerplate language. It does not do much good if one does not actually plan to review it.

I believe that some of these things are laudable in their intent but when it comes to the substance of whether they accomplish it, many Canadians do not realize that railway companies actually have their own police forces because of some of the history associated with the importance of that as a sector of our economy and the growth of our country. Some of the dynamics of that and, in some cases, legislation that is almost as old as the country itself needs to be reflective of present-day reality. These are important questions that have to be asked when it comes to committee.

This is the sort of bill that truly takes a huge amount of time to get into some of the substance so I will go very high-level here.

One of the challenges that has been brought to my attention is that there are two things that take place. One is that Ottawa gets a whole lot more authority which, interestingly enough, the Bloc supports, which is an irony, I would suggest.

At the same time, they are downloading a whole bunch of the work to port authorities that do not necessarily have the resources to accomplish the objectives that will be brought forward if this bill is passed unamended.

What I fear will be the case is that we will have more red tape and more bureaucracy slowing down the decision-making process when it comes to our ports. We know how essential that is. It was only months ago that we had a strike at the Port of Vancouver where it, certainly in western Canada, ground our economy virtually to a halt. I believe it was half a billion dollars a day in economic impact and it will take months to clear the backlog.

When it comes to products, whether it is dried commodities like agriculture, whether it is oil or the carbon-based products that are essential for so many economies around the world, which Canada has a strong record of being able to provide, we have to make sure we do this right.

I think that it is not the answer to increase bureaucracy and download responsibility without understanding the impacts that this will bring about on the people who are actually responsible for making sure that our economy is moving. I say “moving” very specifically.

I would bring up an example that emphasizes my point.

Today in question period, the Minister of Health brought up natural health products. I know all of us in this place have heard a lot about natural health products over the course of the summer.

The unfortunate trend is that this government is desperate to make changes on things that do not actually help, especially when one sees the irony that the government is making a whole bunch of regulatory and bureaucratic changes to natural health products that nobody asked for and certainly very few people I have spoken to, whether in the sector or outside it, support, yet it is pushing this down the throats of small business owners, of Canadians and one of Canada's most trusted sectors.

That same health minister supports the selling of hard drugs on our streets.

I bring this up because it highlights the irony that one has a government that seems to be quick to propose things, to look for ways that it can increase the size of government, the inefficiencies associated with that and the red tape that impacts the ability for the economy to function, but when it comes to actually delivering, it fails and its priorities always seem to be in the wrong place.

The questions I have asked certainly need to be addressed at committee. I hope that serious amendments can be made so that we do not allow that same trend to slow down a sector that is already being slowed down by a Liberal government that is simply out of touch.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑33 comes at the end of a series of initiatives taken by the Canadian government over the past six years. Beyond the various committees that could have addressed the matter in previous Parliaments, let us consider the following initiatives.

In 2018, there was the ports modernization review. In 2022, there was the final report of the supply chain task force, which was tabled in the House in October of the same year.

The objectives of Bill C-33 are as follows: to eliminate systemic barriers in order to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; to expand the mandate of Canadian port authorities in relation to traffic management; to position Canada's ports as strategic transportation hubs; to improve the government's understanding of ports and port operations; and to modernize provisions relating to rail safety, security and the transportation of dangerous goods. I will focus mainly on that last point.

Bill C-33 contains a series of proposals affecting the following federal acts: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Customs Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.

First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be referred to committee, since a number of improvements could be proposed. We will have to be responsible and trustworthy enough to undertake the legislative and regulatory tightening required for the amendments that are to be debated.

A decade has passed since the unspeakable tragedy in Lac‑Mégantic that claimed the lives of 47 people and left an entire community forever scarred. For people in Quebec, this tragedy is an unavoidable part of any conversation about rail safety, which, as I said, is the subject of my remarks.

Certainly the supply chain element is interesting, and there is plenty to say about that. I want to focus on rail safety without necessarily tying it to the supply chain issue. There have been recommendations, round tables, consultations, reviews and audits. That all served to inform people, but none of it can replace what really matters, which is a regulatory and legislative framework.

In all honesty, we have to acknowledge that the work that was done in 2017-18, the many Transportation Safety Board reports that identified recurring safety issues and deficiencies, and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's observations on the matter all sent a clear signal that we need to study Bill C‑33.

I have said it before and I say it all the time: Words matter. Using vocabulary that is clear, and prescriptive if necessary, is already a step in the right direction. There is so much data and benchmarking available that I will be the first to admit that guiding regulatory policy in this sector is a huge undertaking. Companies have a duty to help us help them.

In 2022, there were 225 main-track accidents in Canada, 18% more than the 10-year average for this type of track, which is the rail network's main artery. The country's largest rail union is speaking out about fatigue, working under pressure and understaffing in the sector. These problems are addressed in Bill C‑33.

Among our neighbours to the south, elected officials are pointing the finger at the role of precision scheduled railroading, known as PSR. It is a railway management system created by none other than Hunter Harrison. If members have read anything about Lac‑Mégantic, they will recognize Mr. Harrison's name. PSR was introduced at Canadian National in 1998 and at Canadian Pacific in 2012. It has been the favoured management system of most major rail companies here and in the U.S. for more than a decade.

The objectives of PSR, according to its infamous creator, are to provide frequent and reliable service, control costs, optimize assets and operate safely. He even added that there should be fewer employees, but they should be made to work harder.

In practical terms, it is a management approach designed with maximum profitability as its priority. This system aims to put longer, faster trains on the rails more quickly in order to keep operating costs as low as possible, all with fewer staff. The average length and weight of CN trains have tripled since 1990. This is directly linked to the implementation of this PSR system.

When unveiling financial results in 2018, CP emphasized the importance of PSR. It was important for profitability. When Le Devoir analyzed the company's annual reports in 2023, it discovered that CP's profit margins shot up almost 500% between 2012 and 2022. I just want to remind everyone that the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy took place in 2013. Furthermore, 2012 was no ordinary year in CP's history. That was the exact year Mr. Harrison, the creator of PSR, joined the company.

Why am I addressing rail safety from this angle? I am talking about it because the pursuit of profitability using PSR management is the fraternal twin of the culture of self-regulation that has prevailed in Canada for far too long. The power to change things involves the ability to exercise that power, which is regulatory. Of course, we need to protect the supply chain, workers and remote communities. However, we need to understand that it would be a mistake to continue with self-regulation or to encourage more self-regulation in the rail industry.

I want to quote an article from La Presse on this very subject. It states: “Ottawa sets guidelines for the companies, which develop their own security system and usually do their own inspections.” That means that the companies do everything. The article goes on to say, “According to experts, the problem is that, in recent years, Transport Canada has resolutely become a department with an economic mandate, and it is neglecting its safety mandate.”

The article quotes one source as saying, “There were even memos from the minister reminding us that we were an economic department...In short, we were there not to stop trains but to keep them running.” That quote is from 2013, the year the Auditor General of Canada published her audit on rail safety at Transport Canada, the year of the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy.

In 2022 and 2023, the supply chain got a lot of attention, proving that the railway is vitally important to the economy. To not engage in some thoughtful deliberation on the potential of the railway and the best safety practices in terms of monitoring, reporting and record-keeping would, in my opinion, be a missed opportunity and an irresponsible choice.

I believe that the long-awaited Bill C‑33 has some progressive aspects that could be improved upon in committee. Generally speaking, the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion in the ports, the creation of financial penalties for safety breaches, the strengthening of safety management systems, and the prohibitions on interfering with or damaging railway structures or operations are measures that the Bloc Québécois welcomes.

As elected members, we have a responsibility to ensure that members of the public know they are safe in areas where railway activity is present, not just for now or in a week, but for the long term.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his warm congratulations, and as this is my first time at providing the Thursday statement, I would also like to say that I look forward to working with him and the other House leaders to advance legislation.

This afternoon we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-33, which deals with strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada.

I actually have some good news for my hon. colleague. When it comes to affordable housing, debate on the the bill we introduced today on eliminating the GST for rental housing will begin at noon on Monday. I am sure he is very much looking forward to that. It was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. We will continue with this legislation on Tuesday as well, and I hope we can count on the support of all parties in this House to advance it for Canadians to bring down the cost of housing and the cost of groceries.

On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-49, amending the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday, September 28, shall be an allotted day, which I am sure the member will be pleased about.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague just made addressing some of the challenges that are faced, certainly when it comes to Bill C-33.

There are some significant trade challenges that the prairie provinces are facing when it comes to getting our commodities to market. I know some of the trade challenges are starting to make headline news.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague from Regina—Lewvan would be able to comment on that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

The parliamentary secretary asked a great question about how we could fix this bill once it went to committee. Being on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the bill was very interesting to me, especially being from Saskatchewan where we are landlocked. The railways are an important mode of transportation for our commodities. It is a bit disappointing that this has missed the mark in improving the efficiency of the railway system and ports.

I will talk about agriculture for most of this speech, because it is interconnected between agriculture and our supply chains in our transportation system.

Like most of us did, I had a lot of time this summer to go around the riding and visit folks. I was able to get the member for Thornhill out to Regina this summer, and we got her on a combine. We were combining lentils just outside of Regina. We were also able to get the chief superintendent from the Depot Division, F division, on a combine as well. That day we were combining durum.

What these all have in common is that once they go from the field to the combine to the bins, the next step is to get them to the port. That is the transportation system we have in the country.

The thing that happens so often, almost like clockwork every winter, is a slowdown of the trains because they cannot pull as many cars because of the cold weather. We really need to focus on this and have more options available to get our commodities to market. We have heard this time and time again from producers across Saskatchewan and the Prairies.

I know my friend from Red Deer—Lacombe would hear many of the same complaints from producers and from the agriculture sector as a whole. They are very good at getting their yields off the field; the problem is getting them to port.

My colleague, the member for Lethbridge said it very well, that one of the aspects we were looking to strengthen is the efficiency of the port system. Not being able to load grain cars and ships in the rain in Vancouver is a substantial problem. This could have been addressed in this legislation to strengthen it.

Bill C-33 would amend seven existing laws, including the Canadian Marine Act, the Customs Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

My colleague from Lethbridge talked about the ever-increasing bureaucracy and red tape that was added in this current iteration of Bill C-33. We do not need more red tape when it comes to our ports. I think everyone in this chamber would agree that we have to be more efficient at transporting our goods. Canada is an exporting economy. We see that now more than ever in Saskatchewan.

We have some big players in Saskatchewan. The head office of Viterra in Saskatchewan. I talked to its CEO and he put it very clearly that we needed more efficiency at the Port of Vancouver. We did talk about this bill a little this summer when we ran into each other. He was looking forward to seeing what was in it. I had a chance to give him a call the other day and he was quite disappointed. In fact, many stakeholders have been disappointed in what this bill has provided so far.

Some of the people who were not consulted on the bill were CP Rail, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, Canadian Marine Pilots, Western Grain Elevator Association, Port Nanaimo, Canadian Canola Growers, Global Container Terminals and the Chamber of Shipping.

One of the comments from CP Rail was that after working on this for four years that it was a whole bunch of nothing. That is one of our main stakeholders with regard to the bill. When one asks what could be done better, we could have a conversation with CP on how this bill could be improved. I hope CP Rail representatives are on the witness list when we get this to committee.

Another one of the people who could be consulted is a man from Saskatchewan, Murad Al-Katib of AGT Foods. This company transports and ships across the world. One thing he says is that getting container ships is a difficult thing to do in Canada.

What we could do is have conversations with the people on the ground who need the railway system improved. One thing I would like is to have the witness list include some of these people when this legislation comes to committee, people like Murad Al-Katib and companies like Viterra. These people have used the port system.

The Port of Vancouver is the gateway to the world for us as exporters. There are efficiencies we could improve on, obviously. Like I said earlier in my speech, we really need to be able to load grain cars in all weather. We have to do it safely, of course, but we need to be able to do it in all kinds of weather.

When we are trying to get our goods to market, in talking to the railways about the huge inefficiencies, another thing we could do is get some pipelines built. If we take some oil cars off the railways, then we would have the ability to actually ship more grain on a daily basis.

When it comes to Saskatchewan, and my colleague from Alberta agrees, there is no more efficient way to ship oil than through a pipeline. We have seen through other legislation like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines act, that we cannot get things built in this country.

When we talk about the overall vision for infrastructure across this country, that vision needs to include more pipelines being built to get oil from west to east. We do not have those conversations. There needs to be infrastructure debate in this chamber about how we are going to move forward into the 21st century. This also includes building pipelines. It includes the electricity grid as well, because we need to become more efficient when it comes to shipping materials across our beautiful country.

One of the other things I found very interesting is some of the amendments and the impacts they would have on the ports, such as the proposed amendment to expand Canadian port authorities' mandate over traffic management, including vessels moored or anchored. We talk about expanding the port authorities' mandate. Have we had that discussion with the port authorities? Do we know if they have the capacity to even expand that mandate? That is the question I have for the parliamentary secretary, and hopefully we can get that answered when we are in committee.

Another question I have is on enabling the development of inland terminals. Have they talked to some of the proponents that would be building and expanding these terminals and what they need to see in this legislation?

Another amendment would be to streamline the review process for port authorities' borrowing. Obviously, that is something we could have a conversation about and discuss in committee as well. On establishing new regulatory authorities to oversee Canada's marine security framework, whenever there is talk about expanding authorities, I would like to have conversations on what that means to shippers and distributers across the country.

I would also like to have the conversation about how we are going to be able to get goods then across the ocean. We talk about getting to the port. We also need more efficiency when it comes to having the ability to load ships with grain. We need to be building more capacity to ship LNG. We have had Germany and Japan come to our country and ask for help when it comes to LNG. One of the reasons we cannot do it is because we do not have the capacity to load these vessels to get the LNG to different areas of the world. That is a conversation we should be having as well.

The United States built five, six or seven LNG terminals over the last three or four years and we have built nothing. We have become a country where it is almost impossible to build infrastructure under the current government. People want to be able to invest in our country, but the goalposts keep moving on when we can actually get something built. We are then really having trouble attracting foreign investment to our country because they do not see how we would have the capacity to export.

We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in this country over the last eight years because of investment flowing from Canada straight to the United States. This is because investors believe our infrastructure is not sufficient to be able to transport the goods they want to produce in our country.

We have a wealth of natural resources and we do not have the ability to get those resources to port and then to the destination after that. Therefore, this bill, unfortunately, misses the mark in trying to create more efficiencies at the Port of Vancouver. It misses the mark and increases our capacity on the railways. For that reason and many reasons, after reaching out to stakeholders, they do not like the bill, we do not like it either and we will be voting against it.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a fantastic home. Our country spans more than half of the northern hemisphere and crosses more than six time zones. It is quite incredible. We are the second-largest country by way of geographical size and have the most extensive coastline, spanning more than 240,000 kilometres. It is amazing.

Our home is vast, and the early years of Confederation were spent ensuring that our nation would be built in such a way that it would allow all of this land to be united. From coast to coast, Canadians built infrastructure that was necessary to move goods from one end of our country to the other and to equip themselves to be able to send our goods across the water to other countries. Rail, of course, played an incredible role in this and continues to play a role in our country's ability to get trade goods to market and within the confines of own country.

The project of our very first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was a masterpiece of sorts. It was the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was meant to unite us as a nation. It was meant to serve our economic well-being as a country, and it did just that. In fact, it was so visionary that it continues to do just that.

Rail and national infrastructure were pivotal to how our nation was built, and we remain united today. As these means of transport and infrastructure were set up, both on the national and subnational levels, our economy grew and we fashioned ourselves as a nation committed to trading. To this day, we are an export nation. It keeps us strong, but only as much as our infrastructure is strong.

Canada is blessed with a plethora of natural resources, abundant land and incredibly hard-working people who will get the job done, that is, when the government frees them up to do so. Canadians work hard. They work hard between every coast in this country to build, grow, harvest, mine and collect the fruits of their labour and then get it to market. Our domestic economy feeds and fuels the world. In fact, there is such great capacity in this regard that I truly wish the government would get out of the way and allow us to excel.

Nevertheless, our rails and ports provide the means for our industries to deliver what Canada has to offer to the world and to bring to Canada what the world has to offer to us. The infrastructure across our great land provides the opportunity for every worker, farmer, business owner and their family to be sustained. It allows them to get the goods they need for their households and their businesses.

Rail is literally in the centre of my home city of Lethbridge. We are home to the High Level Bridge, which spans the Oldman River. It is the largest railroad structure in Canada and the longest trestle bridge in the world. It is at the core of our centre.

Canada's railways and ports are more than just the infrastructure that gets stuff from point A to point B. Infrastructure is a piece of the Canadian nation-building legacy, and it is the vital artery of our economy, which is not just our present but also our future. To believe in our infrastructure and keeping it strong is to believe in the Canadian people, our country and its vibrancy going forward, because without a thriving economy we cannot have a thriving people. Without infrastructure to get product to market, we cannot have a thriving economy. Therefore, infrastructure is essential to our economy, which is essential to the strength of our people and this dear country we love.

Let me be clear. Our infrastructure in this country has its fair challenges, in particular infrastructure around transportation, so I understand the desire to address those challenges, fix problems and look for greater efficiencies and greater effectiveness. However, this bill does not do that. This bill does not answer the call that was put out for meaningful change. Overall, this bill is an abysmal failure in that regard.

Bill C-33 is a failed attempt to strengthen the port system and railway safety. It amends several acts in order to do that. It was drafted in response to the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review.

It was delivered with promises to improve affordability, to improve safety and to improve efficiency, and it was delivered by a minister who is no longer functioning in that capacity. I wonder if that is perhaps a bit symbolic of the confidence we should have in the bill. More than that, the draft of the bill, the content of the bill, speaks for itself in terms of how much confidence we should have in it.

Bill C-33 fails in so many ways to address the issues that are at play. For starters, it fails to address the urgent need to alleviate supply chain congestion. This was outlined in the final report put forward by the national supply chain task force. Stakeholders have said that there is nothing in this bill that would improve supply chain efficiencies. For example, there is nothing in this bill to address labour disputes that impact supply chains.

Furthermore, the bill does not solve long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. There is also nothing in the bill to address the Port of Vancouver's inability to load grain in the rain. Folks, let us be clear here: It is Vancouver; it rains all the time. If we cannot load in the rain, when are we loading? If we are not loading, how are we getting product to market? Wait. We are not. That is why we basically have a congested parking lot known as the Port of Vancouver.

It is a problem. It is driving up the cost of goods and is making it so that some of our store shelves do not have products on them to begin with. This bill had the opportunity to address some of these key issues, but it failed.

I hear all the time from those in my riding about their frustrations concerning these things. They simply want to get their product to market in a reasonable fashion. Farmers want to get their grain onto trains so those trains can go to ports and those ports can let others take the commodity across the ocean. That is how this needs to work. That was the potential of this bill. It had the potential to address these issues.

