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 .

Transport

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we see the days dwindling to when we can actually pass legislation, my constituents are particularly concerned with Bill C-33. It is on rail safety and management of marine issues around our ports. It was first introduced two ministers of transportation ago, more than two years ago, when the minister was the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills.

Can the government update us? We have finished clause-by-clause. We are waiting for report stage. When will this bill come back so that we can at least get it to the Senate, where we have a hope of not losing years' worth of work?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Earlier, I heard him say how important it is to move away from coal and toward other types of energy. I found that very interesting. Not so long ago, when we were examining Bill C-33 in committee, I moved an amendment to the bill. This amendment sought to ban the export of thermal coal in order to help fight climate change. However, the member's Conservative colleagues voted against my amendment.

I would like to know whether the member will take his colleagues to task and tell them to change their minds.

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one member across the way said “yay”, but there are other issues, and not just government issues.

The Conservatives have opposition day motions, and when they bring them forward, they like to say the motions are confidence motions. However, I think Canadians would love to see an opposition day motion that deals with the housing accelerator fund. We have 17 Conservative members across the way who are scared because the leader of the Conservative Party is saying the party opposes it. The party is going to kill that particular fund. Therefore, we have Conservative MPs who are having a difficult time trying to justify their very existence on such an important issue. We should have a vote on that particular issue, but we cannot do so. The Conservatives know full well that all they have to do is continue to put up speaker after speaker on matters of privilege, and then nothing else can take place on the floor for debate.

The housing accelerator fund is providing thousands of housing units, or homes, in every region of our country, but we have the official opposition opposing it. Actually, that is not fair to say. We have the leader of the official opposition saying that the program is bad and needs to be cut. However, a dozen or more Conservative members are saying they like the program. They are writing to the Minister of Housing to say that they want this program to be applied in our communities. We have mayors in different areas of the country saying that this is a good program. However, there is this division within the Conservative Party. In order to avoid that sort of a division, why not continue to talk about privilege? It is a privilege motion for which everyone is saying yes to having the member come before the bar, but the Conservatives have no interest in voting on it. As I have indicated very clearly, it is a fairly straightforward motion that Mr. Anderson be called before the bar to answer questions. If everyone believes that, fine, we will accept that and allow it to come to a vote. However, what is the purpose of the Conservative Party not only continuing to debate the motion but now also actually moving an amendment to the motion, which means that we could see dozens speak to it?

What happened on the previous motion? We saw over 100 Conservatives speak to it. Weeks and weeks of potential debate on other issues were left to the wayside and never dealt with, such as Bill C-71, an act to amend the Citizenship Act; Bill C-66, which would transfer issues related to sexual abuse from military courts to civil courts; Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, which deals with our supply lines; and Bill C-63, the proposed online harms act to protect children on the Internet. This is not to mention the fall economic statement or the many opposition days that are being lost because the Conservatives are filling the time on issues of privilege, even though the very motions they are bringing forward are ones that we are okay with actually seeing pass. The reason, as I started off by saying, is that it is a multi-million dollar game, and it is all about character assassination. This is why I posed the question to the member opposite: What is the issue?

The issue is that we have a minister representing an Edmonton riding, and there have been concerns in regard to some text messaging and how that could have had an impact on the issue at hand. As I have pointed out, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner has looked at this issue not once, not twice, but three times and cleared the minister responsible each time.

When I posed that particular question to the member, his response was that it is not true. It is true. Members of the Conservative Party know it is true, but they continue to push. Why is that? It is because, as I pointed out in my question, even when the Prime Minister was the leader of the Liberal Party in third party, the Conservative Party continued to attack the individual. Nothing has changed. The wonderful thing about Hansard is that everything said inside the chamber is actually recorded and there for people to read. People do not have to believe me; they can just read the Hansards. We can go back to the time when the leader of the Liberal Party was in third party. We will find personal attacks on the leader, especially in member statements.

We have witnessed it of other ministers inside the chamber. It is the type of thing where I could enter into that same field, talk about personalities and start to look at the leader of the Conservative Party. I referred to an interesting document. By the way, the relevance of this is in regard to the issue of attacking the character of an individual. It is some sort of a report that was published. The title is “Stephen Harper, Serial Abuser of Power: The Evidence Compiled”. Actually, not all the evidence is compiled, because there are a number of things I am aware of that are not actually included in this document. However, it is about abuse of power, scandals and corruption.

There are 70 of them listed, for anyone who is interested, but one of them that is really interesting is that Stephen Harper was actually found in contempt of Parliament. We can think about that. He is the only prime minister in the British Commonwealth, which includes Canada, to ever be found in contempt of Parliament. Can we guess who his parliamentary secretary was? It was the leader of the Conservative Party.

That is one, but I am a little off topic there. I go through this article, and the leader of the Conservative Party's name comes up on more than one occasion. Let us go to page 9, to something called the vanity video; the article reads, “The Globe and Mail revealed that Harper’s chosen Minister for Democratic Reform [the now leader of the Conservative Party] commissioned a team of public servants for overtime work on a Sunday to film him glad-handing constituents.”

