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 .

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, let me just take a moment to pay tribute to our friend and former colleague Marc Garneau, who resigned this week from his seat as a member of Parliament. Marc Garneau was a member of Parliament who served with dignity and pride. He served Canadians throughout his career in various roles. I know he will be deeply missed by his constituents and certainly by his friends and colleagues here in the House of Commons.

Today, I am building on the work that he started when he was the Minister of Transport. I just want to acknowledge and recognize the work he has done. It gives me great pleasure to build on a lot of the excellent work that he did.

The last three years have been extraordinarily hard on Canadians and on global and domestic supply chains. From global inflation to delays for many products, Canadians have been impacted by a global phenomenon experienced by the rest of the world. Global challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic, labour shortages and Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, as well as extreme weather events, have all contributed to major supply chain disruptions.

Our government remains focused on supporting Canadians during these unprecedented times. Whether it was support during COVID or targeted initiatives to help Canadians weather its lingering impacts, we have been there and we will continue to be there. Our government's priority continues to be making sure that Canadians have access to the goods they need, when they need them, at a reasonable price.

Our government is here for Canadians.

That is why we continue to take action to strengthen our supply chain, which will help reduce cost pressures on the transportation of goods. This in turn will help make life more affordable for Canadians.

One of the many ways we are taking action is with Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. Bill C-33 would modernize Canada's transportation system, making it more sustainable, competitive and resilient. Canada's transportation system is the backbone of our economy. Our primary modes of transport, which are marine, air, rail and road, are interdependent, and a disruption in one can impact the entire supply chain.

Our transportation system drives our economy.

That is why Bill C-33 seeks to modernize our ports and secure our railways, because an efficient and reliable supply chain is key to building an economy that works for all Canadians.

In January 2022, I hosted a supply chain summit and created a national supply chain task force. The mandate of the task force was to provide ideas on how we could strengthen our supply chain. Last fall, I shared with Canadians the report from the supply chain task force. It consulted extensively with industry and labour representatives across the country on priority areas for immediate and long-term actions to reduce congestion, improve reliability and increase resilience within Canada's transportation supply chain. It also met with representatives in the United States to understand how we could improve supply chains across our shared borders. The recommendations outlined in the task force report will inform the national supply chain strategy that our government has been working on.

Ensuring our supply chains are strong has always been a top priority for me and for our government. That is why Transport Canada has initiated two separate reviews since we came into government: the ports modernization review and the Railway Safety Act review. With both reviews now complete, we are able to advance concrete and immediate actions to modernize how our ports and railways respond to the evolving demands on our transportation infrastructure.

The bill I am proposing today is a demonstration of the government taking action to directly support two key modes of transportation that connect us domestically and to world markets.

With this bill, we are taking real action.

This modernized framework for port governance, railway safety and security, and the transportation of dangerous goods will be used for decades to come. Through Bill C-33, I am proposing an ambitious set of reforms to the marine transportation system.

This includes significant reforms to the governance of Canada's port authorities and improvements to marine safety and security through changes to the following legislation: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Customs Act. In a constantly changing world, ports, as key hubs for trade, need a modern framework to better respond to increasingly complex challenges. Bill C-33 would provide them with these tools.

Additionally, I am proposing amendments to the Railway Safety Act to improve the safety and security of Canada's railway system. Resilient railway operations need a modernized legislative framework to maintain safe, secure, efficient and reliable services that not only foster economic growth but also benefit all Canadians. Collectively, these measures would keep our supply chains resilient and competitive.

These measures help our supply chains stay strong.

Finally, our government is proposing changes to the Canada Transportation Act to enhance the overall movement of goods across Canada, and to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to enhance and clarify the safe and secure transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.

I will start by focusing on Canada's ports.

The proposal before us today is the result of four years of work and stakeholder engagement. Importantly, it takes into account the many lessons learned from the challenges that have hit our transportation network over the past few years. The changes being advanced are focused on six areas: competitiveness, investment, governance, indigenous and local communities, environmental sustainability, and marine safety and security. This bill proposes to ease congestion in our ports; advance reconciliation and enhance structured, meaningful engagement with indigenous people; act on risks posed by climate change; and promote a resilient system that is safe and secure.

I would like to first focus on the measures that would advance competitiveness.

This bill would increase competition by improving the flow of goods through our ports. This was a key ask from stakeholders, who stressed that collaboration is key to improving fluidity, encouraging investment and expanding port capacity. Additionally, industry-led recommendations from the supply chain task force called for new enabling authorities to facilitate leasing land and transporting containers inland and for regulations and legislation to empower our government to take actions that decongest ports.

To better position our strategic ports and support national supply chain performance, the bill would amend the Canada Marine Act to expand the ability of ports to govern and manage traffic, including marine vessel traffic and anchorage use, which are often a source of concern to coastal communities. In support of this traffic-management mandate, our government would establish information- and data-sharing requirements with ports and port users to improve the efficiency of their operations. We will ensure the shared data are appropriately protected.

This framework would also support the work our government is doing to develop a national supply chain data strategy. This proposed legislation would expand the operational scope of port authorities, enabling them to move operations inland and away from congested urban areas, which would reduce the impacts these operations can have on local communities.

The ability of Canada's port authorities to rise to these new challenges and improve supply chain fluidity is dependent not only on new authorities proposed in this bill, but also on their financial capabilities to invest in infrastructure and take action. The current rules put rigid limits on port borrowing, which ultimately inhibits growth. To facilitate timely and more predictable access to funding, port borrowing limits would be reviewed every three years. These regular reviews would also hold ports accountable to responsible debt repayment to limit financial risk to Canadians.

Proposals in this bill would also improve investment in ports by providing greater clarity and predictability to private investors who have been key to the development of the world-class ports we have today. Specifically, this bill proposes to amend the Canada Transportation Act so that transactions at ports with a value of more than $10 million would be eligible for review by the Minister of Transport. This would ensure these investments meet Canada's competition and national and economic security objectives. This bill would allow our government increased flexibility to act quickly to mitigate security threats to supply chains and further their resiliency during times of emergency.

The recent devastation to rail corridors resulting from flooding on the west coast illustrates the need to have tools to respond when the safety or the security of supply chain operations is under threat. Specifically, this legislation would enable swift intervention in exceptional circumstances caused by disruptive events, such as pandemics, extreme weather and the actions of a hostile state actor. With these new powers, I, as the Minister of Transport, would be enabled to send a notice to the responsible authority and direct measures to be taken to restore supply chain fluidity.

I would now like to focus on measures that seek to update the governance structure of Canada port authorities. These measures would provide ports with the tools necessary to meet current and future challenges.

Let me be clear. The arm's-length nature of ports remains an essential part of their operations and will be maintained. This feature is key to ensuring our ports are seen as credible partners in the global market. However, consultations with stakeholders and local communities identified that the governance structure could more effectively balance national, local, economic and socio-environmental considerations. That is why I am proposing changes that would better frame the relationship between government and ports while enhancing efficiency and transparency and preserving port authority autonomy.

These measures involve providing the Minister of Transport with the ability to designate the chairperson of the board from among the board members and in consultation with the board. This measure would ensure Canadian port authorities and our government are aligned on how we deal with the increasing complex economic, social and environmental issues facing our ports.

Prairie provinces play a crucial role in supporting a competitive Canadian economy, with ports representing the gateway that connects them to the rest of the world. Given the interdependence between the two, the bill would increase the prairie provinces' representation on the boards of the Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay port authorities. This would reflect their growth and importance to the Canadian economy and would mirror similar structured changes previously made to the board of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

In addition, a series of amendments would improve board performance, accountability and transparency.

First, I am proposing to broaden the pool of prospective board candidates by expanding the list of eligible persons to serve as directors. Currently, the exclusion criteria are far too broad and exclude individuals whose employment would not present conflict, impacting the eligibility of highly qualified candidates. This would enable port authority boards to access a wider selection of highly qualified candidates and would further facilitate their success.

Another improvement being proposed through the bill is a requirement for Canada port authorities to undertake a review of governance practices every three years. These reviews would evaluate the effectiveness of board governance practices, such as assessments of conflicts of interest and record-keeping practices. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada and would inform future policy measures as needed.

Furthermore, legislation would provide the authority to make regulations pertaining to the governance of Canada's port authorities. This authority would enable the government to keep governance requirements up to date, recognizing the importance of working with port authorities, indigenous groups and stakeholders as part of the regulation-making process.

As I have noted, a key challenge to port governance is in aligning their national mandate with local realities. As part of the engagement process, we heard about the importance of a strong relationship between port authorities and local, notably indigenous, communities. Indigenous communities stressed that more could be done to recognize indigenous rights, including increasing efforts to address issues and consider interests raised by indigenous communities.

It is important to work with indigenous peoples.

This bill would create more opportunities for port authorities to work together with indigenous groups and for local communities to improve responsiveness and transparency in port management of economic, environmental and social issues. This change of approach starts with a proposed amendment to the Canada Marine Act that would explicitly provide distinction and recognition for indigenous groups within the legislation, setting the stage for better port-indigenous community engagement.

Building on this, and as a complement to the ability to designate the board chair, and a suite of measures to improve internal port governance, proposed changes would see ports being required in law to establish three new advisory committees: one with indigenous communities, one with local stakeholders and one with local governments. These groups would be designed to structure engagement, enable ongoing dialogue and inform port planning and decision-making.

Indigenous peoples, municipalities, communities and industry groups also stressed that ports should also be leaders in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building greener infrastructure and operations. Aligning with our government's climate agenda, new reporting requirements in Bill C-33 would have ports better integrate environmental considerations in their planning, specifically in their financial reporting, to better account for and mitigate environmental risks. In addition, our government is proposing important new measures to ensure ports establish targets, monitor progress and publicly disclose the results of their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and mitigate climate-related risks.

I will now turn my attention to port security.

Our government recognizes that securing our ports is critical, not only to the integrity and competitiveness of our gateways but also for the safety of all Canadians. Bill C-33 proposes significant improvements to enhance the safety and security of the marine sector while strengthening our supply chain. Once in place, this legislation would give Transport Canada and the Canada Border Services Agency the authorities needed to enhance timely screening of containers and to build a more secure and efficient marine transportation system at the same time.

I will speak briefly to what Bill C-33 seeks to strengthen in the safety and security of Canada's railway and movement of dangerous goods regulation. A resilient, fluid rail supply chain must be underpinned by its safety. To maintain our rail sector as one of the safest and strongest in the world, we need to ensure our regulations remain up to date.

There is so much in this bill that would further improve the resiliency and safety of our ports and rail network. I look forward to engaging with my colleagues in this chamber to ensure that we advance this bill. I look forward to my colleague's feedback and questions and to passing this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am concerned that there has been a lot of talk and not a lot of action: reviews, reports and strategies. We have heard about all of that. The minister referred to the supply chain task force in his commentary, a report of which he has on his desk for six months. In the introduction of that report it says that Canada's supply chains are at a “breaking point”. That was six months ago. It makes 13 immediate recommendations for action, as well as eight for longer-term action.

Of those immediate actions, how many have been completed, how many does Bill C-33 address, and when will those be completed?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for highlighting the work that was done by the supply chain task force, which our government established last year. I want to take a moment to thank those members who have put together a thoughtful, meaningful report.

Our government is committed to a lot of the recommendations that are in this report. Some of those recommendations are, in fact, in this bill, Bill C-33. As I mentioned in my speech, there are future action items that will be introduced soon to Canadians.

I want to assure my colleague that, if he supports the conclusions that the task force came up with, he should find a lot of comfort in what Bill C-33 is offering, because it really targets and addresses many of the solutions that the task force had recommended.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his bill and his speech this afternoon.

Recently we heard news out of the United States about a major train derailment in Ohio. The train was carrying toxic chemicals. Not too long ago, there was a train accident in Greece that caused many deaths.

Back home in Quebec, we remember July 6, 2013, when 47 people perished following the derailment of a 72-tanker-car train transporting crude oil. This serves as a reminder of the significance of transporting people and goods.

Does the hon. minister think that Bill C‑33 goes far enough to prevent these types of tragedies in the future?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed, we all have been following the tragedies that have unfolded in the U.S. and in Greece. In fact, 10 years ago in Canada, we experienced our own tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, when 47 lives were lost because of a tragic rail incident.

Our government has taken action to further strengthen the safety of our rail network. We have already implemented several measures that will enhance the safety of transporting goods via rail. This bill further adds additional measures, including the registry of dangerous goods and including additional authorities to the Minister of Transport, to ensure that we further build on the safety of our rail network.

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

Madam Speaker, the government has carved out room on the boards of our ports for municipalities and local governments for obvious reasons. They are important stakeholders in our ports. As well, they have carved out room for the prairie provinces so that shippers of natural resources have a voice when it comes to the operation of the ports that deliver those resources to market. However, we all know that it is the working people at our ports who are so essential to their success.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to expand the representation on our ports to include the working people who are so essential to the function.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy.

I want to take a second to express my gratitude to the workers in our ports and in our transportation systems. During the last three years, where we faced unprecedented challenges, the workers in our transportation system stepped up and showed up to work every day. While some of us could work from home, they showed up on the job to make sure that our supply chains continued to move and to be resilient.

I want to assure my hon. colleague that labour and the voices of workers are incredibly important. To make sure that we do things right, in our government, we will always stand up for their rights and continue to listen to their input and to their advice.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister. I want to acknowledge that he has been working extremely hard on a number of supply chain issues that have an immediate impact on indigenous nations in Saanich—Gulf Islands and throughout the areas of the Salish Sea.

I want to acknowledge that this bill is encouraging to many of us, but I want to ask a question very bluntly. Can there be amendments, and how open will the minister be? The supply chain issue to which I refer, which has the biggest environmental damage on the issues of rail safety and ports, is the placement of freighters, representing free parking to freighters where the Port of Vancouver does not have the capacity to move them through quickly. It causes environmental damage, and it offends indigenous rights in Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Is the minister open to amendments?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her kind words.

This bill is an important bill. It would further enhance the resilience and strength of our supply chains, of our ports and the safety of our rail network. This bill does not necessarily cover everything that can be done and needs to be done. This bill is a result of the review that was done over the last few years on rail safety and port modernization.

As we have demonstrated, we are always willing to work with our colleagues in the House of Commons to identify opportunities and to introduce amendments. I look forward to her input, as well as my colleagues' in this chamber.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the minister. On a couple of occasions, he came to Winnipeg and met with long-haul truck drivers. The role that they play in our ports is of an essential nature. There is a great deal of interest by the long-haul truck driver industry in the bill.

I would be very interested in getting the minister's thoughts on the critical role that our long-haul truck drivers play in the supply chain.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his hospitality. I had a chance to visit him in his communities and to visit many truck operators and truck drivers in Winnipeg, in his riding, to express my personal gratitude to them.

Truck drivers have stepped up during an extraordinary period of time and have delivered goods that Canadians depend on. We may not have spent a lot of time, as Canadians, thinking about how goods to get to our shelves or to our kitchen tables, but we knew during the pandemic that we depended on our truck drivers. I know truck drivers take pride in their work and understand how important their work is. Our government is committed to working with them to improve their working conditions and to improve their safety. It is important that we listen to their input and continue to support what they do.

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

Madam Speaker, my question is regarding the minister taking over the ability to appoint the board chair. It says in the legislation that he would be able to do so after consulting with the board. However, we know that the minister has ignored the recommendations of port users when they have put forward board nominees. He has ignored the recommendations of the prairie provinces when they have put forward nominees.

Given the minister's track record of ignoring the recommendations from the groups that are putting forward nominees for board positions, what is to stop him from ignoring the board, as he has done in the past, and simply making a choice that he wants to do his government's bidding?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is trying to personalize his question, but let me be very clear. Ports are public institutions. They are there to serve Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is really important that the port mandate is in line with government's expectations and commitments. Therefore, it is important that the board of directors is aligned with government's objectives.

Yes, we need to be careful and sensitive about this and make sure that the ports have the independence they need, but, at the same time, make sure that they maintain their responsibility to the public.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be a part of this debate today on Bill C-33, which would make amendments to several different acts. Supposedly, based on the press release from the government, this was going to have a profound impact on supply chains and rail safety. Having spoken to dozens of stakeholders over several weeks, they do not see it.

Quite frankly, this is a missed opportunity. This is after four years of government consultation. As the minister said, opportunities do not come along very often to change the way our ports and rail systems operate, and this was a missed opportunity to actually make a difference and improve the supply chain in this country.

The general feedback we received is that this is actually heading in the wrong direction. We heard a lot of stakeholders who said this will do nothing to improve supply chain efficiencies, while others have said it will make them worse. The best the minister received from the feedback I heard is indifference. That is certainly not a ringing endorsement of what has been touted as being a major change to supply chain systems and a major answer to the supply chain problems we have seen plaguing the country for the last number of months and years.

My colleague referenced the national supply chain task force report, which explained the urgency of this situation and proposed several changes that should be made on an immediate basis. We just do not see enough of that urgency. We do not see enough of what was in the supply chain report in this bill. This is the first opportunity the government has had to show it was listening to that report, and we just do not see it.

There is nothing in this bill about rail service reliability or the relationship between shippers and rail companies. In fact, it simply seems to indicate that the status quo is just fine. There is nothing in this bill about what would happen to our supply chains and our international reputation when there are labour disputes that impact the supply chain either at the ports or on our railways. There is nothing here about how we would to reconcile concerns with loading grain in the rain, for instance, in Vancouver. All of these were missed opportunities.

In fact, as the minister indicated a couple of times in his speech, the ports are at arm's length. He just indicated in his answer to my question that, in fact, that arm is getting shorter and shorter. The government is extending its arm into the ports to impose its will on what are supposed to be independent authorities. It is quite shocking to hear the minister openly admit that the problem clearly is that the ports do not do what Ottawa wants enough and that it needs to exert more control over the ports. The ports are supposed to operate in the best interest of the national economy and the best interest of the supply chain, not in the best interest of the government in Ottawa.

Some of our primary concerns revolve around the changes that have been made to the governance system at the ports. The independence of the ports should start with the ability of the board of directors to elect its own chair. That is the current way the system operates. I have certainly not heard that this has been a major issue that has impeded the operation of the ports, but we see an “Ottawa knows best” or “Liberal government knows best” approach when it says the local port boards cannot be trusted to select their own chairs, as they currently do, and that the minister himself needs to make those selections.

I will also note that the port users, the port tenants, the shippers, the grain companies, and so on, have had their influence on the boards diluted. There have been additional board positions given to local representatives. There are two additional board positions, both given to government entities, and no additional seats given to compensate for the people who actually run our ports and get our goods from our farms to the customers overseas.

I think that is an oversight. I also think that the overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape nature of imposing a “made in Ottawa” solution on consultation is going to prove very difficult to manage in many of the ports across the country.

Bill C-33 seems designed to be imposed on big ports, like the Port of Vancouver. There are 17 port authorities in Canada and some of them are very small. There are no provisions in the bill to allow for any flexibility for the smaller ports, which may not have indigenous communities in their proximity or which may not have the capacity to set these things up without significant new costs, which will be passed on to port users and to Canadian consumers. These are imposed costs that will be passed along at a time when we are already dealing with record inflation. These are going to be inflationary costs that will impact the costs of the goods that Canadians need.

The Port of Vancouver, for instance, already has robust indigenous consultation, robust community consultation and robust local government involvement. As for creating advisory boards, I have heard some feedback from folks who have maybe one first nation in their entire province. How would they set up an indigenous advisory board to deal with that situation?

As for the Port of Vancouver, in my home province of British Columbia, who would be on this board? It certainly would not just be the handful of first nations that are in the Vancouver area. It would be communities who are up the Fraser River. It would be communities that are along the shipping routes.