It is a failure in and of itself that it did not. However, on top of that, the bill decided to heap on even more bureaucracy and more red tape to make things even more difficult. Not only did it fail to solve the issue, but it actually creates more issues. There is a good piece of legislation for everyone.

As I mentioned, our port is already a mess, but the government has decided to apply a bit more red tape to see how much more of a mess it can create, so out comes Bill C-33. In this bill, the government decided to implement a new advisory committee. No doubt this could restrict ports in making decisions to improve their capacity and efficiency. That is a problem.

Bill C-33 would also increase the ministerial authority to appoint the chair of port authorities, therefore reducing the independence of our ports, which are supposed to operate at arm's length from the government. Additional ministerial powers would limit local decision-making and would lead to further delays in the modernization of our ports. In the end, the overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape would increase costs, which would then be passed on to consumers, consumers who are already paying through the roof due to the government's inflationary spending and carbon tax.

Clarifying that the railway blockade is illegal certainly will not reduce disruption. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to ports and to railways across the country does not recognize the unique challenges faced in this vast nation. The entire bill is symbolic of a government that is incredibly out of touch and not willing to listen to the true needs of this nation. For this reason, I will not be voting in favour of the bill, and I would urge the House to act in the same way.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the question I asked this morning because I did not get an answer.

I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I am not sure what to make of it. We are dealing with a bit of a catch-all bill on ports and railway companies. However, the earth is burning right now, with forest fires raging everywhere. We have never been so ineffectual in the fight against climate change. We also have a housing crisis, and 3.5 million housing units need to be built in Canada. It is absolutely ridiculous. In 2022, Canada spent $50 billion on the oil industry. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec.

Is Bill C-33 the only thing the Liberal government has to offer in response to all the crises erupting across the country?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be speaking about strengthening the board governance of Canada's strategic ports. My riding of Steveston—Richmond East is home to all of the above: rail, air and sea. It is an island city by nature, one which I look forward to the Speaker's visiting sometime.

The governance model that underpins Canada's port authorities was designed to establish responsible stewardship of these key strategic assets and to position them as commercially oriented actors that can act credibly in the marketplace. The day-to-day operations of these port authorities are directed by independent boards of directors that are responsible for ensuring that port planning, decisions and operations are made firmly within the public interest. In this context, the Minister of Transport retains the critical role of setting the strategic direction that guides the work of these boards.

For 20 years, this governance model has served Canada well. It has provided Canadians with world-class services while ensuring that capacity grew in support of Canada's economy in a gradual and financially sustainable manner. At the same time, Canada and the world have evolved. Our trade with the world is growing and is increasingly diversified. The shipping lines that support the trade have consolidated and are building even bigger ships, and the logistical connections between transportation services and shippers are growing in intensity and technological innovation. These developments underline the importance of ensuring that our ports can adapt to serve our national supply chains and global connections to the world.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that ports undertake their national mandates in very local contexts. As Canada's ports have grown, so too has public interest in their operations. In the eyes of indigenous and local communities, port governance is not only a question of orchestrating safe marine trade but is also now, more than ever, intertwined with environmental sustainability and our important national agenda for reconciliation. Simply put, Canada port authorities are being called upon to be more adaptable and responsive to an increasingly complex operating context. Things have changed since they were created over 20 years ago.

At the centre of government's approach to ensuring that port governance keeps pace are three important objectives: ensuring that port boards have the right people in the right positions to manage these strategic assets, structuring ongoing engagement with indigenous and local communities to better inform decision-making, and enhancing reporting to enable better public engagement, accountability and oversight. I will speak to these three objectives in turn.

Having the right composition and people in place on boards of directors is key to supporting enhanced board performance. This is why the government is proposing to add an additional prairie province director on the boards of the Thunder Bay and Prince Rupert port authorities in recognition of the role these ports play in the export of prairie commodities. In addition, greater flexibility is being proposed to enable more than one municipal directorship in instances where a port is located in more than one municipality. Recognizing board leadership of these strategic assets is critical, and Bill C-33 proposes to enable the Minister of Transport to designate the board chair from among and in consultation with the directors.

With respect to engagement with indigenous and local communities, this bill proposes to establishment structured mechanisms to enable more meaningful and ongoing dialogue. The port modernization review undertook extensive stakeholder consultations. During these engagements, it was noted that the depth and quality of relationships among port authorities, indigenous and local communities can vary. Such relationships are key to aligning expectations and goals and to informing port decisions that have economic, environmental and social implications. As a result, this bill proposes the establishment of three separate advisory committees at the port management level for engaging with indigenous nations, local communities and local governments. These committees would enable more meaningful and structured opportunities for engagement.

The third key governance objective this bill seeks to advance is increased reporting as a means of promoting transparency in port planning and operations, including environmental performance. Bill C-33 would reinforce port authorities' due diligence in planning by requiring them to provide land use plans on a five-year cycle. This would facilitate input from local communities and stakeholders in the port planning process. In addition, the proposed measures would modernize financial reporting and disclosure requirements that align with internationally recognized standards. Bill C-33 would further require port authorities to publicly report on greenhouse emissions and establish climate adaptation plans. These measures would position ports to be leaders in managing climate risks. Importantly, these new environmental reporting requirements would align with the government's ambitious climate change agenda and would be consistent with the requirements for other public institutions.

To promote ongoing improvements to port governance aimed at ensuring that these entities remain best in class, Bill C-33 would require port authorities to undergo a triennial assessment of board governance practices. This is an important best practice in corporate governance that befits assets of such national importance. These assessments would evaluate the effectiveness of and adherence to governance practices, including those related to record-keeping practices, the use of skills matrices and the promotion of diversity in recruitment. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada to inform future policies that help port governance remain best in class. Taken together, these important governance reforms would establish more proficient, transparent and accountable port authority boards consistent with the important role played by ports as instruments of public policy.

These measures build on the successful foundation established in the 1990s, when the Canada Marine Act was first enacted. They would update port governance to modern realities and serve to better align national and local realities, and they would do so by maintaining ports that are nimble market actors and can better support Canada's connections to the world.

We are pleased to advance these reforms. Bill C-33 would fundamentally reposition Canada's port authorities and maintain these world-class facilities that underpin our critical supply chains and national economy.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about something that is worth elaborating on so that we can understand her position. She has an opportunity to illustrate her point to those watching us.

Even though there is not much to Bill C‑33, there is still something that bothers me, specifically the minister's will to have control over the appointment of board chairs of ports across Canada, in other words deciding who goes where. Worse yet, we know that when Liberal ministers do this sort of thing, the people who are selected are not accountable to the public. Their objective is not to develop the ports, but to please the minister. Most of the time, the people who are chosen are friends of the minister or friends of the Liberal Party.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this aspect of the bill is an improvement.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. That is quite a mouthful, but it is simply known by its short title of “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act”.

By way of background, in April 2017, the then minister of transport, the hon. Marc Garneau, launched a review of the Railway Safety Act. Then in 2018, he announced a review of Canada port authorities to optimize their role in the transportation system. In late 2022, the previous minister of transport received the Final Report of the National Supply Chain Task Force, 2022, as other members have noted.

Bill C-33 was brought forward in response to the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review. If passed, this proposed legislation would amend several existing laws, as indicated in the long title of the bill.

What has become increasingly obvious is that urgent action is needed to address supply chain congestion. In fact, this is exactly what the Final Report of the National Supply Chain Task Force 2022 called for: urgent action to immediately address supply chain congestion.

It is rather typical of the government to refuse to take action until the issue has reached a crisis point. We have been waiting four years for a plan to modernize our ports, and this bill fails to address the root causes of supply chain congestion.

While this comes as no surprise, it is nonetheless frustrating that the government continues to propose inadequate legislation to address important issues such as this one. Bill C-33 does not offer solutions to long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. Instead, it seemingly indicates that the status quo is just fine.

There is also nothing in the bill to address labour disputes that impact supply chains. While it does clarify that rail blockades are illegal, which was already known, the real issue here is with enforcement. This clarification will do nothing to change the reality of rail blockades. Only the enforcement of our laws will.

Since this bill was tabled, there has been a change of minister. This may be due to a realization by the government that it has failed on this file. It may be an attempt to save face by shuffling ministers around, pretending that the Liberals have recognized their shortcomings and that changes will be made.

However, the pattern has been set. The government will continue to put forward flawed policy and centralize power in Ottawa. Speaking of centralizing power, the ports are supposed to operate at arm's length and work in the best interests of both the national economy and the supply chain. However, the previous minister of transport made it clear in his speech on this bill and while answering a question from my colleague, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, that the government is shortening the arm's length and trying to exercise more control over the ports.

This is an area of deep concern. Ports must have the freedom to operate effectively. This starts with letting them elect their own leadership. The ports do not need Liberal ministers to choose the chairs of local port boards. Ministerial authority to appoint the chair reduces the independence of ports.

This raises the following question: Why does the government believe that it should be the one to appoint the chairs of port authorities? It has not come forward with any reasonable explanation for this measure. Canadians do not need more centralized decision-making in Ottawa.

An unfortunate vice of the government is its hubris, which causes its members to think that they have the Midas touch, despite breaking all that they touch. One only needs to look at how the Prime Minister has run his cabinet for the last eight years, dictating to it and centralizing power in the PMO. This has resulted in disaster after disaster.

Another aspect of this bill that would hamper the work of Canadian ports is the new reporting requirements. These requirements would reduce the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian ports, and they would be especially burdensome for smaller ports. This is yet another hallmark of the Liberal government: extending its control over larger enterprises and drowning smaller businesses in red tape, reaching the point where they are completely reliant on the government.

Furthermore, overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape would increase costs, which would inevitably be passed on to Canadian consumers. Additionally, the new proposed advisory committees could restrict the ability of ports to make decisions that would improve their capacity and efficiency.

Businesses do not need more government regulation; they need more freedom to be able to operate efficiently on their own. They do not need the government to tell them how the business should be run. The people who work in this industry and at these ports know better what they need to do to increase efficiencies. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to ports across the country does not take into consideration the unique challenges at different ports.

Decision-making by local port authorities is key to modernizing and improving the efficiency of ports around our country. Again, the additional ministerial powers in this bill would limit local decision-making by port authorities, leading to further delays in modernizing our ports. This, in turn, would reduce their efficiency and impact competitiveness. The result would be higher costs passed on to consumers, contributing further to the cost of living crisis that the government has created in this country.

One piece missing from this bill is the provision of any solutions to long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. This is a crucial part of the supply chain. However, the government has left this out, demonstrating that it has no intent to properly fix the issues that were highlighted in the task force report. This shows a worrying lack of understanding of the important aspects of the supply chain. Instead of taking the opportunity to make changes and address this issue, the government seems to be content to let the opportunity pass as it continues to double down on poor policy.

While Conservatives will always support measures that strengthen our supply chains, we cannot consent to efforts from the Liberal-NDP coalition to centralize power in Ottawa and put ports under the thumbs of Ottawa gatekeepers. Conservatives will not support propping up ineffective gatekeepers, which have only made life more difficult for Canadians. The Liberal-NDP coalition needs to work to remove gatekeepers, not validate them by granting them more power and responsibilities.

Conservatives cannot support an increase in red tape and bureaucracy, especially in our supply chain. While the Liberals want port authorities to be aligned with their objectives, as stated by the previous minister, we believe that ports should operate in the best interests of the national economy and the supply chain.

With a country the size of ours, we need an efficient supply chain in which all parts work well together. I believe that the government should go back to the drawing board and draft a bill, which it could present to this House, that makes good, substantive changes to our supply chain and addresses the concerns that were raised by the task force.

A bill purporting to address supply chain congestion must address all the concerns from stakeholders and remove the “Ottawa knows best” solutions that seem to be a hallmark of the government. This bill does neither.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Earlier, he talked about red tape, particularly the additional administrative burden. Along with several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I recently met with representatives from port authorities. They told us that they were consulted on Bill C-33 but nothing from the things they mentioned during consultations was included in this bill. In particular, they asked for more autonomy to ensure their development.

What stands out on reading this bill is that there is more reporting. They are being asked to do even more.

I would like my colleague to tell us, if Bill C-13 is sent for study in committee, whether he would be in favour of having less red tape, particularly for small authorities that that do not always have the capacity to manage all that administrative burden.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

One of the most defining moments since I was elected was when the rail lines in my riding, both the CN and CP rail lines, were washed out. There were over 30 wash-outs in the Fraser Canyon. In fact, one day in November two years ago, I was in a meeting with the minister of emergency preparedness. I walked out of that meeting into a media scrum asking about all the latest drama of the Conservative Party of Canada. I nearly lost it, because on that very day when they were asking about the status of a senator in the Conservative caucus, the rail lines in B.C. had been cut off, our highways had been washed out and our entire transportation infrastructure connecting British Columbia to the rest of Canada was not functioning.

We faced some serious challenges in British Columbia, but the press gallery here did not care about that. In fact, it was not even on its radar that British Columbia was cut off. Unfortunately, Bill C-33, written by the public servants in Ottawa under the former minister, falls very short of what we need in British Columbia to ensure Canada has a competitive infrastructure network to ensure we can export and import goods, and so that our marine ports, our inland ports and airports have the infrastructure they need to maintain a well-functioning, competitive economy.

It goes without saying our infrastructure network creates billions of dollars in economic activity every year, 3.6% of Canada's GDP, and employs hundreds of thousands of people. In addition to that, one in five jobs in Canada are directly related to trade. Therefore, those one in five jobs are directly related to Canada's ability to move, store and efficiently transport the goods we produce here and sell abroad and the goods Canadians consume and import from other countries.

Going back to the landslides that washed out the rail infrastructure both for CN and the CP rail lines in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the former minister of transportation started to take very seriously the challenges Canada was facing with supply chains. Good, he did that. He established a task force, to great fanfare, to address some of the pressing issues we had.

I had a chance to look over that report last night. Some of the key recommendations included to unstick the transport supply chain. The report goes into detail about how the Vancouver port authority is ranked right now as one of the worst and inefficient ports in the world. This is largely because of what has already been raised in this debate: we cannot move container traffic out of our ports quickly enough, mainly because we do not have the infrastructure to do so.

The second thing the report called for was to digitize and create an end-to-end supply chain visibility for efficiency, accountability planning and investment in security. I will note this bill does touch upon a few of those things by allowing other ports of entry to go through the CBSA process of marking where our goods are coming and going.

The task force talked about establishing a supply chain office. When I hear that what I hear is the department in Ottawa has not allocated the right number of people in its department to deal with the first problem, which is unsticking the transportation supply chain. What I read in the expert report is that Ottawa has not been doing a good enough job under its current mandate to make sure goods can flow efficiently in Canada.

The fifth point was to engage indigenous groups. This bill does talk a bit about more consultative powers in conjunction with indigenous people. I will note that in my riding one of the largest employers of indigenous people is the rail lines and the Ashcroft Terminal. Yes, there are tensions from time to time, but I do believe the private sector is already taking reconciliation seriously in the number of indigenous people it is hiring, and those jobs go a long way in those rural and remote communities, especially for first nations.

The next recommendation in the report talks about protecting "corridors, border crossings and gateways from disruptions [and interruptions] to ensure unfettered access for commercial transportation modes and continuity of supply chain movement.” Again, I see this recommendation tied to the first one, to unstick the transportation supply chain. We are not doing a good enough job of moving goods efficiently in Canada.

The next recommendation is to engage the U.S., provinces and territories to achieve reciprocal regulations and practices. Again, it is related to the first point, to unstick the transportation supply chain. We are not doing a good enough job of moving goods efficiently in Canada.

The report discusses revising the mandate of the Canadian transportation authority agency. All in all, with regard to the national task force, the former minister communicated very clearly to Canada and to private enterprise that he was going to take action, that we were going to see some major improvements.

It goes without saying that under the previous Conservative government, billions of dollars were invested in western Canada under the Asia-Pacific gateway.

We had Highway 17 created. Some of our rail lines were twinned in certain places. There were new interchanges and overpasses put in to ensure that goods could move smoothly. We had legislation put in place to improve the commercial viability of our exporters and importers, to make sure that Canadians could get the products they needed and vice versa, globally, again, because Canada is a trading nation.

When we turn to the legislation here today, what I see is a lot of new red tape, new authority and a prescriptive, bureaucratic approach that does not address the key issue that the very minister who put this legislation forward wanted to respond to when he established the national supply chain task force in the first place.

Where does that leave us here today? Small businesses across Canada are decrying the increased shipping costs to access the Asia-Pacific gateway. We have had labour disputes at our ports in British Columbia recently. We have thousands upon thousands of businesses that are not working as quickly as they want to because they are constrained by our supply chains, by our rail networks.

What I want to see from this government, as this legislation moves forward, is to look at rewriting the focus of this bill, to ensure that we accomplish a few key things, namely what measurable improvement can we attribute to this legislation to make goods move more efficiently in Canada? What regulatory hurdles that currently exist can be removed to ensure that our small businesses, our exporters and importers, can get the products they need quickly enough?

I know that in Saskatchewan, farmers are constantly scared about the bottlenecks that we face in British Columbia. Saskatchewan produces some of the best pulses in the world, yet it cannot get those products to market quickly enough because our transportation rail infrastructure is not there.

I know that importers of Korean steel in British Columbia are facing much higher freight costs, largely because of some of the issues raised here today. Those products are sitting on a ship off the coast of Vancouver Island because they cannot get a docking quickly enough at the port of Metro Vancouver. These are all things that this legislation can address but it is not there yet.

It goes without saying that I will not be supporting this legislation but I do hope that, at committee stage, the government can do a 180 and refocus its efforts on the recommendations that are well received from the national supply chain task force, to do something that is going to support small businesses, Canada's overall GDP and competitiveness in a very challenging global economic climate right now.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity this afternoon to thank all members and all parties of the House for participating in this very important second reading debate on Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, with respect to improving the safety and security at Canada's marine ports.

I would like to further describe the rationale for the measures that are designed to enhance the security of Canada's marine transportation system.

Transport Canada has the important mandate of promoting a safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system. In addition to developing policies and programs for marine security, the Minister of Transport also has the lead responsibility for marine security policy, coordination and regulation across government, a whole-of-government approach.

When introduced in 1994, the Marine Transportation Security Act was intended to address a long-standing omission in federal powers and better equip the government and the marine transportation industry to respond to any threat to the security of people, goods, vessels, ports and facilities in the Canadian marine environment.

In the decades following, Canada's marine security landscape has changed significantly. While concerns around physical disruption perpetrated by terrorist actions still exist, emerging challenges, such as cybersecurity and biosecurity, are challenging our current threat-focused security framework.

