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 .

[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.