Now that it would be an official consultation board mandated by law, there will be questions about who would be on it, who would be part of it and what role they would play. If there is nothing in the legislation that indicates what the role of that board would be or what the powers of that board would be, would they simply give advice that can be ignored? Would they have the power to actually prevent the ports from exercising their authorities? We just do not know.

I think that is what we have heard a lot of in the stakeholder feedback we have received, which is that there are a lot of changes that have been made where the Ministry of Transportation or the minister says, “Oh no, do not worry about it. That is not what we meant when we put those changes in the legislation. We will find a way around it. We did not mean that the minister would appoint the board chair. He would just consult with the ports and then take their advice.”

That is not what the legislation says. I think that this is poorly drafted legislation that leaves an awful lot to interpretation and will actually create greater uncertainty for the ports at a time when they need more certainty.

I want to touch briefly on the active vessel traffic management portion of the legislation.

I think, obviously, that there is some need to give the port the authority to manage vessel traffic within its jurisdiction. I think that there is, again, a lack of certainty about what this will mean. How far out will the ports be given the authority to manage the vessel traffic? Is it just in their jurisdictions? Is it hundreds of kilometres offshore? These are things that need to be clarified.

It also needs to be said that, by focusing solely on the marine vessel side of things and not on the rail side of things, the government has missed an opportunity again. It has not talked about rail service reliability, service levels, ensuring that shippers are well served by the rail sector, or that there needs to be reliable data so that the ships know when products are coming by rail. It seems to be focused entirely on the marine side.

We also have concerns about what the government means by allowing the ports to manage anchorages. In British Columbia, there are significant concerns about what that means. Some want anchorages to be removed from certain areas altogether. Others would like to see the anchorages better regulated, and still others would like to see the efficiency of the ports brought up to a standard such that there would not be the need for so many anchorages.

It has been difficult to deal with this issue in a post-COVID context, because there was such a backlog as a result of supply chain collapses around the world and therefore anchorages that had not been previously used were being used more often. What does it mean that the board would have control over these anchorages? Does it mean they would be able to remove them? Does it mean they could limit the number of days ships can dwell there?

These are all questions that are very concerning to port users if we want to expand the ports. The Port of Vancouver has indicated it wants to expand and is looking to increase capacity. We cannot increase capacity at the port and reduce the ability for vessels to safely anchor to await their turn at the port.

Would we simply remove these anchorages without consultation and without any plan as to what would happen when ships show up and have nowhere to berth or to safely anchor? Are they simply going to circle around burning fuel and wait for their turn to enter the port? That needs some clarity.

Overall, on the rail safety side, we support the clarity on the fact that blockades of rail lines are illegal. I suspect most Canadians would have thought that was already the case. In fact, it already is illegal to cause a disruption to rail service. However, the problem is not with the rules; it is with the enforcement of the rules. I think increasing the clarity is a good thing, but if it does not result in increased enforcement activity, I do not think there will be much of a change on that front.

There are concerns about the increased red tape and regulatory burdens. We want transparency at the ports, but we need it to be reasonable. I think there are concerns about whether the reporting requirements would simply be publishing data that the government already receives or whether they would be imposing a new burden on the ports, which, again, would all be passed down throughout the supply chain and ultimately onto consumers. Would quarterly financial reports, for instance, be a new requirement or would that simply be making public what the government already gets?

I think these are questions that have not been answered. That also needs to be looked at in terms of the environmental reporting. The big ports are already doing this work. Would this be duplicative? Would this simply take the work that is already being done at the ports and put it into a format that is more universal? If we are burdening the ports with more reporting requirements when they are already doing this work, that is ineffective and inefficient and we need to make sure we are not duplicating the work.

We also fundamentally disagree with the government here on what the role of the ports is. The port has to have a national lens on protecting the national supply chain; serving our international markets; and getting the goods of our farmers, shippers and creators to our markets. We heard from the minister here today that the government wants to impose a different set of rules. It wants a different focus for the ports and to increase the local perspective on that. The local residents are absolutely impacted, but the primary focus has to be on delivering goods for Canadians and our customers.

We cannot get into other focuses for the ports. I think the government has done that by making these changes to the board of directors. By making those changes to these advisory boards, it is certainly increasing Ottawa's involvement, as well as local government involvement. It is increasing local interests that I think need to be heard but cannot divert the ports from their primary responsibility, which is to serve the national Canadian economy.

When we hear the minister say that the port boards must align with the government's agenda, that does not sound like arm's-length governance to me but an arm of the government. There are just too many cases in this bill where it is imposing its perspective on the ports. It is imposing its agenda on the ports and doing so in a way that does not consider the different ports. Those in Saguenay, Thunder Bay, St. John's and all over the country have a different reality than the ports of Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that will not improve our supply chain but instead increase the burdens on everyone in the supply chain. Most of all, it will increase the power of Ottawa at the expense of the independence of those port authorities.

We believe the bill should go back to the drawing board. It does not do enough to address supply chain concerns. It imposes too many Ottawa-knows-best solutions and too much of the minister's authority on our ports. It does not do enough to improve the situation. Therefore, we will not be supporting Bill C-33. We think it is a missed opportunity. The governance changes cannot be supported. The additional costs that will be passed on to everyone throughout the supply chain as a result cannot be supported.

After four years, the government should have done much better. We hope it will go back to the drawing board and come back with a bill that will strengthen our supply chain and allow the ports to do the job they are mandated to do. We hope it can do that without the heavy hand of the Ottawa-knows-best approach that, unfortunately, this legislation would impose.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I have to express my disappointment with my colleague's take on the bill.

I would say that he has said a couple of contradictory things. On the one hand, he said that the ports need to have a national lens. On the other, he opposes introducing representatives of the prairie provinces to the boards of the ports.

On the one hand, he said that the ports need to be at arm's length from the government, which I agree with. However, on the other, his own leader is criticizing the government for policies that, by the way, the ports enacted under the Harper government.

Therefore, he has made several contradictory statements.

I would ask my colleague this: Will he really miss out on this opportunity for us to work together on strengthening the governance of ports? I welcome his ideas for amendments, but it would be prudent to send this bill to committee so that we, as members of Parliament, can work together on advancing the goal that we all agree on, which is making sure that our ports are more efficient and resilient.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly disagree with the minister's characterization of my remarks.

I have no problem with the provinces having representatives on the board; they already do. I have said that the users of the port, the tenants, are having their voices diluted by adding others to it. That needs to be addressed.

As I said in my question to the minister, it does not really matter if the provinces and port users are supposed to have a voice in who is selected to the ports to represent them if the minister ignores their voices. He would be ignoring them if, when nominees are put forward by the provinces or port users, the minister said, “No, I know best. I am going to appoint people who have not been recommended because Ottawa and the Liberal government know best.” They do not know best, and they should start listening to those groups that are directly impacted.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, but we have some concerns.

The various proposed measures may end up creating a disproportionate administrative burden for small ports.

According to my colleague, how might we amend this bill in committee to ensure that the administrative burden is not excessive for small ports?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I tried to address some of that in my speech.

I think the bill was written for the Port of Vancouver. It was clear that the government looked at the Port of Vancouver and designed the bill around that port. This absolutely does not take into consideration a port like the Port of Saguenay, which has very different volumes and financial resources, as well as a different size.

The bill is very clear. It imposes all three advisory committees, no matter where the ports are across the country; quarterly financial statement requirements; and a greenhouse gas emission evaluation. We have to delete all the clauses that impose these new burdens on all ports, because not all ports have the same capacity to manage them.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague noted his disappointment that Bill C-33 does not include more provisions to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain.

I think comments like that raise alarm bells for a lot of working people, who have borne the brunt of the penchant for draconian back-to-work legislation among both Conservatives and Liberals. It will be no surprise to folks here in the House that New Democrats believe the best way to settle labour disruptions and achieve the best labour outcomes is at the bargaining table.

What measures does my colleague have in mind to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain? Does the member support our view that working people and their representatives deserve a voice on the boards of directors of our ports?

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

Madam Speaker, of course Conservatives support the collective bargaining process and believe that governments should support that process to ensure that our vital supply chains are not disrupted through labour stoppages, whether lockouts or strikes.

We have seen the devastating impact of just the rumour of a strike or a lockout. It can cause millions of dollars of damage to the Canadian economy. We saw this when there was a stoppage on the CP Rail network for just a number of days. For every day of stoppage, it takes weeks to clear up.

The damage to our international reputation is lasting. When people are not assured of the reliability of the supply chain in Canada, they look for other options. Moreover, there are other options in North America. That is what we want to avoid. The national supply chain task force spoke of this very clearly. That is what I was referring to: There is a need to ensure that our supply chains are treated like the valued service they are. We need to make every effort to prevent anything that would impact the reliability of our supply chain for our international partners.

The House resumed from March 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to share my time with the intrepid member for Jonquière.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the intrepid member for Jonquière just joked that I should have said no myself. I am going to run out of time for my speech.

On July 6, 2013, 47 people died as a result of a train derailment involving 72 tank cars carrying crude oil. This tragic event reminds us of the significant risks associated with this activity. The industry needs to be better regulated. With regard to this tragedy, I would like to refer to the work of Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny, author of the book Mégantic: une tragédie annoncée, published by Écosociété.

Ms. Saint-Cerny began her investigation by looking at the journey of William Ackman, the owner of Canadian Pacific, or CP, at the time. Mr. Ackman took over the railway company on May 17, 2012, as shareholders were outraged at their total return of 19%, while competitors got a return of 56% to 117%. Ackman hired Hunter Harrison, a former CEO of CN, Canadian National.

To increase profits, Harrison presented a four-point plan: increase the convoy, increase the speed, reduce maintenance and reduce the number of employees. Convoys would be five times heavier and longer, with a length far exceeding one kilometre. They would be 15% faster and 4,500 positions would be eliminated within six months. Saint-Cerny tells us that Harrison profited from the phenomenal increase in the transportation of petroleum products, which increased from 500 tank cars to 140,000 in 2013, with the use of block trains, that is long convoys of black oil tankers, the famous DOT-111 tank cars, which were obsolete and condemned by all safety agencies in the U.S. and in Canada.

Block trains reduce travel time by going directly from their point of origin to the destination, without stopping to load or unload cargo for various clients. To increase profitability, CP subcontracts its convoys to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, or MMA, whose network represents the shortest line between Montreal and the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.

Ackman and Harrison do not care that MMA has the worst accident record in North America. On the contrary, they have nothing but admiration for its owner, Edward Burkhardt, who privatized railroads in New Zealand and Estonia. They admire him above all because he is the man behind the notorious one-person crew practice, which was a determining factor in the Mégantic disaster.

Harrison can brag that he really delivered the goods. As Saint-Cerny reports, 10 months after he started working for CP and two months before the tragedy, the company announced its largest profits in its 132-year history. Of the 25 largest listed companies in Canada, CP posted the best return to shareholders in 10 months, with a return of 26%. In 2016, Harrison was the highest-paid CEO in Canada.

Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny's other target is the federal government. She quotes the mission statement of the department responsible for railways, which says, “Transport Canada develops safety regulations and standards, or in the case of railways, it facilitates the development of rules by the rail industry”. She also pointed out that Transport Canada recognized, at the time, that the primary responsibility for safe operations rests with the industry. The quoted report then states that Transport Canada “can order the development of a rule or the amendment of an existing rule”. The real issue is when it says that the Railway Association of Canada, “in consultation with its member railways, would then draft the rule.”

In addition to writing its own rules, the company self-monitors and has its own policy for protecting assets the company administers or owns.

The Conservative transportation minister at the time, John Baird, who was responsible for this delegation of power, ensured Transport Canada's discretion by rendering the organization useless. While there were once 7,000 people overseeing transport safety in Canada, there were only 43 inspection positions at the time of the tragedy.

The title of Saint-Cerny's book, which can be translated as “Mégantic: a tragedy foretold”, says it all. The risk of such a tragedy happening was very high, both because of corporate greed and Ottawa's complacency. This summer will mark 10 years since the tragedy. It will be 10 years since 47 people lost their lives for bigger profits. It will be 10 years since hundreds of lives were changed forever because of Ottawa's lax attitude. It will be 10 years since the downtown core of this community was razed to the ground.

In 10 years, have things really changed? I would say that things evolve very slowly in Ottawa. Ten years later, we have Bill C‑33. It does not solve everything, but it is another step in the right direction. Obviously, we will vote in favour of the principle of the bill.

Furthermore, the Auditor General's recent audits, the Railway Safety Act review of 2018 and the studies done by the Standing Committee on Transport describe safety concerns with freight transportation. The bill responds to several recommendations of these reports, and we believe that many measures it contains will help improve railway safety.

In fact, during the 2017-18 review of the Railway Safety Act, I submitted a brief that pointed out some shortcomings. For example, I pointed out the following:

Gone are the days when trains essentially transported minerals, logs, grain or containers. This must be acknowledged....the current legal and regulatory framework is not suited to the sharp increase in the transportation of dangerous goods.

During its investigation of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the Transportation Safety Board revealed a number of serious deficiencies, both at the railway company and at Transport Canada: worn-out rail lines; fragile cars that were not suitable for carrying crude oil and that should have been decommissioned a long time ago; inadequate information on the content of the cars, making it very difficult for emergency services to do their work; a lack of coordination with local authorities; too few inspections; a lack of inspectors; a lack of follow-up; and too much confidence in the railway company's ability to police itself.

At the heart of the problem is the very architecture of the act and the self-regulatory regime it provides for. Protecting the public is the primary responsibility of the state. It cannot be passed down to a private company, which finds itself in a conflict of interest because lowering its costs means more profits.

It is not up to a private company to propose the security procedures it should be subject to or to verify whether it is in compliance. The act must be overhauled to ensure that the government fulfills the responsibilities it should never have delegated.

Here is another suggestion I made:

Rather than a simple update, your committee should recommend that the government propose, within the next two years, a complete overhaul of the Railway Safety Act, so as to put an end to the system of self-regulation by companies, and ensure that the government itself is responsible for establishing safety plans, ensuring compliance with them, and providing the internal human resources needed to fulfill these responsibilities.

This overhaul of the act should include a review of certain aspects of the Canada Transportation Act, even though the government committee's 2016 report did not propose any measures in that regard.

That was five years ago, but I am glad the government is finally moving in this direction. I also stressed the importance of better informing local authorities, in real time, of the arrival on their territory of rail convoys carrying hazardous materials. Some efforts have been made to that effect. Another point I raised was the need to reduce train speeds in densely populated areas, regardless of the size of the town, and to provide better support to municipalities in their emergency response.

On April 29 in Lac-Mégantic, there was a screening of the four-part documentary series Lac‑Mégantic. At that event, Gilbert Carette and Robert Bellefleur, members of the Coalition des citoyens et organismes engagés pour la sécurité ferroviaire de Lac‑Mégantic, recalled that years before July 6, 2013, residents spoke out against the industry, which was letting longer and heavier poorly maintained convoys carrying more crude oil, propane and other chemicals travel on worn rails. They said it was a conflict of interest that the safety inspections were being carried out by the companies themselves and approved by their own authorities.

Mr. Carette and Mr. Bellefleur are still calling for a public inquiry. While waiting for some light to be shed on this incident, while waiting for major changes to be made and for these problems to be corrected, we have here tonight Bill C‑33, which is a step in the right direction to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.

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

Madam Speaker, I think the member is right to raise the issue of dangerous cargo and hazardous things that go through our municipalities and our cities. I very much recall what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just a few weeks ago in the city of Winnipeg in my area, the CP tracks had some issues that caused McPhillips Street, a major thoroughfare that is travelled by 90,000-plus people, to be shut down. A lot of thought was given to what would have happened had the cars gone over and spilled onto the street itself, as opposed to just staying on the top level. There is a great deal of concern.

My question to the member is this. We have had a great deal of time. We have had lots of reports and recommendations now on the issue. I would like to know the member's thoughts on seeing this bill continue to progress through the House.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑33, and we want it to go to committee so it can be properly studied.

Obviously, we feel it is taking a long time. This summer will mark 10 years since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Trains are getting longer and heavier. This is a self-regulating industry that is primarily concerned with serving its shareholders and turning a profit. That takes precedence over public safety and the public good, which are the government's responsibility. We are asking that this be corrected.

Bill C‑33 does this in part; it is a step in the right direction. Is it too little too late? Perhaps.

I want to reiterate that the citizens of Lac-Mégantic are still calling for a public inquiry into what led to this tragedy.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise with eagerness, because in my former life as a city councillor in a port town and in Hamilton Centre and with a home about 100 metres from a rail line, I had to continually fight the port, which wanted to put garbage incinerators into our community, and the rail lines, which I fought in order to get more transparency and more accountability around their shunting yards and around the piercing decibels of their operations in residential communities.

Given the tragedies that have happened in Quebec and given the local impacts in those communities, does the member agree that we should ensure that both rail and port works within our local communities should provide greater transparency, better communication and co-operation with local government, and accountability to the local communities where they operate?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment, which was absolutely warranted.

I see the same thing in my riding, in the city of Joliette. Obviously, there is no port, but there are rail lines. In any of the federally regulated sectors, companies do not feel accountable to local elected officials, the ones closest to home, the ones who represent us best. They are the ones on the ground, the ones in touch with everyday life, and they have to fight tooth and nail for accountability and information.

A few years ago there was an incident involving a train transporting chemicals in Joliette. It was very difficult for the mayor, the fire chief and the police to get information. A lot of progress has been made, and there is more accountability now, but it is still difficult. We have to dig deep, change people's attitudes and recognize local elected officials for who they are: our primary representatives.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the train in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy was carrying oil. I do not know if all the cars were carrying oil, but that added to the gravity of the disaster.

Can my colleague comment on whether pipeline construction would be a safer option than transporting oil by train?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, transporting oil by rail is very risky. The problem with pipelines is that they do not replace rail transportation to the pipeline. They actually increase transportation capacity. Pipelines are therefore risky too and do not do away with rail transport. The overall risk goes up. That is very concerning.

The government must make the safety of its citizens its top priority.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Joliette for giving me such a fine introduction. If I had the misfortune to cough during his presentation, it is because my eloquence pales in comparison to his. I was somewhat nervous. I hope he will forgive me.

The Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑33 on the grounds that rail activities need to be constantly regulated and inspected. To begin, let us remember that Bill C‑33 seeks to modernize the different laws on railways, ports and transportation of goods. The provisions in Bill C‑33 follow the recommendations of the supply chain task force, which was formed in March 2022 by the Minister of Transport.

The task force's mandate was to study the recent supply chain disruptions, namely the COVID‑19 pandemic, climate change and floods in British Columbia. I would like to take a look, with my colleagues, at some of the task force's mandates and perhaps come back to a problem that currently exists in Quebec. The task force's mandate includes the following:

...examine pressing supply chain congestion and fluidity issues in the Canadian and global contexts [and assess] the range of impacts on Canada's economy, including on the volume and value of trade and the capacity of infrastructure assets to accommodate trends in flows;

[note] collaborative opportunities to support a resilient North American and global trade network and address congestion by accounting for actions taken or considered by like-minded countries;

[work] with experts and partners in the Canadian and global contexts to identify structural weaknesses, policy or regulatory impediments, and/or market power imbalances that impact competition in modal and multi-modal sectors;...

[and, finally, establish] areas of action/recommendations that could be directed to federal and other levels of government and industry, to reduce congestion and improve the fluid and predictable operation of transportation supply chains.

The task force's mandates highlight the importance of making our supply chain fluid. Many people in Quebec noted a problem that may be unique to Quebec: access to railcars. Access to railcars has become very difficult. That is what I heard from people in the forestry sector, especially people at Chantiers Chibougamau, who are going through a very tough time. Our thoughts are with them.

In case some of my colleagues get the opportunity to go to Chibougamau someday, I just want to mention that the glued-laminated timber structures made by Chantiers Chibougamau are really spectacular. Unfortunately, they cannot use CN cars because access is restricted. That is also the case for Resolute Forest Products and many businesses working in the forestry sector.

