Bill C-33 (Historical)

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 .

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[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.

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 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.

[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.

Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to such an important piece of government business on the hybrid system we have adopted and have been using in the House over the last number of years.

In some of the last discourse, we heard from Conservative members in an exchange that came from a question from the NDP about members not using the technology and tools we have in place for the right purpose. This is given that we witnessed just days ago the abuse of hybrid Parliament, whether it was on Zoom or with the voting application, and the manner that was utilized by Conservatives to delay the vote and use it as a procedural tool.

We saw Conservatives who were voting and coming online through Zoom, and it was obvious they were sitting in the opposition lobby or perhaps had the beautiful stonework behind them from this place. They were doing this intentionally for the purpose of delaying the House. Why was that so obvious? The only members who seemed to have problems from a technical perspective at the time were Conservatives, so it was pretty clear there was an abuse of the system.

Therefore, I would tend to agree with Conservatives when they say that we need to ensure that the system and the tools we have are not abused. I think that we saw a lot of that on those two particular days. I think it was a Friday and a Monday when we saw that happening.

Nonetheless, I reflect on just some of the most recent votes. On Monday, June 12, which was just yesterday, we had a vote that was related to Bill C-33, where 70% of my Bloc colleagues and 66% of my Conservative colleagues used the voting app, according to the records that we have. When Conservatives talk about having consensus to use the hybrid Parliament, I would suggest to them that consensus comes through their basic agreement with and use of the technology.

Also on Monday, we had a number of other motions. We had the Bloc opposition motion, and 50% of the Bloc members, on their own motion, used the app to vote when we voted on that yesterday. Clearly the Bloc members favour using this technology that we have, given the fact that half of them, one out of every two Bloc members, used the app to vote on their own motion just yesterday, while 36% of Conservatives used it.

When we had Bill C-35 at report stage, 74% of Bloc members, almost three out of every four of them, used the voting application that we have adopted. Therefore, when the Bloc members get up, as I have heard them do both yesterday and today, to say we should be doing things based on consensus, I think that we have consensus is pretty darn clear when they are using the technology to the fullest of its ability.

We should be concerned that Bloc members might not be in the House, but it even gets worse than that. By the third reading and adoption of Bill C-41, 80% of Bloc members used the voting app. That is four out of every five of them. I do not think that we need consensus from the Bloc members that this is a good tool. They seem to be using it in great earnest.

It goes on. The Conservatives, although their percentages are much better, have been using the application and the tools just as much as everybody else.

I am reminded of just very recently when a Conservative member, a new mother who had just given birth days before, was participating in a House of Commons debate while holding her newborn. I remember it very well because she was speaking softly, and I remember that feeling of having a newborn, especially when they are sleeping, and wanting to let them sleep because we know what it is like when they are not sleeping. The member was speaking softly while sitting in her kitchen. The lights were dimmed, and she did not want to wake the baby. She was giving a passionate speech. I thought to myself, “Wow, look how far we have come in the short period of time since we started bringing on these new provisions.”

We have a new mother who is able to participate in a House of Commons debate literally days after giving birth. Let us imagine trying to convince people in this place 100 years ago that this would one day be the reality, or even 10 years ago, or even just five years ago. The idea would have been foreign.

As a society and as a country, we go through experiences. We went through a horrible experience in the pandemic. A lot of people suffered. There was a lot of financial hardship. There were a lot of people who, emotionally and from a mental health perspective, really struggled, but I think that we also have to realize that we discovered things and perhaps came across opportunities during the pandemic that could improve the quality of life for people who wish to be part of this process.

This House is not what it was decades ago. This is not a House filled just with male lawyers. Let us be honest: When this House was first established, it was lawyers and it was men, and that was it. Over the years, we have seen that evolve. My predecessor was a scientist, Ted Hsu, who came to this place. We have seen other people come here who were activists or people who were really passionate about certain fields of work and who did not particularly fall into that mould of what a parliamentarian used to be.

As my NDP colleague pointed out in a question that she asked about the under-representation of women in this place, she is absolutely correct. I am trusting that her number of only 30% of the members in this place are women is accurate. How do we get that to a better place?

It is funny. I had dinner this evening with a senator, and we had a really interesting conversation. He was commenting to me that he believes the Senate has changed so much because half of the senators are women. He said it brings a certain decorum to the place, and that the decorum might be from the fact that those who are not being more collegial and using decorum are highlighted. I would be the first to point out, as already happened today, that I am not by any means putting myself in the category of those who always demonstrate great decorum.

I do not want to get off the very important point here. The point is that we need to create a place that does not just represent Canadians. I know the former answer to a question from a Conservative was that this place does represent Canadians. Well, it might represent Canadians in the sense that there is a mix of different backgrounds, but I do not know if it genuinely represents Canadians in terms of gender parity. I think that in particular there is an impediment to many women who have to make the decision of whether they want to get into this line of work, given that it requires so much time in Ottawa.

When we look at the tools that we have been able to develop, test and rely on confidently during the pandemic, why would we not take those tools, if we see them as a way to make this place more suitable, to better represent Canadians, including and in particular as it relates to a gender balance in this House?

I have heard some of the arguments against this. I have been listening and following the debate. I think I have addressed the Bloc's concern over consensus. I hear the concern that comes quite a bit from my Conservative colleagues. I heard the Conservative House leader say that they would be in support of all of this if there was a sunset clause. The way he described it was that one year after the next election, we would have to review and then make a decision on whether or not to move forward. He is trying to phrase it so that rather than making a decision about getting rid of it, we would have to make the decision about keeping it.