Canada's marine transportation system is a central component of our national, provincial and regional economies. It is one of the primary means for moving Canadian exports to market and for imported goods from abroad to arrive in Canada, as well as in the Midwest in the United States, through the networks we have established throughout the many years of partnerships with different sectors. As such, it is an important enabler of Canadian economic growth well into the future.

As an example, my home riding and region of Niagara is an integral part of our economy. Niagara, which is known as a multimodal transportation hub, is essential to the overall Canadian economy and is growing to be one of the nation's most strategic trade corridors, therefore strengthening Canada's overall international trade performance.

Security events, however, can have a significant impact on port and marine-related operations, which in turn directly affect the efficiency of Canada's supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception of Canada as a weak link in global supply chains that can affect when and where companies decide to invest. Hence, this is the reason for the bill.

Such a perception could adversely affect Canada's relations with other major trading partners and have significant impacts on future opportunities for economic growth and development, like what is happening in the Niagara region as a transportation hub, with respect to the movement of trade and people. Right now the transportation committee is discussing high-speed rail to bring the country closer together and enable us to welcome visitors who can move around our great nation with great fluidity in tandem with the movement of trade within the infrastructure we have established throughout the past century.

A secure transportation system promotes a secure economy, a resilient supply chain and further supports the competitiveness of Canadian ports. In a constantly changing world, Canada's marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasing complex challenges in tandem with other methods of transportation, such as rail, road and air.

Today, as part of Bill C-33, the government is seeking to modernize the Marine Transportation Security Act to ensure that it remains modern, usable, flexible and a consistent piece of Transport Canada's legislative framework. Modernizing the act will enable the government to have access to tools to address new and emerging security concerns, reflecting the challenges, but, more important, addressing those challenges so we accrue over time confidence with future as well as present international investors.

The proposed amendments will introduce new ministerial authorities, such as the power to make interim orders, the ability to require ports and other marine facilities to accept vessels that have been directed to these locations, and the ability to issue emergency directions to persons or vessels to address immediate security threats.

Unlike other marine legislation, the current Marine Transportation Security Act does not provide effective tools to be used in exceptional circumstances across the industries. The ability to make interim orders will align across Transport Canada's legislation and allow the department to take immediate action to deal with security threats or risks, or take action to address a threat to marine transportation security or to the health of persons in the marine transportation system. This will allow us to better protect the integrity and efficiency of Canada's supply chains.

The proposal will also introduce new regulatory-making authorities that will allow Transport Canada to: one, implement a cost-recovery framework; two, address maritime threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system; three, implement formalized information-sharing channels with federal partners; and, four, establish exclusion zones for vessels.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted emerging biosecurity threats, such as global pathogens, which pose significant risks to public safety and the broader Canadian supply chains, as well as those that flow to Canada, into the U.S. and to our binational partners internationally.

The marine environment poses a unique vector for virus transmission, with cruise ships, for example, or vessels interacting in northern and remote communities. An outbreak on board a vessel or at maritime facilities could cause significant impacts to workers' health and security, which would have a direct effect on our supply chains.

Finally, this proposal will support a shift in the approach to marine security since the act was first established. The shift includes enabling the department to enter into agreements with partner organizations to oversee enforcement of the act and its regulations. This will allow Transport Canada to leverage expertise of organizations and the capacity of other government departments, once again, a whole-of-government approach.

The proposed amendments to the act included in the bill will modernize Canada's security framework, but, most important, it will create more fluidity to ensure more confidence in our transportation system across our great nation.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-33. Let me begin by thanking the sponsor, the Minister of Transport, and you for allowing me to participate in the very important second reading debate on this bill, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, with regard to improving the safety and security at Canada's marine ports. I believe we can all agree that this piece of legislation is intended to achieve many goals that would eventually streamline the work taking place at our marine ports, increase our supply chain resiliency and ensure the work at our ports is environmentally sustainable, all while increasing safety and security measures to keep our goods safe and protect Canadians from harm.

Before I continue, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara Centre.

I want to take the time today to further explore the measures we are proposing to enhance border security at our major marine ports.

The Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has an important mandate to provide border services that support national security and public safety priorities while also facilitating the free flow of persons and goods. Each and every day, at marine ports from coast to coast to coast, the CBSA upholds its mandate by screening and examining imported goods arriving on container vessels. I want to make it clear that in their role, CBSA officers, whose daily activities would be affected by the proposed amendments in this bill, are already authorized to examine all shipments crossing Canada's border to ensure harmful goods are intercepted before they can enter our communities.

Today, the government is seeking to modernize the existing Customs Act authorities to resolve long-standing security risks and reduce obstacles to efficient trade at our marine ports. Modernizing the Customs Act would enable the CBSA to further address issues that may leave our marine ports vulnerable to organized crime and that may compromise the agency's ability to achieve its safety, security and facilitation mandate.

These changes are directly aimed at reducing delays and enhancing security at our marine ports. They would also result in long-term cost savings for Canadian importers, the trade community and consumers, and would ultimately help our economy continue to grow by reducing backlogs and lowering the costs associated with delays.

In order to help continue reducing criminal activity at the ports, we are proposing the following three changes to address security threats associated with organized crime, smuggling and internal conspiracies.

The first step the government is proposing is meant to address security gaps and reduce delays by requiring that high-risk shipments are made available for examination upon request of an officer. This would be achieved through Customs Act amendments and the creation of new regulations.

Second, the government is seeking to increase the security of high-risk shipments by introducing an amendment that would require that goods be brought to a secure area upon the request of an officer. This, in turn, would require marine ports to create secure areas that meet security requirements.

Lastly, Customs Act amendments are being proposed to enable the creation of new monetary penalties to help ensure that all entities involved in this supply chain comply with the new requirements. Penalties for non-compliance would be proportionate to health, safety and security risks.

Allow me to further elaborate on the three proposed changes to clear up any ambiguity that members may have regarding them.

In short, the first proposed amendment relates to making high-risk import shipments available to a CBSA officer for examination in a timely manner. The agency has noted that high-risk shipments selected for examination are not always made available by the terminal operators. This leads to supply chain congestion, delays for importers and an increased risk of tampering and removal of contraband while containers await examination by CBSA officers.

As it stands now, there is no defined time period in either legislation or regulation. This amendment to the Customs Act would provide an authority to make new regulations prescribing the time and manner of making shipments available for examination. Furthermore, these obligations would extend to other entities within the supply chain who have the care and control of goods, including terminal operators.

The second proposed amendment would require those responsible for these shipments to bring them to a secure area in accordance with the regulations. Currently, the Customs Act does not provide a definitive or specific obligation to ensure that high-risk shipments awaiting examination are moved to a dedicated secure area within marine terminals. As a result, shipments are at risk of being tampered with, and their contents, including drugs and weapons, are at risk of being removed by criminals prior to examination.

I acknowledge that some may argue that existing measures are enough. However, there are many documented instances of containers being breached and unknown contents being removed, while remaining unsecured and easily accessible by internal conspirators when stored with all types of marine cargo on port properties.

Can we truly not continue to advance our security measures to keep up and stay ahead of those committing illicit activities? Adding extra layers of security means that Canadians can feel safer knowing that more contraband and dangerous products are being stopped and therefore do not enter our communities.

To help ensure compliance with these new requirements, additional contraventions would be added to the CBSA's existing penalty system, which would allow the CBSA to issue penalties when goods are not delivered within established time frames. Currently, only the person reporting the goods to the CBSA can be compelled to present them, and there is no timeline within which to do so. As a result, only the persons reporting the goods can be held responsible. In the marine mode, this means that the CBSA cannot compel others who may handle these shipments, such as terminal operators, to make them available to the CBSA in a timely manner.

The government is taking action to ensure the right parties take responsibility for their role in the process. This would lead to fewer delays and lower storage fees for importers, as goods would be moved to secured areas at the right time, examined sooner and released once cleared by the CBSA. This is expected to translate into lower costs for consumers down the line. I believe that having lower costs on commodities is something that every member in this House can support.

I hope members can now understand the urgency and need for these amendments to the Customs Act as something that is not driven by politics, but is a security requirement that would benefit the safety of all Canadians. The changes outlined in this bill would ensure that the CBSA continues to fulfill its mandate to protect and secure Canada's borders and incoming goods while further protecting Canadians from harmful products.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill C-33.

I hope members had productive summers in their ridings. It is good to be back to reconnect with my colleagues on all sides of the House.

Bill C-33, on the face of it, deals with the technical subject matter of port and railway systems in Canada, but I think this bill also exposes a philosophical gulf that exists between those of us in the Conservative Party and, frankly, those in the other three parties, in how they act and vote, if not how they always sound. The Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP have an approach that emphasizes a big, centralized government that is constantly seeking to weaken the decision-making powers, not only of private individuals, but also of the institutions that are supposed to hold delegated authority and respond to local circumstances and independent economic factors. Their agenda is a centralizing one, pulling that authority away from individuals, with losses of their freedom, and pulling that authority away from institutions that are supposed to be able to operate independently.

We have the Bloc, and I think this was demonstrated by the speaker before me, wanting to rhetorically position itself as being a decentralizer, but in fact, if we look at the way Bloc members vote, we see their support, for example, for the Liberal carbon taxes, in particular the second carbon tax, and it boggles the mind that a party that, on the one hand, says it wants to divide the country and make Quebec its own country, is on the other hand, supporting these kinds of from-Ottawa measures that impose additional costs on Quebeckers.

It is becoming clear that Conservatives stand alone when it comes to offering a different vision, which recognizes the role, yes, of the federal government, but also the richness and diversity of experience and capacity that exists across this country and, therefore, supports affirming the decision-making responsibility of other institutions, provinces, municipalities and, in this case, port authorities and recognizes the importance of having a multiplicity of different institutions making decisions that respond to those local circumstances.

This is an important bill in its policy implications. However, it is also an important bill in the way that it demonstrates a Conservative vision of emphasizing strong institutions, respect for arm's-length institutions and divisions of power, our belief in big citizens as an alternative to big government, and the role of mediating institutions.

Bill C-33 is entitled “strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act”. My preferred alternative title is, “strengthening Liberal control of the port system”. It is not strengthening the port system, but strengthening Liberal control of the port system. It is on that basis, and for some of the reasons I have already indicated, that we do not support it.

I do, though, in passing, want to extend my best wishes to the outgoing minister, who tabled this bill and has since, from what I understand, announced his intention not to seek re-election. I know that he has been in public life for a long time. I wish him very well.

Those who are not as familiar may ask how ports function in Canada. Each port has its own board, and that board is able to act relatively autonomously. It is supposed to act at arm's length from the government, which includes electing its own chair. It is also supposed to be able to look at the best interests of the port. It is supposed to be able to look at what is in the economic interests of the country, but also of that particular region, taking those local factors into account. It is also supposed to be able to develop structures for engagement and consultation that, while reflecting broad, unifying principles, are appropriate to the particular local circumstances.

The way, for instance, indigenous consultation happens at a port may vary depending on the particular local circumstances, such as the proximity of indigenous nations and so forth. This ability of ports to act at arm's length recognizes that one size does not fit all. It recognizes that expertise, local decision-making and an understanding of local factors are very important in the case of port management and in general when it comes to government decision-making. Creating institutions that can be responsive to particulars of local circumstances is important. This existing structure of ports is a reflection of that reality, and it stands in contrast with the Liberal centralizing vision held, if not officially then certainly enacted by all of the other parties in this place, save for the Conservatives.

This bill seeks to make changes that bring ports, to a greater extent, under the domination of the central government. This is where we obviously part company with the direction.

On the structure of ports, members of the ports are appointed by the federal government. There is a federal role in making these appointments, and that does provide tools for influencing the direction of ports, but it creates a balance that allows autonomous, arm's-length action on a day-to-day level. However, the federal government is still selecting the individuals it believes to be appropriate.

The bill would change the authority structure in a number of ways. It would make the boards subject to ministerial direction and would also allow the minister to appoint the chair. The previous structure was that the minister appointed members of the board, but the board would then elect its own chair, which again still involves a substantial role for the government but gives the board more autonomy in identifying the person who is best positioned to lead the board. The new structure would involve the minister appointing the board members and also the board members appointing the chair. It would also make the board subject to ministerial direction and would mandate certain structures around environmental and indigenous consultations.

Those considerations and consultations are obviously very important, but the specific structures that may be appropriate can legitimately vary depending on the size of the port and the local circumstances. They could well be matters subject to innovation and exchange of information rather than the requirement of standardization.

This is a centralizing Ottawa-knows-best type of Liberal bill, and Conservatives are opposed to it. In many respects, this bill is a missed opportunity insofar as there are things that are important about how we could be strengthening our port and rail system, but instead, the Liberal approach to strengthening anything is to try to strengthen their control or involvement in that particular thing.

We are opposed to this expansion of direct government control over the ports for four main reasons, which I will now proceed to discuss. There is, first of all, a general conviction about the importance of subsidiarity; second, a concern about the current government in particular expanding its management of things; third, the Liberal record on appointments raising some concerns about why the Liberals are trying to pass legislation to give themselves more control and ability to shape direction through appointment; and finally, highlighting how scale differences matter at the port level, and there are particular reasons in this case why having a diversity of structures for how certain issues are engaged with is quite worthwhile.

First, on the principle of subsidiarity in general, I subscribe to the general principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected as possible. Better decisions are made when the local experiences of the people affected are harnessed. This comes from a basic recognition of universal human potential for responsibility and creativity. If they harness the views and experiences of more people who are directly involved a situation, they will get better outcomes than if there were a smaller number of people with less immediate experience involved in that decision. A belief in subsidiarity flows naturally from a belief in human dignity and human potential for creativity.

Our constitutional framework is designed to recognize the value of that subsidiarity, which is why not every decision is made by the federal government. We have areas of responsibility of provincial jurisdiction. We have strong municipalities, and we also have arm's-length institutions that act within the federal government. Subsidiarity is not incompatible with the belief that there are also certain kinds of decisions that are of a scale and a nature that do require larger levels of coordination or action by a larger entity, such as, let us say, the national government. The impulse to subsidiarity is not to say that no decisions should be made collectively because there are certain kinds of things where the nature of the scale requires that action.

I want to point out in particular that, in this context, our Conservative plan on housing does involve recognizing the need to push municipalities to do more in getting housing built. This is completely compatible with the principle of subsidiarity because we see a situation in Canada right now where we are so far behind in getting homes built that there is an urgency that requires more pressure to move forward. There has also been a lack of appropriate scale in considering the response to this.

Members will notice in the discussion on this that the Prime Minister has tried, at certain points, to say that this is not really his responsibility and this is not something that he is going to get involved in. However, the Prime Minister has a housing minister. The government seeks to create policy on this. It is just that the government's policy has been ineffective. In the plan that Conservatives have put forward, it is about pushing municipalities, setting targets for them and tying federal funding to commitments to move forward. However, it is not about taking away that authority from municipalities or trying to micromanage specific decisions. Rather, it is about using the tools we have to create incentives, define what a national objective should be and reward them for moving toward that objective.

This is just to illustrate that obviously, on certain areas, there is a vital role for the federal government to engage in, but there has to be a healthy interplay. With the Liberals, the irony has been that, on some areas where the federal government needed to engage, they have tried to avoid responsibility. However, the Liberals have, at the same time, tried to intervene, rhetorically if not directly, in areas that are very clearly not their jurisdiction, butting in on things that very obviously have nothing to do with the decision-making power of the federal government.

Again, as it applies in the case of ports, we can see the importance of local decision-making and the impulse of the government to ignore the role of local decision-makers and to move counter to this principle of subsidiarity, which is a principle that, sadly, the Liberals do not believe in.

In their ideal vision of the world, all of the decisions that are of significance to this country would be made by a small group of people inside the Prime Minister's Office, without even harnessing the full energies of our national parliamentary democracy. I think that has had some dire consequences in many obvious cases, and on this point I will move to the next, which is the challenges with the government's centralizing impulse in particular, in a context where the government has demonstrated profound incompetence in all aspects of our national life.

I will not have time to detail all of these points, but in a context where the government is failing to do its job, is failing to make life more affordable for Canadians and has failed on environmental policy, on housing and on many other fronts, it is nonetheless persistent in saying that it wants more control of people's lives and that it wants to be able to exercise more control and direction over previously independent bodies. I will point out as an obvious example, in one particular case, the on-again-off-again labour disruptions, or the back-and-forth associated with that, the harm that was done and the failure of the minister to resolve that situation.

Environmental policy is something that, rhetorically, we hear a lot about from the government, yet the government is missing all of its environmental targets while using environmental policy as an excuse to impose new taxes. The way the Liberals talk about it, if one does not support their tax plan, one is against taking action on the environment.

The reality is that the government's tax plan has made life less affordable for Canadians and has not actually allowed it to achieve any of its targets. Sadly, we see the other parties in the House, the NDP and the Bloc, in lockstep with the government in its insistence on imposing new taxes. This is a space in which the government is trying to take more control for itself again, telling provinces that they have to have a carbon tax or it will impose one directly from Ottawa.

It has not worked on many fronts. We can talk about the government's approach to passports. We can talk about its policy failures during COVID and about the fact that fewer houses are being built today than decades ago, even when our population was smaller. We have a government that has, across the board, been either incompetent or malicious, yet it is seeking more control over institutional decision-making, through Bill C-33. We are not prepared to give them that control.

The third point I wanted to raise around this is that we have a particular concern about the government's desire to use this bill as a tool for strengthening its power of appointment, in terms of its ability to appoint chairs of boards. We have heard numerous stories about the flawed approach the government has taken to appointments, appointing donors or consulting supporter information before making important appointments, trying to whitewash issues by appointing people who have close relationships with the Prime Minister. This is the way the government has approached appointments, so it will not be surprising that there is no appetite on this side of the House to give the government more control over the appointment process when the current system, the election of a chair of a board by the existing members of the board, is working just fine.

I will quickly make my last point, which is that, obviously, in terms of important decision-making, scale matters. There are many different kinds of ports that have very different circumstances because of such massive variations in the amount of traffic that goes through them. We recognize the importance of all ports. We want them to thrive and succeed in ways that reflect their local circumstances and the expertise of those who are running the ports. That means avoiding Ottawa-knows-best, Liberals-know-best and one-size-fits-all approaches to this.

In conclusion, Conservatives recognize the importance of freedom, local autonomy and subsidiarity. We reject the centralizing we-know-best approach of the Prime Minister and of the other three parties in the House that are supporting his vision. I believe that our alternative approach in opposing the bill and emphasizing local autonomy, expertise and the importance of community-based decision making is a much better approach and one that would be much better received by the Canadian public.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that it is essential. Anyone whose car was stolen would be anxious to know whether it went to another country in the days that followed.