In the next few months, these people will emerge from a significant crisis. We are not talking about that today, which is okay given that we are focusing on our efforts to support the people who have been evacuated from their homes. However, once the fires are put out and we get back to normal, we will realize that a lot of very expensive equipment was destroyed by the fires, and this will weaken the forestry sector, which is already suffering because of the ongoing trade dispute with the United States.

If we add to that the recurring logistics problems that these people have getting access to railcars, then things get even more difficult for them. The problem of accessing railcars was pointed out some time ago. Logistics experts at Resolute Forest Products showed me the losses they incur by not having access to railcars.

I think that the panel's mandate mentioned this idea of fluidity, but, unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. Even though certain critiques have been formulated and certain problems have been identified, it must be said that the bill responds to several recommendations from the task force's report, and we believe that a number of the measures in the bill will help improve railway safety.

The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion at ports, the creation of a monetary penalty regime for safety violations, the strengthening of safety management systems and the prohibition on damaging railway structures or interfering with railway operations. However, if the bill is referred to committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the proposed measures do not place a disproportionate administrative burden on small ports such as the Port of Saguenay, which is thriving these days.

I would like to come back, as my colleague from Joliette did, to the specific case of Lac‑Mégantic. I am sure that everyone remembers where they were on July 6, that fateful day, when the train came tearing down the hill near Lac‑Mégantic at 1:15 in the morning and derailed. It exploded in the middle of the town. When members are not busy, in the evening perhaps, I recommend that they watch Alexis Durand-Brault's TV series, which is quite interesting, as well as Philippe Falardeau's documentary, which shows the full scope of the tragedy and the way it left many people forever scarred.

These permanent scars could have been avoided with a bypass addressing the criticisms of Lac‑Mégantic residents. Unfortunately, last February, Public Services and Procurement Canada tore up the agreements it had signed with 17 landowners in Lac-Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac and decided to forcibly expropriate their property instead. The federal government decided to expropriate these 17 landowners, even though, I must point out, it had already come to mutual agreements. This option allows it to avoid having to take into account the challenge led by UPA de l'Estrie and the authorization required from Quebec's Commission de protection du territoire agricole, which must be decided by Quebec's administrative tribunal.

The approach taken by the government on this issue is quite simply appalling. It is a bit of a cowboy approach. The ink was not yet dry on the agreements it had just reached when it promptly turned around and reneged on them. This is consistent with how the federal government has handled the rail bypass file over the past 10 years, sometimes in a disrespectful, expeditious and, dare I say, inhumane and perfidious manner.

The people of Lac‑Mégantic have already suffered enough because of this tragedy. The federal government must not add insult to injury by expropriating them in spite of signed agreements. After dragging its feet on the bypass project for a decade, and with the 10th anniversary of the disaster right around the corner, Ottawa, with typical arrogance, prefers to push everyone else around to make up for lost time, rather than do the right thing. This is certainly not the way to win back the trust of the people of Lac‑Mégantic.

The Bloc Québécois asked the government to take note of the fact that Quebec has its own legal processes and decision-making bodies, and in no way should they be ignored or circumvented by the federal government on the bypass file. Our political party also wishes to point out the importance of the Lac‑Mégantic bypass, which is much more than an ordinary infrastructure project. Rather, it is a social healing project. Consequently, if the government wants it to succeed, it must act respectfully towards residents.

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

Madam Speaker, like the speaker before him, the member talked about the legislation in a relatively positive way. He was maybe questioning some of the timing of it. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have had a great deal of consultations and work that has been done. We have had two reports dealing with different aspects of the legislation, which were commissioned back in 2017 and 2018. We have had a lot to deal with in regard to the supply chain, which we witnessed throughout the pandemic.

I think what we have today is good, solid legislation, and I understand the Bloc supports sending the legislation to committee. Does the member, or does the Bloc, have any sort of specific amendments they would like to see at this time that they would be prepared to share with the government in advance of the bill's potentially being sent to committee?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say there is still a bit of work to be done, especially on small ports. That was pointed out earlier. I think the committee will also have some issues to address, such as how hard it is for us to get certain railcars in Quebec.

If the goal is to make our supply chains more fluid, we cannot do so just for the oil and gas sector. We also have to do it for other economic sectors. Difficulty getting railcars seems common among forestry stakeholders.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that about a year ago, several CN workers were on strike. They were signal and communications workers. These workers deal with a lot of safety issues and were concerned about their own safety and the safety of their comrades. The fatigue that a lot of train operators talk about was one of their key concerns, and they went on strike to fight for it. They had to fight for their own safety.

I know that the national supply chain task force report from last year had six recommendations about worker safety. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had four recommendations on safety. None of those are in this bill.

I would like to hear the member's response and reaction to that.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Joliette pointed out in his speech earlier, the Mégantic tragedy happened in part because there was only one train conductor.

I am sure the committee will do that work. It will have to hear from workers' representatives too. That awareness is important. I quite agree with my colleague.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my intrepid colleague for yet another excellent speech.

I would like to hear more from him about the importance of logistics and access to railcars for the forestry sector. He talked about Chantiers Chibougamau, for example, which is doing excellent work. Of course, our thoughts are with them.

When railcars are not available and they have to get materials out—by truck, I suppose—is there not a better, cheaper way to do it that is also better for the environment?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is such a relevant question.

Indeed, if members can recall, there was the announcement in Montreal concerning work to be done in the tunnel. We expected there would be massive congestion in the years to come. It is in this context that the people from Chantiers Chibougamau informed me that since they would not have access to those railcars, they would add between 35 and 60 trucks per day to Montreal's highway system.

Besides the fairly large logistical problem for these businesses, there is also the environmental cost to pay for putting more trucks on the road because of failed logistics. There is a fairly large economic cost for Quebec's businesses.

From what I have heard, this problem would be unique to Quebec because in Ontario a railcar shortage would not be felt in the same way.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I first want to begin by asking for unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have received notice from all recognized parties that they are in agreement with this request.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Timmins—James Bay.

I rise in the House to share the NDP's support at this time for this bill at second reading, with the clear understanding that there are some major shortcomings with Bill C-33 and that there have to be substantive amendments made going forward.

One of the key concerns that we have had is that the Liberal government's approach to Canada's supply chain issues is heavily driven by commercial interests, the commercial interests of big corporations that dominate the marine and rail transportation sectors. This, of course, has been the history of Canada in many ways, particularly when it comes to our railways.

We have seen the way in which profit has been put ahead of the lives of workers, of people and of communities, time and time again. Canada has a dark history when it comes to the development of the railways: the occupation of indigenous lands; the forcible removal of indigenous communities; the exploitation, early on, of Chinese workers and the many workers who lost their lives in very dangerous conditions to build the railways; the ongoing exploitation of workers over decades; and the bitter labour disputes, where workers working on the railways were doing nothing more than fighting for health and safety, safe conditions and the ability to keep our country moving.

We know that in Canada, over the past 20 years, 60 railway workers have lost their lives on the job. Due to archaic rules and regulations, and a lack of clarity on jurisdiction, there has been no criminal investigation into their deaths. Their deaths were investigated by private, corporate police and corporate risk management bodies. Justice has never been served.

I want to reflect on a few of those tragedies that have touched many of us through this work, and me personally. First of all, as other colleagues have said, is the Lac-Mégantic rail disaster that occurred on July 6, 2013, where 47 people died. It was the deadliest rail accident since Canada's Confederation in 1867, a rail disaster that was entirely preventable but rooted in the push to move product, and in that case crude oil, in very dangerous conditions. Forty-seven people died. A community has been forever changed as well as our country in many ways.

Here in northern Manitoba, Kevin Anderson, who was 38 years old, died after he and a co-worker were trapped for several hours following a train derailment in September 2018, just an hour away from my hometown of Thompson.

Kevin Anderson's family, from The Pas, Manitoba, has, for years now, fought for justice for their son. They fought for an inquest, an inquest that finally began some months ago. Unfortunately, just a few weeks into its beginning, it was already ruled that the scope of the proceedings had to change, and there would be no discussion of the preventability of this train conductor's death, of Kevin's death, as part of this inquest.

One of the most impactful cases that I have worked on as a member of Parliament was working with the families of Andrew Dockrell, Dylan Paradis and Daniel Waldenberger-Bulmer, three workers who were killed in the train derailment by Field, B.C., in 2019. These three workers worked for CP Rail, and their deaths, the tragedy and the injustice dealt to them and their families was documented in The Fifth Estate's work, “Runaway Train: Investigating a CP Rail Crash”.

In their case, the CP private police investigated and, not surprisingly, found that the company was not at fault. Fortunately, as a result of their steadfast advocacy, these families were able to get an investigation into their loved ones' deaths. We all hope that they will receive justice.

The reality is that as members of Parliament, we have the responsibility to stand up for the well-being of Canadians. We have the responsibility to stand up for the well-being of Canadian workers. In this case, we have seen the Liberal government and previous Conservative governments, when it comes to railway safety and regulating the railways, use kid gloves, if at all, and have always done it ensuring their profitability.

Bill C-33 was an opportunity to change that. The reality is that while there is some good in it, there is much more that needs to be done. There are significant shortcomings in this legislation. While the act would create, for example, indigenous engagement committees for port authorities, there is no mention of creating these committees or otherwise engaging indigenous communities when it comes to rail transport.

Another shortcoming is about the standing committee on transport's report on rail safety. It recommended the removal of the jurisdiction of private railway police in investigations involving their companies. It is our view, as the NDP, that private railway police should be dissolved entirely due to the lack of public accountability. This bill not only does not take up the recommendations made by committee, but in fact would strengthen the authority of private railway police. Proposed section 26.4 of the bill explicitly prohibits unruly behaviour at stations or on board railway equipment, which would be handled by these private corporate police services.

We have also been clear that the bill lacks legislative guidance on the required content of emergency response assistance plans for emergencies involving dangerous goods. Current emergency response assistance plans rely on municipal fire departments and have no requirement for maximum response times. This was an issue that came up in the Ponton tragedy that killed Kevin Anderson.

The standing committee on transport recommended, in its report on railway safety, that “Transport Canada mandate maximum response times as part of rail companies' Emergency Response Assistance Plans for the transportation of dangerous goods” and that “Transport Canada work to finalize timely approval to emergency response assistance plans for the transportation of dangerous goods.” These recommendations are not reflected in Bill C-33.

Another shortcoming is the lack of public regional risk assessments associated with increases in rail transport of dangerous goods, a key issue in the Lac-Mégantic disaster. The standing committee on transport recommended, in its railway safety report, that “Transport Canada undertake public regional risk assessments to assess the impact of increased rail activity on communities, First Nations and the environment in regions that have seen significant increase in the transportation of dangerous goods.” The amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act do not act on this recommendation.

Another shortcoming is about the safety of workers. This has not been properly accounted for in this bill. In fact, the safety of workers is not explicitly mentioned at all. The national supply chain task force's 2022 report included six recommendations to address the worker shortage in our supply chains. Not a single recommendation was implemented. Also, the standing committee on transport's rail safety report included four recommendations to address fatigue management for rail workers. None of these have been implemented.

In conclusion, Bill C-33 ought to be an opportunity to change our Railway Safety Act and our port authorities act in order to make sure these important sectors of our economy and these workplaces respect workers and make a difference in a positive sense for communities. Unfortunately, when it comes to the railway industry that has not been the case.

Tonight, as we discuss this bill, I think of the families that are still grieving for those they lost on the job working the railways. I am thankful for their advocacy and their strength in pushing for justice and pushing all of us to do better. I hope the Liberal government will work with the NDP and other parties to make the necessary changes to Bill C-33 to ensure it is the strongest possible legislation and to make a difference for Canadian workers and Canadian communities going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, as I am sure the member can recall, it was not that long ago, just a few weeks back, that Winnipeg had a derailment of 12 cars, which ultimately shut down McPhillips Street. McPhillips goes right through the heart of Winnipeg North, so we have very recent first-hand experience of the impact this has on a community, with community members feeling concerned about their safety. Not knowing what was in the derailed cars initially caused a great deal of concern. There was even an economic impact on some of the small businesses.

I am wondering if she can provide her thoughts on the importance of getting this type of legislation through, because it will have a positive impact.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member raising the derailment that took place in Winnipeg not long ago. It was obviously big news here in our province, and it speaks to the domino effect of these kinds of incidents.

Obviously we are very thankful and fortunate that what was being transported was not dangerous goods and that there were adequate services to respond to the situation. Nonetheless, people were impacted negatively as a result. It is a clear reminder of the work we need to do to make sure that the legislation in front of us is made stronger than what it is at this time.

I will acknowledge that while a derailment in Winnipeg is very serious and big news, the reality is that derailments happen all the time and have been happening much more frequently, particularly in rural and northern Canada. The results have been much worse. The sense of urgency that needs to follow our work here is something we cannot ignore—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to take another question.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a number of the derailments we have had in Canada. She referred to Lac-Mégantic.

I know she comes from the riding that has Churchill. From my farm leadership days and provincial legislature days, I understand there were a number of derailments there, with grain mainly, which is fortunate, I guess we could say, as it is not explosive. There have been some derailments in what used to be the Hudson Bay route, the route to Churchill that runs right through her riding.

I know a number of things have been done. As a farm leader, I have watched a number of developments in the industry with regard to low-slung cars and aluminum cars to make the cars lighter. It is not so they can haul more, but so they can travel through the tenuous conditions in some of the more muskeggy areas of that particular track at slow speeds. She has referred to a number of areas with worker labour issues as well, and I appreciate that.

I wonder if she can expand on what she thinks are the most important things needed to secure the line that runs through her constituency to Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would need a whole other speech to talk about what the Port of Churchill needs to survive and thrive.

I am proud to have been an advocate in support of Churchill getting rid of the American billionaire railway company that took over the rail line when the Liberals privatized it and ran it into the ground. Churchill paid the price. The communities on the Bay line paid the price. Thankfully, we were able to get them out of there.

We now have a very innovative and unique ownership model for the port. However, the reality is that we need sustained federal investment to make sure that Churchill survives and thrives. It is a gem when it comes to Canada. We talk about being a proud northern Arctic nation, and Churchill has the only deepwater Arctic seaport. We need to see sustained investment from the Liberal government and future federal governments.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-33. As I speak here from northern Ontario, where we have one of the most beautiful sunsets, there is a very disturbing sunset, a surreal and unreal sunset, because we are watching our lands up here burn.

I mention that because I live right beside the railway tracks of the Ontario Northland Railway, at mileage 104 of the rail line. In the middle of the night and sometimes in the morning, the house shakes as the railcars go by. They are carrying sulfuric acid tanker cars from the smelter at Noranda.

The issue of rail safety is fundamental to the communities I represent. If one of those trains goes over, we are talking about an ecological disaster. We are talking about a disaster that could take the lives of many people.

The issue of rail safety is something that I have heard debated time and time again. I remember as a young MP, when I was first elected, Bill Blaikie standing in the House and warning the Liberal government at that time that if it allowed rail companies like CP and CN to self-police for safety, it would cost lives. We have lost over 60 workers in 20 years on the rail lines.

Forty-seven people were incinerated in Lac-Mégantic in one of the most horrific tragedies in memory. We would think that would make for a serious overhaul of the transportation system in the country. When I look at Bill C-33, I say, okay, we are ready to take it to committee to look at it to improve it, but it falls short in so many key areas. It falls short on addressing the concerns of municipalities, indigenous communities and workers, and it does not implement the recommendations made by the national supply chain task force report, nor the standing committee on transport's recommendations on rail safety. Serious concerns remain with respect to rail safety, yet the Liberals chose not to act on a single recommendation from the transport committee's 2021 report on rail safety. We need to do better.

On the issue of the port authorities, we saw how the myth of globalization blew apart like dust in the pandemic and Canadians were left with serious supply chain issues. We have to address how supply chains work, and our ports play a huge role in that. The capacity has challenges, and container traffic is expected to grow. What is the plan for that? There is a total lack of data. It restricts collaboration and is creating inefficient supply chain decision-making in infrastructure investment.

The issue we see in terms of who sits on these port authorities is huge. They have been pork-barrel dumping grounds for political hacks and friends for decades. We need labour representation on the port authority and the board of directors.

The Canada Marine Act provides representation for other stakeholders, including the prairie provinces and local governments, but we feel strongly that subclause 101(2) of Bill C-33 should be amended to include labour representation in a similar way to make sure that we have more accountability for the people who work on the ports. That also includes the need to start addressing the reports on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. We have to start dealing with the climate crisis before us.

I would like to speak, from a more personal sense, of the connection of the railway to who we are in the north.

My mother's family were Cape Bretoners or they came out of the Ottawa Valley. Back in the day, there were two choices: They worked in the mines or they worked on the railways. My grandfather, Joe MacNeil, went underground at the McIntyre mine and broke his back. Many of his brothers, uncles and cousins went to work on the rail lines. They said the Ontario rail line back in the day was more wild than bar rooms, and I think those bar cars certainly were, but this was how we travelled.

I grew up on those rail lines. My great uncles were conductors on the Ontario Northland on the night train. We saw how Brian Mulroney attacked public trains and cut the Northlander night train.

Then we saw Kathleen Wynne's government go after it and shut the Northlander down, and it left people without access to public transportation in the north, leaving them on our highways, which have really become death traps for travellers. Anybody who has travelled Highway 11 or Highway 17 in the winter knows about the seriously dangerous conditions that are not being addressed at the federal or provincial levels, and there has been a huge push to ensure that we have proper rail service restored to the north. It is something I have fought for, for years, and I want to see it restored.

We have had promises of the Northlander coming back, and these trains are vital links to communities. I would certainly invite my colleagues to travel on the Polar Bear Express, which leaves out of Cochrane. Once in Cochrane, it will take them to beautiful Moosonee and Moose Factory.

It is not just the links we have in terms of family; these are economic links. How do we tell European tourists who come to Canada and say they want to visit James Bay that they have to drive nine or 10 hours on a highway before they can catch a train? It just does not make sense.

Having grown up on a rail line and having had family working on the rail lines, I am very partial to rail, but I also understand that we need to put in place the basic safety standards that will make sure we can move forward in terms of overall safety and overall efficiency while getting traffic off the highways. Particularly in a time of climate crisis, the rail lines can do that, but we need to have properly maintained rail services. We can no longer allow company police and corporate risk management to address safety or accidents. That has been a failure, and it is a continuing failure.

In terms of the port authority issues, we really need to look at different approaches for the small and large ports, and we are going to push for that as New Democrats. Small ports and large ports are fundamentally different bodies. Having three separate advisory committees in small ports is an excessive administrative burden, but in smaller port authorities we could establish a single community advisory committee. It would have to have representation from the first nations and from local communities, as well as from labour, to make sure that the small port authorities were empowered to do the work they are supposed to do.

We need to have, as well, clarification regarding labour disputes. Section 107.1(1) would give the minister the authority to take extraordinary measures related to ports when there is deemed to be a “risk” to “national economic security”, but this has been used by government and by the companies to hammer down on their obligation to do fair negotiations. Our workers on the rail lines deserve to be able to negotiate. They deserve to be able to have fair wages, and we need to make sure that labour disputes are handled in a proper manner and that the government is not just using a threat to national economic security to cut down the ability of rail workers to have proper representation when it comes to wages, safety and other rights they have.

I am more than willing to take questions. I will be here all week, as usual, and it is always an honour to speak.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a primary purpose to the legislation, which has taken a while to come forward and get to this stage only because of all the consultations that were required, since several acts would be changed through this bill.

The member highlights the importance of the issue of safety, and that is a driving force in terms of the reason we have the legislation, along with the issue of economic development. The member also made reference to a family background, and I think if we take a look at our rail lines, we would see that there are a lot of families that have grown up within that industry.