It goes on, but he was promoting using civil servants and wearing his Conservative Party uniform, and of course, we cannot do that. If the Ethics Commissioner was to look into that, I suspect maybe they would have found some sort of fine or a penalty, or he would have been found offside.

However, one of the ones Harper is really well known for is the “Elections bill [that] strips power from Elections Canada”. The story says, “The Fair Elections Act also makes it harder for Canadians to vote as more ID is required. Nationwide protests in which more than 400 academics took part forced [the leader of the Conservative Party] to withdraw some measures in the bill because of their alleged anti-democratic bent.”

Anti-democratic: I think there could be some relevancy here. It goes on to say, the “Democratic Reform Minister [the leader of the Conservative Party] accused the Elections Canada CEO Marc Mayrand of being a power monger and wearing a team jersey.”

Here we have the Conservative Party now calling into question the Ethics Commissioner, but when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister responsible for democratic reform, he labelled the chief of our electoral system, Elections Canada. That is why I do not say it lightly. We have a leader of the Conservative Party who is in borderline contempt, in terms of what we are witnessing in Parliament today. He has no qualms doing that. It is demonstrated.

Not only that, but if we take a look at the issue of security clearance, I do not know how many times I have asked the question of Conservative MP after Conservative MP: Why does the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada not get the security clearance so that he can better understand foreign interference? That is a very real issue. We have all sorts of things that are taking place in our community. An individual has been murdered; individuals are being held in many different ways for financial purposes. We have all sorts of interference in political parties, in the leader of the Conservative Party's own leadership.

When he was elected as leader, there were issues related to foreign interference and how that influenced the leadership that he ultimately won. The Bloc, the Green, the NDP and the Prime Minister all have the security clearance. He is the only leader who does not. Why will the leader of the Conservative Party not do likewise? The arguments he uses are bogus. He knows that. We have experts clearly indicating that the leader of the Conservative Party has nothing to worry about in terms of being able to get the security clearance, from a perspective of being able to listen and talk about the issue of the day. That is not the concern. However, it does raise an issue. What is in the background of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding which, ultimately, he is scared to get that security clearance? I believe there is something there.

There is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want Canadians to know. I think we should find that out. That is why, whether it is me or other members of the government, we will continue to call upon the leader of the Conservative Party to get that security clearance.

Instead of playing this multi-million dollar game, let us start dealing with the issues that are important to Canadians. Let us talk about the fall economic statement and the legislation before the House that the Conservatives do not want to have discussions on. Let us have opposition days and private members' bills. We should allow the chamber to do the work that Canadians want us to do.

As the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party in particular, is so focused on them, I can assure people following the debate that the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will always continue to be focused on Canadians first and foremost. Unfortunately, we have to participate in this game; however, at the end of the day, we will continue to push a Canadian agenda, an agenda that reflects what we believe Canadians want.

That is something we will continue to advocate for. I would ask that, if Conservatives across the way understand the cost of the game they are playing, they stop with the character assassination they began back in 2011. Let us get down to business and do some good things for Canadians. We can do so much more if we start working together. Not only were all the other parties given a responsibility to do some good things inside the chamber, but the Conservative Party was too.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to see you in the chair.

My comment to the parliamentary secretary is to stay within the focus of today's debate, even though I certainly sympathize with the unusual aspect of overruling the cautions of the Auditor General and the RCMP. I am still very troubled. It is just not the government's position to do the easiest thing and, however many boxes of documents there are, ship them over to us. It would end this horrible waste of time we are locked into.

Based on the Speaker's ruling that there is a matter of privilege here, all other critical issues, like Bill C-33, are making no progress at all to the finish line, even though they have cleared almost every step in processing. Bills, like Bill C-33, which is on rail safety and marine matters, are waiting for report stage votes.

Industry and Technology

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it has been an interesting process over the last number of weeks. For those who are trying to follow what is taking place, allow me to attempt to summarize it. What they are really witnessing is what I would suggest is a multi-million dollar political game that is being led by the leader of the Conservative Party because he has determined that it is in his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party of Canada to continue playing this silly, expensive game at a substantial cost. As opposed to participating in this filibuster, what we are actually witnessing is an opposition party that, I would ultimately argue, is in contempt, or nearing contempt, of the House of Commons today.

It should not surprise people because the leader of the Conservative Party was the parliamentary secretary to former prime minister Stephen Harper, who was held in contempt of Parliament, the first prime minister in the history of the Commonwealth and the only one to this very day to have been held in contempt. It speaks volumes, in terms of the character and the personality of the leader of the Conservative Party today.

Let us look at what the Conservatives are doing, and I do not say it lightly. In fact, I have recommended that every member of the Conservative caucus read the Hill Times story that was published on October 31. It was written by Steven Chaplin. Steven Chaplin is the former senior legal counsel in the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. Let me just quote two very important things that should be highlighted because that is why we have the debate that we are having today, and I am going to get into that very shortly. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say about the multi-million dollar game that the leader of the Conservative Party is playing:

It’s time for the House [of Commons] to admit it was wrong, and to move on....

There has now been three weeks of debate on a questionable matter of privilege based on the misuse of the House’ power to order producing documents....