We are seeing more and more news reports about this issue. There was one on a country in Africa where, if I am not mistaken, there were cars with the Quebec licence plates still on them. That is crazy. These people did not even make the effort to remove the plates. The cars were brought to the port, loaded onto the ship and then unloaded over there. They kept their licence plates on even after they got there. That is insane. The members on the other side need to wake up.

Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in Bill C-33. If it is possible to improve the situation or at least combat this phenomenon by amending this bill, we are very willing to do so. Since there is very little text in this bill for us to amend, we will have to use our imaginations and get creative. Sometimes, however, if we are too imaginative or creative, procedure will get in the way of our amendments being adopted.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, we may have amendments to that effect, of course. However, we will have to see if Bill C-33 allows for that. When an amendment is introduced, it has to relate to the text, and there is not much text regarding the Customs Act in the current bill.

We will certainly try to find a way. If we do find one, I hope that we can count on the members opposite to support us. It will take majority support to get that passed.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The short answer is no, there is nothing about that in the bill. However, it is interesting that my colleague brought this up, because our colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is our public safety critic, came over to see me earlier and told me that this is a big problem.

Bill C-33 amends the Customs Act. It deals with port management. We know that, at this time, lots of stolen vehicles are leaving the country through our ports. I asked my colleague if she had seen anything in the bill that could help with that problem. The answer was no. It is sad, but I suppose that this was not one of the Liberals' ambitions. They already have so few, and this was not one of them.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. I too have concerns about granting new powers to Ottawa, especially regarding rail, but also regarding ports, since that could cause problems.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether, during the committee study, he will be pointing out to the government that there are no measures in Bill C-33 to stop stolen vehicles from being shipped out of Canada. I for one could not find do not see any. One of my constituents told me that he had a tracking chip in his vehicle and that he knew that his vehicle had gone beyond the gate at the Port of Montreal. He saw his vehicle being loaded onto the ship, and he watched it sail away. He was able to track his vehicle as sailed off, and he alerted the police, but the ship was already beyond the jurisdiction of the Sûreté du Québec.

There may have been 35 or 40 stolen vehicles aboard that ship. Vehicle thefts are driving up insurance rates in Canada, and that affects all Canadians. Are there any measures in Bill C‑33 that could reduce exports of stolen vehicles from Canada?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑33. If the people listening do not know what it is and have not heard of it, that is not unusual.

It is not a very exciting bill. Let us just say that it is far, very far, from revolutionary. To pique interest in the bill, a very original title was found: an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Understandably, it is a large bill.

When I read it, I feel like every law in the country will be amended. When we look more closely at the bill, we soon realize that is not the case. All that to say, above all, we have no idea what this bill does. When we read its title, we have no idea what it is for. As I said, a lot of creative effort was put into a title that would say what the bill does and its purpose.

One might wonder why the Customs Act included in the bill. Will it affect the issues surrounding Roxham Road, illegal border crossings, illegal weapons crossing at the border? As we know, Roxham Road is now closed. It may no longer be a problem. However, it still was when the bill was introduced.

With respect to the Railway Safety Act, will the self-regulation of railway companies finally be ended, a kind of situation where they do pretty much whatever they want, greatly weakening industry oversight? Will this part of the bill really bring railway companies into line? No, they will not be brought into line. There is absolutely nothing to prevent CN or CP from sleeping at night, I guarantee. I do not think it will change much in their lives.

Regarding the Canada Marine Act, there are a few changes. We can start to see some substance. I say some, but not too much.

The fact that nobody is talking about it just goes to show that the bill will not change much in the lives of ordinary Canadians. Usually, when the government tables a bill, it is a big deal. Everyone is waiting for it. People are on the edge of their seats. We wonder what provisions it will include. Sometimes, the government leaks little bits to journalists to stir up interest in the bill. Then there are articles that come out. When the bill is tabled, there is a big press conference. There are media tours. Sometimes, there are regional tours in cities affected by the bill. There is a lot of noise around a bill. Normally, a bill is something important. After all, we are changing the laws of a country.

However, for Bill C‑33, there has been nothing. No one has talked about it. We hardly knew it even existed until we debated it today in the House.

I did a lot of research and I ended up finding something on the web that talks about the bill. It went almost unnoticed. The article is entitled, “a bill to strengthen collaboration between Quebec ports”. With such a title, I thought there might be something to enable Quebec ports to work better together. Moreover, this is one of the requests of Quebec ports, to be able, for example, to issue joint calls for tenders. I read the bill and saw that there is absolutely nothing in this document that will allow Quebec ports to work together more.

It seems that the former minister told the journalist some tall tales. The article states that close collaboration will lead to strategic investments that will improve facility services and performance while also strengthening the supply chain.

That reads like gibberish. Essentially, this is not about collaboration between ports but collaboration between the ports and the Department of Transport. In the end, that is the reality. Perhaps the journalist would have liked the bill to address the topic because the ports asked for it, but the minister was not clear in his response and that led to this article.

The article also talks about the supply chain. What would be interesting to know is what in Bill C-33 will truly help the supply chain. However, if we read the bill carefully, we can see that there is not much there that affects the supply chain. There is virtually nothing, unless the minister wants to personally start managing—or micromanaging—the ports one by one.

The fact is that, when Bill C-33 was introduced, there was a supply crisis virtually everywhere. There were problems with the supply chain, so Bill C-33 was announced. They said that the bill would improve the supply chain, but there is nothing in it for the supply chain. It is simply a way of spinning things to make people believe the bill is actually useful.

They wanted to make the bill ultramodern and topical, but that did not happen. To prove my point, I searched the text of the bill to see if it contained the words “collaboration” and “Quebec”, since there was talk of better collaboration between ports in Quebec. I will be honest, the word “collaboration” appears twice in the bill. However, those instances are in provisions that refer to railway safety. In fact, “collaboration” and “Quebec” appear nowhere together.

I also searched for the word “Quebec”. That word also appears twice in the bill, but, in both cases, it is to address minor matters concerning the management of leases by port authorities. This has nothing to do with collaboration between ports. To get back to the article, we will need to talk to the journalists. Indeed, the minister will need to explain how he came to tell us that. However, the minister will not be able to explain it because he is no longer there. There was a change of ministers.

Clearly the minister wanted to lead us down the garden path, because there is absolutely nothing in the bill to allow for collaboration between Quebec ports. It would have been a good opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, it is a missed opportunity.

The ports also asked to be allowed to issue joint calls for tenders and have more flexibility in raising funds. These are great ideas, but disappointingly, they are not in the bill. Ministers do not typically table bills every day. When a minister does get to table a bill, it is a unique opportunity for them to make their mark on history, usher in change and be remembered as someone who accomplished important things on behalf of a great country, Canada. I wish I could say on behalf of Quebec, but we are in the Parliament of Canada, after all.

Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity because no one will remember Bill C‑33. The minister will not go down in history; he is no longer in office. There is now a new minister who has to champion this bill, but I have not heard him say much about it publicly.

This bill lacks vision. It looks like the government is asleep at the wheel. The bill appears to have been drafted by a bunch of bureaucrats in the minister's office who brainstormed ways to better manage Canada's transportation system. They put it all in there—bits about ports, bits about customs and bits about rail transportation—but the end result lacks cohesiveness, vision and ambition. All it is is a bunch of little measures they threw together and called a bill, and then the minister introduced it in the House. It is utterly lacking in policy direction or vision.

We just started a new parliamentary session, and this is the bill that the government has decided to prioritize. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a climate crisis, an inflation crisis, but they decide to take a bunch of random little measures and put them before Parliament, saying that this is the priority for the fall. There is something here I do not understand. Perhaps the government will have a chance to explain later, but I, for one, do not really see where it is going with this.

It is quite apparent that the government is lacking ambition and ideas, both in its legislative agenda and in this infamous bill, which really does not contain much of anything.

There are a few things in there, to be fair. For example, there is a provision that prohibits “interference with railway work...in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations”.

We asked what "threatens the safety” means in concrete terms. Does it mean that people can no longer demonstrate on the tracks? Can workers no longer go on strike? We do not know. We need clarification on what “threatens the safety” means. How is that put into practice? We are looking forward to finding out.

The bill also provides that the minister can order a rail company to take corrective measures in relation to a safety management system. That is not a bad thing. If a problem is not resolved after many warnings, it will allow the minister to order that the problem be resolved. The minister could now have that power.

The minister can issue or cancel security certificates, for example. Anyone transporting dangerous goods will be required to register. That is not a bad thing. Previously, anyone could transport goods without being registered. It is about time that became mandatory.

In an emergency, the minister may direct a person to cease an activity or conduct other activities relating to public safety. That is not a bad thing.

The minister will be authorized to make interim orders and give emergency directions. This could apply to boats, for example, and could be used to prevent a ship from entering a port and keep it at sea. That is another power being given to the minister, but it does not mean the minister is allowed to manage the supply chain. The minister will certainly not spend their days determining which boat can or cannot enter a port and which one gets priority. That is not how it will work. However, in the event of a major crisis, we can see how it might be useful for the minister to have this power in their toolbox.

There is also mention of authorizing logistics activities in ports but it is a poorly kept secret that there are already logistics activities at the ports. It is now written in black and white; it will be done.

The bill mentions releasing quarterly financial statements for ports, which will allow for greater accountability. There is a provision requiring port authorities to establish advisory committees for indigenous peoples, municipalities and communities. Some will call it “meeting mania”, but I would not say that. I think ports need to be accountable to the public, conduct consultations and listen. Sometimes we may have to impose the things that are missing. There has been a lot of unhappiness in the past with the federal government, which does what it wants and sometimes tells others to put up and shut up. We need to make some effort to listen to what people are saying. That is not a bad thing.

There is a requirement for a climate change adaptation plan. No one will object to that. However, is the plan binding and are there quantifiable targets? No, there are no directions, just an obligation to present a plan. However, we are in a climate crisis, whether we like it or not. Parliament has passed net-zero legislation. I find it unfortunate that there is no consistency between this bill, meaning the desire to achieve net-zero by 2050, and port security requirements. This is clearly a flaw.

The Bloc Québécois, and surely members from the other parties, will want ports to assist in the effort like everyone else. Having a plan is not enough in 2023. This is not 2000; it is 20 years later and it is time to go further.

The minister will also have the power to appoint chairs of boards of directors. This raises a red flag. I will talk about that a bit later. Basically, we can see that, from the top of his ivory tower in Ottawa, the minister will be able to micromanage ports. In an emergency, that can be good, but we hope he does not abuse it. The reality is that ports are managed by port authorities. I do not particularly want to see the minister travel to each and every port to micromanage it.

We can also see that, from his ivory tower, the minister can decide who will be the board chair at the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Trois-Rivières and the Port of Saguenay. That bothers me a bit because, often, the Liberals do not necessarily choose chairs for their accomplishments, their field expertise, their achievements in operations management or their great vision for the future.

For me, and I do not know about the others, putting the words “Liberal” and “appointment” together raises all sorts of red flags. In general, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I have the impression that the Liberals are not necessarily looking for someone who is competent. Instead, they choose someone on the basis of their political loyalty to the Liberal Party, to the minister or to the Canadian government. Unfortunately, if this ever happens, nothing can be done to stop it. That is not what we want. We want someone who is chosen for their skills, because they are the best person for the job, not because they are a friend of the Liberal Party. This is a big problem for us.

Their priority was to introduce a dull, unambitious bill that puts everyone to sleep. Usually, we are at the edges of our seats when the government introduces a bill. However, as trivial as the bill is, the government still found a way to put a partisan touch on it to assume a bit more power.

These are not crisis management powers, but powers to appoint Liberal friends to important positions where they will have a little more control over what is happening in our regions. As we know, ports are the gateway for goods that move across the country.

For me, this is important, even critical. For example, more than half of Quebec’s GDP goes through ports. That is huge. With this bill, the government will not fill these positions with management experts who are accomplished managers. No, they will appoint friends of the Liberal Party so that they are indebted to the minister and will do what he tells them to do. This has the potential for political interference, which I find serious. The government can already appoint staff. It can already appoint people to port boards. It already has its eye on what is going on. It can already develop directives, programs or bills. It can already convene them. No, it wants to decide how things are going to happen and even decide to appoint friends to these positions.

For me, this is a big problem. I hope that, in committee, we will ensure that this part of the bill is removed because, in my view, it does not work. The Liberals had this idea of appointing their friends here, there and everywhere. They have not yet done so, but if we look at appointments, we can see that there are already quite a few Liberal friends on the boards of directors. However, they did not give any thought to the idea of appointing, for example, the people who work in the ports to the boards of directors. There are thousands of workers at these ports and they may have things to say to the boards. That could have been interesting, and we would like to make an amendment to the bill to ensure that workers can be heard when decisions are made at ports. These are the major points that I wanted to talk about today.

Often, the government will introduce a boring, anodyne bill, thinking no one will take any notice. However, we did notice one thing, which is that the Liberals have decided to give themselves the power to appoint their friends to key positions, such as presidents of ports. Hell is often paved with good intentions, but when the wrong tools are put into the hands of the wrong people, that leads to bad results. This power, or at least these tools, should not be given to the Liberals. We know what they are like. If they are asked not to touch the candy dish in front of them, but there is no lid and no one is watching, we know what will happen. It is easy to guess. We all remember the sponsorship scandal; we all know what the Liberals are like. They are partisan to the bone, unfortunately. That is a tendency we must fight against and guard against.

Despite the many flaws in Bill C-33, we nonetheless plan to support it because we think it can be improved. We think that what the government is presenting can be improved, which will not be difficult because there is not much to this bill. There is definitely room for improvement. It can be improved and made more palatable, more acceptable.

True, there are some improvements in the bill. I would be lying if I said there were none at all. That said, as long as we are spending time on this bill, we might as well try to make it useful and even better than what the government introduced.

The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to work with the Liberals, provided they decide to work with the opposition instead of trying to shove a bill down our throats without listening to what anyone else has to say. In the past, I have had some very constructive discussions with the previous minister. I have also had discussions with the current minister. I hope he will be as open-minded as his predecessor. He previously told us that he was willing to incorporate several of our proposals into the bill.

In the coming months, during the committee study, we will see whether or not that open-mindedness is genuine. That could obviously have an impact on our final vote after the committee study, when the bill is sent back to the House. If there is no collaboration on the one side, why would there be any on the other? We are here to work for Quebeckers, not for Canada. There must be something for Quebec in the bill. Quebeckers must benefit in some way, and that is what we are going to ensure. The government can count on us to keep working hard to achieve that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague on his speech, which was nicely balanced.

I have to say that we have had plenty of opportunities to discuss the benefits and shortcomings of Bill C‑33. We also had the opportunity to visit various ports in Canada last spring, if I am not mistaken, and my colleague took part in that visit.

He clearly laid out what he would have liked to see in the bill. I agree with most of the points he raised. However, I would like to add a few more.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that Bill C‑33 is actually going to change the rules of the game and make a big difference. Is this really what the port representatives were asking for during our tour last year? Is this really what will help solve the problems facing our communities, towns and villages?

Personally, I am not convinced, but perhaps he could talk more about that. Does he think this bill is the gold standard, the greatest bill we have ever seen?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we need companies to be responsible for protecting communities from their commercial activities. I think that is very reasonable.

Moving on to the portion of the bill that deals with ports, these are some of the more substantive changes being proposed by the government. I will start by noting the importance of the Marine Act and ports to northwest British Columbia.

Of course, the riding I represent is home to the port of Prince Rupert. It is one of North America's fastest-growing ports. It is currently the third-largest port in Canada, and it is a port that has really transformed the face of that community over more than a decade. With incredible growth and expansion, it is now by far the largest employer in the community and has been bringing a lot of benefits to that place, and some concerns as well.

In 2022, the port of Prince Rupert moved 24.6 million tonnes of cargo through its facility, which is a pretty astonishing volume of goods. Of course, this has benefits and impacts up and down the supply chain. The community I live in, Smithers, which has long been a railway town, has hundreds of railroad workers who work for CN and are involved in the transportation of goods from the port.

Last year the port of Prince Rupert completed some exciting projects. There is the Fairview-Ridley connector road shore power project, which I will talk about in a moment, and work is under way on the South Kaien import logistics park. They are assessing the feasibility of a second container terminal, which reflects their really ambitious plans for growth.

The changes to the Marine Act we are looking at in the bill before us really reflect an attempt by the government to solidify the role of port authorities as public institutions and as publicly accountable entities. I think that is a worthwhile project, but we need to ensure that it is done effectively so that the changes actually result in more accountability, transparency and value to the Canadian public.

The changes to the Marine Act would include enabling port authorities to act as intermodal hubs and establish inland ports, and would establish a regulatory authority for traffic management and a streamlined review of port authorities' borrowing, although I would note the bill stops far short of doing what the port authorities are asking when it comes to their borrowing authority. The bill would require ports to provide more information on their activities and their decision-making to government; expand the eligibility of port authority boards and amend their membership; require them to submit publicly available strategic plans; require periodic reviews of port governance; and require them to establish advisory bodies for indigenous communities, local stakeholders and local governments. Finally, the changes to the Marine Act would establish a regulatory authority to require port authorities to set five-year climate plans and targets. I think that is important, and I will speak to it.

There is a difference between real accountability and window dressing, and I think the port association, which has expressed concerns about the added burden of these regulations, is right to be concerned if they do not effectively increase accountability and transparency. When we look at the advisory committees, for instance, I think there are many examples throughout our country of advisory committees that do not actually perform a substantive role, that are there as a sort of PR project and do not improve governance or adequately reflect the concerns of the community or the stakeholders who are being consulted. As such, for these changes to really have the effect the government is hoping they will, we believe there needs to be some degree of independence and there should be clear linkages to port authority decision-making.

A number of advisory committees are being called for in the legislation. The government is talking about requiring port authorities to set up three advisory committees. I was remiss in not mentioning the port of Stewart, a much smaller port in northwest B.C. but an important one nonetheless. For port authorities in smaller communities, the requirement to establish three different advisory committees might be more than is required. We need to look at how we can amend that to ensure that we are properly reflecting the need for additional consultation and the capacity of the community to provide that consultation.

Let us move on to the requirement for port authorities to set climate plans. I believe this is important. The activities of ports make a small but real contribution to Canada's overall emissions. There are great opportunities at ports to reduce emissions and drive down climate pollution. This requires the establishment of five-year climate plans. There is very little detail in the legislation as to what those plans would include. Our view is that, at the very least, five-year climate plans should align with the other climate accountability legislation the government has passed, legislation that we have worked hard to strengthen. It should also be consistent with Canada's national ambitions around reducing greenhouse gases and our international commitments.