I guess I would ask the member to what degree he feels the legislation is good to go, at least into the committee stage. Does the member have any specific thoughts in regard to amendments at this point?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we certainly believe that we need to move forward with this legislation. As I said from the get-go, we feel that we are still continuing to pay too much lip service to the corporate interests of the big rail lines and the port authorities. We need to address a number of issues.

For example, the issue of the regulation of greenhouse gas reduction targets for the port authorities is huge. We need to make sure that we have the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act as part of this.

That could be under clause 107(2), where we could make sure that for these huge centres where traffic and transportation are happening, where goods are being moved, we actually have a long-term plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I think that would send a very positive message to Canadians.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

There have been various train accidents in rural Canada. In one accident in particular, in St-Lazare, Manitoba, about five or six years ago, rail cars tipped over and there was a little bit of leakage and spillage. The one thing that was really apparent was that there was no connectivity.

It seems that when we hear about something that happens in, let us say, Winnipeg, everybody has cellphone connectivity and all the emergency services can actually cut in. I am wondering if the member could comment on that, and when it goes to committee, if we could keep an eye on that and see if we can get some language around that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Our trains are running on the Ontario Northland route, coming through Temagami, running through some very rugged country. If they go over, it is an ecological disaster and we need a response immediately.

These issues of being able to get the word out, of being able to make contact, are very important, and I think that these are things that we need to look at in the legislation, because Canada is a very large, rugged, isolated country where trains are travelling through some very rough terrain, and we need to make sure that we have all of the proper protections in place at every level, especially if we are dealing with a potential derailment.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay for making a number of excellent points about this legislation. From my point of view, coming from another part of the country, one important part of this legislation that needs clarification is what it needs in terms of protecting the Salish Sea from the use of our area as free parking for freighters that are backed up out of the port of Vancouver.

I am also very concerned about rail safety, very concerned about the appalling record of the privatized large freight-moving trains in this country and the callous disregard for worker safety.

I would like to ask the hon. member to expand on that point.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, again, I remember Bill Blaikie standing in the House and saying that if we allowed these corporations to self-police, workers would die. We have had 60 deaths over the last 20 years. That is appalling. Sixty deaths is absolutely unacceptable. In Lac-Mégantic, 47 people were incinerated, and nobody was ever really held accountable. That is not acceptable. We must do better. People's lives are worth more, and we have to stand up for them.

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

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to talk on what I believe very much is progressive legislation, and it shows in a very clear fashion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, we would grant unanimous consent if the hon. member wanted to split his time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I understand that this is silly time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I thought he was standing up to offer his time as an add-on to my time, and I would be more than happy to take his 10 or 20 minutes, or however long he was going to speak, because I have a number of thoughts on this bill.

When we think about actions of a government, we see that this legislation is a very good example to not only contrast the Liberals with the Conservatives, which I will get into in a bit, but also to show how the government uses legislation to advance both the economic interests and the safety interests of Canadians at the same time. That is what I really like about Bill C-33.

The Prime Minister, different members of cabinet or members of the Liberal caucus as a whole, whether inside or outside the chamber, will often try to emphasize that the government and the Liberal Party genuinely want to deliver an economy that works for all Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. This is the type of legislation that can really make a difference to that end.

From the very beginning in 2015-2016, we have dealt with issues such as safety for Canadians and support for labour in legislation we brought forward. That is why it was somewhat interesting that the Conservatives seem to be opposed to this legislation. I understand they are going to be voting against it. When the legislation first came up for debate back in March, there were concerns expressed by the Conservative Party regarding labour disputes in our ports and how the legislation was going to deal with them. That sends up a few red flags, or blue flags, since they are Conservatives, to be fair.

Ultimately, as a government, we believe in the open and free bargaining process. The Conservatives seem to be hinting that we can anticipate some amendments if the Conservatives allow the bill to go to committee. That is one of the reasons we have to bring in time allocation on legislation. Even if it is legislation that sometimes the Conservatives give the impression they are supporting, like the previous bill that we were debating, or legislation such as this, which the Conservatives do oppose, if we do not bring forward time allocation, we would not be able to get through the legislative agenda.

This is where it is nice. They often talk about majorities and minorities. In the last federal election, we got a minority government, and that is true. We are happy to say that Canadians entrusted us with the largest number of seats. We continue to focus on serving Canadians, and we are very grateful that we get a higher sense of responsibility and co-operation from at least one opposition party, and at times a second opposition party, that enable us to bring forward and ultimately pass legislation, which is so critically important.

Other members have talked about the benefits of Bill C-33 and what the legislation would do, which I will expand on shortly, but I want to set the stage by talking about how industries in Canada are one of the economic driving forces of our nation.

First, we have to recognize that we are a trading nation. Goods need to be transported in all areas of our country, in our ports and our rail yards, and I would even go beyond that.

As some members of this House will know, the growth of the trucking industry has been incredible. The area I represent, Winnipeg North, I would suggest, has the highest concentration in the province, and it is growing. In fact, the other day I was out on Eagle Drive, providing support for the trucking industry and opportunity for trucks to travel in a safer fashion. It was the first time I was able to see a semi that was electric, and it was kind of cool to sit in a semi and push the button and not hear anything. The industry, like other industries, recognizes the need for change.

This legislation is important, because it would substantially change the way in which our supply chain will be serving Canadians, and it is important that we get it right. When we think of the ramifications on the supply chain if we do not get it right, they are actually quite severe.

I remember when I was in the third party a number of years ago, back in 2013-14, and I stood up and raised the issue of grain. I was talking about the piles of grain in the fields in the Prairies, but in the Pacific Ocean just west of Vancouver, there were ships waiting to get into ports, and there was a backlog of farmers wanting to get their grain to market. I do not quite understand all of the technicalities of it, but I can tell members that there were people around the world who wanted our grain, as our producers produce the best grain the world, but we had a difficult time getting it from the fields into the ships, and it was at a substantial cost.

Those supply chains, in many ways, contribute to feeding the world, to providing widgets and food products to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so when we look at the legislation, it focuses attention on ports and trains. However, I would like to focus a little more broadly than that, by looking at my home province of Manitoba.

We can talk about the history of CN, CP and other trains, but particularly CN and CP and the impact that has had on the city of Winnipeg, let alone the province of Manitoba. The southern boundary of Winnipeg North is at the CP tracks, which has provided thousands of jobs over the years and continues to provide good jobs for many residents of Winnipeg, particularly in Winnipeg North.

When I was a child, the CN yards were out in Transcona, and Winnipeg would not be what it is today if it did not have those rail yards. In fact, I suspect if members went along Pandora, they would find that many of the homes built on that street were built with wood from CN, such as boxcars and so forth. At the end of the day, when we advance a few decades, we will see that these hubs or rail yards have been able to survive through time, with a great deal of modifications, because of how the world evolves and the changes that were required. One could think of the environment, for example, and what is being carried on our trains.

We could talk about the Port of Churchill in Manitoba, which this government has invested in a great deal, and not only with financial resources but effort. I think of Jim Carr, in particular, and my colleagues, the members for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital and Winnipeg South, who put in so much effort.

I must also say that in Kildonan, former members of Parliament MaryAnn Mihychuk, Robert-Falcon Ouellette and I had discussions, talking about the important role that the Port of Churchill could have, not only today but into the future. Those are the types of things that give life to a community.

We could take a look at the trucking industry component that I made reference to closer to the beginning, and how the trucking industry complements both trains, ports and the shipment of cargo, and the supply chain. The legislation talks about the ways in which we can ensure that the changes that have been taking place and the modernization that is taking place within the legislation that we are proposing will ensure that Canada's supply chains, services and products are in a better position to meet market demands, while at the same time providing assurances for public safety.

When I think of the issue of safety, it was not that long ago, many Canadians will recall, that there was the Lac-Mégantic incident. It was a horrific situation, because of a derailment and the impact that it had on a wonderful community in the province of Quebec. No doubt it was a driving force in terms of a number of initiatives that were taken, including the rail safety action review that we initiated back in 2017. After doing some work and recognizing that tragedy, along with some other issues, we put together that rail safety review back in 2017.

For people from Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg, there was a very recent incident that put a bit of a scare into the community, with the Winnipeg overpass on McPhillips. I made reference to the CP line being my southern boundary. Below the underpass is McPhillips Street, a street that feeds 90,000 residents, most of whom are in Winnipeg North. Twelve railway cars were derailed. The derailment happened just before eight o'clock in the morning. Imagine what rush hour was like then. McPhillips is a very busy street. The best way I can describe the types of cars that were derailed is that they were like tankers, black tube tankers, a dozen of them. At least those were the ones that were actually visible, derailed. Fortunately, even though they were derailed and twisted up, none of them fell over the bridge. None of them actually tipped, which was a good thing. As I say, there were 90,000-plus people just going to the north, not to mention Winnipeg Centre just to the south. That street had to be closed down for a while as we had to deal with that derailment.

There was a Transportation Safety Board team that came out to check it out. There were other groupings of individuals that checked the site for hazards. It turns out that it was carrying bitumen that was being used for asphalt.

I say that because I am very proud of the fact that in the Prairies we have a lot of commodities. We want to ensure that those commodities get to market. We want to ensure that our railways and our tracks are going to be there, not only for today but well into the future.

Often, before it gets to the tracks, we go further west, to the B.C. coast, whether it is Vancouver or other ports. They play an important role. It is not just out west. One of my colleagues was telling me about Saint John, New Brunswick. I understand there are hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in that area, which has yet another port that has trains being hooked up. I think of the importance of that port and how those authorities are ultimately managed.

Through this legislation, we are providing more opportunity for those authorities to be able to cover a wider scope of areas of responsibility. We are ensuring that they are going to be able to make those ports more efficient. We are ensuring that there is going to be a higher sense of accountability and more transparency. We have to ensure that people have a sense of what is actually in the ports, in terms of what is in the trains. As has been pointed out, the speed of a train has a profound impact. We cannot afford to get this wrong, because of the economics and because of the safety of our communities.

Over the last number of years, the government has signed more free trade agreements than any other government in the history of the nation. That is a true fact. That emphasizes the degree to which the world has confidence in what Canada manufactures and produces and the commodities that we have to offer. It spreads across the spectrum, not to mention all the things that are coming into our nation. We are a trading nation.

When the Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation, I would suggest that this legislation would assist with that, and not only for today but also for tomorrow. As a government that is concerned about our infrastructure, not only are we, through budgets, supporting infrastructure, but one only needs to look at CentrePort. The Minister of Transport was in the city of Winnipeg, investing in CentrePort as a way to build a safer environment for rail movement.

These investments in infrastructure that we have made, along with the legislation that we are bringing forward, protect our industries. They will ensure that our supply chains are healthier going forward. As long as we have a government, as we do, that continues to work at developing and investing in things like our infrastructure, Canada will continue to be a country that is envied around the world.

I would suggest that these strategic hubs, wherever they might be in Canada from coast to coast to coast, are not only economic drivers for the communities in which they are located, but also a lifeline to all of us, no matter where we live. That is why I said at the very beginning that I am quite pleased to be able to talk about this legislation, because it shows in a very real way what a proactive government can do to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians by legislatively putting into place safeguards and by ensuring that these hubs of activity continue to develop and provide economic opportunity. As I said, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. That is something we will continue to strive for.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the very beginning of when the member started speaking, whenever that was.

The member for Winnipeg North, I believe, made a novel argument that I have not heard in the House before when he spoke about the previous bill debated. We were providing critiques of the bill, and he said that we were prolonging debate unnecessarily. Since we agreed with the substance of the bill, we should stop debating. On this particular bill, when we are rising in the House to provide our perspectives from our ridings, and we oppose the bill, we should also not be debating the bill.

I do not have a question. I just wanted to provide this as commentary. It is a novel argument that the opposition should simply cease to function, because we either oppose or like a bill; therefore, we should not debate it in the House, but just send everything to committee automatically. The government and the member seem to think that our role here is not to provide the views of our constituents in this chamber. However, that is the whole purpose of Parliament.

I thought it was a novel argument. I just wanted to highlight that in the chamber.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me highlight something for the member opposite. There are very few pieces of legislation that are more important to Canadians than the budget implementation bill. I want to read what the leader of the Conservative Party said in regard to the budget implementation bill. He said, “We have announced that we are going to use every parliamentary tool in our tool kit to block this disastrous, risky and inflationary budget from passing until the Prime Minister makes the commitment to balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates.... I will keep speaking and keep speaking and keep blocking...until the Prime Minister rises with a plan”.

A few hours later, we passed it, but the point is that the Conservatives will use whatever tactics they can come up with to prevent legislation from passing, even legislation that I think they may end up voting in favour of. From the Conservative Party's perspective, it is a destructive force inside the House.

With every piece of legislation, Conservatives try to prevent it from ultimately passing. If we did not have another opposition party that was prepared to assist us in getting legislation through, we would never be able to pass anything, including the budget. Ultimately, that would cause an election.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

There is further discussion going on here. I just want to make sure we are done.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the back and forth is entertaining me, at any rate. I wanted to bring up something around the environmental disasters that we see happening time and time again.

Interestingly enough, I met Linda Duncan, who was the member for Edmonton Strathcona before me, when we were both working on cleaning waterfowl that were impacted by a derailment right outside of Wabamun Lake, one hour west of Edmonton. Very dangerous chemicals were spilled into the lake. It was an ecological disaster. It is still causing a lot of challenges at Wabamun Lake.

When I look at this bill, I know that some of the amendments or suggestions brought forward were not acted on in terms of making this safer or making sure that the emergency preparedness plans were in place. We know these things are happening. We know there are ecological and environmental disasters that last for a very long time, yet the government did not choose to accept some of the amendments that would have made it a safer bill.

Could the member comment on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that one of the ways in which we are able to advance legislation is by getting this support. It is often the New Democratic Party that provides this support. Even when, at times, it brings forward amendments, we will not necessarily support an amendment, for a wide variety of reasons. No doubt, they are very good reasons.

However, it then means the NDP has to garner enough support from other political entities in the House. That is the advantage of a minority situation. I am very concerned. I think of a rail line and some of the dangers that are there, where it could be a spark from a train that causes a brush fire, especially when we think of what is taking place in our communities, particularly Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta, with all the wildfires.

I am concerned about our water table, whether it is a lake or a river. That is one reason to ensure that we have legislation such as this, which provides more authority for the minister and ultimately provides more protection to Canadians and our environment.

It might not answer all the questions coming forward, but it is a modernization. It would make a positive difference. We appreciate the support for the legislation, overall, that we receive from the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, even if it is only in a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I have been waiting for this bill to come up for debate. It is a key and critical piece of legislation for people in my community, as I mentioned when I was asking a question of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

We have an incredibly frustrating, dangerous, environmentally damaging and constant situation of freighters that cannot get loaded properly in the Port of Vancouver because of inefficiencies there. They are backing up into the Salish Sea, where they take advantage of essentially free parking; this damages our ecosystems and ignores indigenous rights in the area.

Therefore, I certainly will vote for this legislation to go to committee. I want to see amendments. It would, for the first time, say that the Minister of Transport could direct such vessels to move to other ports. However, as it is currently drafted, it is inadequate to really go where we need it to go to end the practice of anchorages being available to freighters, for free, to pollute our waters.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to be with the Minister of Transport in the city of Winnipeg on several occasions, I really appreciate the degree to which he would be open to ideas and thoughts. If there are ways in which the legislation can be improved, I would suggest to the member that she does not necessarily have to wait until it goes to committee; she can share those thoughts with the minister well in advance.

There is one thing that I would highlight for the member, as I am sure she is already aware, because it was in an answer that I first learned today during question period. The minister responsible for oceans indicated that, when we formed government, 1% of Canada's ocean waters were actually being protected. Today, it is just under 15%. That is almost a fifteenfold increase, and we are on target to having 25% protected by the year 2025 and, moving forward, ideally hitting 30% of Canada's coastal waters.

Obviously, this government is genuinely concerned about our coastal waters and our environment. That is why we have seen such significant movement on the conservation of our ocean waters, which we are responsible for.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am noticing this all started in 2017 with the review. At that time, I was still back with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and there was an issue with private crossings. Through Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, there is the Yellowhead Highway. There is Highway 1, and then the Yellowhead route runs right through the riding. There are over 100 private crossings that just go into farmers' fields, pastures and stuff like that.

In the act and in the review act, there was no language around private crossings in rural areas. I have to say, this is a typical Liberal play. I was absolutely quite aghast at how vacant it was and how they just got forgotten about altogether. We fought that. Actually, I am still fighting it now as an MP. I have had several farmers and, actually, elevator and grain companies come to me and ask how they are going to deal with this when they want to close a private crossing, or tell me they have a $200,000 bill for a pair of arms where they are only accessing their own property.

Therefore, would this bill deal with private crossings in this review, or has there been any thought by the Liberal Party on this?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I can always depend on the hon. member to keep speaking.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. I do know that it has been talked about at great length. In the province of Manitoba, there are even individuals who have died this year as a result of rail crossings. I do not know the exact circumstances surrounding this, but I do know that these are tragic accidents. I do not have an analysis of which ones are private, which ones have the crossings and so forth. It would be an interesting thing for the committee to look at.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, and today, to speak to Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. That is just the short title. It is a bill that would amend seven existing acts of Parliament, but for a bill that does so, it would accomplish very little.

Although I believe in the importance of improving the security of Canada’s transportation system and that urgent action is needed to fix our supply chain issues, this bill falls incredibly far short in achieving either of those goals. The reality is this bill is all optics and no results. It is typical Liberal legislation. It is a box-ticking exercise that creates the illusion that something is being done about a problem that the government has ignored for too long. We know that foresight, planning, operational excellence and managerial competence are not in the Liberal government’s wheelhouse.

Actually, it is worse than that. This bill would increase red tape and regulatory burdens, forcing more costs to be downloaded to consumers. In these inflationary times, that is the last thing Canadians can afford. It would choke the tenants and users of our ports and stymie what should be a drive for efficiency and international competitiveness, while failing to address the root causes of the supply chain congestion. It fails to establish that decisions made by the ports must be in the best interests of the supply chain and the national economy.

More government is not the answer. This is not looking to the best ports in the world, which are gateways to their continents and countries and are significant economic drivers for their regions. The Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the country of my heritage, is the largest in Europe; it is the gateway to Europe, and it is hailed as the smartest port in the world. Rather than learning from experts and taking a serious look at what Canada could do differently, we are stuck at the bottom again. How is it that the Port of Vancouver, our main gateway to and from Asia, ranks 368th in efficiency out of 370 ports around the world? It is the third worst in the world. How did we get here?

In 2017 and 2018, Transport Canada initiated two separate reviews with the goal of determining the necessary steps that would address supply chain issues and help avoid them in the future. That was five or six years ago. The best the Liberals could come up with is a bill that is a bunch of nothing. What a missed opportunity.

What about the Liberals' own supply chain task force? Did they listen to the supply chain stakeholders and transportation experts they assembled? The world reached a supply chain crisis two years ago, and it was brewing before that. For a government that is good at convening, it convened. It brought together government and industry, logistics specialists, shippers, producers, transporters, manufacturers and more. They were good, smart people; let us give some credit for that. However, did the government listen to them? The task force even produced a fancy report with a colourful cover; it was called “Action. Collaboration. Transformation.” The title cleverly spelled out the acronym “ACT”, but it did not act. In its introductory line, the national supply chain task force report stated, “Canada’s transportation supply chain is nearing its breaking point.” How do we fix this? How could we “ACT”? What action could the government take now and into the future to fix it?

On pages 34 and 35 of the report is the meat of the answers. There are summary tables in a Gantt chart format that list 13 immediate response actions and eight long-term strategic actions.