The article goes on, and here is where people really need to understand this point because we get Conservative after Conservative talking, whether about this motion or the matter of privilege that the Conservatives introduced over four weeks ago. The Conservative Party says, “just produce the papers and then the issue will end.” We cannot produce the papers. The Conservatives know that. Here is what Steven Chaplin has to say on the issue, in terms of the game that the Conservatives are playing:

It is time for the House to admit its overreach before the matter inevitably finds it[s] way to the courts which do have the ability to determine and limit the House’s powers, often beyond what the House may like.

This is not me. This is a professional; someone who understands what is taking place in the House of Commons. It is the leader of the Conservative Party today who is using his opposition powers to prevent important things from taking place in the House because it is his self-interest and the interests of the Conservative Party and not the interests of Canadians that are being served by this tactic; not to mention the millions of dollars being thrown away.

The deputy House leader, earlier today, talked about legislation. Take a look at what is on the Order Paper and has been on the Order Paper for days now: the Canadian Citizenship Act. Citizenship is important to Canadians. By not passing this legislation, some individuals are being denied their citizenship.

There is Bill C-66, the military court reforms, which would take sexual abuse issues out of military courts and put them into the civil courts. Also, we have Bill C-33, on the rail and marine safety issue, which is talking about economic supply lines. If we want to talk about improving the economy, this is one of the things that we should be discussing. My colleague emphasized Bill C-63, the online harms act. We can think of pictures being posted on the Internet without consent from individuals over 18, as well as the harm that is being caused to children. These are the types of substantial issues that we should be talking about and voting on to see them go to committee, but instead, we are playing this game.

Fast-forward to today, when we have a motion about banking and banking fees. I can assure members that banking fees are a very serious issue. My constituents are concerned about banking fees, whether they are for using an ATM machine or the monthly charges. There is also the interest that is applied in many different ways. There is a litany of issues with banking fees. I would love the opportunity to talk for 20-plus minutes on that issue.

The problem is that this feeds into what the Conservatives are wanting us to do. The Conservatives, and this is coming from the leader of the Conservative's office, are not only saying that they want to take control of what is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, but also wanting to start dipping more and more into instructing standing committees on what they should be doing. They have the Bloc completely fooled on this. It will be interesting to see who votes in favour of it.

Members can think about this: The Conservatives, not once but twice, as Mark Carney was brought up late last week, have brought in an amendment to a concurrence motion to send the report back to committee for it to be further studied while calling for certain witnesses, and they have each had a deadline to get back to the House. However, these standing committees can determine their own agendas and who they want to call before them. They do not have to be instructed by the leader of the Conservative Party on what they should be doing. This is a very disturbing pattern, which we have now seen with two concurrence motions that were brought forward by the Conservative Party.

I would argue that, ultimately, the leader of the Conservative Party is not only trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about on the floor of the House of Commons, but also starting to reach into the different standing committees. He could have just advised, and said, “Well, look, send this back to the committee”. We could also do what we usually do, which is to vote concurrence on a report, so it would go on its way, and just allow the standing committee to do what it wants. However, there is an agenda there. It is a very selfish agenda that is being driven by the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative House leadership team, at a substantial cost. As I said, it is a multi-million dollar game that is being played.

The Conservative leader needs to start putting the interests of Canadians ahead of his own self-serving interests and the interests of the Conservative Party. There is a lot more work that we can be doing on the floor of the House of Commons.

We need to respect that standing committees do have the ability to do what is being proposed here. We need the leader of the Conservative Party to stop abusing his authority as the leader of the opposition and reflect on when he was a parliamentary secretary and his prime minister was held in contempt of Parliament.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, before I get under way, I would like to comment on the member's last statement. He pointed out the Conservative Party's resistance to the issue. I believe it is Bill C-390 that the Bloc is advocating for and advancing, which attempts to deal with the issue. This is the first time I am hearing it on the floor of the House. I would have thought Bloc members would have raised the issue with the leadership teams in the hope that we might be able to work together on Bill C-390 and, at the very least, how it might be incorporated into some of the consultations.

There is absolutely no doubt this is a very important issue. Since 2015, when the Supreme Court decided on the issue, it has been a hot topic for parliamentarians on all sides of the House. We have seen a great deal of compassion and emotion, and understandably so.

Before I get into the substance of the report, I want to refer to why we find ourselves again talking about this concurrence report. For issues of the day that are really important to caucus strategies, or the desire to have a public discussion, we have what we call opposition days. We need to contrast concurrence reports, including the one today that the Bloc has brought forward, with opposition day motions that are brought forward. We will find there is a stark difference. The Bloc is not alone. It will bring forward a motion or a concurrence report and say how important it is that we debate it, yet it is never given any attention on opposition days, when not only could the concurrence report be debated, but the opposition day motion could instruct an action of some form or another.

Why are we debating it today? I would suggest it is because of an action taken a number of weeks ago. We need to ask ourselves why there has been no discussion on Bill C-71, the Citizenship Act, which we started the session with. Everyone but the Conservatives supports that act. There is Bill C-66, where sexual abuses taking place within the military could be shifted over to the civil courts. My understanding is that every political party supports that legislation.