As I mentioned, there are huge opportunities at ports to reduce the climate's impact and drive down emissions, and we are seeing some of those opportunities already realized in British Columbia. Shore power, in particular, is a mature, commercially viable technology that is used extensively throughout the world. Last year in Prince Rupert, the port authority embarked on a shore power project. Shore power essentially allows vessels to plug into electricity and not rely on their diesel auxiliary engines when they are tied up in the port being loaded or unloaded. This not only reduces particulate matter in the local community and improves air quality, but it reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

That project is going to make a huge difference. I believe the shore power project in Prince Rupert will reduce emissions by over 30,000 tonnes per year, which is incredibly significant. There is also a shore power project in Victoria at the cruise ship terminal there, which will see very similar benefits.

There is a need to decarbonize shoreside operations as well, including the container handling equipment. This is the equipment at the container terminal, which currently relies on diesel. That is a huge opportunity, not only to make the port's operation more efficient, but to drive down climate emissions. We also need to make parameters around climate planning more robust if this legislation is truly going to drive change. As I said, we need to align it with national ambitions and international obligations.

I will turn back to some of the pieces around accountability and representation when it comes to port governance. One thing we need to recognize, and I am not sure if it is adequately recognized in this legislation, is the central role workers play in the operation of the supply chain, both rail workers and port workers. One of the things I have heard loud and clear from port workers, particularly in British Columbia, is that there is a need for their perspectives to be incorporated into port decision-making.

Currently, on boards of directors of port authorities, there is space dedicated for local governments and for representatives from the prairie provinces. However, there is no seat on port boards of directors for the workers who allow our ports to function. These workers have specific knowledge, expertise and experience that would be of great benefit to the port authorities.

We have submitted that there should be a seat at the table for working people, for the employees of those port facilities. We believe that by working at committee, we can amend this legislation to ensure that workers have a voice in the conversation and a place in the governance of our port authorities.

A final area of concern for residents is marine traffic and anchorages. It has been raised specifically by residents of the south coast of British Columbia in the vicinity of the southern Gulf Islands.

During the pandemic, we saw incredible congestion at the Port of Vancouver. We saw many cargo and container ships backed up and anchored in various locations throughout the Salish Sea and the surrounding waters, which caused real impacts on residents who live in these small communities.

The residents are very concerned about the use of ecologically sensitive coastal areas as essentially parking lots for these large ships. They are worried about the impact on marine mammals, particularly whales, like the endangered southern resident killer whales. They are worried about the impact of anchor dragging, the risk of collisions with whales, noise pollution, air pollution and light pollution. All these things affect people's lives in a very real way.

It is disappointing to see that, despite the media coverage of their concerns, despite writing the minister repeatedly and making the minister aware of these concerns and impacts, the bill before us would do very little, if anything, to address those concerns.

We will be working very hard to ensure that the concerns of those residents are reflected in meaningful amendments. We are talking about areas that Parks Canada has proposed as national park reserves. These are very special, nationally significant marine areas. We are going to ensure those are protected from the impact of shipping traffic, and I look forward to that.

Bill C-33, as others have said, is not as ambitious as it could be, but we look forward to working, through the committee process, with all parties to strengthen it and see if we can get it to the point where it is supportable.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley in beautiful northwest B.C. and speak to the bill before us, Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

This is a fairly complex and technical bill, but really it focuses on Canada's supply chain. Canada is a trading nation, and the performance, resilience, efficiency and sustainability of our supply chain obviously have far-reaching impacts. This is something that was driven home just this past year with the atmospheric river events in British Columbia, the extreme climate occurrence that took out a good portion of the supply chain infrastructure in my province and caused some real concern and disturbance for the supplies that companies and citizens across our country require. There is also of course the impact of the pandemic on the supply chain. We saw during the pandemic a whole host of concerns, unfortunately very few of which are addressed in this bill. However, I do note there are some incremental improvements we can get behind.

I hope to focus my comments on the concerns I have heard from communities, from people in British Columbia and other parts of Canada who are impacted by the operation of the supply chain. The supply chain does not exist in a vacuum. It runs through places where people live. For years and years, people have been expressing concerns about the impact of the transportation of goods on their lives. I was somewhat dismayed to see that those concerns from citizens and the concerns from workers in the supply chain are not reflected in a more substantive way in the legislation before us.

The response to this bill has been rather tepid. As much as anything, the response has been that it is a missed opportunity to do something much more far-reaching and ambitious. However, as I mentioned, there are items in this bill that are supportable, so we look forward to seeing it get to committee where we can work with all parties to make amendments that strengthen its provisions.

I am going to focus my remarks on the portion of the bill that relates to changes to the Marine Act, that is, the operation of our ports, and changes to the Railway Safety Act, which is something very pertinent to the region I represent.

I will start with the topic of rail safety. I want to note at the outset that this year marks the 10-year anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy that took 47 lives and destroyed the downtown of a beautiful community. I came across comments from a fellow named Ian Naish, the former director of rail accident investigations with the Transportation Safety Board. He said in February that safety measures introduced since the Lac-Mégantic disaster have been “marginal”.

We also saw in East Palestine, Ohio, a major rail disaster that impacted thousands of people. In the wake of that disaster, Kathy Fox, the chair of Canada's Transportation Safety Board said, in referring to rail safety in Canada, “Progress is being made, but it's very, very slow. I can't say [Ohio] couldn't happen here.” These remarks should be of great concern to Canadians, because we see the volume of dangerous goods shipped by rail increasing every year.

I mentioned in my question to my colleague across the way a moment ago the work of the transport committee, on which both he and I sit. That committee, in May, released a report with 33 recommendations, and I am somewhat disappointed to see that this bill does not address any of them. One of our big concerns when it comes to rail safety is the use of something called safety management systems. This was brought in, I believe in the 1990s, under a Liberal government. Prior to that, there was a much more conventional approach to the regulation of the rail sector and the use of enforcement to do so. Safety management systems are really a form of self-regulation by the companies themselves.

This has been a concern for a number of watchdogs that keep track of changes in the rail sector. Since the Transportation Safety Board has kept a watch-list, this is a set of issues that are of concern and that Canadians should be watching when it comes to safety.

The Transportation Safety Board states, “operators that have implemented a formal safety management system (SMS) are not always able to demonstrate that it is working and producing the expected safety improvements.” I will also note some words from the Auditor General of Canada:

...Transport Canada was unable to show whether departmental oversight activities have contributed to improved rail safety. In addition, the department did not assess the effectiveness of the railways’ safety management systems—despite the many reports over the last 14 years recommending that Transport Canada audit and assess these systems.

The picture I am trying to paint is one in which the government has largely allowed these multi-billion dollar rail companies to look after their own safety, and the oversight of them has been sorely lacking. Particularly on the anniversary of the worst rail disaster in 150 years, Canadians should be concerned about that.

Bill C-33 does contain one small change giving the minister the ability to require companies to address deficiencies in their safety management systems. However, this is a discretionary power given to the minister and really relies on his or her willingness to use that power. At the very least, safety management systems should be made public. Currently, they are proprietary systems owned by companies and not open to public scrutiny.

Bruce Campbell, a rail safety expert who wrote a book on Lac-Mégantic and who has been looking into these issues for years, says, “Transport Canada must ensure that [safety management systems] are part and parcel of an effective, adequately financed, comprehensive system of regulatory oversight: [one-site] inspection, surveillance and enforcement supported by sufficient, appropriately trained staff.” He goes on to say that SMS, currently protected under commercial confidentiality, should be accessible to outside scrutiny. We would very much like to see the government make safety management systems public so that the public can see what railway companies are doing to ensure the safety of their communities.

It is incredible that small rural communities, like many in the riding I represent, are responsible for protecting their residents from potential disasters involving these multi-billion dollar rail companies that are shipping dangerous goods within metres of residents' houses. Many of these communities rely on small volunteer fire departments. They have limited equipment and capacity, yet we see hundreds of railcars with extremely volatile compounds being shipped right through communities every single day. It boggles the mind that the responsibility for responding to emergencies rests—

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, the issues I raised in my speech about Bill C-33 are all related to supply chain needs. They are related to the connection with rail, marine and air services, which all interconnect to help improve our supply chain. As we know, for the past three or four years, we have had major challenges, particularly during the pandemic, when Canadians could never get services on time or get products they needed. This is all about improving efficiency over the entire transportation network.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, Canada's ports are indispensable links in our country's supply chains. In co-operation with other modes in the transportation network, they help grow our economy, create middle-class jobs for Canadians, deliver affordable goods and support Canada's growing export industry.

Canada's long-term prosperity is dependant on the competitiveness of this transportation network. This is, in part, determined by the reliability of each mode to move goods swiftly and cost efficiently. The ability to make data-driven decisions and the capability to plan for and make timely investments are critical. To ensure Canada's competitiveness now and into the future, ports require modernized tools and approaches to thrive in an increasingly global environment.

Other countries are pulling ahead of Canada. In the race to establish a fluid and agile transportation network, they have already established end-to-end systems, level approaches that consider each mode and link in the supply chain. All of this is informed by data and information sharing. To remain competitive, our government needs to adopt a comprehensive approach to supply chain planning.

Bill C-33 considers ports as central nodes in a complex, interdependent system and enables them to capitalize on their important position in Canada's intricate supply chain. The tools proposed in this bill would be informed by a cohesive data strategy that would enable prioritization of fluidity, responsiveness and agility.

A well-functioning transportation system requires and relies on the availability of vast amounts of data. Ports are nexuses where transportation modes converge. They present a unique opportunity to leverage untapped data to unlock and build an adaptable, responsive and resilient trade network. Furthermore, a resilient trade network requires continued development and growth to be provided through investment. To ensure that investments continue to serve the public as intended, they must be assessed against clear objectives.

The need to deliver a modern transportation network has never been clearer. Canadians are facing the rising cost of goods and services and product shortages. Inflation continues, and Canadians are struggling to keep up. Taking action to improve the competitiveness of the transportation network is key to making life more affordable for Canadians.

Bill C-33 seeks to enhance efficiency, facilitate data and information sharing, and maintain sustainable investment. These are the keys to ensuring that our transportation network continues to support Canada's economy and improve the life of every Canadian.

To that end, Bill C-33 would enable three competitiveness reforms that would provide ports with the tools and mandate to better manage traffic and ease congestion with the goal of enhancing gateway fluidity; empower port authorities, through the collection of data and information, to support efficient and informed planning to support resilient operations; ensure port investments align with public interests and that investments continue to be managed sustainably.

I will first speak to the need to provide ports with the tools and mandate to better manage traffic.

From end to end, ports and exports touch multiple transportation modes: marine, rail and road. These interdependencies make up Canada's transportation network, which requires a systematic approach to planning, development and traffic management. Bill C-33 would broaden the scope of the Canada Marine Act to mandate port authorities to work with the supply chain stakeholders to actively manage commercial traffic, including vessels anchoring while waiting for cargo, and allow for sequencing of rail services.

Ensuring that ports take a more direct role in traffic management would mean faster handling of ships, improvements to the fluidity of traffic flows at ports and maximizing the efficiency of supply chain operations. Additionally, the bill would enable Canada port authorities to create inland ports. Importantly, this would allow new ways of doing business that optimize terminal throughput, alleviate congestion in our urban centres and position our supply chains on a more resilient footing.

These tools would reframe the basis for collaboration between supply chain actors and Canadian port authorities. Port authorities would be empowered to take a more active role in managing the supply chain, including taking concrete actions to address congestion. However, unlocking the ability of ports to better manage traffic and ease congestion requires enhanced data and information sharing among partners.

The second main reform proposed is in support of greater competitiveness in data collection and information sharing among partners. Bill C-33 would allow ports to leverage data to better orchestrate traffic and inform port planning and smarter decision-making. As we look to best practices, governments and industry partners around the world have already improved efficiency, safety and productivity across entire supply chains by transforming their ports into data hubs. Canada needs to keep pace if we are going to remain a competitive trading nation.

As members of the House know, private investment has been a key to our competitiveness. This is also true for our ports. Private investment in our ports has been essential to the development of the port services we have today, and this will continue to be the case in the future. It is therefore critical that we continue to foster a clear and predictable investment climate while ensuring such activities support port sustainability and the public interest.

Bill C-33 would provide the government with more insight into strategic port investments by broadening the scope of reviewable transactions. Over the past number of years, Canada port authorities have called for greater financial flexibility to enhance their ability to harness investment and respond to development opportunities. Bill C-33 seeks to provide port authorities with increased borrowing and financial flexibility, balanced against the financial risks to the Crown and to Canadians. To that end, Bill C-33 would establish a triennial review of Canada port authorities' borrowing capacity.

In summary, the suite of measures found in Bill C-33 would provide the tools needed to optimize port operations, enabled by modern digital solutions, and maximize investment and capacity development grounded in clear rules that maintain ports as attractive and sustainable assets. Taken together, these measures would ensure that our ports remain resilient, efficient and competitive.

Canadians have witnessed first-hand the need for such reforms. I hope I can count on my fellow members of Parliament to support this bill.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth. We know that we have gone through a very difficult time over the last three or four years with the supply chains and the pandemic. Our ports have suffered because of that.

Bill C-33 would modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate. We would remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, more secure and resilient supply. The bill would expand port authorities' mandate over traffic management. All of those are very positive efforts. This bill will go to committee and be looked at in greater detail, and I look forward to seeing this through.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond on behalf of the government.

This afternoon we will continue debate on Government Business No. 26, concerning amendments to the Standing Orders. When debate concludes later this evening, we will consider Bill C-35, respecting early learning and child care, followed by Senate amendments to Bill C-9, concerning the Judges Act.

Tomorrow we will consider Bill C-42, respecting the Canada Business Corporations Act, at report stage and third reading, and Bill S-8, respecting sanctions.

The priorities for next week shall include Bill S-8, on sanctions; Senate amendments to Bill C-18, respecting online news; Bill C-40, concerning the miscarriage of justice review commission act, also known as David and Joyce Milgaard's Law; and Bill C-33, which strengthens the port system and railway safety.

Thursday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, I request that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the next sitting be 12 midnight, pursuant to order made Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill C-33 is the minister's baby. When ministers introduce bills that fall under their department's jurisdiction, they are usually very eager to see the bill in question take effect. In a way, I think it is to the minister's credit that he is pushing to advance his files and that he is excited at the idea of seeing his bill passed.

However, it is important for the House to have the opportunity to properly debate the bill, propose amendments and thoroughly examine it. Personally, I do not think that five hours of debate was sufficient. There are all sorts of issues on which we might have liked to make adjustments or changes.

Take, for example, small ports. The minister can comment on that. There are new obligations for ports that may be a good way to increase accountability. However, not all ports have the same resources as the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver. Other ports are a lot smaller, and it could make things difficult for them if the government imposes a lot more obligations on them than they had to meet in the past.

I would like to know whether the minister is open to making accommodations for these ports that have different realities.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Bill C-33 on March 10 of this year, the member for Chilliwack—Hope remarked:

There is nothing in this bill about what would happen to our supply chains and our international reputation when there are labour disputes that impact the supply chain either at the ports or on our railways.

It sure sounds as if he wants the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process, which often happened when the Conservatives were in power.

Can you comment on this and, in general, on how they treated workers at our ports and railway systems compared to our government's approach?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his work and diligence at the transport committee. As he is the transport critic for the NDP, we have been working together on advancing the public interests of all Canadians, including on safety in the rail network.

I had conversations, including here in the House of Commons, in the chamber, during the first debate on Bill C-33 with my hon. colleague, the transport critic for the Conservatives. I encouraged him to work together on making sure that we pass a good bill for Canadians. Unfortunately, as my colleague said, I have seen no sign of their willingness to work together on a bill that is of paramount importance to Canadians and our supply chains.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his work on the transport committee and his co-operative attitude in making sure that we work together collaboratively to ensure that all laws passed in the House of Commons, including Bill C-33, are intended to serve Canadians.

To his question, the answer is obvious if we follow the words of the leader of the official opposition. He publicly said that he is going to use all tools, tactics and tricks to delay our agenda, which is necessary to serve Canadians, from passing through the House of Commons. If the leader of the Conservative Party were following a co-operative and positive attitude to vigorously debate bills but ensure that we pass them for the service of all Canadians, we would not be here.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my disappointment with the closure motion on Bill C‑33.

It is disappointing because I believe that this bill has some potential and could improve things to some extent. In the past, I have had discussions with the minister that seemed very encouraging. I hope that we can continue to work in that spirit. I particularly hoped that we, as parliamentarians, would have the opportunity to debate the bill before sending it directly to committee.

I have a simple question for the minister. Why did the Liberals think it was necessary to invoke closure for Bill C‑33? Regardless of whether the bill is good or not, I hope that we will eventually have the opportunity to debate it.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, inflation is a global phenomenon. It is good that Canada is below the OECD average. It is also below the G7 average, the G20 average, the U.S., the U.K., Spain, Germany and many other countries. Of course, that is not good enough. We have to continue to lead and do everything we can. That is why I am so proud that this House just adopted a budget with critical measures to help Canadians in every corner of this country with affordability, because we are not going to fix the problem of global inflation by slashing support to the most vulnerable.

After passing the budget, this House has important work to do over the next two weeks.

It will start this evening as we resume debate on Bill C-35, on early learning and child care, at report stage. Once that debate is done, we will resume debate on Bill C-33, on railway safety. Tomorrow, we will debate Bill C-41, on humanitarian aid. On Monday at noon, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-48 concerning bail reform, and then we will go to Bill C-35 at third reading after question period. On Tuesday we will call Bill S-8, on sanctions, at report stage and third reading.

On top of this, priority will be given to Bill C-22, the disability benefit, and Bill C-40 regarding miscarriage of justice reviews, as well as our proposal to implement changes to the Standing Orders, which were tabled earlier today, to render provisions with respect to hybrid Parliament permanent in this House.

Furthermore, I have a unanimous consent motion that I would like to propose in relation to the debate tomorrow.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, in relation to Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts:

(a) the amendment in Clause 1 adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which reads as follows:

“(a) by adding after line 26 on page 1 the following:

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to a person who carries out any of the acts referred to in those subsections for the sole purpose of carrying out humanitarian assistance activities conducted under the auspices of impartial humanitarian organizations in accordance with international law while using reasonable efforts to minimize any benefit to terrorist groups.

“(b) by deleting lines 15 to 19 on page 2.”

be deemed within the principle of the bill; and

(b) when the bill is taken up at report stage:

(i) it be deemed concurred in, as amended, on division, after which the bill shall be immediately ordered for consideration at the third reading stage,

(ii) not more than one sitting day or five hours of debate, whichever is the shortest, shall be allotted for consideration at the third reading stage,

(iii) five minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government orders that day, at the conclusion of the five hours allocated for the debate, or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that, if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022.