I would say that is a nuance. Whether the government of the day wants to bring forward a new motion to change the Standing Orders back to the way they were or whether the government of the day brings forward a motion to keep the Standing Orders as they are, the point is irrelevant. It is going to be exactly the same debate that takes place.

People's positions on things would be pretty much the same. I do not think they would particularly change. The important thing is that I do not think it should be a deal breaker for anybody that would make them just say they cannot support this because they really wanted a sunset clause.

This is my personal opinion. I preface it by saying that it is my opinion. I certainly do not know this to be fact. I would say probably the majority of Conservatives like the tools that we have. They certainly use them a lot, as do my Bloc colleagues. I think this is a bit of partisanship. I think this is about positioning oneself and positioning a particular party to try to put a narrative in place that people are not working, to say that when they go back home, they are not really working and doing their work.

From listening to the speech from the House leader for the government yesterday, we know that anybody who is in this job is working 24-7. When members walk into a store in their riding, how often does somebody bump into them and want to talk to them? Then they are working. That happens all the time.

This is not a nine-to-five job. We will be here until at least 1:00 a.m. tonight, and that is fine. That is part of the job. I think we all accept that, and I certainly accept it. If we can put tools in place to make it even more inclusive, I think we should be doing that.

In preparation for this speech, I was looking back at some references in Hansard for this Parliament. I reflect back to March 28, when my Conservative colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, was giving his speech. If I have this correct, it was from a city council chamber in his riding. He was commuting to the airport to come here, presumably. He wanted to give his speech and was able to set up a temporary spot to give his speech from a city council chamber. He said:

As we know as members of Parliament, things can change and develop quickly in this job. This has led me to be making a speech from a bit of a unique location. Having seemingly come down with the flu over the weekend, I was delayed in my return to our nation's capital. As a result, I was not able to get on my Sunday afternoon flight, which is my normal commute. Therefore, if you would indulge me, Madam Speaker, I am in a unique location that I would like to highlight.

I am giving my speech from another chamber, actually: the town council chambers of the community of Drumheller. This is the second-largest community in Battle River—Crowfoot in this beautiful area of east central Alberta, and I am proud to represent it.

He goes on after that. I am not saying this in any way to say, “See, I told you so. You love hybrid Parliament and you are using it.” I am bringing it to everyone's attention because I think it is unique and important that the member was able to participate. He clearly could not come to Ottawa because of an illness. When he got better, he was on his way here, but he really wanted to participate in debate and made other accommodations to be able to do that.

As much as this motion about adopting a hybrid Parliament might be able helping a newborn's mother participate, it is also about helping people who have come down with an illness, who are on the mend and who might be on their way to Ottawa, as was the case with this individual. On Friday of last week, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan gave a virtual speech on Bill C-41. He is another Conservative colleague of mine.

What I am trying to point out is that we are all using this technology. We all see the benefit in the technology, and it is genuinely allowing us to participate in debate when we otherwise may have been limited. Most of us in this chamber, especially those elected in 2015 and after 2019, know what it was like to not be able to do that. This has given much more opportunity for people to participate by providing another way to participate. We do not have to physically be here. I think it is worth keeping in that regard.

I heard a criticism from a Conservative who spoke before me. It was specifically about accountability, and I heard his comments about accountability in two regards.

In the first regard, he spoke about accountability in terms of ministers answering questions. I know I heard him say that he was speaking specifically about accountability as it related to ministers speaking on Zoom to a committee. However, I do not think that is appropriate, and I can tell members that on this side of the House, and it should be quite obvious from question period every day, no minister answers a question on the screen. No minister answers a question virtually. If a minister cannot be present here in question period, a parliamentary secretary or another minister answers the question. That is not a rule established anywhere, but it is certainly a rule that the leadership on this side of the House has put in place in order to preserve that accountability. Question period is probably the part of the proceedings here that the public watches the most, and certainly that is the time that there has to actually be a physical presence in the House.

The other area of accountability the member mentioned is accountability in terms of individuals who are participating by Zoom in a committee and whether or not they are accountable. Well, we are accountable: We are accountable to the individuals who send us here. If the individuals determine that we are not doing an effective job, they will stop sending us here. We are accountable because we will go into an election at least once every four years.

No two MPs, in my opinion, approach this job in exactly the same way. Everybody develops their approach to the job in how they deal with constituents, how they deal with casework, how they deal with the House proceedings and with committee, how they deal with everything in the spectrum. If our electorate decides “Hey, you have not done a good job in terms of how you are handling your participation and how you are representing us”, it is up to them to hold us accountable. It is up to them to decide if they want us or somebody else. In that regard, I certainly believe that we are accountable. I think we will always have that accountability to people.

We are not like the Senate; senators are appointed, and they are appointed for a set period of time. We have to go back to our electorate on a regular basis and ask for their continued support. That is really, in my opinion, the most important thing.

In conclusion, I want to reiterate that I think this is a good motion. I do not believe that putting a sunset clause on this motion can be a deal breaker. It is just as easy for a future government, after the next election, to say that it does not want this and that this is how it should be done.

I also do not believe that the Bloc is against this motion, based on the fact that there is no consensus. Its members have by far, as a percentage of the political parties, used the voting application the most. They clearly enjoy using it, and I think that if the motion does not pass, many of them would probably be upset that we were not going to continue using it.

I will certainly be supporting this motion. I think it is a way to get so many more people interested in this place and to get so many more people to put their names forward. It is a way to continue to build on the diversity in this House, and particularly, in my opinion, to build on the kind of diversity that will bring us closer to a gender balance.

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.