The minister welcomed this report with much fanfare. That was on October 6, which is over eight months ago. What has happened since? How many of those 13 immediate, meaning now, and eight strategic recommended actions does Bill C-33 address? Does it address a handful or any at all? The answer is zero. We are talking about shipping Canadian goods, our trade, the lifeblood of our economy.

Eight months later, there are no immediate actions, none of which would actually be required to be legislated. How is it that none of those are done?

Urgent action is needed to address the worsening supply chain congestion, but we also need to get to the root causes of supply chain congestion. The strategic recommendations would go a long way to, if members will pardon the pun, turn this ship around, but they are nowhere to be found in Bill C-33.

How else is Bill C-33 flawed? I will go back to the red tape burden. There would be new reporting requirements that would reduce the efficiency, effectiveness and competitiveness of Canadian ports. They would be a particular burden on smaller ports, which cannot be ignored for their critical role in moving goods in the country, fuelling our trade corridors and driving economic activity.

Where else does Bill C-33 fall down? It would not resolve the lack of financial flexibility our ports need. How do they compete with the best in the world and how do they modernize when they are prevented from accessing the private sector funds needed to make investments and grow? We visited as a transport committee the Port of St. John's, and it has a borrowing capacity of $4 million. That is effectively maybe one house in the greater Vancouver area, and maybe two in the GTA. It is a small amount. This is preventing the port from growing, and other ports are facing similar challenges.

On rail safety, Bill C-33 would really only make modest changes that reflect existing practices. That is it. After all these years, there is nothing. What is a new offence for interfering and tampering with rail lines going to accomplish, when the police already have the authority to act on that? It is not a problem of authority; it is a lack of enforcement. The other changes to modernize our rail system that should have been considered in Bill C-33 are, again, a missed opportunity.

One last point is that the bill would also give a tremendous amount of new power to the Minister of Transport. It would be more government and more red tape, and unfortunately, in the case of that minister, he is one who does not act quickly, if at all, as we saw in the holiday travel chaos in our airports in December and January.

I am sure members can understand my skepticism.

Canada's ports, airports and railways are a federal responsibility, and they are in an absolutely miserable state. A small but recent example of a Liberal government policy that is stymying our transportation corridors and supply chains is the rolling truck age program. For some unfathomable reason, authorities were looking to ban perfectly legal trucks from picking up cargo in the Port of Vancouver for the sin of being 12 years old or older, because trucks moving fewer goods is somehow going to help the congestion. The good news is that the pressure worked and the program was postponed for a third time until at least next year, and hopefully forever.

Our ports need better than Bill C-33. Our railways need better; our shippers need better; our supply chains need better; our economy needs better; and Conservatives stand ready to deliver. Members can imagine a competent government that takes serious action on these burgeoning problems, removes the gatekeepers, gets our ports back on track and fixes our airports. If this bill is the best the government can come up with after eight years in office, it is time for it to step aside and let Conservatives fix the mess and unleash Canada's great potential for everyone.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when situations occurred, just like the member has mentioned, at the airports and when tragedies occurred, like Lac-Mégantic, I know that many of the Conservative Quebec members had called upon the government to increase safety and take on other measures. There were many calls from the opposition benches to do more, when it came to making sure that our airports, which are independently operated at this point, worked efficiently.

I want to know from the member why his intention is to oppose this legislation, which would allow for more safety measures and would allow us to address some of the concerns the Conservatives propose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member was not listening.

None of the concerns she just raised would actually be addressed by Bill C-33. No one, other than my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, has actually spoken more about safety. I was on the transportation committee when we introduced the rail safety report that was referred to in debate. This piece of legislation was actually the first report as I joined the committee, and it had started in the previous Parliament. None of those recommendations have been acted upon in this legislation. The supply chain task force started in January 2022. It had a report on October 6, 2022, eight months ago, with 13 immediate recommendations, the first of which was to deal with port congestion. None of those have happened. It is a big failure of the government.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about red tape, and part of my fear when the Conservatives talk about less government and less red tape are the impacts that would have on occupational health and safety, the safety of the actual rails themselves.

We will recall that in 2015, it was the Conservative government that passed Bill C-52, which also amended the Railway Safety Act. Clause 17 of that bill repealed the definition of “fatigue science” concerning railway safety management systems. Between 1993 and 2014, the Transportation Safety Board attributed 22 railway incidents to fatigue as a factor or a source of risk. That is an average of one incident per year. Between 2015 and 2017, seven incidents occurred. That is an average of 2.33 incidents a year. Since the removal of fatigue science in the Railway Safety Act, we have more than doubled Canada's incidents of fatigue-related accidents in the railway industry.

Would my friend from Flamborough—Glanbrook, who I know to be a reasonable man, correct the mistake of the transport committee's recommendations to address worker fatigue and ensure that railway employee safety is part of Canada's Railway Safety Act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my colleague from Hamilton Centre and I have a good working relationship and have had many conversations, in fact, recently at the Hamilton port on the transport committee's tour.

As I referred to in the answer to the previous question, the very first report that was done when I joined the transport committee was on rail safety, and fatigue management was an important part of that study. We heard from witnesses on that, yet none of those recommendations are reflected at all in Bill C-33, which has been pointed out by others in debate.

What is added in terms of red tape are more officers, more advisory committees, stuff that is not going to actually address any of those root problems.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to something that my colleague mentioned in his speech about the position of Canadian railroads and the ability of our ports in relation to all of the other ports in the world. He said we are number 368 out of 370, I believe are the numbers that he used. He can correct me if that is not correct.

We have the ability to repair lines and that sort of thing, as we saw from the November disaster that took place in the Rocky Mountains that basically isolated the west coast with regard to railroad travel. It was fixed within a week or two.

Can the member elaborate a little more on what he thinks are some of the solutions to problems that could have been put into Bill C-33 that might have been used to get us back at least a bit closer to the top rather than being right at the bottom of all the ports in the world?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have referenced, there are 13 immediate recommendations and eight more longer-term actions of the supply chain task force that have so far been ignored. We heard about the borrowing capacity of ports as the transport committee toured all of our major ports throughout the middle of March. There are those two things, as well as a host of other things, and we could learn from the examples of places like Rotterdam, Antwerp and Seattle that do much better jobs than we do here.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are talking about Bill C-33, an act strengthening our ports and improving rail safety.

One of the stated objectives of this bill is to improve supply chain disruptions, which are causing inflation.

It looks like a very substantial bill, more than 100 pages long, and amends six or seven acts of this Parliament, but when we read through it we notice that it does not say very much at all. In fact, it does not do much at all in effectively tackling the many challenges that our ports and transportation infrastructures face today.

I want to focus on the Port of Vancouver. My colleague has pointed out that its rating is not very good compared to other ports. It ranks roughly 380, or something like that, compared to the Port of Rotterdam, the land of his ancestry and mine as well, which is one of the most efficiently run ports, so it can be done.

The Port of Vancouver is a very crowded piece of real estate, which is one of the reasons given why it is maybe not as efficient as some other ports. Of course, the Netherlands does not have a lot of land either, but it has still managed to use what it has very efficiently and effectively.

Unfortunately, this legislation before us today does not really tackle the underlying basic problems regarding supply chain resiliency and efficiency.

Every day my riding of Langley, which is very close to the Port of Vancouver, just a 45-minute drive, experiences the presence of the Port of Vancouver with so many trains coming through. It is the main line of the CP, and the CN runs through it as well. There are trains coming in with empty container cars, and trains with full containers heading out to the rest of Canada and down into the United States.

CN and CP have been good, responsible corporate citizens. They have partnered with the Port of Vancouver in the last decade or so to build some overpasses so that traffic can keep flowing more or less smoothly. I say more or less, because it is not perfect. There is always room for improvement. If anybody from CP, CN or the port authority is listening right now to this speech at this hour of the night, they will know what I am talking about. Although we are very grateful for the overpasses, they would have been better placed at 200 Street, at the Fraser Highway crossing, close to the Langley bypass, to 216 Street, close to the new interchange with the freeway, so there is still work to be done. There needs to be improvement.

That brings me to another local issue. Roberts Bank is going to be expanded. To give a bit of background, the Port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada by volume shipped. As a matter of fact, it is as big as all the Canadian ports put together, and we are going to expand it.

When I say it is the biggest, it is the amalgamation of three ports some years ago, the Port of Vancouver, the Fraser port, which has ports on the New Westminster side and the Surrey side, and also Roberts Bank, which is in the city of Delta. Roberts Bank is now going to be expanded. The port itself is an artificial island that was built in the Strait of Georgia, which we nowadays call the Salish Sea. It is a big island. There is a causeway that goes up to it with a highway on it and a couple of railroads. It is going to be expanded, I am not sure by how much, but it is a very significant infrastructure project.

That brings me back to Langley. With all these trains coming through, the traffic is going to increase, so if somebody from CP, CN or the Port of Vancouver is listening, we are going to be looking for some more overpasses just to make sure Langley keeps on functioning while the port expands.

We are talking about Bill C-33, which comes on the heels of the Final Report of The National Supply Chain Task Force 2022, commissioned by the Minister of Transport.

I will read a quote from it, which states:

A recurring theme in the report is the struggle of both government and industry to cope with uncertainties arising due to critical factors such as rapidly changing trade patterns, human- and climate-caused disruptions, shifting geopolitical risk, and increased consolidation in major transportation modes. As a medium-sized player in the global market, Canada is finding it difficult to overcome these challenges....

That is the introduction to the report. The authors of the report dig deeper, and my friend has already raised some of the immediate actions that were called for, but I am going to take a look at some of the longer-term ones.

Recommendation 11 is to establish a supply chain office because the authors know that supply chain disruptions are one of the biggest problems we are facing. Unfortunately, the bill would not do much about that.

I was at a round table with stakeholders talking about this report, and they were all operators: marine operators, train operators from CP, etc. The port authority was there too, of course. One of the main concerns was bureaucracy upon bureaucracy upon more bureaucracy. They are looking for efficiencies. These people know how to do their business. They are asking government to please deregulate to allow private enterprise to make things more efficient.

There were a couple of other things they mentioned, and I think this is really important to understand as well. They said to immediately address the significant transportation supply chain labour shortages in Canada. Now, when I talked to employers, and not just those in transportation, any employer, they tell me that one of the biggest challenges is that there are not enough people.

I attended a meeting of the Western Canadian Shippers’ Coalition and its representatives told me that there are not enough people, not enough trains, not enough truck drivers, not enough people working on trains, not enough people repairing tracks and not enough people repairing trains. These are the fundamental issues that our transportation system and our ports are facing today. Unfortunately, this report does not get into that sufficiently.

A couple of weeks ago, I went with the transportation committee, and I am not on that committee, but I tagged along with its members to the port of Prince Rupert. It is the third-biggest port in Canada after Vancouver and Montreal. It will soon become the second biggest port because it has huge expansion plans, and I applaud that. I think that is a fantastic idea. It is actually closer to the major Asian ports and hours by rail to Chicago. It is as quick to get to Chicago from the port of Prince Rupert as it is from Vancouver. I really applaud the expansion of that port. It has room and can build much more efficiently.

To sum up, there are a lot of problems today in our transportation system and in our ports, and Bill C-33 would not do enough. I think the bill needs a major rethink. We will be voting against it. Of course, we are in favour of all the things that the minister said the bill was going to do, but we are saying that the bill would not do them. Bill C-33 needs a major rethink, and it needs to go back to the drawing board. The people who drafted this legislation need to understand what the real issues are.

I have an amendment to present, which is being seconded by my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House declines to give second reading 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, since the bill fails to improve supply chain efficiencies, address rail service reliability, improve labour relations, and weakens the ports’ ability to fulfill their mandate with an Ottawa knows best approach.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The amendment is in order.

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to drill down on something that is a widespread assumption without evidence, which is that the private sector is more efficient.

I have been tracking what happened to my riding with the backup of freighters, as many as 27 at a time, all up the coast of Vancouver Island, all the way up to Ladysmith and Gabriola. It is very inefficient. Everyone loses. The grain shippers lose. The grain farmers lose, and people in my community lose.

It did not use to be so bad. Members would never guess the law of unintended consequences at work here. What was the thing that changed, that made the shipment of grain so very inefficient? It was getting rid of the Canada Wheat Board. We did not know, at the time we were debating getting rid of the Canada Wheat Board, that one of the consequences would be that shipping grain would become a gong show.

The Wheat Board used to organize the shipment of grains. Multiple farmers used to have the rails ready to go, and the grain was shipped more efficiently. Now we have a privatized system, and what is left of the Wheat Board is owned by Saudi Arabia.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I are just going to have to fundamentally disagree on that.

If members talk to grain farmers in the Prairies, and I am surrounded by a number of them, they had a bumper crop, and the problem was getting the grain to port. There are not enough trains, not enough people working on trains and not enough railroad capacity. These are the problems, and this is what needs to be addressed.

The government needs to get out of the way to allow private enterprise to solve the problem. It will do it.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it just shocks me because all day we listen to complaints from the Conservative Party about what more the government should do, and then we hear that the government should get out of the way. I feel like the Conservatives contradict themselves all the time.

I would like to have a more in-depth explanation from the member of the amendment he has proposed.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion is pretty self-explanatory. I do not know what more I could say in depth.

We think that Bill C-33, as well-intentioned as it is, just does not do enough. It needs a major rethink. The people who drafted it need to go back and read this report, which I was just referencing, and the very good, well-written reports coming out of the transportation committee.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand there are lots of other issues with this bill and wanting to change some things within committee is key.

One of the things I am concerned about is the safety of workers not being accounted for within this piece of legislation. About a year ago, I was talking to folks from IBEW, workers on CN, who put their very jobs on the line because they were so concerned with the safety of their work on the rail line.

The national supply chain task force talked about rail safety for workers, the exhaustion levels they face and the fatigue. They made recommendations that are not in this bill. The transportation committee made several recommendations that are not in this bill.

Could the member talk about the workers' safety and the importance of that? I would really love to hear his thoughts on that.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement. Worker safety is number one. Safety is always number one for any company, and I applaud any company that has a good safety record.

This bill does not do enough. As I said, it needs a major rethink. It needs to go back to the drawing board. That is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask forgiveness again from my colleagues in the House and those who are watching. I have asthma, and the smoke is killing me today.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-33. As many of my colleagues know, I spent a lifetime in the transportation industry prior to being elected, doing everything from owning and operating a small ground-handling business to serving in various management and executive roles in the airline and airport side of the industry. I spent a lifetime in promotion of our country's opportunities. I know a little bit about ports, airports and supply chain logistics.

I spent a lifetime in pursuit of our national, provincial and regional opportunities, including tourism, air service development, supply chain logistics, and the safe and secure transport of our goods to market. It is through the lens of these experiences that I stand here today to offer some comments on Bill C-33 and not only the failures I see in this bill but also the failure of the government after the last eight years. It is a failure to realize the key opportunities that Canada has in our logistics, our geographic positioning in the world, our ports and airports.

Canada's transportation industry has long been a pillar of our nation's economy. It connects people, businesses and communities from coast to coast to coast. Simply put, it connects Canada to the world. We are, after all, a trading nation. Our success as a nation is predicated on our ability to get the goods we produce to market, our ability to seamlessly move the products and services we produce, facilitating safe and secure transport, and seamlessly accessing our country, to and from our communities.

From 1903, when Wilfrid Laurier launched our national railway from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, the freight rail sector of Canada's economy has been the backbone, moving more than 320 billion dollars' worth of goods annually from coast to coast to coast.

Canada's national railway is the only transcontinental railway in North America. It connects three coasts, those of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. Almost all sectors of Canadian economy are served by its freight trains, including manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources, wholesale and retail. In recent years, we have seen the fragility of our supply chain and our transportation network.

Railways are a vital mode of transporting goods within Canada and to our international markets. They provide a cost-effective and efficient way of transporting bulk commodities such as minerals, grains, forest products and manufactured goods. The reliable and extensive rail network supports the competitiveness of Canadian industries and facilitates international trade.

The railway industry directly employs a significant number of Canadians. It encompasses a diverse range of jobs, including train operators, engineers, conductors, maintenance workers, administrative staff and more. We must always ensure that those workers, those Canadians who are on the front line, whether it is in our ports, railways or our airports, are always safe and secure. This bill does nothing. It does not go far enough to ensure that. Additionally, the railway sector indirectly supports employment in related industries such as manufacturing, logistics and supply chain management.

Railways enable industries to access raw materials, transport finished goods and connect markets. The efficient movement of goods by rail contributes to cost savings, supply chain optimization and business competitiveness. In the last eight years, Canada has taken a step back in our global competitiveness. Why is that? It is because, in our previous Conservative government, we had a government that understood what Canada had, the opportunities that we had. It invested in trade agreements, bilaterals, with other countries, and it invested heavily in our ports and airports.

We had a strategy. We had a game plan on how we were going to capture the world and connect to the world. One example is the Asia-Pacific gateway program, where the former Conservative government invested a billion dollars in our ports; our airports; our roadways, working with our provincial governments; and our railway system. I will be the first to say we did not go far enough, but we had a plan to continue putting Canada on the map. When I look at the list of the top 60 ports, I see that I have toured almost every one of them. I stood there, whether it was in Antwerp or whether it was in Rotterdam, and saw the efficiencies. I dreamt that, one day, and I have always said this, if Canada ever figured out what we wanted to be when we grew up, we could flip this world on its ear.

Canada could be what Rotterdam is to the EU. We could do that here, whether it is connecting our ports to our airports or connecting our ports to our railways and our roadways. I have not heard anybody in this debate talk about the intermodality of our network, our supply chain and our transportation network. If we are catching fish off the coast of Prince Rupert and transporting them by truck to rail and then onto an airplane and just, in the same day, catch that day service in Asia, we have those opportunities.

The world needs more Canada. It wants more of the products we have, but we continue to fail. In the last eight years, we have seen a government that has allowed rail blockages and has allowed labour disruptions to continue, and that sends a message, not only to our competitors but also to our customers, that Canada is not open for business. Bill C-33 would not address any of that.

We have talked about the congestion being experienced in our ports and our airports, whether it is warehousing that we cannot get or is backed up, staff disruptions or employee disruptions, labour disruptions or rail capacity.

If members will indulge me, I would like to share a letter I received this morning. It is from one of my constituents, who owns a lumber mill. I have been very vocal about championing our softwood lumber industry. Time and again, our rail service, or lack of rail service, in this country is failing our softwood lumber or forestry industry. Simply put, it cannot get rail cars. What happens? The products, worth millions upon millions of dollars, sit in the yard.

Good morning Todd,

If anyone within the Federal or Provincial governments cares about the forest industry and the survival of the remaining companies left, then something has to be done YESTERDAY about CN and their ongoing lack of service to the forest industry. Otherwise, what you have seen so far in 2023 with respect to permanent closures will continue. If we can get our product shipped to the market on a weekly basis, particularly in this difficult market, we are dead. Companies will be forced to close up shop and/or continue move their operations into the USA South where having to deal with CN and their shitty service is no longer an issue.

To date, no one within the provincial or federal governments have the balls to fix the CN problem or even tackle the issue. This issue has been completely ignored despite the fact that CN’s lack of service to the forest industry has been a serious problem since 2014. No results despite our pleas for help. Very disappointing and not impressed. Not sure how the farming industry got it done with Bill C49 in such a short period of time and their level of service has improved considerably. I suppose they are more important than the forest industry?

I put that into the record because I have met with the current Minister of Transport. I have met with his predecessor and I have met with their predecessor.

From the day that I was elected, I have continued to raise these issues. I have raised them with the minister who can actually do something about it, and I have raised it with the company, repeatedly. There are mills, not only in my riding but also in ridings in western Canada, that are closing because we cannot get our products to market. Do not even get me started on the fact that the government, after eight years, cannot secure a softwood lumber agreement, but our forestry producers are facing unbelievable tariffs and penalties on top of not being able to get their product to market. They cannot get rail cars. Why is that? It is because of our rail capacity.