Bill C-33—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about the three rail workers who lost their lives near Field and how inspiring it has been to work with their family members to create a legacy of safety for other railroad families.

There are a number of recommendations in the report we are debating this evening that relate specifically to this. Before, I mentioned fatigue and rest facilities; these points are reflected in the report. However, specific to the incident near Field, there is a recommendation in this report calling on the federal government to address the profound conflict of interest that exists when rail companies are able to employ private corporate police forces to investigate their own accidents.

In the case of the Canadian Pacific incident, the first people on the scene were employees of the company. Their first call was to corporate risk management. This is not how potentially criminal investigations should be conducted. The families of these men deserved an objective and transparent investigation. I am pleased that the RCMP eventually undertook an investigation, which is ongoing, but we need to ensure for any future accidents that, when tragedy strikes, these companies are not able to use their own private police forces to investigate. This report leads us in that direction. Time is certainly of the essence.

I want to talk a bit about the concerns of communities, particularly around emergency response. In northwest B.C., we have seen a tremendous increase in the transport of dangerous goods by rail, particularly liquid propane. This is a result of port development in Prince Rupert, which has really been welcomed by the region and has brought a tremendous number of economic benefits. However, the reality is that this development has also increased rail traffic, and in particular, the transport of dangerous goods. When communities look at the tragedy that happened in Lac-Mégantic or the recent tragedy in East Palestine, Ohio, they are very concerned about what the worst-case scenario could look like. This report from the Standing Committee on Transport includes recommendations that speak specifically to emergency response.

Many of the small communities the railroad passes through in northwest B.C. are protected by volunteer fire departments. These are fire departments staffed by community members, who dedicate their time out of an ethos of community service. They have limited budgets, limited equipment and limited ability to fight the large industrial fires that could result from the transport of dangerous goods.

I will actually mention that, on March 21, there was a rail fire in my home community involving a single car of a relatively innocuous substance that caught fire. It took two fire departments, both Smithers and Telkwa, to put it out. They responded with 17 members from Smithers, five members from Telkwa and five pieces of firefighting apparatus. They put over 20,000 litres of water on this car to put it out. It was quite an effort. I was reflecting on the words of the deputy fire chief, Alle Jan de Vries from Smithers. He said that they were able to deal with that size of an emergency, but a larger situation involving several railcars would quickly outstrip their capacity as a fire department.

This, of course, comes back to the federal government's responsibility to protect communities. My concern, and the concern of many people across Canada, is that in this era of self-regulation and the hands-off approach of the federal government, these companies are able to rely on a municipal fire response that cannot deal with the worst-case scenarios that we are talking about.

In this report from the committee, we have recommendations related to maximum response times. This is something that community members deserve to know. They deserve to know when help is going to show up. Is it going to take one hour, two hours or five hours? What resources will the help show up with? In our region, we understand that there are specialized caches of equipment and personnel, but they are several hours away. Of course, we know that, in a fire involving dangerous goods, a lot can happen in a couple of hours. Therefore, it is absolutely vital that the federal government do a review and ensure that communities are properly protected for these larger events.

I want to recognize the work of the Regional District of Bulkley–Nechako, which is completing a gap analysis on rail safety. This is being done to better understand in detail where those vulnerabilities exist, so that, as communities, we can clearly communicate our needs to the federal government and ensure that people are protected.

Of course, there are numerous indigenous communities along the railroad as well. In many cases, Indigenous people in western Canada have a difficult history with the railroad. I think of the elders in Gitsegukla, whom I spoke with. They described how the railroad came through their village and right through their graveyard. They also described how their land was taken, but they were never compensated for it. There are still outstanding concerns about the impact of the construction of the railroad over 100 years ago on their community, and today, they share many of the concerns with respect to emergency response and the transport of dangerous goods. I want to give special recognition to the Kitselas First Nation, which also presented before the committee and provided testimony on its work to evaluate the risk to its community of from rail transport.

Finally, I want to talk a bit about the environment. The other big risk from rail transport relates to potential environmental impacts. I just spoke about the Kitselas, who are people of the Skeena River. The railroad in northwest B.C. runs right along the Skeena, which is British Columbia's second-largest wild salmon system. All five species of wild salmon swim up the Skeena, so the communities are very concerned about what would happen if there were a derailment that resulted in dangerous goods, especially persistent fuels like diesel, spilling into the river. They are concerned about what the response would be, how effective it would be and how long it would take.

I want to talk a bit about some of the safety systems that are currently in place and the concerns around them. If we think about safety management systems, these are the tools the federal government really leans on most heavily in ensuring some semblance of safety in the rail sector. I want to recognize the work of Bruce Campbell, who has done a lot of thinking about safety management systems and their place in the management regime related to rail. Bruce wrote a book about the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and has travelled to northwest B.C. to help communities understand what the risks are.

The Auditor General has expressed serious concerns about safety management in the rail sector, particularly the federal government's lack of effectiveness monitoring. Rail companies are required to have these safety management systems, but as of the Auditor General's last report, there had not been enough done to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems. If we do not evaluate whether these systems create better safety, how do we know that they are effective? That is the question we have to ask.

Of course, safety management systems were never meant to replace conventional regulations, monitoring and enforcement. However, what we see today is really a regime of self-regulation by the rail companies. We see far too few inspections by a federal department, Transport Canada, which simply does not have the resources to do the job that is required. The report from the committee speaks to this. We need more unannounced inspections to ensure that companies are following the rules, that materials are being transported safely and that the conditions that workers are working under are safe. One of the themes in this report is ensuring that the federal government has resources commensurate with the challenge of managing this important industry.

Earlier, when I spoke about East Palestine, I was noting a remark in the media from the chair of the Transportation Safety Board, shortly after that incident happened. She said that, in her opinion, she could not clearly state that such an incident would not be possible in Canada. Part of the reason for that remark was that she has seen how slowly the federal government addresses the recommendations that come from the Transportation Safety Board. We need the government to be much more responsive to those kinds of recommendations, and I think some of the actions the government could take are in this report.

This report is being debated at a very timely point, because, in the very near future, we will be resuming debate on Bill C-33, which is the government's proposed legislation related to ports and the supply chain, including rail safety. It includes a couple of amendments to the Railway Safety Act that stem from the Railway Safety Act review in 2017. Notably, however, this legislation is silent on almost all the recommendations in the committee's report that we are debating tonight.

That is a real missed opportunity, because what this report represents are the concerns of rail workers, communities, several first nations and others who are impacted by the transport of goods by rail. Therefore, I would hope that the government would take these concerns seriously. I have spoken to the minister, particularly about the rail police concern and the emergency response concern in communities, and we expect the government will table additional legislation specifically related to rail safety so we can address these long-standing concerns.

I started by talking a bit about the importance of the railroad, not just in the region I represent but right across Canada. I do not think any of that importance takes away from the need for us to ensure the safety of the people who work on our railroads, to ensure the safety of the communities through which the railroad passes and to ensure the safety of our environment, which, of course, is so very precious. As we continue this debate and think about how we can make the rail sector safer for all Canadians, I want us to remember the people this is about: people like Andrew Dockrell, Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer and Dylan Paradis, people who have been affected by the government's lack of oversight and lack of regulation in the rail sector.

I hope that, through this debate, we can reflect on the 30 recommendations in this report and that we can really think about what actions are needed; summon the resolve, as Parliament; and put pressure on the government to finally take those actions.

Again, the reality is that none of us wants to think about the worst-case scenarios. In my conversations with people around the region and within the federal government about rail safety, people rarely want to talk about what happens when the unthinkable occurs. They say that they are making the trains go slower so it is less likely they catch on fire. They say that the tank cars the trains are carrying have thicker walls and they are less likely to be punctured. However, it behooves us to think about what those worst-case scenarios are and to ensure that we have plans in place, that we have regulations, that we have monitoring and that we have enforcement that protects the people who matter the most.

[Arun Thangaraj]

As we saw, what became very clearly apparent is the role that ports play in the smooth movement of goods and services, and the supply chain task force did highlight that very clearly. A key element, as the previous questioner noted, is how rail functions in and out of ports and how trucks work.

We are very focused on how we make the full port system work. Part of Bill C-33 enables all of those things—fluidity, environment and other considerations—to be integrated in the decision-making of ports. Part of what we are looking at is also the digital information to ensure that the infrastructure is used to its maximum effectiveness. There was a recent call, as part of the national trade corridors fund, to that end. There are various initiatives that we have that really do coalesce around making ports function as efficiently and as effectively as possible.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I believe that this is also part of Bill C-33 on port modernization. Are you able to tell us how it would be different from the pilot project, which I believe is for 18 to 24 months? If a shipper is in a situation where they would like to use the interswitching, do they need to apply, or has the process changed?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be back with you at this committee today to discuss Transport Canada's main estimates and supplementary estimates (C).

I thank the committee for inviting me to take part in its work.

I'm joined today by representatives from Transport Canada. Here for the first time as deputy minister is Arun Thangaraj. Ryan Pilgrim is chief financial officer and assistant deputy minister of corporate services.

I'm happy to be here today because it gives me an opportunity to discuss the important work Transport Canada has been undertaking on behalf of Canadians.

As much as I would like to never mention the word “COVID-19” again, we continue to live through some of its lingering impacts. The extraordinary disruptions to travel and supply chains we witnessed over the last two years are, fortunately, improving. We remain focused on addressing these challenges and are determined to learn from many of the lessons learned during that period.

Budget 2023 outlines several initiatives that will fundamentally transform and improve our supply chain. While I'm happy to discuss budget 2023 with you today, you invited me here to talk about the main and supplementary estimates.

Let me go over some of the ambitious actions the estimates are funding: introducing Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act; making sure Canada's air transport sector is reliable and safe for travellers; taking strong steps to meet our climate commitments; and continuing to strengthen Canada's rail system.

In the supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal year 2022-23, the main estimates for fiscal year 2023-24 and budget 2023, you will find many examples of how committed our government is to ensuring Canadians have a safe, secure and sustainable transportation system.

In my opening remarks, I will highlight a few of those examples.

In the main estimates for Transport Canada, you will see grant funding for the very successful program for incentives for zero-emission vehicles. Our plan to accelerate the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles was detailed in budget 2022.

By making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, we are helping to reduce pollution, create more well-paid jobs, and build a cleaner world for generations to come.

The main estimates also include a $270-million increase in funding, when compared to the previous main estimates, for work toward high-frequency rail, a project that I know this committee is very much interested in.

On February 17, I was in Montreal to announce the launch of the request for qualifications phase for the HFR project, in order to identify and qualify up to three top candidates to build a new, dedicated intercity passenger rail network connecting Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Quebec City. The new dedicated rail line will complement and build on Via Rail's current services, driving transformation in the populated corridor. This is the biggest investment in passenger rail in Canada in a generation, and the largest transportation infrastructure project Canada has seen.

You will also notice that Via HFR, a new subsidiary of Via Rail, is included in this year's estimates. Via HFR was created in November 2022 to advance the HFR project. As a wholly owned subsidiary of Via Rail, it will operate in close collaboration with Via Rail but at arm's length. This will allow Via Rail to focus on its core responsibilities while Via HFR will develop the world-class expertise necessary for designing and advancing the HFR project.

In the main estimates for Via Rail, there is funding to support Via Rail capital projects. Also, budget 2023 announced funding for maintenance on trains on Via Rail routes outside of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

Our government will also continue to work with all Crown corporations to ensure they have the resources needed to continue to properly deliver their essential services. For example, in the main estimates, there is funding for the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited to help offset the impact of pandemic-related reductions in revenue. Just last month, I announced $75.9 million for the Canadian Transportation Agency to ensure they have the resources they need to address passenger complaints.

Our government was the first in our history to implement the air passenger bill of rights. We have strengthened it since 2019, and we will continue to do so. That's why in budget 2023 we announced proposed changes to the Canada Transportation Act to strengthen airline obligations to compensate passengers for delays and cancellations.

Finally, in the supplementary estimates, you will see funds for eastern Canada ferry services. These funds would help to address increased fuel and labour costs amidst lower revenues due to lingering effects of the global pandemic.

I'm confident that the investments in the supplementary estimates (C) and the main estimates will keep people and goods moving efficiently and effectively and advance a safe, competitive and clean transportation system.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks. I'm happy to answer any questions you and our colleagues may have.

Thank you very much.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses here with us today.

My first question will be for Mayor Pond.

It seems like I missed a really great visit, Mayor, and I'm really sorry that I wasn't able to come out your way, but I commit to coming out and visiting you. I hope it will be sooner rather than later.

I'd like to hear your view on whether you would like to see governance changes in how ports operate. I'd like to hear your view as a smaller community with a large port. Do you have any thoughts about changes in Bill C-33 that would require consultative bodies to be set up by port authorities for neighbouring communities, indigenous groups, etc.?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I would say the financial aspects of Bill C-33 are where we have the biggest questions about the bill. We first saw the bill when it was tabled in the House of Commons. We reviewed it and addressed questions and concerns in a letter to Minister Alghabra in December.

We had a good, productive meeting with Transport Canada officials one month ago today, but we have big questions about how the borrowing process will work. There are extensive new financial reporting requirements in the bill that are proposed as well. Ports are already reporting significant amounts of data on a quarterly basis. We don't have an answer to the question, “Is what's being provided today sufficient to meet what is desired, or is it an onerous new requirement in terms of reporting?”

We've been told that it's meant to inform a borrowing limit process that will be more dynamic and more responsive to changing business environments, but we don't have the answers on what that looks like or how it works.

If the reporting requirements are similar to what is happening today and if the borrowing process is more dynamic than the hard limits we have today, that could be an improvement. It's not what we were asking for, but we simply do not have the answers. We hope to get them before we come back before this committee, because otherwise we can't say whether this bill is a modest improvement or if it actually might be quite negative.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you.

I'm intrigued by the conversation we have had around borrowing limits, borrowing capacity and financial flexibility—and these are just two examples; they're not even the biggest ports—because what struck me on our tour of ports is that in Saint John, their borrowing capacity is $8 million. It takes them $30 million to build a pier, while $8 million will buy you three houses in the GTA.

Hamilton port, which is close to my heart and to Mr. Badawey's heart because it takes in Niagara and has great opportunities for short-sea shipping, has a borrowing limit of $45 million. It's going through the process now to increase that. Of course, it's lengthy. That's a port that has four billion dollars' worth of cargo going through it and 40,000 Ontario jobs attached to that.

You talked about it briefly in your opening testimony, but maybe you could elaborate on some of the other shortcomings of Bill C-33, or missed opportunities as we look at that.

Mr. Gooch can start, and then maybe Mr. Miller can talk from the perspective of the Vancouver port, which we haven't had a chance to get to.

[David Miller]

We currently have in place a pretty extensive system of consultation committees with the local municipalities, with first nations and with residents in the area. We really already have in place most of what Bill C-33 envisions.

I think what they envision is a challenge for some of the smaller ports that just don't have the staff to deal with some of what they feel they are being asked to do. In an area like ours, where we're dealing with 16 municipalities and numerous first nations, we've developed over the years a pretty robust system in terms of consultations. It's worked quite well for us.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Stewart, we talk about conflicting views, of course, and we hear them here today in terms of what we need to do going forward. Can you describe what kinds of consultations you currently undertake when proposing expansion projects or changes in how you operate? What is your understanding of how Bill C-33 would change consultations?

I'm sorry. That's for Mr. Miller.

[Bonnie Gee]

Certainly, if that is the intent of Bill C-33—to remove anchorages—which I do not believe is the case....

There is a lot of work under way currently with the Port of Vancouver and Transport Canada to look at how we better utilize those anchorages, particularly outside the port's jurisdiction.

The anchorages and the vessels in those anchorages are often a symptom of a supply chain that's broken. They are waiting there only because the cargo has not arrived yet at the facility where the vessels need to load. The perception that vessels are there for no reason other than to park the vessels is not correct.

The consequences of not having those anchorages would be having vessels drifting offshore.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Gee.

Ms. Gee, are you concerned at all about Bill C-33, the removal of the west coast anchorages, and what the impact will be on infrastructure?

[David Miller, Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thanks very much.

I regret this, because obviously Mr. Stewart is the appropriate person, as the vice-president of infrastructure, to deal with a lot of these issues. I will do my best to deal with questions, recognizing that some of them may be beyond my areas of expertise.

Thanks very much for your invitation to us to appear here today. We regret that the committee was not able to visit our port during its recent tour. We would certainly appreciate the opportunity to host you all in the near future.

As I'm sure you're aware, the port of Vancouver is Canada's largest port, moving volumes nearly equal to those for the next-largest five ports combined. In the next five years, we're forecasted to grow by an amount equal to all of the trade through the port of Montreal, Canada's second-largest port, as new capacity ramps up and comes on stream.

We operate in a complex environment with challenging geography and bordering 16 local municipalities and a number of first nations. Given the growth that has taken place, our ability to finance and build infrastructure is extremely important. We certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss some of our recent projects and a vitally important project that we're hoping to have approved in the near future.

When it comes to major infrastructure projects, a significant impediment facing Canada's ports is the challenge of getting an increase to our federally mandated borrowing limits. Current borrowing limits are set substantially below the levels that commercial lenders would view as reasonable and appropriate. Raising borrowing limits is a slow process, usually taking several years. This can make responding quickly to commercial opportunities impossible. Bill C-33 creates a revolving three-year process for reviewing borrowing limits, but it does nothing to ensure that the process will move more quickly than it has in the past.

There are two significant infrastructure projects that were completed in recent years that I would like to note. The first is the G3 grain terminal. This was the first new grain terminal to be built at the port in many decades and it is the first grain terminal on the Canadian west coast with a loop track. This enables trains to unload without having to be broken apart or to remove the locomotive—a huge improvement in the speed and efficiency of the process. The project facilitated investment of well over $1 billion in the prairie grain elevator system and created a highly efficient new supply chain to move grain to the coast and on to customers.

Under the provisions of CEAA 2012, as the terminal did not require construction of a new berth, the port was able to review the project through its own process. The terminal was approved and permitted in seven months and completed well ahead of schedule.

Similarly, the expansion to the existing Centerm container terminal did not need to go through the federal process, allowing it to complete permitting and move forward in 16 months. The expansion increased the capacity of the terminal by 60% while increasing the footprint by only 15%.

Unlike our recent success stories in advancing projects quickly to completion, our Roberts Bank Terminal 2 container project has been in the federal environmental review process for nine and a half years. We're very concerned that even using low-case projections for growth in container traffic, we're now in a position in which the port will run out of container capacity well before the new terminal can be completed.

The recent slowdown in the sector may buy us a bit of time, but not enough. On a recent trip to Asia to meet with the container shipping lines, my colleagues heard a common refrain wherever they went: We need more capacity.