There is Bill C-33 regarding rail and marine safety and supply lines, which is very important to Canada's economy. There is Bill C-63, the online harms bill. Last night, members talked about the importance of protecting children from the Internet, and yet the government introduced Bill C-63, the online harms act. We are trying to have debates in the House of Commons on the legislation I just listed. It does not take away from the importance of many other issues, such as the one today regarding MAID. MAID is an important issue, and I know that. We all know that.

Yesterday, a concurrence report on housing was debated. Housing is also a very important issue, I do not question that, but we have well over 100 reports in committees at report stage. If we were to deal with every one of those reports, not only would we not have time for government legislation, but we would not have time for opposition days either, not to mention confidence votes. I am okay with that, as long as we get the budget passed through. We have to ask why we are preventing the House of Commons from being able to do the things that are important to Canadians. That can be easily amplified by looking at the behaviour of the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives will stand up today and talk about MAID, as well they should; I will too. However, there is no doubt that they are happy to talk about that issue today only because it feeds into their desire to prevent the government from having any sort of debate on legislation, let alone attempting to see legislation pass to committee. The Conservative Party is more concerned about its leader and the Conservative Party agenda than the agenda of Canadians and the types of things we could be doing if the official opposition party would, for example, allow its motion to actually come to a vote.

We are debating this concurrence motion because the Conservatives have frustrated the other opposition parties to the degree that we are sick and tired of hearing Conservatives stand up repeatedly, over 100 of them now, on the privilege issue, preventing any and all types of debate. So, as opposed to listening to Conservatives speak on something that is absolutely useless, we are ensuring that at least there is some debate taking place on important issues, such as MAID and housing.

Members of all political stripes need to realize the games the Conservatives are playing come at great expense to Canadians. The motion of privilege is to send the issue to PROC. Every member in the House supports that except for the Conservatives, yet it is a Conservative motion. They are filibustering and bringing the House to standstill, unless we are prepared to think outside the box and bring in a motion for concurrence. The concurrence motion, no doubt, is better than listening to the Conservatives continue to repeat speeches.

I attempted to address their speeches in great detail weeks ago. It is time we change the channel. It is time the Leader of the Opposition started putting Canadians and the nation's best interests ahead of his own personal interests and the Conservative Party of Canada's interests. We need to start talking about issues that Canadians want to hear about.

I was pleased when the member from the Bloc made reference to indications that the Province of Quebec wants to move forward on this issue. My understanding is that the province is even taking substantial actions towards it. Advance requests for MAID have been on the table and been discussed. We need to recognize it is not only Ottawa that plays a role in regard to MAID and its implementation. Our primary role is with the Criminal Code and how we might be able to make changes to it.

Members, no matter what region they come from, have to appreciate that Canada is a vast country in which there is an obligation to consult with the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, community advocates, health care professionals and Canadians. There is an obligation to do that, especially around the type of legislation the member of the Bloc is trying to change.

I was hoping to get a second question from the member, because he made reference to Bill C-390. I am not familiar with its background. It is probably completely related to the advance requests for MAID. The member, in his question to me, could maybe expand on what exactly the bill is proposing. I would ask, in regard to it, to what degree the member has done his homework. Doing the homework means going outside the province of Quebec. All provinces have something to say about the issue. Many people who were born in Quebec live in other jurisdictions, just as many people who were born in other parts of the country now call Quebec home.

We have an obligation to not take legislation dealing with issues like MAID lightly. Just because one jurisdiction is advancing it more quickly than another jurisdiction, or because one jurisdiction is demanding it, it does not necessarily mean Ottawa can buy into it at the snap of its fingers. That is not to take anything away from Quebec. On a number of fronts, Quebec has led the nation. I could talk about issues like $10-a-day child care, a national program that the Prime Minister and government, with solid support from the Liberal caucus, have advanced and put into place, and every province has now agreed to it. The MAID file is a good example where Quebec is probably leading, in pushing the envelope, more than any other province, as it did with child care. Other jurisdictions take a look at other aspects.

Health care, today, is a national program that was implemented by a national Liberal government, but the idea that predated it came from Tommy Douglas. Its practical implementation was demonstrated in the province of Saskatchewan. As a government, we continue to support health care in a very real and tangible way. By contrast, we can take a look at the Conservatives on health care and the concerns we have in terms of a threat to health care. We have invested $198 billion in health care. That ensures future generations can feel comfortable in knowing the federal government will continue to play a strong role in health care. Why is that relevant to the debate today? For many of the individuals who are, ultimately, recipients of MAID, it is an issue of long-term care, hospice care.

When my grandmother passed away in the 1990s, in St. Boniface Hospital, it was a very difficult situation. We would have loved to have had hospice care provided for her, but it did not happen. That does not take anything away from the fantastic work that health care workers provide in our system, but there she sat in a hospital setting, which was was questionable in terms of dying with dignity.

Health care and long-term care matter. With respect to my father's passing, it was Riverview and it was a totally different atmosphere because it provided hospice care. Health care matters when we talk about MAID. What the Government of Canada is bringing forward is recognition that we cannot change things overnight, but at least we are moving forward.