We had a former government that invested in twinning highways, putting overpasses in so we could move goods on longer loads and twinning railways so we could have double-stacked rail cars going through. We had a former Conservative government that invested in land terminals so that if there were land constraints at the port, goods could move inland, like in Prince George, where I am from. It has CN Worldwide Distribution Services right there. It has a large yard where the cars are interchanged. Not only that, but it invested in airports. The airport in Prince George has the third-longest runway in Canada. It can handle the largest aircraft and can compete with any airport in terms of handling cargo. Straight through my riding, I was on the world stage in the promotion of the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver. The Port of Prince Rupert is the fastest and greenest route to Asia in North America. It has the deepest open-water port. It connects to the fastest and greenest rail network into the U.S. Midwest.

We have so much opportunity, and the current government just does not see it. I do not know whether the Liberals do not see it or just do not want to act on it. It is not like we are not telling them this. They stand there and promise they are going to do better. There is lots of talk about prorogation. Perhaps we will go into an early election if the speNDP and Liberal coalition breaks. I would assume that there will be some big announcements about what the Liberals are going to do again if they get elected. If they get elected, what are they going to do? They will probably not follow through with their promises, which is what we have seen time and time again.

The maintenance, expansion and improvement of the railway infrastructure requires significant investments. These investments create jobs during the construction phase. They contribute to the economic activity of our communities. Furthermore, ongoing infrastructure development helps enhance capacity and efficiency of the rail network, leading to increased productivity and economic benefits, not only for the communities that they serve, but also all across our nation. Again, I will go back. It puts Canada on the map. It gives us another opportunity for economic success and prosperity. We have not seen that with these guys.

I heard the member for Winnipeg North say that, under their government, the Liberals invested in CentrePort or they started CentrePort. That was not done by the Liberals. I was on the front lines with CentrePort from the very beginning. It is an incredible port that was started by a Conservative government with considerable dollars for marketing and efforts and investment in terminals with the project. Again, intermodality would bring the products into CentrePort, and it could ship them into the U.S. Midwest as well by air, by truck or by rail. These are things that I have not heard anybody talk about in this.

I do not have the benefit of sitting on the transport committee. I would love to do it someday, maybe. I know we are back and we have capable people who work on that file. Our shadow minister is incredible. The whole transport team is incredible, and I know that it raised these issues within the committee.

It is just frustrating when we see a bill, like Bill C-33, that is probably well intentioned, but did the Liberals listen to the stakeholders who were there? They did not. Time and again, whether it is this bill or a Fisheries Act bill when I had that file, they say that they do consultations, but they do not.

Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brings up good points. It is frustrating that we just spent the whole day talking about climate change. Canada's transportation network is among the greenest in the world. It gets our products to market. It supports good-paying jobs. It allows Canada's products, whether they are tech products, agriculture products or natural resources products, to get to market so we can benefit the world.

As I said early, the world needs more Canada and we have great producers right here, but they struggle with getting their products to market. Why? It is because we failed them. More specifically, the government has failed them over the last eight years.

As I said, we have spent a great deal of time talking about climate change in relation to the Bloc opposition day. Rail transportation is generally considered more environmentally friendly compared to other modes of transport, such as road or air.

One day, someone spoke to me about the rail system and the train going through their community all the time. I asked whether they would rather see the chemicals on that train be in trucks going through their community or would they rather see it on rail. Rail gets chemicals off the roads onto an area that is less inhabited, with less contact with the public and the community.

We cannot look beyond Lac-Mégantic. We never want to see one of those disasters again. Bill C-33 does not address the challenges that we see. We only need to look as far south to our friends to the south to try to make things better. When we make things better in terms of the safe and secure transport of goods and people, the world is our oyster. Canada can be whatever it wants to be. It sends a message to the world that we are open for business.

I remember going up in an elevator with the CEO of the Seattle port authority. She was a very nice lady. She saw my badge that said where I was from. She said, “You are from Canada.” I said I was. She said, “You are causing a lot of people in our business headaches.” I asked her why that was. She said, “We do not want Canada to become competitive.”

Our border communities, whether by road or by rail, lose so much leakage to our U.S. counterparts, our friends. Why? It is because its airports are more efficient. Its policy regarding airlines and ticketing is more efficient and cheaper. Its ports are also more efficient.

Whether it is goods or people, there is so much leakage transborder that we are losing that Canada could capture by just reinvesting and rethinking what we want to be when we grow up. We should start with our transportation network and have a real ports and airports strategy.

We can look to the south to see what the U.S. does when it invests in its airports and ports. It gives authority to those running the airports. It gives opportunities to the public and the producers, whether they are shipping or producing goods, whether the public want to go to and from, and visit friends and travel abroad, Canada has failed.

I cannot speak enough about the uncharacteristically high number of delays and cancellations seen within our aviation industry in recent months. It is not enough for our airlines and airports to sit there and point fingers at one another and assign blame. We have to do something about it. Only a government that is intent on making things better and actually helping our transportation ecosystem to realize its potential can do that.

At that time, we can move our goods to market, move our culture, share our culture, our people and our goods, and really make sure that Canada finds its place in the world market.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing a bit of a theme tonight, whether it is will Bill C-35 or Bill C-33. It is “let us do nothing”.

I have not heard a lot of opposition to what is in the bill. Generally, I am hearing that there should be other things in the bill; there should be additional stuff. That is sad to see. The opposition's purpose is supposed to be to hold the government to account, but it seems like they will oppose anything for any reason, not valid reasons, because right now they just say that more needs to be done. I hear the member on that, but what is in this bill is good stuff. It is a step forward, and I urge the member to support this piece of legislation.

I also heard the member complaining that the legislation does not address labour disputes at the ports, and I want to understand that better. Is the member trying to imply that he would prefer to intervene with collective bargaining and the ability of unions to do that? Is that what the member is saying? I ask because oftentimes Conservatives say they stand for the little guy.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, well, my hon. colleague can sure read that question well from the lobby. I applaud her for that. Clearly she was only listening to what she wanted to hear. She did not listen to my entire speech.

The bill fails in all aspects. There is not enough there. As I said, even the stakeholders are saying that it is a nothing bill; it is a nothing burger. That is from the stakeholders, the people who have skin in the game, not somebody who sits here in the House or a bureaucrat who has no skin in the game and is not doing anything about it. These are producers who have real issues, and if we fail them, they lose their livelihoods.

I talked about the bill not going far enough in terms of safety and security and the secure transport of our goods and people. I talked about it not doing anything about the intermodality of our systems.

There is so much the bill could have done. However, they always say, “Well, it is good enough. Work with us and perhaps we will get this in place down the road. We just need to get it done.” I fail to see the reasoning in that. The bill does not do enough. It does not protect workers in terms of the safe and secure transport of goods, nor those who are working on our front lines.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I give my deep sympathies for the struggle he is going through tonight. He has had more than his fair share of health problems in the last year, and this does not seem fair.

To his point about access to rail and the farmers who cannot get the railcars needed to ship grain to port, the question for me is this: How is this a problem of over-regulation? This is a problem of greed at the corporate level by CN and CP.

I swear to God that these guys seem to be surprised every year by the fact that, in the fall, suddenly there is grain to ship. I think they should see it coming by now. It is rather a seasonal event and quite predictable, yet they lay off their workers and use the cars for other things, and then in the fall, surprise, surprise, grain farmers cannot get their goods to market.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. Our rail companies are picking and choosing the winners in this game. They pick the high-value commodities and the others sit by the wayside.

I have fought time and again with our largest rail company, CN. They talk about winter operations, saying it is winter that caused this. As long as I have been alive, winter has happened at the same time every year. How can a company that has been around for so long claim that it has been caught off guard?

It is the same with our gateway airports, specifically YVR in our network. I have sat with them so many times over the years as a manager of small to medium-sized airports and said, “Winter is coming. Are you guys prepared?” They would say they were prepared and ready to go. Then guess what happens. A little bit of snow happens and it is chaos. This is wrong.

I just spoke at an aviation conference on Monday. We had airport operators who were saying they should send their airport staff to our major gateway airports during the winter so they can help clear the runways, because our guys seem to do it all the time. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley mentioned the snow we got in the wintertime that shut down our major airport, YVR. That is just another Thursday for us, if I am quoting him properly. That is the frustration we have.

I am not just blaming YVR. It is the whole transportation ecosystem the government has not addressed. The Liberals stand up and give non-answers during question period when opposition parties are pressing them on these challenges. There are no answers. They promise to do better, and then a bill like this comes out and it does nothing.

After eight years, they have had so much opportunity. It is time for them to step aside, because I can say that we are going to do better when we form government.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo—Prince George and I are in quite strong agreement that we have infrastructure problems in transportation.

Here is my view at this point, having been working on these issues, as my hon. colleague has, for quite a while. We created in the 1980s harbour authorities and airport authorities that are arm's length from government and completely unaccountable to anyone. They are arm's length from the minister. The minister cannot get involved in the decisions of the airport authority or the harbour authority, except of course to rubber-stamp when they want something as destructive as the expansion of Roberts Bank.

I wonder if the hon. member agrees me that we ought to open a bigger conversation: Do these airport and harbour authorities work for Canadians?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know a bit about that, as I was part of the executive team that transferred our last national airport system in Canada, the Prince George Airport. We went from a Transport Canada federally operated airport to a local airport authority, the Prince George Airport Authority.

The challenge with that is that once it stands alone, it is standing alone. There are very few opportunities for revenue generation. Who creates the safety and security policies for our ports and airports? It is the government, and it transfers very few dollars to these ports and airports to maintain them, whether it is regarding their safety or security.

That is, again, why I am frustrated with Bill C-33. We always want our goods and people to be transported via safe, secure and sound modes. However, what we have seen is that the government views our ports and airports as cash cows, not as the economic engine generators they truly are. There are so many things we could do.

We are the highest-cost jurisdiction in the world for aviation fees, which is why Canadians pay some of the highest costs for airline tickets. It is why cargo aircraft or passenger carriers that come in have to pay some of the highest costs just to land here and transport goods. If we made things a little easier for people to come to Canada to conduct business, imagine how great we could be. That is the Canada I want to live in.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue with the bill about creating a bunch of new advisory bodies and a bunch of new committees. Going back to other bills the government has implemented where new committees and new advisory panels have been struck, quite often we see a stacking of the deck, with a bunch of Liberal insiders on the panels. At the end of the day, it is delaying things and causing issues in trying to get projects completed and built.

I know that people in Saskatchewan desperately need a port modernization strategy so we can get our products out of the Prairies. We are landlocked. We need the ports. These advisory panels generally do not do any good in helping the people in our situation. I am wondering if my colleague has any thoughts about that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we were to do things the right way, we would not need these advisory panels. Local airports and port authorities are made up of experts within the industry: experts on the financial side of it, community members, and people who have experience running businesses with the challenges they have. It is a regulatory environment. Our government sees them as cash cows, not the economic engine generators they truly can be, and it picks winners and losers.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.

Before I begin this evening, I would like to thank all the firefighters and first responders who are keeping my community safe, as well as all firefighters across Canada. Firefighters run toward and into danger and put their own safety at risk every day. As a daughter of a firefighter, I also know how hard it is for families with the worries they have. I want to thank them for commitment and for keeping people safe.

I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Calgary Shepard.

Today I rise to speak on Bill C-33, a substantive piece of legislation that I am sad to say is missing the mark on a significant opportunity to strengthen our ports and rail lines with regard to supply chain functionality and security issues. I have had several shadow ministry roles that have involved supply chains within Canada and trade, which means that I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of organizations, both big and small, that either rely on a functioning rail and port system or are involved in keeping our supply chains moving.

I have spoken with a wide variety of industries, from winemaking to RV rentals, all of which have been financially challenged by the sluggishness of the Liberal government in looking at ways within the authority of the federal government to ensure our supply chains are moving.

Canada's economic security and food security should be a priority. When supply chains break down or are not functioning at full capacity, all Canadians are affected. Costs go up, and Canada loses credibility with our trading partners.

Small businesses ultimately pay the biggest price when supply chains break down, as they have fewer resources. When it comes to strengthening our supply chains, this legislation has missed the mark. The Chamber of Shipping said that the legislation misses out on addressing the root causes of supply chain congestion and that the additional powers only address symptoms of congestion and could aggravate managing cargo efficiency.

This legislation also does not address the relationship between shippers and rail companies, and there is nothing about rail service reliability.

The legislation before us is more interested in increasing the powers of the Minister of Transport inside the boardrooms of our port authorities than actually strengthening the ability to move goods around and in and out of our economy or in addressing safety. It burdens our Canadian ports, particularly the smaller ports, with inefficient and anti-competitive red tape and increases in cost, which will always be passed on to consumers. It undermines the arm's-length independence with which ports are supposed to operate, with the federal government inserting Ottawa-knows-best politicians in board level decision-making.

I would like to go into more detail on my point regarding the issues this bill raises in complicating the governance of port authority boards.

The Minister of Transport, when he first spoke about this bill, said:

These measures involve providing the Minister of Transport with the ability to designate the chairperson of the board from among the board members and in consultation with the board. This measure would ensure Canadian port authorities and our government are aligned on how we deal with the increasing complex economic, social and environmental issues facing our ports.

He said, “aligned with the government”. What does that mean? Does it mean aligned with government ideologies, aligned by designating? As the minister said, “designating” is a word that basically means appointing. Is that Liberal friends? We have seen these kinds of actions before, with the Liberal government appointing Liberal friends, have we not?

Anyone who is on one of these boards should be offended that the transport minister and the Liberal government do not think that they are smart enough or capable enough to choose their own board chair out of the group of people sitting around the table. These are independent boards, and the Liberals are bringing politics to these board tables. It is basic board of director governance that members of a board should choose who the board chair is.

The minister also said about the legislation that it is:

...a requirement for Canada port authorities to undertake a review of governance practices every three years. These reviews would evaluate the effectiveness of board governance practices, such as assessments of conflicts of interest and record-keeping practices. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada and would inform future policy measures as needed.

As such, a Liberal minister would judge a non-government organization on corporate governance. The Liberal transport minister would be mandating receiving assessments of conflict of interest from these organizations. The Liberal ministers are not exactly known for good conflict of interest judgment. I do not know if the minister has ever been involved in a governance review. I have been involved in more than one, so I can say that it can easily take up to a year to do a proper review, analysis, report, potential restructure and implementation. The government wants the port authorities to do these every three years.

The minister is presuming to be an expert on fulfilling board of director and executive fiduciary duties and would analyze board governance every three years. Though looking at governance should be a practice of any board, mandating through law that port authorities need to do this every few years is burdensome. I ask, to what end?

The Liberal Minister of Transport in Ottawa thinks he knows best how to run a port, so I would like to note that the member for Chilliwack—Hope, when he spoke on Bill C-33, pointed out in his original rebuttal to the minister that it was that minister who chose to ignore the recommendations of port users when they have put forth board nominees. That minister ignored the recommendations of western provinces when they put forth nominees, yet the minister insists on sticking his hands into the board he knows little about.

Port authorities are supposed to be at arm's length from the government, and the red tape of reporting requirements, advisory committees and ministerial selections of executive management would cut against the efficient operation of our ports. It would reverse the arm's length aims of the Liberal government of the 1990s when it wrote the Canada Marine Act, but that is not surprising, as many Canadians have become aware that the Liberal Party of today is no longer the one they once knew.

As I said earlier, I am disappointed this opportunity to act to better the functioning of our ports and railways has been sidelined by red tape and backseat driving. What good there is in updating safety and security protocols is overshadowed by regulatory burdens that consumers will ultimately feel.

The focus of any update to law should be on safety and on economic prosperity, in particular with this piece of legislation. I should also point out that the government's updating of interference or tampering rules means nothing if it does not enforce them. A lack of accountability and an insistence on control have been defining hallmarks of the current Liberal government, leaving Canadians with less money in their pockets and poorer public services. The Ottawa-knows-best approach is how the current Liberal government governs, so on Bill C-33 the Association of Canadian Port Authorities simply said that more government is not the answer.

I fully support improving the security of Canada's transportation system, including ports and marine facilities. I support increasing safety and strengthening our supply systems. However, the legislation before us would do little for these and would create a real Ottawa-knows-best top-down approach by adding burdensome red tape and costs that would ultimately be passed on to Canadians.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Lori Desrochers and Pamela Fraser are two people whose family members perished in separate instances as workers for CN Rail. These deaths were not investigated by an impartial government or police investigation, but were investigated by CN Rail's own private rail police and corporate risk management.

Since then, these families have received no justice, and CN Rail has faced no consequences. In a press conference on October 20, 2022, Lori Desrochers and Pamela Fraser called on Prime Minister Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre to take a stand to protect—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Back it up. Just do not use names.

The hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have not heard anything from either the Prime Minister or the want-to-be prime minister.

Now, do the Conservatives support railway corporations being able to avoid being held accountable for the death and injury of their workers by investigating themselves—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say in reference to the individuals who lost their lives that my heart certainly goes out to their families. I cannot imagine what the families have been through.

What we are talking about here today is this piece of legislation and there are a lot of misses by this legislation. We are talking about Bill C-33. Certainly, in my intervention I mentioned a few times that this legislation should have been about safety and economic stability. Instead, this legislation is about corporate governance and control by the government to insert itself at the board table of port authorities. That is really one of the biggest focuses of this piece of legislation.

There is a real miss here with where this legislation could have gone and that is really unfortunate.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and Associate Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

The Conservative members from Quebec, specifically the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, are calling for additional rail safety measures.

Does my colleague not see that Bill C-33 includes a safety and security framework that would make it possible for the people of Mégantic to have their bypass?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good pieces in this legislation. Some in there deal with safety, but there is a lot more that could have been done. That is where the real miss is with this piece of legislation. There are some parts that do help in some way.

There have been years and years of consultation, as well as eight years of the Liberal government. To come with this piece of legislation that really has so many gaps is really a miss and it is really unfortunate.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the objectives that the Minister of Transport gave in his introductory speech on Bill C-33 was to combat inflation caused by supply chain disruptions, yet it seems to do very little of that.

I was at a round table discussion with marine operators and they said the new regulations are just going to make things more expensive for them and that this does not tackle inflation at all.

I wonder if my colleague would have a comment on that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how this legislation ties into tackling inflation at all. I mean, we saw inflation go up again a month ago. We also saw interest rates rise just yesterday. What the government is doing is not working.

I do not know what is in this legislation that has anything to do with bringing down costs or bringing down inflation. If anything, it will add to costs because it is adding more of a burden to companies with all of these new committees. They are going to have to do governance reviews every three years as well, so I am not sure how that is going to bring costs down.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to join the debate at such a late hour and to contribute my thoughts on Bill C-33 for my constituents back home. Again, I always want to thank them for sending me here to represent them, and I know they expect us to provide good work and feedback to the government.

As I said earlier in the debate, if it were up to the member for Winnipeg North, none of us would ever speak. He thinks we are delaying the bill when we are really just providing some feedback to the government at a stage of the bill before it possibly heads to committee. This is a bill that would amend these seven different pieces of legislation: the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Canada Marine Act in a different portion and another act to which it would make consequential amendments.

This type of legislation would be an omnibus bill, but it is themed in a certain manner. One always knows something is up when legislation has a title like “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act”, which definitely means that the government is not strengthening anything. It is just making everything more complicated. The marketing people must have gotten to the legislative drafters on this one and included it here.

I share many of the same concerns other Conservatives have expressed on this piece of legislation. I will refrain from commenting on the marine portions, because I happen to be from a landlocked province. Our views of the oceans are very limited, as in zero, unless we go online. I will not comment on those.

I will comment on the fact that this piece of legislation would be establishing new advisory committees, which I believe could be a source of more consternation and frustration in ports and other places. I note that no tenants are to serve on them directly. There is no dispensation made to ensure that happens.