This terminal is strongly supported by the western provinces, and we're proud that we currently have mutual-benefit agreements for this project with 26 first nations. As with our existing Roberts Bank terminal, the port authority plans to build the land and marine structure for the T2 terminal and then lease it to an operator, which would build and operate the terminal. The cost of building the land will be recovered through the long-term lease.

Another reason we're so anxious to move forward with T2 is to increase competition. Currently there are only two operators with container terminals at the B.C. ports. We believe that adding a third operator will ensure competitive pricing for Canadian importers, exporters and consumers. This is particularly important in the strategic Roberts Bank area, where there is currently only one operator. This is the only area in which there are no height or depth constraints, and the terminal can handle the largest ships, which are now in use around the construction.

If we do not build the capacity in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, our exporters and importers will be forced to rely on U.S. ports. This will represent a significant increase in cost, a loss of domestic control and an increase in emissions, as containers will need to be moved longer distances. More will move by truck rather than rail, due to limited rail capacity across the border.

This will negatively impact small and medium-sized Canadian exporters. These exporters, particularly those moving agricultural products such as pulse crops, compete on the world market, where the increased costs involved in using Seattle or Portland would likely make them uncompetitive.

Needless to say, we view this project as being essential for the future of Canada's trade competitiveness.

Thank you, and I'll do my best to handle your questions.

[Bonnie Gee, President, Chamber of Shipping]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning.

My name is Bonnie Gee. I am the president of the Chamber of Shipping. This is my first week in the role, so please be kind.

I wish to acknowledge first that I am speaking to you from the unceded territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh peoples.

On behalf of our members, who are shipowners, operators and agents who move a majority of Canada's international trade in the waters of the Asia-Pacific, the Chamber of Shipping appreciates the opportunity to provide our perspective on large port infrastructure expansion projects in Canada.

Port authorities are mandated to support the development of trade-enabling infrastructure to support the national interests of all Canadians.

Historically, port authorities have taken the lead on large infrastructure projects on what may appear to be speculative by some. What we know today as the Deltaport and Fairview Container terminals were really driven by a division of port authorities and community stakeholders, with little to no commitment from the shipping lines.

The context in which the shipping industry operates today has changed dramatically since then. There has been a tremendous increase in cargo volumes through the western trade corridors, and we have seen a piecemeal approach to improving infrastructure along the trade corridors to support the two major gateways in western Canada.

Port infrastructure expansion projects cannot be evaluated in isolation and must be part of a national growth strategy that encompasses all the pieces of the supply chain that would support fluidity through the intended project and the gateway as a whole.

A national supply chain strategy must involve provinces, municipalities, indigenous and local communities, and industry. Sufficient rail capacity and reliability are critical to the success of many marine terminals that have invested billions of dollars to increase their own capacity and efficiency.

Supply chains are comprised of a system of systems that has often felt like a house of cards, with climate change, civil disobedience and labour instability creating uncertainty.

Given the recent events that have affected our gateway over the last few years, the need for supply chain resiliency is top of mind. Disruptions will continue to occur, and it's imperative that we get better at preparing and reacting to them in a holistic and strategic manner, so that recovery does not take several months. Adequate surge capacity is needed throughout the supply chain.

We generally support the development of new trade-enabling infrastructure, and we are pleased to see that we are nearing the finish line for some major infrastructure projects in western Canada.

These projects are not for the tepid investor, and we recognize that sometimes government intervention may be needed to initiate or sustain projects. When it does, there must be transparency out front, and port users or tenants should not have to bear these costs after the fact if there's no direct or shared benefit.

Bill C-33 intends to address issues of port governance through amendments to the Canada Marine Act.

What is concerning specifically to our members is that the approval of major infrastructure projects often comes with conditions that can affect all port users. Conditions may be very specific to a project and yet have broader implications for other vessels operating in the same waterways.

While the Chamber of Shipping supports continuous improvements, the lack of apparent coordination between government departments on conservation initiatives, reconciliation and project approval puts the industry in a challenging space to operate. Pressure is building to manage or cap the cumulative effects of marine shipping and to support Canada's conservation objectives to protect 30% of our waters by 2030.

The concern is with the potential loss of operational flexibility for vessels, terminals and shippers, which implies a higher cost of doing business through Canadian ports.

Marine transportation is integral to Canada's supply chain and must be incorporated into the national supply chain strategy. Similar to the concerns regarding industrial land, our sector is facing a number of constraints on the water that will pose challenges to the rest of the supply chain if our marine corridors are not protected and managed appropriately.

In conclusion, we support large infrastructure expansion projects that support our economy by creating jobs and adding capacity and opportunities for trade while keeping Canadian exporters and importers competitive globally.

Thank you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today as part of your study.

My name is Daniel‑Robert Gooch and I am the president and chief executive officer of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, which represents the 17 Canada Port Authorities

I understand that you recently toured several of our ports to learn more about the great work they're doing to ensure sufficient capacity to support Canadian trade now and for the future.

I imagine you also learned about the challenges ports face within the confines of the CPA model as it is currently structured. To ensure enough capacity to support growing Canadian trade through innovation and expansion, while supporting the decarbonization of marine transport, $110 billion in infrastructure investment over 50 years is needed, according to the supply chain task force.

We'd like to work with the federal government to gain a better handle on that infrastructure deficit and understand what it looks like across our seaports, and we have a proposal out for study.

However, to make the needed investments, CPAs need greater financial flexibility to act more nimbly while maintaining the arm's-length, commercial nature of Canada's CPAs. For larger ports, the borrowing limits on each CPA hit their ability to nimbly act on investment opportunities. It takes years to get the limits raised; they are too low to fund the investments needed, and they are much lower than what prudent commercial borrowers can secure.

The national trade corridors fund has provided nearly $1 billion to Canada's port authorities. It's a great program that should be made permanent and tweaked to allow ports to move more quickly on projects that have been NTCF-approved but not yet announced. The longer it takes to move a project forward, the higher the impact on inflation.

The NTCF was the first infrastructure program even open to CPAs, yet new federal programs are not always so. Canada benefits when new federal budget programs are open to CPA participation.

Smaller ports face different challenges. With lower revenues, they must be more creative in how to maintain and build infrastructure. The ability to pursue business lines that may not be directly marine-related but provide the revenue needed to maintain and grow marine operations would be helpful.

Being more creative also includes exploring ways for ports of all sizes to collaborate more, such as on joint infrastructure projects or procurement. There are proposals in to Transport Canada on this.

Federal funding will also play a role, as it does in other sectors, such as the funding small airports receive for safety infrastructure through the airports capital assistance program. A similar program for small ports would be helpful for CPAs and non-CPA ports.

However, self-funding options are also important. ACPA has called for moving beyond borrowing limits, allowing port authorities to borrow based on creditworthiness and project merit in order to access more capital more nimbly.

With Bill C-33 expected before committee soon, your recent tour of ports was timely.

Canada's port authorities welcomed the supply chain task force report, which called for port authorities to be modernized through more authority, financial flexibility and autonomy. We were pleased to see that the federal government's goal with Bill C-33 is to provide ports with the tools to unlock greater performance, efficiency and productivity as effective instruments of public policy. These are goals we share.

When ACPA and our members reviewed Bill C-33 after it was tabled, we were pleased to see provisions recognizing port terminals as “works for the general advantage of Canada”, enabling expansion to inland areas and a greater role for ports in traffic management.

However, we also outlined questions and concerns in a letter to Minister Alghabra in December. In response, one month ago today, we had a productive initial meeting with Transport Canada to understand how the government envisions the bill contributing to our shared goals.

Many questions remain, most notably on details of what ports would have to report on financials and strategic plans, and how borrowing limits in this new environment will actually work. We have sought follow-up meetings to understand this in detail, but that hasn't happened yet, and it's necessary for us to determine if the financial amendments proposed in Bill C-33 will help the industry meet our shared goals for a modernized, more nimble system of ports, or if they may have a detrimental impact.

We will also be proposing changes on the governance and advisory committee sections of Bill C-33, as ports have concerns there.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, and I'll do my best to respond. I may have to follow up if some of the questions are beyond my scope.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague noted his disappointment that Bill C-33 does not include more provisions to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain.

I think comments like that raise alarm bells for a lot of working people, who have borne the brunt of the penchant for draconian back-to-work legislation among both Conservatives and Liberals. It will be no surprise to folks here in the House that New Democrats believe the best way to settle labour disruptions and achieve the best labour outcomes is at the bargaining table.

What measures does my colleague have in mind to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain? Does the member support our view that working people and their representatives deserve a voice on the boards of directors of our ports?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be a part of this debate today on Bill C-33, which would make amendments to several different acts. Supposedly, based on the press release from the government, this was going to have a profound impact on supply chains and rail safety. Having spoken to dozens of stakeholders over several weeks, they do not see it.

Quite frankly, this is a missed opportunity. This is after four years of government consultation. As the minister said, opportunities do not come along very often to change the way our ports and rail systems operate, and this was a missed opportunity to actually make a difference and improve the supply chain in this country.

The general feedback we received is that this is actually heading in the wrong direction. We heard a lot of stakeholders who said this will do nothing to improve supply chain efficiencies, while others have said it will make them worse. The best the minister received from the feedback I heard is indifference. That is certainly not a ringing endorsement of what has been touted as being a major change to supply chain systems and a major answer to the supply chain problems we have seen plaguing the country for the last number of months and years.

My colleague referenced the national supply chain task force report, which explained the urgency of this situation and proposed several changes that should be made on an immediate basis. We just do not see enough of that urgency. We do not see enough of what was in the supply chain report in this bill. This is the first opportunity the government has had to show it was listening to that report, and we just do not see it.

There is nothing in this bill about rail service reliability or the relationship between shippers and rail companies. In fact, it simply seems to indicate that the status quo is just fine. There is nothing in this bill about what would happen to our supply chains and our international reputation when there are labour disputes that impact the supply chain either at the ports or on our railways. There is nothing here about how we would to reconcile concerns with loading grain in the rain, for instance, in Vancouver. All of these were missed opportunities.

In fact, as the minister indicated a couple of times in his speech, the ports are at arm's length. He just indicated in his answer to my question that, in fact, that arm is getting shorter and shorter. The government is extending its arm into the ports to impose its will on what are supposed to be independent authorities. It is quite shocking to hear the minister openly admit that the problem clearly is that the ports do not do what Ottawa wants enough and that it needs to exert more control over the ports. The ports are supposed to operate in the best interest of the national economy and the best interest of the supply chain, not in the best interest of the government in Ottawa.

Some of our primary concerns revolve around the changes that have been made to the governance system at the ports. The independence of the ports should start with the ability of the board of directors to elect its own chair. That is the current way the system operates. I have certainly not heard that this has been a major issue that has impeded the operation of the ports, but we see an “Ottawa knows best” or “Liberal government knows best” approach when it says the local port boards cannot be trusted to select their own chairs, as they currently do, and that the minister himself needs to make those selections.

I will also note that the port users, the port tenants, the shippers, the grain companies, and so on, have had their influence on the boards diluted. There have been additional board positions given to local representatives. There are two additional board positions, both given to government entities, and no additional seats given to compensate for the people who actually run our ports and get our goods from our farms to the customers overseas.

I think that is an oversight. I also think that the overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape nature of imposing a “made in Ottawa” solution on consultation is going to prove very difficult to manage in many of the ports across the country.

Bill C-33 seems designed to be imposed on big ports, like the Port of Vancouver. There are 17 port authorities in Canada and some of them are very small. There are no provisions in the bill to allow for any flexibility for the smaller ports, which may not have indigenous communities in their proximity or which may not have the capacity to set these things up without significant new costs, which will be passed on to port users and to Canadian consumers. These are imposed costs that will be passed along at a time when we are already dealing with record inflation. These are going to be inflationary costs that will impact the costs of the goods that Canadians need.

The Port of Vancouver, for instance, already has robust indigenous consultation, robust community consultation and robust local government involvement. As for creating advisory boards, I have heard some feedback from folks who have maybe one first nation in their entire province. How would they set up an indigenous advisory board to deal with that situation?

As for the Port of Vancouver, in my home province of British Columbia, who would be on this board? It certainly would not just be the handful of first nations that are in the Vancouver area. It would be communities who are up the Fraser River. It would be communities that are along the shipping routes.

Now that it would be an official consultation board mandated by law, there will be questions about who would be on it, who would be part of it and what role they would play. If there is nothing in the legislation that indicates what the role of that board would be or what the powers of that board would be, would they simply give advice that can be ignored? Would they have the power to actually prevent the ports from exercising their authorities? We just do not know.

I think that is what we have heard a lot of in the stakeholder feedback we have received, which is that there are a lot of changes that have been made where the Ministry of Transportation or the minister says, “Oh no, do not worry about it. That is not what we meant when we put those changes in the legislation. We will find a way around it. We did not mean that the minister would appoint the board chair. He would just consult with the ports and then take their advice.”

That is not what the legislation says. I think that this is poorly drafted legislation that leaves an awful lot to interpretation and will actually create greater uncertainty for the ports at a time when they need more certainty.

I want to touch briefly on the active vessel traffic management portion of the legislation.

I think, obviously, that there is some need to give the port the authority to manage vessel traffic within its jurisdiction. I think that there is, again, a lack of certainty about what this will mean. How far out will the ports be given the authority to manage the vessel traffic? Is it just in their jurisdictions? Is it hundreds of kilometres offshore? These are things that need to be clarified.

It also needs to be said that, by focusing solely on the marine vessel side of things and not on the rail side of things, the government has missed an opportunity again. It has not talked about rail service reliability, service levels, ensuring that shippers are well served by the rail sector, or that there needs to be reliable data so that the ships know when products are coming by rail. It seems to be focused entirely on the marine side.

We also have concerns about what the government means by allowing the ports to manage anchorages. In British Columbia, there are significant concerns about what that means. Some want anchorages to be removed from certain areas altogether. Others would like to see the anchorages better regulated, and still others would like to see the efficiency of the ports brought up to a standard such that there would not be the need for so many anchorages.

It has been difficult to deal with this issue in a post-COVID context, because there was such a backlog as a result of supply chain collapses around the world and therefore anchorages that had not been previously used were being used more often. What does it mean that the board would have control over these anchorages? Does it mean they would be able to remove them? Does it mean they could limit the number of days ships can dwell there?

These are all questions that are very concerning to port users if we want to expand the ports. The Port of Vancouver has indicated it wants to expand and is looking to increase capacity. We cannot increase capacity at the port and reduce the ability for vessels to safely anchor to await their turn at the port.

Would we simply remove these anchorages without consultation and without any plan as to what would happen when ships show up and have nowhere to berth or to safely anchor? Are they simply going to circle around burning fuel and wait for their turn to enter the port? That needs some clarity.

Overall, on the rail safety side, we support the clarity on the fact that blockades of rail lines are illegal. I suspect most Canadians would have thought that was already the case. In fact, it already is illegal to cause a disruption to rail service. However, the problem is not with the rules; it is with the enforcement of the rules. I think increasing the clarity is a good thing, but if it does not result in increased enforcement activity, I do not think there will be much of a change on that front.

There are concerns about the increased red tape and regulatory burdens. We want transparency at the ports, but we need it to be reasonable. I think there are concerns about whether the reporting requirements would simply be publishing data that the government already receives or whether they would be imposing a new burden on the ports, which, again, would all be passed down throughout the supply chain and ultimately onto consumers. Would quarterly financial reports, for instance, be a new requirement or would that simply be making public what the government already gets?

I think these are questions that have not been answered. That also needs to be looked at in terms of the environmental reporting. The big ports are already doing this work. Would this be duplicative? Would this simply take the work that is already being done at the ports and put it into a format that is more universal? If we are burdening the ports with more reporting requirements when they are already doing this work, that is ineffective and inefficient and we need to make sure we are not duplicating the work.

We also fundamentally disagree with the government here on what the role of the ports is. The port has to have a national lens on protecting the national supply chain; serving our international markets; and getting the goods of our farmers, shippers and creators to our markets. We heard from the minister here today that the government wants to impose a different set of rules. It wants a different focus for the ports and to increase the local perspective on that. The local residents are absolutely impacted, but the primary focus has to be on delivering goods for Canadians and our customers.

We cannot get into other focuses for the ports. I think the government has done that by making these changes to the board of directors. By making those changes to these advisory boards, it is certainly increasing Ottawa's involvement, as well as local government involvement. It is increasing local interests that I think need to be heard but cannot divert the ports from their primary responsibility, which is to serve the national Canadian economy.

When we hear the minister say that the port boards must align with the government's agenda, that does not sound like arm's-length governance to me but an arm of the government. There are just too many cases in this bill where it is imposing its perspective on the ports. It is imposing its agenda on the ports and doing so in a way that does not consider the different ports. Those in Saguenay, Thunder Bay, St. John's and all over the country have a different reality than the ports of Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that will not improve our supply chain but instead increase the burdens on everyone in the supply chain. Most of all, it will increase the power of Ottawa at the expense of the independence of those port authorities.

We believe the bill should go back to the drawing board. It does not do enough to address supply chain concerns. It imposes too many Ottawa-knows-best solutions and too much of the minister's authority on our ports. It does not do enough to improve the situation. Therefore, we will not be supporting Bill C-33. We think it is a missed opportunity. The governance changes cannot be supported. The additional costs that will be passed on to everyone throughout the supply chain as a result cannot be supported.

After four years, the government should have done much better. We hope it will go back to the drawing board and come back with a bill that will strengthen our supply chain and allow the ports to do the job they are mandated to do. We hope it can do that without the heavy hand of the Ottawa-knows-best approach that, unfortunately, this legislation would impose.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his bill and his speech this afternoon.

Recently we heard news out of the United States about a major train derailment in Ohio. The train was carrying toxic chemicals. Not too long ago, there was a train accident in Greece that caused many deaths.

Back home in Quebec, we remember July 6, 2013, when 47 people perished following the derailment of a 72-tanker-car train transporting crude oil. This serves as a reminder of the significance of transporting people and goods.

Does the hon. minister think that Bill C‑33 goes far enough to prevent these types of tragedies in the future?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting the work that was done by the supply chain task force, which our government established last year. I want to take a moment to thank those members who have put together a thoughtful, meaningful report.

Our government is committed to a lot of the recommendations that are in this report. Some of those recommendations are, in fact, in this bill, Bill C-33. As I mentioned in my speech, there are future action items that will be introduced soon to Canadians.

I want to assure my colleague that, if he supports the conclusions that the task force came up with, he should find a lot of comfort in what Bill C-33 is offering, because it really targets and addresses many of the solutions that the task force had recommended.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that there has been a lot of talk and not a lot of action: reviews, reports and strategies. We have heard about all of that. The minister referred to the supply chain task force in his commentary, a report of which he has on his desk for six months. In the introduction of that report it says that Canada's supply chains are at a “breaking point”. That was six months ago. It makes 13 immediate recommendations for action, as well as eight for longer-term action.