Back in 2015, when the Supreme Court made a decision, former prime minister Stephen Harper did absolutely nothing in terms of dealing with the issue of MAID, and the current leader of the Conservative Party was a major player during that whole Stephen Harper era. It put us into a position where, virtually immediately after the federal election, we had to take action, and we did. I remember vividly when members of Parliament shared stories in Centre Block. I remember the emotions. I remember many of my colleagues sitting on the committee that listened to Canadians from across the country with respect to the issue. We all talked to constituents and conveyed their thoughts in Ottawa. We were able to bring in and pass legislation, the first ever for Canada, that dealt with the issue.

In 2021, we actually updated the legislation that dealt with persons whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. We are making changes, but it has to be done in a fashion that is fair, reasonable and responsible.

We want to hear from Canadians. We want to hear what the different provinces, territories, indigenous leaders, stakeholders, doctors, nurses, those who are providing that direct care and the families have to say. This is a very personal decision that people have to make at very difficult times in their lives. We should not be taking it for granted in any fashion whatsoever.

That is the reason, once again, we have another special joint standing committee that hopefully will be starting its work in November, with the idea of doing something tangible over six or eight weeks, whatever it takes, so it can bring something back to the House to deal with advance requests for MAID. That seems to be the focal point of what the Bloc is talking about today.

I want to come back to some of my other comments in regard to the government's recognition of the importance of the issue of MAID. We have done that since 2015. We continue to recognize it and work with Canadians and the many different stakeholders, and we are committed to continuing to do that. It is unfortunate that because of the games being played by the leader of the Conservative Party and by members of the Conservative Party of Canada, the government is not able to continue to have important legislation debated, legislation like the Citizenship Act, the issue of military court to civil court with respect to sexual abuse, online harms act and the rail and marine safety act. All of these are so important.

I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stop focusing on its leader's best interests and to start thinking of Canadians' best interests. I am asking it to stop the filibuster and allow legislation, at the very least, to get to committee so Canadians can have their say.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of them is saying, “Hear, hear!”

Madam Speaker, now the Conservatives are saying that they do not want to be accountable through media like the CTVs or the CBCs of Canada because they do not have confidence in those national news broadcasters. It is because they do not want to answer the questions that are being posed to them. Instead, they want to rely on social media.

There is a reference to the leader of the Conservative Party being very similar to Trump. That might be a bit of a disservice to Donald Trump. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed in the direction the far-right Conservative Party is going today. There is also no sign of its members changing their attitudes. Look at the attitude of hate that Conservatives are promoting and the information they are providing to people.

Today, Conservatives brought forward a motion, and that motion is in keeping with their slogans. I will give them that much. Darn, they are good at slogans. They have slogans; they have bumper stickers. They are ready and itching to get them out there. The problem is that everything is based on a foundation of sand. At the end of the day, there is nothing to it but slogans and bumper stickers, which are supported by misinformation.

One of the examples I could give is related to what Conservative members have been talking a lot about already today. If someone were to do a Hansard search, how many Conservative members of Parliament would we find who have actually said anything about cutting the carbon rebates? I suspect we would not find any. How many have said, “cut the carbon tax”? I suspect, on average, each one has said it 10 times. Some have said it a couple hundred times, and others have not said it because they have not spoken.

I can suggest to members that, when Conservatives go to Canadians and say that they are going to save Canadians money, as they have said inside the chamber, by cutting the carbon tax, that is not true. More than 80% of the constituents that I represent get a carbon rebate. That rebate amount is more than the carbon tax that they pay. That means that their net income, their disposable income, is increased. That is the reality. Members do not have to believe me. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is independent, will tell us that.

Conservatives will spread misinformation because it sounds good. Some provinces do not even have the carbon tax, yet they will go to those provinces and say that they are going to cut the carbon tax, giving a false impression. The other day in debate, there was one member in the Conservative Party who stood up and said that a 34% cost increase on food is a direct result of the carbon tax. What a bunch of garbage. That is absolutely ridiculous. I challenged the member on that statement, and then I challenged a couple of other members on the statement this particular member made. They do not change their opinions on it, even if they are confronted with facts.

They do not change their opinions because they are so focused on that thirst for power. At the end of the day, they are not concerned about what is happening for Canadians, the day-to-day living that Canadians have to put up with, let alone the important issues that the House of Commons deals with on a daily basis.

Today, we were supposed to debate Bill C-71. Bill C-71 is a bill to ensure that individuals who should have never have lost their citizenship will be given their Canadian citizenship. Every political party, except for the Conservatives, supports that legislation. Conservatives do not even want to debate it now. They will not allow it to be debated. They do not want it to go to committee.

Members will say that the Conservatives do not support that one, but they do support Bill C-66. They say that they support it. That bill takes sexual harassment and rape victims who are going through military courts and transfers them into civil courts. Every member of the House of Commons, the Conservatives, the Bloc, New Democrats, Greens and, of course, Liberals, supports that legislation. Members would think that the Conservatives would allow that bill to go to committee, but no. Instead, they want to filibuster. They brought forward another concurrence report.

They say that they are concerned about the economy. Members can take a look at Bill C-33, which we were supposed to be debating last week, to enhance our trading opportunities. What did the Conservative members do? They did not want to debate that either, so they brought in another concurrence report, which prevented the government from being able to debate that legislation.