There are going to be issues with supply chains. There is nothing in this legislation, as the member for Langley—Aldergrove just said, that would actually address that. The reason we know this is that some of the largest groups out there that represent stakeholders who care about supply chains or manage them in some way have said so very clearly. The Association of Canadian Port Authorities, which will be my only marine reference, said that more government was not the answer. The Chamber of Shipping said that the legislation misses out on addressing the root causes of supply chain congestion, and additional powers only address symptoms of congestion and could aggravate managing cargo efficiently. Those seem like the people one would want to go to and make sure they are onside with legislation before one brings it forward and claims it would help supply chains to get better, which is what we heard from members on the government benches.

I will give the government credit for one thing. Thankfully, this is not a spending bill. That is good news for taxpayers back home, although consumers will likely pay higher prices once the legislation goes through because of the extra red tape and all the extra measures being introduced. It is not in all parts of the bill, but significant parts of the bill would likely increase costs.

In that spirit, I do have a Yiddish proverb, which is, “If a problem can be solved with money, it is not a problem, it is an expense.” Thankfully, this would not be a new expense for taxpayers. This particular bill, as I said, would not be directly spending new monies that we simply do not have, with a $60-billion-plus deficit already on the books and the doubling of the national debt over the course of the pandemic by the Liberal government. Taxpayers back home in my riding cannot afford to put more things on the national credit card. They are already on the hook for over $4,000 per family household.

I want to take a different tack, as I said I would. CP is actually located in my riding, and I visited it on March 2. Its headquarters are in an old community called Ogden, named after one of the former senior employees of CP. The community has had a storied history. It has gone through a couple of redevelopments. There used to be a tram that went over the river, and it would ferry employees back and forth. It does not exist anymore. However, this particular part of the city has a lot of history.

The command centre for Canadian Pacific is there; Canadian Pacific is CP now and actually merged with Kansas City Southern, or KCS, in a $31-billion deal. It is a really big railway company. It is located in my riding, and it is a big source of employment. Its career fairs are always very well attended because it is a good employer to work for. It provides excellent pay and good working conditions. It is a unionized work environment, and the union fights hard for its members, while management negotiates, much of the time, in good faith. The command centre and the training centre are there. The simulator train is there, which is very cool, and I will talk about that as well.

The hydrogen fuel cell train is also there, and I missed it on my tour. I just did not have enough time to get to it. I understand that other members, like the member for Edmonton Riverbend, actually got to see the brand new future of cargo train services in Canada, the hydrogen fuel cell train.

Let us talk about the command centre. I have represented my riding for almost eight years now, and I had never been to this command centre, which was open throughout the whole pandemic. It is basically what one would imagine. It looks like it is in the 22nd century. There are screens everywhere. People are working to make sure that trains, as they are moving across Canada and parts of the United States, are on the correct line. The number one thing the employees talked to me about was safety: making sure the trains were safe and were on the rails, and that any problems were addressed as quickly as possible. That is the whole idea behind this command centre: to make sure it can ship goods across the country and ensure the safety of the workers, the safety of those in the command post and the safety of those in the communities they are serving, because safety, as they kept repeating, is the number one priority.

They invest a lot of time and effort, especially on the training side, to make sure their employees can provide that guarantee. It is hard work to have to pay really close attention to what is going on. They know exactly what is on each train, where each train is coming from, and, if there are trains from other companies on their network, where they are and where they are moving. The command centre was an impressive place to be and to see people are on shifts when they are working, switching out and switching in employees all the time, just to make sure nobody is working while tired. There was a lot of live communication going on, directly with people in the field. This is a sector of the economy that is drastically changing. It is a 24-7 business.

In the riding of Calgary Shepard, there is also a huge shunting yard that was meant to be switched out and moved outside the city. That never actually happened. It was never negotiated.

The training centre is a very cool place as well. It is a unionized environment where, again, the number one rule is safety. People were very concerned about that as we were walking around. The centre builds everything. Young electricians were coming in, and before CP, now CPKC, actually agrees to send them to the field, they have to rewire and wire everything. They put them on this huge board, all around the training centre. If they make a mistake, they take it all down and make them do it all over again. Again, they talked about safety. They wanted to make sure that if they go out into the field, they can fix anything that is broken so the equipment is maintained, 24-7, as well as possible. It is not perfect, but it is as good as they can possibly do it. One can definitely tell that the people who work there, who do the training, take a lot of pride in their work and in the record of the company as well. They know it is their colleagues, their fellow employees, who are working for the company. They are trying to make sure they provide a safe work environment.

Being on the simulator train was really one of the coolest parts. As members of Parliament, we all get to do these things, experience what it is like in different jobs. I actually got to drive one of these trains. It really feels like one is inside one of these giant trains and that it is moving down the tracks. It can be sped up or slowed down. I had a conductor showing me what it looks like, what it feels like, to be in one of these trains. The weight of the machine as it is moving can be felt. It is a totally simulated environment, and a lot of people go through.

This is the equipment that people are trained on before they are sent out into the field. It is hours upon hours of training. I do not remember the exact number of hours they have to do before they are sent out on a train, but it is a lot. It is many more than in the United States. Again, they said that if they are going to put someone behind one of these big machines, they want to make sure they are ready for anything. In fact, routes they will be taking will be simulated as many times as they need, until the route is done without any mistakes. If one does not control the machine, it will actually automatically start to slow down. That is the active monitoring of whether someone fell asleep or whether they are actually paying attention. It is amazing what types of safety mechanisms are put into place.

I wanted to talk about this, because CP has been a pretty good corporate citizen in the riding of Calgary Shepard. I only have one CP cenotaph in my riding. I do not have a legion hall. I do not have other Remembrance Day memorials to go to, but CP has put on a memorial service every single year for the residents of the area. They have invited everybody to attend publicly. Usually, when they could, though the pandemic kind of prohibited them, they invited people for hot chocolate, tea, and cookies inside the halls, and they let people tour the different wagons and train services. In my riding, my experience has been that CP has been a good corporate citizen. I wanted to share that with the House, just to show that safety is in fact its priority and that they do quite a good job of it.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, particularly for his comments in regard to one of our major railroads, which of course, is headquartered in his riding, and the training facilities he spoke of. He opened his speech by talking about the plethora of different areas this is trying to cover, and I wonder if he could just expand a little more on the areas he was referring to in his opening comments, as to the number of different areas this bill is trying to cover and if he sees that as any kind of a detriment or not.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us go over some of those detriments inside this bill and try not to go into too many on ports, but there are quite a few issues with the ports that will be affected. There are additional ministerial powers that will limit local decision-making. That is not a good idea.

Additional regulatory requirements will add cost to stakeholders, which, again, will be passed on, like I said, to Canadian consumers.

It is also going to reduce anchorages adversely. Some stakeholders will be impacted. There are a lot of issues here with local decision-making being taken away and handed to the executive. I generally believe that is a bad idea, and it is reflected in many stakeholders expressing that publicly and declining to support the bill.

[Kevin Vuong, Independent, Spadina—Fort York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people are often surprised to hear that, in my downtown riding of Spadina—Fort York, we also have a port. We had a scare recently because the port authority also includes, within its domain, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport, and there was a bomb scare. One of the challenges right now, with the different jurisdictions, is being able to put together an emergency management plan. I heard this yesterday when I was in the riding, at a meeting with the Bathurst Quay neighbourhood.

I am curious to hear my colleague's thoughts on how, perhaps, the government could do better in working with other orders of government to ensure and protect the safety of every community that is home to a port, railroad and so on.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up a good point.

Again, I think we should prefer local decision-making that is informed by a national body to have wider information such as a national security list. It gets intelligence from our foreign allies, our international allies, who might provide or tip us off about events or activities that are being planned.

That could then help local decision-makers adjust locally, in how much police enforcement might be necessary or how firefighting services could be improved, and also ensuring some basic operational things such as communicating on the same wavelengths and having each other's contact information. That is some of the basic preparation for emergencies that local port authorities, airports, all of them, could profit from in having that local decision-making placed first, where they know whom to go to and whom to communicate with when they need extra support.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the hon. member's comments. It is a bit tangential to the bill tonight, but I noticed that he said that he has no legions to honour our armed forces in his riding.

I want to extend an invitation. I just took a look at my last November 11 schedule. There are eleven in my riding. I was able to attend three of them and had surrogates for the other eight. I would invite my hon. friend to come my way and help me honour our veterans.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. There used to be a legion hall in my riding, not too far from my constituency office. Unfortunately, it closed down many years ago.

For the longest time, although I have the second-largest riding by population size in Canada and the largest riding in Calgary, it did not even have a high school in it. It just so happens that I represent a very large area of many suburbs in Calgary, including old suburbs, places like Erin Woods and Ogden and Dover, as well.

I will come to his riding if he invites me.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have such a lively audience here tonight in the chamber just past 11:30 p.m. It is fantastic to have a lively House of Commons. I really appreciate it.

We are here to talk about strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, Bill C-33. This bill is important to me. The reason is that Saskatchewan, the province where I am from, is completely landlocked. We need our ports. We need railway access. Those are two hugely important fundamentals to the province of Saskatchewan.

Saskatchewan, in 2022, had over $81 billion in gross domestic product for this country. That is a fantastic output and a fantastic number. Saskatchewan does a fantastic job. It definitely punches above its weight, especially for a province that has roughly 1.2 million people. We do a great job. Obviously, agriculture and the energy sector are the main drivers of the economy where I am from.

I want to talk more about the agriculture side. In Saskatchewan, particularly southwest Saskatchewan, where I am from, we grow the vast majority of the pulse crops that the world relies upon, particularly the lentil crop. It is exported all over the world. Whether someone is growing organic crops or otherwise, we grow what the world wants and what the world needs.

The only way we can get those lentils around the world to all the countries that have such a high demand for them and for the protein they provide is through rail. When I look through this bill, I see it is trying to do some things around safety. It is trying to do some very important things around modernizing our ports. It is trying to strengthen our ports.

If we look at where our ports rank across the world, we see that we are right at the bottom. I am sure my colleague from Provencher, with whom I will be splitting my time, will want to touch on that later, so I will be sure to leave a few points for him to get to as well.

Access to ports and access to rail are so important. We have CN, we have CP and we have some really fantastic short-line rail operators. Our short-line operators are actually leading the charge on safety in the railway system. In fact, one of the owners of one of the railway companies reached out to me recently to send me an email regarding some of the statistics that the short-line operators have in Saskatchewan around safety. There are zero incidents, month over month. There are zero incidents.

They are running a high-quality rail line, taking care of their employees, providing great jobs and providing a service to the farmers, the producers and the shippers in Saskatchewan, and they are doing so while respecting the safety of the workers and providing high-quality service. That is what they are doing.

The email I got was from the Great Sandhills Railway. Our Saskatchewan caucus recently met with Great Western Rail, another fantastic short-line operator in our region that does a fantastic job of providing that service to farmers. It does so safely, while providing the fantastic jobs that are required to be able to meet that demand.

I was just messaging one of the exporters in my riding. They export farm equipment around the world. They export to 28 countries across the world. It is a farm implement dealership in a small town in Saskatchewan. It ships to 28 countries. How does it do that? It ships through the ports in Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver and, I believe, Prince Rupert.

Earlier today I heard my colleague from British Columbia talking about what the port of Prince Rupert actually means. It is the closest port to the Asian markets. The ports in Halifax and Montreal are some of the ports in North America that are closest to the European markets. They are very important access points.

One of the issues that they are dealing with in Vancouver is that it takes 12 days to get a container through. Montreal is closer to 10 days, and in Halifax, it takes 14 days to get a container through. Sometimes they are waiting over a month to even get a container. Trying to get access to the things they need to ship their products is not being addressed by this bill.

There is mention in the bill about setting up advisory panels and empowering the minister to set up authorities to deal with a variety of issues. However, the one thing that is not included as one of the issues that they would deal with is the actual production of the ports and making sure that they are getting results for producers and shippers. The bill would not require rail companies to make sure that they are providing the fullest service to shippers.

For example, CN does not do any business with Hapag-Lloyd. When we are sitting in Saskatchewan watching a train go past one of the many intersections that we have, we see Hapag-Lloyd's name on many containers. It is one of the more popular company names that we see going across Saskatchewan when we see sea cans going down the rail lines or on a flatbed truck, but CN does not deal with it.

How is that going to work for exporters in a landlocked province trying to export products? They also have to import pieces so they can build the product they are trying to make and then export. However, one of the biggest players, CN does not even deal with it, and there are other companies CN does not deal with as well. This is severely limiting the options for people trying to export a product, but the bill does not deal with that. These advisory panels that the government is looking to set up would not deal with that. It is not a priority for this government.

When we hear other colleagues talking about the bill needing to be withdrawn and strengthened, and that the government needs to do more, I would suggest that these are some of the things that need to be looked at in the bill. Why is it not a priority for the government to try to make sure that we get the best result for our exporters who do such a fantastic job?

All across this country, we care about the environment, reducing emissions and reducing greenhouse gases. We do that all across this country and across party lines; everybody cares about that. We have innovators in the prairie provinces that make world-class products, and they do so in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. These are products that people in the rest of the world need. If they had the technology, if they had the products that our farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have, they would be able to reduce their emissions as they harvest their crops in other regions of the world. They need what Canada has to offer, and without a robust port system, without a robust rail line, that cannot happen. I see that one of the advisory panels would actually deal with climate change, but do members think that it would bring this element of it up? No, not a chance. This will not be part of what the panel would talk about.

My hope is that the government, if it is going to appoint these advisory panels, will actually talk to the shippers, exporters and manufacturing companies; the people who are trying to get their far superior products out to the world market. The government should talk to them when it is talking about how it is going to achieve some of the things that these boards are going to do. It should make sure that there are actually people in industry, who are involved in taking real and meaningful actions on these boards to make sure that we can actually get things done in a timely manner, to benefit our country and the rest of the world, and do so in a sustainable manner. That is the power that a robust rail line and port system could have in this country, because Canada has what the world needs and wants.

We grow the products, we manufacture the goods and we export them. Some of those things have to get refined and brought back yet again, which is crazy; we could do much of that here in Canada. However, in order to do any of that, regardless of where we are at, we need a robust rail and shipping system, and we do not have that, but we could.

We have had a trans-Canada rail line for over 100 years. It has been around for a very long time. It was a huge marvel to get that project done. However, we still have not reached the full potential that a valuable resource like that could have. We need to utilize it. The bill before us should be strengthening and building that up. It should be focused on lifting the entire country up so that we can use those ports, especially for landlocked provinces. We have not just what the world wants, but we have what our country needs, if we could even just get our goods out to the provinces and out to the edges. We have what is needed.

I hope that the government will take these considerations to look at the bill and make a serious version of it so that we can actually accomplish what needs to be addressed.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me first take a moment to congratulate the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his earlier speech with respect to interoperability and the support that he had from his colleagues with respect to that private member's bill. As someone who spent 20 years of his life looking at copyright law, I think it is a great initiative and a great bill. Interoperability is critically important.

When we took over government in 2015, we had a CETA and a TPP agreement that was dead in the water. At the time, I was parliamentary secretary for trade. We put work into reviving those two agreements, as well as signing a new North American Free Trade Agreement, given the new Trump administration at the time.

Would the member not agree that those trade agreements, as well as the investments we are making in the Port of Vancouver now with this bill, are meant to precisely address the kinds of issues he spoke of, without presuming to know what the best solutions are for improving the rail system and for improving the port system? I think we all agree. We share his concern, and we agree that this is what has to be done. Would the member not agree that the bill would do precisely that by calling on experts to give us the best advice to improve the rail system and the port system as we move forward?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in short, unfortunately the answer is no.

My private member's bill, which deals with interoperability, could actually help deal with some of the issues in the rail line system. It is going to help pave the way to be able to do that, so we have some commonality there.

When it comes to the trade agreements, my colleague from Abbotsford was somebody who negotiated a lot of those and got deals signed. Unfortunately, due to delays, maybe from some of the other countries and whatnot, the Conservatives did not get them fully implemented. Yes, the government finished some of those off, but it made some changes to them that we do not necessarily agree with.

The big point about the Port of Vancouver in particular is that it is the third-worst port in the world. Prince Rupert is the ninth-worst port. These are ports that could have huge potential. They could be in the top 50 ports in the world with no problem. They could be, and they should be. The potential is there for them to be able to do that. I do not see anything in the 108 or 109 pages of this bill that would actually make sure that those ports go from being at the bottom of the pile to the top of the pile.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the ports that are close to our export markets. There are five ports in Canada, namely Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Saint John, Halifax and Montreal, that are licensed to take containers in.

Recently, a number of us in Ontario toured a port in Picton where the owners have applied to be licensed to receive containers because it is closest to the city of Toronto, which is the largest market for our incoming containers. The owners have asked for no federal money. All they need is a licence. They are willing to pay for any CBSA costs required to clear containers, yet they are unable to achieve a licence.

Bringing containers in closer to the city before moving from ship to rail reduces emissions and reduces transportation costs. Would my colleague not agree that this would be a logical, environmentally sound reason to offer a sixth port closest to our biggest market for incoming containers?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is the common-sense approach that we want to see from a piece of legislation like this. As I mentioned in my speech, my hope is that, if the government follows through and sets up some of these advisory committees, it will not just stack them with activists but will actually stack them with people who are working on the ground, who have boots on the ground and are trying to find solutions for a positive change, not only in production but also for the environment and for our sustainability, and who would make sure that we get the best deal for Canadians going forward.

They should also be trying to not only get those sea-cans shipped but also have them available to be used yet again for the next load, trying to get things done and dealt with in a timely manner. One of the problems we have is trying to get access to those cans so we can use them again and get products in. Then we could also send more products back out. What the member has proposed here would be a way to help speed that up and get a better result for Canadians.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member expand a bit more on what impacts the transportation system had on the grain handling in 2013 and 2015 and how that impacted the farmers? That grain did not hit the marketplace in Vancouver until a year and a half later. Could the member comment on what negative impacts that had on farmers and on how this act would not react to that or solve those kinds of problems?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems at the end of the day is that it is always the producer who absorbs the costs. The shipper will pass the costs on to the handler, who passes them on to the producer, the farmer. Farmers are always price-takers; they cannot pass costs on to anybody. However, everybody always passes the buck and passes the dollar on, and it is the farmers and the producers who end up paying for it. When we saw those massive delays, the costs kept piling up, but who ended up paying more? It was the farmers.

The quality of the grain that was being shipped was lessened; this was because of how much longer it took to get it somewhere so that it could be refined, dealt with and turned into the goods we need to consume. However, trying to get things dealt with in a timely manner is not addressed in this bill.

Again, there are many upgrades that need to happen so that we can avoid catastrophes like what happened in 2013 and 2015.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-33 this evening.

My folks always taught me that nothing good happens after midnight, and I want to remind the handful of my colleagues who are still with us and the fewer still who are awake that is it is only 11:50 p.m. and we will be wrapped up by midnight. What better way to spend the waning minutes of our evening together than with another speech on legislation that the Liberal government has brought forward?

This legislation was an opportunity. We have had two reviews: the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review. We had a chance, and we still do, actually, to do something about the issues at our ports. We have critical issues with our supply chains and border security. However, with this legislation, as with many other bills, the Liberal government has missed the point. It does not matter what the problem is; the Liberal government only seems to ever have two solutions. It only has two clubs in its bag. One is to spend more money and the other is to add more government, or a combination of both, actually; there is probably a third option.

Rather than do what is best for Canadians and for businesses, the Liberal government always does what is best for itself. It seems that the best thing for the government is always more government, more power, more control. The bigger government gets, the more pervasive it gets and the hungrier it gets, until it desires to control every aspect of the economy, industry and people, and the very words we say and the very thoughts we think. It is this need to control that has led, at least in part, to the multiple crises we are facing today, including issues with our supply chains, railroads, ports and border security.