Of those immediate actions, how many have been completed, how many does Bill C-33 address, and when will those be completed?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me just take a moment to pay tribute to our friend and former colleague Marc Garneau, who resigned this week from his seat as a member of Parliament. Marc Garneau was a member of Parliament who served with dignity and pride. He served Canadians throughout his career in various roles. I know he will be deeply missed by his constituents and certainly by his friends and colleagues here in the House of Commons.

Today, I am building on the work that he started when he was the Minister of Transport. I just want to acknowledge and recognize the work he has done. It gives me great pleasure to build on a lot of the excellent work that he did.

The last three years have been extraordinarily hard on Canadians and on global and domestic supply chains. From global inflation to delays for many products, Canadians have been impacted by a global phenomenon experienced by the rest of the world. Global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, labour shortages and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, as well as extreme weather events, have all contributed to major supply chain disruptions.

Our government remains focused on supporting Canadians during these unprecedented times. Whether it was support during COVID or targeted initiatives to help Canadians weather its lingering impacts, we have been there and we will continue to be there. Our government's priority continues to be making sure that Canadians have access to the goods they need, when they need them, at a reasonable price.

Our government is here for Canadians.

That is why we continue to take action to strengthen our supply chain, which will help reduce cost pressures on the transportation of goods. This in turn will help make life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the many ways we are taking action is with Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. Bill C-33 would modernize Canada's transportation system, making it more sustainable, competitive and resilient. Canada's transportation system is the backbone of our economy. Our primary modes of transport, which are marine, air, rail and road, are interdependent, and a disruption in one can impact the entire supply chain.

Our transportation system drives our economy.

That is why Bill C-33 seeks to modernize our ports and secure our railways, because an efficient and reliable supply chain is key to building an economy that works for all Canadians.

In January 2022, I hosted a supply chain summit and created a national supply chain task force. The mandate of the task force was to provide ideas on how we could strengthen our supply chain. Last fall, I shared with Canadians the report from the supply chain task force. It consulted extensively with industry and labour representatives across the country on priority areas for immediate and long-term actions to reduce congestion, improve reliability and increase resilience within Canada's transportation supply chain. It also met with representatives in the United States to understand how we could improve supply chains across our shared borders. The recommendations outlined in the task force report will inform the national supply chain strategy that our government has been working on.

Ensuring our supply chains are strong has always been a top priority for me and for our government. That is why Transport Canada has initiated two separate reviews since we came into government: the ports modernization review and the Railway Safety Act review. With both reviews now complete, we are able to advance concrete and immediate actions to modernize how our ports and railways respond to the evolving demands on our transportation infrastructure.

The bill I am proposing today is a demonstration of the government taking action to directly support two key modes of transportation that connect us domestically and to world markets.

With this bill, we are taking real action.

This modernized framework for port governance, railway safety and security, and the transportation of dangerous goods will be used for decades to come. Through Bill C-33, I am proposing an ambitious set of reforms to the marine transportation system.

This includes significant reforms to the governance of Canada's port authorities and improvements to marine safety and security through changes to the following legislation: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Customs Act. In a constantly changing world, ports, as key hubs for trade, need a modern framework to better respond to increasingly complex challenges. Bill C-33 would provide them with these tools.

Additionally, I am proposing amendments to the Railway Safety Act to improve the safety and security of Canada's railway system. Resilient railway operations need a modernized legislative framework to maintain safe, secure, efficient and reliable services that not only foster economic growth but also benefit all Canadians. Collectively, these measures would keep our supply chains resilient and competitive.

These measures help our supply chains stay strong.

Finally, our government is proposing changes to the Canada Transportation Act to enhance the overall movement of goods across Canada, and to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to enhance and clarify the safe and secure transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.

I will start by focusing on Canada's ports.

The proposal before us today is the result of four years of work and stakeholder engagement. Importantly, it takes into account the many lessons learned from the challenges that have hit our transportation network over the past few years. The changes being advanced are focused on six areas: competitiveness, investment, governance, indigenous and local communities, environmental sustainability, and marine safety and security. This bill proposes to ease congestion in our ports; advance reconciliation and enhance structured, meaningful engagement with indigenous people; act on risks posed by climate change; and promote a resilient system that is safe and secure.

I would like to first focus on the measures that would advance competitiveness.

This bill would increase competition by improving the flow of goods through our ports. This was a key ask from stakeholders, who stressed that collaboration is key to improving fluidity, encouraging investment and expanding port capacity. Additionally, industry-led recommendations from the supply chain task force called for new enabling authorities to facilitate leasing land and transporting containers inland and for regulations and legislation to empower our government to take actions that decongest ports.

To better position our strategic ports and support national supply chain performance, the bill would amend the Canada Marine Act to expand the ability of ports to govern and manage traffic, including marine vessel traffic and anchorage use, which are often a source of concern to coastal communities. In support of this traffic-management mandate, our government would establish information- and data-sharing requirements with ports and port users to improve the efficiency of their operations. We will ensure the shared data are appropriately protected.

This framework would also support the work our government is doing to develop a national supply chain data strategy. This proposed legislation would expand the operational scope of port authorities, enabling them to move operations inland and away from congested urban areas, which would reduce the impacts these operations can have on local communities.

The ability of Canada's port authorities to rise to these new challenges and improve supply chain fluidity is dependent not only on new authorities proposed in this bill, but also on their financial capabilities to invest in infrastructure and take action. The current rules put rigid limits on port borrowing, which ultimately inhibits growth. To facilitate timely and more predictable access to funding, port borrowing limits would be reviewed every three years. These regular reviews would also hold ports accountable to responsible debt repayment to limit financial risk to Canadians.

Proposals in this bill would also improve investment in ports by providing greater clarity and predictability to private investors who have been key to the development of the world-class ports we have today. Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Canada Transportation Act so that transactions at ports with a value of more than $10 million would be eligible for review by the Minister of Transport. This would ensure these investments meet Canada's competition and national and economic security objectives. This bill would allow our government increased flexibility to act quickly to mitigate security threats to supply chains and further their resiliency during times of emergency.

The recent devastation to rail corridors resulting from flooding on the west coast illustrates the need to have tools to respond when the safety or the security of supply chain operations is under threat. Specifically, this legislation would enable swift intervention in exceptional circumstances caused by disruptive events, such as pandemics, extreme weather and the actions of a hostile state actor. With these new powers, I, as the Minister of Transport, would be enabled to send a notice to the responsible authority and direct measures to be taken to restore supply chain fluidity.

I would now like to focus on measures that seek to update the governance structure of Canada port authorities. These measures would provide ports with the tools necessary to meet current and future challenges.

Let me be clear. The arm's-length nature of ports remains an essential part of their operations and will be maintained. This feature is key to ensuring our ports are seen as credible partners in the global market. However, consultations with stakeholders and local communities identified that the governance structure could more effectively balance national, local, economic and socio-environmental considerations. That is why I am proposing changes that would better frame the relationship between government and ports while enhancing efficiency and transparency and preserving port authority autonomy.

These measures involve providing the Minister of Transport with the ability to designate the chairperson of the board from among the board members and in consultation with the board. This measure would ensure Canadian port authorities and our government are aligned on how we deal with the increasing complex economic, social and environmental issues facing our ports.

Prairie provinces play a crucial role in supporting a competitive Canadian economy, with ports representing the gateway that connects them to the rest of the world. Given the interdependence between the two, the bill would increase the prairie provinces' representation on the boards of the Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay port authorities. This would reflect their growth and importance to the Canadian economy and would mirror similar structured changes previously made to the board of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

In addition, a series of amendments would improve board performance, accountability and transparency.

First, I am proposing to broaden the pool of prospective board candidates by expanding the list of eligible persons to serve as directors. Currently, the exclusion criteria are far too broad and exclude individuals whose employment would not present conflict, impacting the eligibility of highly qualified candidates. This would enable port authority boards to access a wider selection of highly qualified candidates and would further facilitate their success.

Another improvement being proposed through the bill is a requirement for Canada port authorities to undertake a review of governance practices every three years. These reviews would evaluate the effectiveness of board governance practices, such as assessments of conflicts of interest and record-keeping practices. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada and would inform future policy measures as needed.

Furthermore, legislation would provide the authority to make regulations pertaining to the governance of Canada's port authorities. This authority would enable the government to keep governance requirements up to date, recognizing the importance of working with port authorities, indigenous groups and stakeholders as part of the regulation-making process.

As I have noted, a key challenge to port governance is in aligning their national mandate with local realities. As part of the engagement process, we heard about the importance of a strong relationship between port authorities and local, notably indigenous, communities. Indigenous communities stressed that more could be done to recognize indigenous rights, including increasing efforts to address issues and consider interests raised by indigenous communities.

It is important to work with indigenous peoples.

This bill would create more opportunities for port authorities to work together with indigenous groups and for local communities to improve responsiveness and transparency in port management of economic, environmental and social issues. This change of approach starts with a proposed amendment to the Canada Marine Act that would explicitly provide distinction and recognition for indigenous groups within the legislation, setting the stage for better port-indigenous community engagement.

Building on this, and as a complement to the ability to designate the board chair, and a suite of measures to improve internal port governance, proposed changes would see ports being required in law to establish three new advisory committees: one with indigenous communities, one with local stakeholders and one with local governments. These groups would be designed to structure engagement, enable ongoing dialogue and inform port planning and decision-making.

Indigenous peoples, municipalities, communities and industry groups also stressed that ports should also be leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building greener infrastructure and operations. Aligning with our government's climate agenda, new reporting requirements in Bill C-33 would have ports better integrate environmental considerations in their planning, specifically in their financial reporting, to better account for and mitigate environmental risks. In addition, our government is proposing important new measures to ensure ports establish targets, monitor progress and publicly disclose the results of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and mitigate climate-related risks.

I will now turn my attention to port security.

Our government recognizes that securing our ports is critical, not only to the integrity and competitiveness of our gateways but also for the safety of all Canadians. Bill C-33 proposes significant improvements to enhance the safety and security of the marine sector while strengthening our supply chain. Once in place, this legislation would give Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency the authorities needed to enhance timely screening of containers and to build a more secure and efficient marine transportation system at the same time.

I will speak briefly to what Bill C-33 seeks to strengthen in the safety and security of Canada's railway and movement of dangerous goods regulation. A resilient, fluid rail supply chain must be underpinned by its safety. To maintain our rail sector as one of the safest and strongest in the world, we need to ensure our regulations remain up to date.

There is so much in this bill that would further improve the resiliency and safety of our ports and rail network. I look forward to engaging with my colleagues in this chamber to ensure that we advance this bill. I look forward to my colleague's feedback and questions and to passing this bill.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with joining the member opposite in wishing all who are recognizing Saint Patrick's Day a very happy Saint Patrick's Day. I can say that, with some roots of mine that come from Tipperary, I will join them in celebrating that day.

Also, I hope all members have the opportunity over the constituency week to be with their constituents and their families. I hope that it is productive for them, and I look forward to seeing all members back in this place.

With respect to the question on hostile state actors, the member opposite knows of our shared commitment to repel such forces, and I look forward to working with him. I appreciate his very helpful suggestions as to where that might fall on the calendar, and I look forward to fruitful discussions as to what might take place on those two mysterious days.

However, I can say that tomorrow we will begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-33 concerning port systems and railway safety.

I would like to inform the House that Monday, March 20, and Wednesday, March 22, shall be allotted days.

Finally, on the Tuesday of that week, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act.

[Lisa Setlakwe]

We have advanced some regulations through Bill C-33, which is in the House now. It is making its way through.

Part of that will allow for greater authorities for us to direct certain actions if events are taking place. It will also allow for better information sharing and for requiring operators to do certain things, depending on what the science is telling us and on what the implications are for the north and the Arctic.

We are—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very sincere effort, I am sure, to lay that on the record. I am sure he is in shock that there was not unanimous consent. However, my hon. colleague can rest assured that, when it comes to climate change, we will not allow inaction to be the rule of the day and that we will absolutely continue to take action to make sure climate change does not ravage this planet.

I do want to pick up on the second-last comment that the hon. opposition House leader made, which were comments with respect to Family Day. I hope that he, and indeed all members in the House, take time with their families and with their constituents, and that they return to this place in good health.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act at second reading.

Upon our return on Monday, March 6, we will call Bill C-27 on the digital charter, at second reading.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-33 concerning the port system and railway safety.

Thursday will not only be the opportunity for my hon. colleague's favourite time of the week, another Thursday question, but we will also resume debate on Bill C-23 respecting historic places, at second reading.

On Friday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-26, the cybersecurity legislation.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all the witnesses for coming out today.

I will be splitting my time with Mr. Chahal. Hopefully, we'll have two and a half minutes each, so I'll be brief.

Mr. Minister, again, welcome.

Mr. Minister, with respect to Bill C-33.... As you know, because you were a great help with some of the initiatives that we were beginning to work on in the Niagara region, with your help, we facilitated a partnership between the cities of Port Colborne, Welland, Thorold and the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority to establish the Niagara Ports multimodal trade corridor.

Minister, again as you know, with your help, the strategy was created and established, and it strengthens Niagara's overall economy, including our supply chain. It is creating over 10,000 jobs over the next decade. These are new jobs over and above what we have right now throughout the region. I'll report that this growth has already begun to occur within the jurisdictions of all the partners, across the Niagara region and, quite frankly, predominantly across southwestern Ontario.

Minister, with Bill C-33, how do you see this legislation strengthening the future of this trade corridor?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, Minister, and your officials for being with us today.

I want to start with Bill C-33.

I appreciate that you're grateful for the committee's work. However, our report included 20 recommendations on rail safety. My read of Bill C-33 is that it doesn't address a single one of those recommendations.

Why is that?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Minister.

I'd like to go now to supply chain reliability and predictability, which you talked about. I think they're critical here. We'll have time to discuss whether Bill C-33 actually addresses those things. We'll save that for your next meeting here.

I do want to talk about the global context, and the national supply chain task force addressed this. Any time that the reliability and predictability of our supply chain is threatened, it impacts the Canadian economy; it impacts, for months, the reliability and efficiency of our system. By my count, you have 18 collective agreements expiring on December 31 that are in the transport-federal sphere. Many of them relate to the rail sector.

I haven't seen anything that indicates that the government is taking this seriously. Certainly, in the U.S., we've seen very aggressive actions taken by President Biden and Congress. What are we doing to ensure that our system is reliable as we see all of these labour agreements coming to an end in just a few weeks' time?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues. It's great to be back with you.

Thank you for inviting me here to speak about the supplementary estimates (B) for Transport Canada and other agencies and Crown corporations within the federal transport portfolio.

I am also pleased to introduce the officials who are here with me from Transport Canada: Michael Keenan, deputy minister; Ryan Pilgrim, assistant deputy minister, corporate services, and chief financial officer; Nicholas Robinson, associate assistant deputy minister, safety and security; and Stephanie Hébert, assistant deputy minister, programs.

Mr. Chair, in past appearances before this committee, I’ve talked about how the COVID-19 pandemic, extreme weather events and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine have caused global supply chain disruptions that affect our supply chain here at home. Our government understands the impact that these challenges can have on Canadians, including the rising costs of living.

I’ve also stressed that the safety and security of the transportation system is my highest priority.

That's why I was pleased to introduce Bill C-33, the Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act.

It addresses both of these priorities.

Bill C-33 would strengthen our supply chain, make Canada’s transportation system more competitive and ensure that its operations are safe, secure, efficient and reliable. I look forward to seeing the legislation progress, as it would keep essential goods flowing and make life more affordable for all Canadians.

I also recognize the need to keep people moving. You will notice the high-frequency rail project mentioned a number of times in the supplementary estimates for both Transport Canada and VIA Rail.

As outlined in budget 2022, after years of important work, the time has come for some big steps forward for this major project. The high-frequency rail project would see a new, dedicated intercity passenger rail network connecting Toronto, Peterborough, Ottawa, Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Québec City. It would allow for faster, more frequent and more reliable trains with better service to major hubs and new links to communities.

There are funds in the supplementary estimates to support the procurement process and to select a private development partner to co-develop the project with the Government of Canada. A collaborative public-private partnership will help to maximize the project’s benefits for all Canadians.

A new VIA Rail subsidiary will serve as the project delivery office and will serve as the strong public sector counterpart to a private development partner.

The funding would also support important activities like work on the impact assessment process, indigenous consultations, development of socio-economic benefits, municipal and public engagement, access to railway infrastructure and rail safety updates. Funding in the supplementary estimates would also help with work to assess opportunities for improving passenger rail service in southwestern Ontario.

HFR represents a major investment.

The HFR is the biggest investment in passenger rail in Canada in a generation. VIA Rail and its employees will continue to be key partners in this project, and are essential to its success and advancement.

We are also seeking funds in this year's supplementary estimates to improve rail transportation for remote indigenous communities in northern Manitoba. The objective is to maintain safe, reliable, viable and sustainable transportation that meets the specific needs of communities between The Pas and Pukatawagan, supporting social and economic development. Many of these communities are only accessible by rail. They need this service to access economic opportunities and essential goods and services, including health care.

There's also a request in supplementary estimates (B) to support the extension of the oceans protection plan, as outlined in budget 2022.

The Oceans Protection Plan is the largest investment Canada has ever made to protect our oceans and coasts.

The new funding requested would further protect our coastlines and waterways in four critical areas: continuing efforts to deliver a world-leading marine safety system, including improving how Canada responds to marine emergencies; increasing protection for marine species and ecosystems; creating stronger partnerships with indigenous and coastal communities; and strengthening marine research and science.

This work would continue to help safeguard our oceans and coastlines, while enabling supply chain resilience and supporting economic growth. By renewing and expanding the plan, we are committing to build on the progress we have made since its launch in 2016.

Finally, I also want to mention our plan to accelerate the development of light, medium, and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles, as detailed in budget 2022. This will be implemented through existing grant programming.

Canadians have made it clear. They want clear air, good jobs, and lower costs. By making zero-emission vehicles more affordable, we are helping to reduce pollution, create more well-paying jobs, and build a cleaner world for generations to come.

I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Maritime Transportation

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have seen global supply disruptions that have impacted our supply chains at home. Because of that, we have seen congestion at airports and an increased number of vessels anchored next to our coast.

I have been listening to constituents on the coast, particularly where the hon. colleague is raising the point. I want to assure her that we are putting together an action plan to address this. We tabled Bill C-33 just two weeks ago. It will introduce new tools to help mitigate the traffic of the vessels. We will work with her and constituents to make sure that we manage this adequately.

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)