The members opposite, in criticizing the government today, were talking about issues of crime. They say that this is what they want to talk about. I will remind them of Bill C-63, the online harms act. That is to protect children being extorted, being bullied. The whole issue of exploitation of our young children, we were supposed to debate that last week, but no, the Conservatives said no to that too, and they brought forward a concurrence report. The Conservative Party is going out of its way to prevent any legislation from going to committee.

Prior to getting up, I had a member of one of the opposition parties approach me, asking why we do not just move to orders of the day. I think there was a great deal of effort and thought to move towards orders of the day because then maybe we could get on with actually providing movement on some of this legislation. The problem is that we are a minority government. In a minority government, we cannot go to orders of the day unless we get an opposition party that says it will support the government moving to orders of the day so that we can get rid of the games that the Conservative party has been playing.

Let there be no doubt that, no matter how critical the Conservative Party is, how much of a roadblock the Conservatives want to present or how much of a character assassination that they are after for those in the government, the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians in all regions of our country. That is something we will continue to focus on day in and day out. That means that, whether the Conservatives want it or not, we will continue to develop policy ideas that will transform into budgetary measures and legislative measures. There will come a time when Canadians will, in fact, evaluate and take a look at what the Conservative Party has been doing between now and whenever the next election is, and what other political entities have done.

I think there is a sense of responsibility for all of us to be able to accomplish good things for Canadians. That is what I liked about the agreement that was achieved between the Liberals and the New Democrats. I have always been a big fan of the pharmacare plan. I have always been a very strong advocate for a national health care system that supports our provinces, which administer health care. For over 30 years as a parliamentarian, those are the types of issues that have been important for me. As a government, those issues have been important for us.

We were able to get support from the New Democrats to advance a number of wonderful health care initiatives. That is what it means to put people first, putting the constituents of Canada ahead of partisan politics. By doing that, the government has invested $198 billion over 10 years in health care. That is for future generations. We have developed a dental care program. To date, over 700,000 people have had access to it. Members can think of diabetes, or of contraceptives, and how, as a government working with an opposition party, we are, in fact, making a difference. In fact, I have suggested that one of the other things we should possibly be looking at is shingles and how pharmacare might be able to deal with that particular issue.

These are the types of ideas that we are talking about within the Liberal Party to build a stronger, healthier health care system, while the Conservative Party wants to tear it down. That is a part of the Conservative far-right hidden agenda. People need to be aware of that. By the time we get to the election, I believe that throughout that election, we will see the Conservative sand fade away. There is no foundation to what they are saying. It is just bumper stickers and slogans. That is all they have. We can contrast that to the many progressive measures we have taken as a government, in good part because of the cooperation of opposition parties.

I ask the Conservatives to stop playing the games, stop bringing in Conservative motions of concurrence and allow debate on government legislation. A responsible Conservative opposition could still bring in the motions it wants, while at least allowing debates to occur on legislation. Allow these important pieces of legislation to go to committee where they can be studied, where they can come back and where they can provide hope for many. That is the very least that Conservatives can do: put Canadians ahead of their own political party.

Public Accounts

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to debating Bill C-33, which in part would amend the Railway Safety Act. I wanted to bring forward the tragic accident that happened in my riding of Nepean a few years ago, where six people were killed when a city transport bus collided with a Via Rail train. That was the kind of thing I wanted to discuss, however now we are discussing this.

The federal government has a program called “Reaching Home: Canada's Homelessness Strategy”, where we have committed $4 billion with the aggressive target of reducing homelessness by 50% by 2027-28.

I would like to ask my hon. friend to emphasize the importance of the other levels of government, the provinces and municipalities, that can work together with the federal government to reduce this huge problem.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Yes, Madam Speaker, by popular demand, I am back. I really missed these exchanges. Some of our great moments are on Thursdays, not just for CPAC viewers, but also for you and me personally, I know. Therefore it is wonderful to exchange and wonderful to be back. I want to wish members a good return. I hope everybody had a productive and happy time with their families and their constituents in their ridings.

This afternoon, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-66, the military justice system modernization act.

Tomorrow, we will begin the report stage debate of Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

On Monday, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-63, the online harms act.

Madam Speaker, you will be very happy to know that next Wednesday we will also be resuming second reading debate of Bill C-71, which would amend the Citizenship Act.

I would also like to take the opportunity to inform the House that both next Tuesday and next Thursday shall be allotted days.

Furthermore, on Monday, the Minister of Finance will table a ways and means motion on capital gains taxation that incorporates the feedback received during consultations over the summer. The vote will take place on Wednesday of next week during Government Orders.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

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

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

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill C‑52 has several objectives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The bill provides a bit of a definition of the type of noise management committee the government would like to see. These noise management committees would bring together at least one representative from Nav Canada, which makes sense, an elected municipal official, an airline representative and a representative from the airport in question. The mandate of these committees would be to answer the public's questions and listen to people's grievances.

We think that the creation of noise management committees is a good thing, but we would like the government to take this a little further. I found out a little bit about what is being done elsewhere in the world, but I will come back to that later.

Under the bill, the obligation to create noise management committees will apply only to airports with 60,000 or more movements per year. I checked to see how many airports in Canada meet that criterion and only four airports do. I do not know exactly how many airports there are in Canada, but there are at least a hundred on the list that I have. I can understand why a small airport that does not even have employees would not be asked to meet this criterion, but these committees need to be set up in a lot more airports. That is what we think.

There are service standards for airports, and we think that there should also be sound emission standards to protect people who live near airports. Such standards do not exist in Canada. Airports can make as much noise as they want and the public has no say in the matter. The way this issue is being dealt with right now is rather unfortunate. There must be social licence for development.

Other countries around the world have noise emission standards. In the United States, there is a noise limit for people living near airports. In Europe, for example, there are noise emission standards. The World Health Organization has worked on noise emission standards to protect people's health. Why, in Canada, a G7 country that is a member of the OECD, modern and all that, are there no noise emission standards for people living near airports? It just does not make sense.

We think we need to move in that direction. We need to measure noise and report it. Noise is already measured, but is the method being used the right one, and can it be perfected? There is a theoretical calculation system for measuring noise, known as noise exposure forecast, or NEF. We think that this NEF system should also be available to the public. It would be great if people who are about to buy a house could find out how much noise they can expect at that location. If the noise exceeds set standards, measures could be put in place to reduce it. This would help everyone make better decisions while promoting community well-being.

That is one of the big changes we want to make to Bill C‑52. We hope everyone at the table will collaborate. We are here to work constructively to improve every bill introduced in the House for the betterment of all. Even though Canada is not our country, at the end of the day, as long as we are part of it, we will work to improve legislation. Our end goal, obviously, is to get out of it ASAP.

[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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise today, as always, here on the territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation. To them I say meegwetch.

We are here tonight to debate Bill C-47. Bill C-47 is not the budget. The budget is a different document. It is related, of course, but Bill C-47 contains those legislative changes that are necessary in order to have the measures in the budget, not all of them but some of them, move ahead.

The measures in the budget that are simply allocations of funds that do not require legislative changes will not be found in Bill C-47, and so I find myself strangely in the position, having studied Bill C-47, of thinking I might vote for it, even though I could not possibly vote for the government's budget. The budget has much in it that I could not support, such as increased subsidies for fossil fuels disguised as carbon capture and storage, and the use of fossil fuels to create hydrogen, thus taking what should be a green fuel and making it a fossil-fuel source again. However, the budget implementation act is not that. Let me go over what it is.

The budget implementation act is 429 pages in four parts. The longest part, part 4, has 39 different divisions. They are wide-ranging and cover many different things. In that, let me confirm that this is an omnibus bill, but it is not an illegitimate omnibus bill. It is nothing like Bill C-38 of spring 2012 when the previous administration under Stephen Harper destroyed 70 different acts in one bill with changes that had not been forecast in the budget. That was an illegitimate omnibus bill. This one is a reasonable omnibus bill, because in order to implement the budget, multiple things need to be changed.

For instance, part 1 of this very long bill deals with the Income Tax Act and such things as creating a deduction for tradesmen's tools and going on to divorce and that separated parents can open up a joint registered educational savings plan for their children. There are such things, as we have heard about, related to the new program to cover dental care and changing the tax rules so that CRA can disclose personal information about Canadians so that they can get their dental care. Part 3 deals with air traveller security changes. I could go on and on, because it is 429 pages. By division 39, at the end of the bill, we have changes to the Canada Elections Act to deal with the protection of personal information. This is a wide-ranging bill. It even touches on foreign policy. This next one is good, and I think Conservatives would want to vote for it too. At division 5 of part 4, we remove Russia and Belarus from the most favoured nation tariff treatment.

I want to devote the time I have remaining to talk about one of the longer sections, which relates to issues I have been working on for years and some of which I was ecstatic to see. This deals with division 21, the oceans protection plan.

The budget itself has two references to our oceans. They are both found on page 135, and they are remarkably brief. One says that we are going to protect Canada's whales. Now, this is basically a dressed up repackaging of new money to such departments as Fisheries and Oceans, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and Parks Canada for what the budget claims will be continuing to protect endangered whales and their habitats. That is just fine and dandy, but that is not in the budget implementation act, which is just as well, because I have rarely been as furious, disillusioned or angry.

I am absolutely distraught by the government's April 20 decision to approve this terrible project that goes against the interests of endangered species.

On April 20, what did the government do just in time for Earth Day? It approved a disastrous project that likely spells the extinction of the southern resident killer whale, our Fraser River chinook salmon and numerous other species, including the western sandpiper. It is a project called Roberts Bank on the Fraser River estuary. It will result in basically covering in concrete over 70% of that flood plain habitat. It is an outrage. It is not in the budget implementation act, but it puts the lie to the budget is going to have a section that protects whales. Right. It is hypocrisy writ large. I see other friends from British Columbia nodding. We know. This is an outrage.

The next part of the budget that deals with oceans is, I think, where we see most of the over 60 pages in the budget implementation act, for what is called the division that deals with the oceans protection plan. That probably relates to this one line item of cleaner and healthier ports. Budget 2023 proposes to provide $165.4 million over seven years to establish a green shipping corridor program to reduce the impact of marine shipping on surrounding ecosystems, and there is more to it.

What do we find in the budget implementation act and how is it relevant to what I just read? I have to say there is a lot in here that is just playing catch up with time passing. This bill deals with things such as oil-sourced pollution. Where there is pollution caused by a vessel, we are increasing how much the shipper, the owner of the ship, might have to pay. I do not think it is enough, by the way. It has changed from what was said in the Marine Liability Act, which is already on the books. Believe it or not, in respect of claims for loss of life or personal injury, it was a $1-million limit. This budget implementation act moves it to a $1.5-million limit and so on. That is one specific area.

There is another specific area that I want to mention briefly because I really think it is important. At page 241 of the budget implementation act is a section which says that under the Marine Liability Act, in terms of costs that the vessel owner and company must be responsible for, under the Hazardous and Noxious Substances Convention, they will now be required to compensate indigenous peoples for economic loss in relation to hunting, fishing, trapping or harvesting rights under section 35 of the Constitution. It is a better recognition of indigenous rights.

There is much here but I do want to concentrate on what was, for me, what I have been hoping for, for some years. Ironically, about a week before the budget implementation act came out, I wrote to the Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister of Environment to ask if we are ever going to see any measures to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Are we ever going to see the promised vessel remediation fund? Is it going to be in the budget implementation act? Surprise, it is. It is found at section 430, page 277 for anyone reading the budget implementation act at home. I have to wonder about their lives if they are reading the budget implementation act at home, especially if they are reading it out loud to their children. It will certainly put anyone to sleep.

It is very exciting because we passed the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act four years ago, in March 2019. We were excited on that day that we got it done. Most people here who do not live in coastal areas would not know what a hazard it is to have an abandoned vessel, somebody's old sailboat. They are fibreglass. If somebody owns them and they are moored in the harbour, moored in navigational lanes, getting rid of them is really hard.

In Atlantic Canada, it is not so hard, because over the course of the winter any abandoned boat will be smashed to bits and gone by spring, but if someone lives along the coast of the Salish Sea or along British Columbia's coast, the boats are there almost forever. In a time when we have the horror of people who are inadequately housed, many people who are homeless will move onto these vessels and live there. They are unsafe.

Once we got the act passed, we thought we had solved the problem, but then the government refused to act. I have constituents who say there is an abandoned vessel and ask if we will do something. The Coast Guard, DFO and Transport Canada all pass the buck and do not move the vessel. The problem is they do not have the money, they say.

Now we have this new fund. Details will come out on how it is going to work in regulations, but I could not be more pleased that we now have a vessel remediation fund and additional powers for the Minister of Transport. There are other related measures in Bill C-33 which we have not yet debated in this place but maybe, just maybe, the budget implementation act, at long last, will allow us to implement the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act.

With that I will close.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with joining the member opposite in wishing all who are recognizing Saint Patrick's Day a very happy Saint Patrick's Day. I can say that, with some roots of mine that come from Tipperary, I will join them in celebrating that day.

Also, I hope all members have the opportunity over the constituency week to be with their constituents and their families. I hope that it is productive for them, and I look forward to seeing all members back in this place.

With respect to the question on hostile state actors, the member opposite knows of our shared commitment to repel such forces, and I look forward to working with him. I appreciate his very helpful suggestions as to where that might fall on the calendar, and I look forward to fruitful discussions as to what might take place on those two mysterious days.

However, I can say that tomorrow we will begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-33 concerning port systems and railway safety.

I would like to inform the House that Monday, March 20, and Wednesday, March 22, shall be allotted days.

Finally, on the Tuesday of that week, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-23, the historic places of Canada act.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's very sincere effort, I am sure, to lay that on the record. I am sure he is in shock that there was not unanimous consent. However, my hon. colleague can rest assured that, when it comes to climate change, we will not allow inaction to be the rule of the day and that we will absolutely continue to take action to make sure climate change does not ravage this planet.

I do want to pick up on the second-last comment that the hon. opposition House leader made, which were comments with respect to Family Day. I hope that he, and indeed all members in the House, take time with their families and with their constituents, and that they return to this place in good health.

Tomorrow, we will resume debate on Bill C-34 to amend the Investment Canada Act at second reading.

Upon our return on Monday, March 6, we will call Bill C-27 on the digital charter, at second reading.

Tuesday shall be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will commence debate on Bill C-33 concerning the port system and railway safety.

Thursday will not only be the opportunity for my hon. colleague's favourite time of the week, another Thursday question, but we will also resume debate on Bill C-23 respecting historic places, at second reading.

On Friday, we will continue second reading debate of Bill C-26, the cybersecurity legislation.

Marine Transportation

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of years, we have seen global supply disruptions that have impacted our supply chains at home. Because of that, we have seen congestion at airports and an increased number of vessels anchored next to our coast.

I have been listening to constituents on the coast, particularly where the hon. colleague is raising the point. I want to assure her that we are putting together an action plan to address this. We tabled Bill C-33 just two weeks ago. It will introduce new tools to help mitigate the traffic of the vessels. We will work with her and constituents to make sure that we manage this adequately.