Let us go back a couple of years. Governments across the country, including the Liberal government, put in many restrictions during COVID that shut our economy down. They rigged their economies so that wealthy Liberal insiders and big businesses were able to get richer. The big box stores could stay open while mom-and-pop businesses and local businesses across Canada were forced to shut their doors. They borrowed and printed hundreds of billions of dollars and pumped this new money into the economy, creating unnecessary debt and fuelling inflation, which is now resulting in higher interest rates and an affordability crisis.

Through these policies, the government consolidated dependency on government and made government, rather than industry, the central driving force of our economy. Fast-forward to today, and the same disastrous economic policies, policies that the government continues to double down on, have led to crippling inflation, a cost of living crisis for Canadians and higher interest rates, and we are on the verge of a housing crisis.

These same COVID-era policies have crippled our government's ability to execute and provide the most basic functions of government, and the same disastrous policies have pretty much destroyed our supply chains. This is a Canadian problem now, and it is a problem the Liberal government has created through its policies. Government has caused it. It has been perpetuated on us, and it will continue to be that way.

As I said before, the government always seems to have two solutions, more money or more government, or a combination of the two. That brings us to Bill C-33. When I look at this legislation, a few words keep coming up in my mind. First is “government gatekeepers”, and the other words are “more red tape”. The legislation provides a lot of measures to make it easier for government to control things. What it does not do is make things work better, smoother, faster or more cost effectively, while still focusing on safety.

Let us start off by looking at our ports. The legislation adds new layers of red tape and reporting requirements that will make us less efficient and less competitive. There is no great shock here, but smaller ports will be hit harder than the big ones. Whether it is mom-and-pop businesses during COVID or our ports, with the Liberal government, the little guy always gets whacked and loses out. The Liberal government has stacked the deck against the common folk, because it thinks Ottawa politicians and bureaucrats know better than the people on the ground.

New regulations will add to the cost of doing business, which means businesses will have no choice but to pass on those costs to consumers who already cannot afford what they are paying now. Advisory committees and ministerial interference will mean that the ports have less of a say in their day-to-day operations and fewer opportunities to make operational changes that might actually make things more efficient.

The people who know best are usually the people on the front lines. These are the ones who are most impacted by day-to-day operations and often have the best perspective. However, in the minister's plan, those who are tenants of the ports do not even have a seat at the table and have no representation on the advisory committee.

In short, this bill fails to establish that decisions are made in the best interests of our economy and supply chains, choosing instead to keep our ports tangled up in red tape and confusion.

Again there was the potential here, an opportunity for parliamentarians and stakeholders to work together. As for border enforcement, we are all for that. If it is about streamlining, making things run more smoothly and more cost effectively, Conservatives are all over that. If it is about getting cheaper goods, particularly food, to Canadians faster, where is the “yes” button? Instead, we see the government adding more gatekeepers. In the case of our ports and borders, the Liberal government adds more gatekeepers.

The bill is a missed opportunity to provide for the certainty and clarity needed to modernize our ports and supply chains and, by extension, to ensure stability of prices and availability for Canadian consumers.

I would like to shift gears briefly and talk about another aspect of the bill, and that is the provisions for rail safety.

First of all, there is the hypocrisy of the government that went so far as to enact the Emergencies Act on a group of peaceful truckers who just wanted to be able to do their jobs. We can juxtapose that with 2020, when we had groups of individuals blockading our rail lines, setting them on fire and blocking ports, all in violation of a court order, and holding up a construction project that 20 elected first nation councils had approved, a project that should have brought 9,500 jobs, many of them to our indigenous people. Instead the protests cost Canadians 1,500 jobs and the government did nothing, absolutely nothing. The hypocrisy that it would now bring in a redundant new offence for tampering with rail lines is so disingenuous.

This is not an authority problem; it is an enforcement problem. We have measures in the Criminal Code that deal with this exact subject. The police already have authority to lay charges in the case of all these rail blockades. They just needed to be able to do their jobs, but instead their political masters hamstrung them with laws that go after the wrong people, like Bill C-21, for example. The Liberals do not go after the gangs that bring in illegal guns; no, they go after farmers and law-abiding firearms owners.

When it comes to taxes, Liberals do not go after the super-rich who are hiding their money in offshore tax havens; they go after the small business owners and then call them tax cheats. They are always going after the wrong people. Driven by their ideology, they go for what they think is the low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings, like law-abiding citizens, because public perception is more important to them than public safety. This is why any new enforcement measures included in this bill will ultimately fail: It will be because there is a lack of political will to enforce the existing laws.

Whether it is the economy, our ports, supply chains or law enforcement, we do not need to spend more money and we do not need more government; we need government to get out of the way.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk in this House about crime. I know that my constituents have been greatly affected by the illegal exportation of vehicles overseas. This piece of legislation would amend the Customs Act and give more authority for the screening of containers. Right now, it seems like everyone wants a free-for-all, but when we get to question period, they all want us to do more in making sure that people are protected and that their vehicles are not stolen.

There are some good objectives in this piece of legislation and there is a need for government to provide oversight when it comes to dangerous goods and stolen vehicles leaving our country. What would the member have to say about that?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, crime is certainly a problem. From my perspective, the Liberal government has not pursued crime as diligently as it should. Stolen vehicles are a real issue, and we currently have legislation in place that could deal with that. It is a matter of enforcement and empowering our law enforcement and CBSA officers to do the job that they have the ability to do. They just need to be given the direction to do it.

The House resumed from June 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity.

I am proud to rise today to speak to a subject that is important and vital to the safety and security of Canadians, as well as our economy. The bill, as presented today, seeks to achieve multiple goals. It would modernize our ports to ensure a resilient supply chain at home, and it would secure our marine ports to keep Canadians safer. These changes would support Canada's economic recovery while taking an environmentally sustainable approach.

As we have heard from other members, the bill is very ambitious, but let me assure the House that all the goals are feasible and realistic. They come as a result of the ports modernization review that was launched in March 2018 by the then minister of transport. During the course of the review, many stakeholders were consulted, through various venues, such as ministerial round tables. The review focused on how ports could make progress on five key goals.

However, I want to focus on how this bill would enhance safety and security and help prevent contraband from being smuggled through Canadian ports, as well as facilitating the movement of legitimate commercial goods.

Over the course of consultations, we discussed potential safety and security issues at all our ports. As is the case elsewhere, the marine sector is not immune to organized crime activities, and that is why the Government of Canada is heeding this feedback and taking action. We have heard from stakeholders that the government needed to improve customs examination processes and reduce delays in getting Border Services officers to inspect cargo. That is precisely what we are proposing to do.

Stakeholders also highlighted a need for consistent standards for employee security screening at ports. This is precisely why our government is putting forward measures to increase efficiency in the presentation of containers for examination at marine ports to combat criminal smuggling efforts; reduce costs and delay for importers; increase the number of containers that would be secured from tampering on marine terminal property, through improved security measures; and increase the rate of compliance among trade chain partners by implementing additional measures to address non-compliance through penalties.

The changes I have listed would work in concert with the other measures included in this bill. They would allow our border services officers to accomplish their security mandate in a more efficient and effective way. This work would undoubtedly improve supply chain security and the flow of goods in and out of Canada's marine ports.

I know some members are asking themselves this: How would these measures impact the industry financially? These proposed measures are aimed at reducing delays and enhancing security, and they are expected to result in a long-term cost-saving opportunity for the entire trade community. This includes our importers, consumers and, ultimately, the Canadian economy.

I say this because the costs associated with the delays of examining containers and shipments subject to tampering are often passed on to the final consumer. Colleagues, this is a step in the right direction to ensure that all trade chain partners focus on improving security and efficiencies.

These changes may also improve the reputation and economic competitiveness of Canada's ports, because shipping delays and security vulnerabilities continue to have a negative impact. This is why the government expects strong support from the trade community, as the measures are aimed at addressing shipment delays and the associated costs, as well as improving supply chain efficiency. Allowing for more security at our ports and protection for Canadians and the economy should be reasons enough to support the measures.

Let me tell the House what would happen if we did not take these actions. As it stands today, the current legislative and regulatory framework does not provide the CBSA with authority to ensure containers are made available for examination in a timely manner or that adequate security measures are in place to prevent tampering prior to examination. A failure to examine incoming goods in a timely manner leaves commercial goods open to criminal exploitation. This places Canadians at risk, and it causes economic impacts to the trade community and to the wider Canadian economy.

Let me continue by saying these impacts are felt not only at home but also abroad by our international partners. Our issues can become their issues. They can translate into a lack of confidence in Canada's ability to secure its marine ports. That is why the changes proposed in this bill are integral to all parties at our marine ports, including the CBSA in carrying out its mandate for safety and security.

I want to reassure the House, the trade community and all Canadians that the CBSA continues to experience significant success from its ongoing interdiction efforts at our marine ports, despite the need for improvements. Our border officers are highly trained in examination techniques to intercept prohibited goods and illicit drugs being smuggled into Canada. Our officers look for any indication of deception and use intelligence, as well as a risk-management approach, to determine which goods may warrant a closer look. The seizures that are routinely reported by the agency demonstrate the crucial role that CBSA plays in ensuring public safety, but more can be done. That is why the government has put forward this bill to give our officers the tools they need to better complete their mandate.

With more measures in place and a requirement that high-risk containers selected for examination are kept in a dedicated secure area, our officers at the border would be better able to interdict contraband and prevent organized crime from tampering with containers before they have been inspected. The additional penalties and time limits would ensure goods are examined in the right place, which would lead to safer Canadian ports. I believe that anyone can get behind these measures to further secure goods and protect Canadians.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am from the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, and in 2016 the port authority stopped funding its enforcement team. Four hundred thousand dollars was pulled out of enforcement at the port. It is a gap that still remains today.

Could the member please let us know why the federal government is not funding additional enforcement when it knows there has not been enforcement in place for seven years?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that ensuring good public services is integral to everything that our government does. We need to make sure that those public services are properly supported financially. We have thorough budgetary process reviews.

I know the minister of this file and his parliamentary secretary always provide good strategic overview for the issues brought up by the member, and I have full confidence that we will make sure these services are properly funded.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is a typical Liberal bill, which is a lot of fluff and a lot of bureaucracy in the name of safety, but it would bring a lot more costs, bureaucracy and inefficiency to Canadians and the ports. The members of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities say that more government is not the answer, and that is what this bill is. I wonder if the minister would respond to that.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth. We know that we have gone through a very difficult time over the last three or four years with the supply chains and the pandemic. Our ports have suffered because of that.

Bill C-33 would modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate. We would remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, more secure and resilient supply. The bill would expand port authorities' mandate over traffic management. All of those are very positive efforts. This bill will go to committee and be looked at in greater detail, and I look forward to seeing this through.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. What I think is important about Bill C‑33 is that it seeks to improve rail safety in Canada.

I would like to talk about a rail disaster. On July 6, 2013, 47 people were the victims of a rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic. Everyone remembers that.

In 2018, the Prime Minister went to Lac-Mégantic to announce the construction of a rail bypass, which was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2022. Today, nearly 10 years later, we have not even seen a shovel in the ground.

How can this government take the position today that it wants to improve rail safety when it has not even been able to keep its promise to build a rail bypass for the people of Lac-Mégantic? One can only imagine the negative impact that will have on the social environment.

My question for my colleague is simple. When will the shovels finally go in the ground to build the rail bypass for the people of Lac-Mégantic?

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his extremely important question.

What happened in Lac Mégantic a decade ago is a tragedy for Canada. Our government is committed to doing what it takes to make the rail system safer. We are working on this file and I know that the minister is working with the community and the industry to make the necessary improvements to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. We are committed to this issue.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, Canada's ports are indispensable links in our country's supply chains. In co-operation with other modes in the transportation network, they help grow our economy, create middle-class jobs for Canadians, deliver affordable goods and support Canada's growing export industry.

Canada's long-term prosperity is dependant on the competitiveness of this transportation network. This is, in part, determined by the reliability of each mode to move goods swiftly and cost efficiently. The ability to make data-driven decisions and the capability to plan for and make timely investments are critical. To ensure Canada's competitiveness now and into the future, ports require modernized tools and approaches to thrive in an increasingly global environment.

Other countries are pulling ahead of Canada. In the race to establish a fluid and agile transportation network, they have already established end-to-end systems, level approaches that consider each mode and link in the supply chain. All of this is informed by data and information sharing. To remain competitive, our government needs to adopt a comprehensive approach to supply chain planning.

Bill C-33 considers ports as central nodes in a complex, interdependent system and enables them to capitalize on their important position in Canada's intricate supply chain. The tools proposed in this bill would be informed by a cohesive data strategy that would enable prioritization of fluidity, responsiveness and agility.

A well-functioning transportation system requires and relies on the availability of vast amounts of data. Ports are nexuses where transportation modes converge. They present a unique opportunity to leverage untapped data to unlock and build an adaptable, responsive and resilient trade network. Furthermore, a resilient trade network requires continued development and growth to be provided through investment. To ensure that investments continue to serve the public as intended, they must be assessed against clear objectives.

The need to deliver a modern transportation network has never been clearer. Canadians are facing the rising cost of goods and services and product shortages. Inflation continues, and Canadians are struggling to keep up. Taking action to improve the competitiveness of the transportation network is key to making life more affordable for Canadians.

Bill C-33 seeks to enhance efficiency, facilitate data and information sharing, and maintain sustainable investment. These are the keys to ensuring that our transportation network continues to support Canada's economy and improve the life of every Canadian.

To that end, Bill C-33 would enable three competitiveness reforms that would provide ports with the tools and mandate to better manage traffic and ease congestion with the goal of enhancing gateway fluidity; empower port authorities, through the collection of data and information, to support efficient and informed planning to support resilient operations; ensure port investments align with public interests and that investments continue to be managed sustainably.

I will first speak to the need to provide ports with the tools and mandate to better manage traffic.

From end to end, ports and exports touch multiple transportation modes: marine, rail and road. These interdependencies make up Canada's transportation network, which requires a systematic approach to planning, development and traffic management. Bill C-33 would broaden the scope of the Canada Marine Act to mandate port authorities to work with the supply chain stakeholders to actively manage commercial traffic, including vessels anchoring while waiting for cargo, and allow for sequencing of rail services.

Ensuring that ports take a more direct role in traffic management would mean faster handling of ships, improvements to the fluidity of traffic flows at ports and maximizing the efficiency of supply chain operations. Additionally, the bill would enable Canada port authorities to create inland ports. Importantly, this would allow new ways of doing business that optimize terminal throughput, alleviate congestion in our urban centres and position our supply chains on a more resilient footing.

These tools would reframe the basis for collaboration between supply chain actors and Canadian port authorities. Port authorities would be empowered to take a more active role in managing the supply chain, including taking concrete actions to address congestion. However, unlocking the ability of ports to better manage traffic and ease congestion requires enhanced data and information sharing among partners.

The second main reform proposed is in support of greater competitiveness in data collection and information sharing among partners. Bill C-33 would allow ports to leverage data to better orchestrate traffic and inform port planning and smarter decision-making. As we look to best practices, governments and industry partners around the world have already improved efficiency, safety and productivity across entire supply chains by transforming their ports into data hubs. Canada needs to keep pace if we are going to remain a competitive trading nation.

As members of the House know, private investment has been a key to our competitiveness. This is also true for our ports. Private investment in our ports has been essential to the development of the port services we have today, and this will continue to be the case in the future. It is therefore critical that we continue to foster a clear and predictable investment climate while ensuring such activities support port sustainability and the public interest.

Bill C-33 would provide the government with more insight into strategic port investments by broadening the scope of reviewable transactions. Over the past number of years, Canada port authorities have called for greater financial flexibility to enhance their ability to harness investment and respond to development opportunities. Bill C-33 seeks to provide port authorities with increased borrowing and financial flexibility, balanced against the financial risks to the Crown and to Canadians. To that end, Bill C-33 would establish a triennial review of Canada port authorities' borrowing capacity.

In summary, the suite of measures found in Bill C-33 would provide the tools needed to optimize port operations, enabled by modern digital solutions, and maximize investment and capacity development grounded in clear rules that maintain ports as attractive and sustainable assets. Taken together, these measures would ensure that our ports remain resilient, efficient and competitive.

Canadians have witnessed first-hand the need for such reforms. I hope I can count on my fellow members of Parliament to support this bill.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are waxing eloquent with this bill, but this would just make things worse. CP Rail says that, after four years, this is a whole bunch of nothing.

I recently toured both the Port of Nanaimo and the Port Alberni port. What they need is not more bureaucracy, more things to stifle movement. They need help with the Canada Border Services Agency, to get some representation there so we can reduce the clog in traffic and the bulk of the ships within the Gulf Islands and the area around Vancouver.

Will the Liberal member not recognize that this is not what industry is asking for and is not leading to efficiencies?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I too have visited these ports, many of them, in western Canada and eastern Canada. During a recent study tour, our transportation committee visited major ports in Montreal, Halifax and others on the east coast, while some of our members went to the west coast. We have seen first-hand the congestion that has materialized in some of the ports. What we are saying is that these are recommendations in this bill from so-called experts in the industry about how we can approach or improve congestion and port efficiency, and improve our supply chain.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to understand what we are doing here this morning. I am sincerely interested in having the government's agenda explained to me because I am having a hard time following.

There is currently a global climate crisis and this summer there were forest fires everywhere. There is a housing crisis and 3.5 million housing units need to be built. There are homeless seniors in Quebec. There is also an acute inflation crisis. I was just talking about the climate crisis. Canada had its knuckles rapped at the UN just last evening.

This morning, they show up with a sort of omnibus bill with safety measures for the railway system and half measures for the ports. I am trying to understand where the government is going with this. I would like my colleague to give me an indication.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, the issues I raised in my speech about Bill C-33 are all related to supply chain needs. They are related to the connection with rail, marine and air services, which all interconnect to help improve our supply chain. As we know, for the past three or four years, we have had major challenges, particularly during the pandemic, when Canadians could never get services on time or get products they needed. This is all about improving efficiency over the entire transportation network.

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

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed my time on the transport committee with the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, and my question has to do with that committee's work.

This bill is not only about ports but also about rail safety, with amendments to the Railway Safety Act. The member will be well aware of our work at committee on the topic of rail safety. Last May, the committee released a report with 33 recommendations to protect workers and communities from rail disasters. The bill in front of us, which claims to be partly about railway safety, has ignored all 33 of those recommendations.

As he is a member of that committee and someone who contributed to that work, how did it feel for the member's own minister to ignore the committee's recommendations so thoroughly?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, I too enjoyed my time on the transport committee with my colleague, and the rail safety issue certainly has been an important part of our discussions, as has much discussion around the entire supply chain. This bill is attempting to cover all of these concerns and make sure we have a safe, affordable and competitive supply chain.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I continue to hear the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge refer to this as a fluff bill, and I take offence to that, although I am very glad to see that Conservatives are up and speaking today. We know they have been silenced by their leader twice this week already.

I am wondering whether my colleague can comment on why this bill is so important now and why putting it on the table and seeing the legislation pass is critical for the industry.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is important because, in my half a dozen years on the transport committee with members of the government and the opposition, we have heard from many of the people who work in the industry on a daily basis. People do not understand the challenges some of our ports are facing and what needs to be done to create a comprehensive plan that delivers products and goods to Canadians on time, efficiently and affordably.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley in beautiful northwest B.C. and speak to the bill before us, Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

This is a fairly complex and technical bill, but really it focuses on Canada's supply chain. Canada is a trading nation, and the performance, resilience, efficiency and sustainability of our supply chain obviously have far-reaching impacts. This is something that was driven home just this past year with the atmospheric river events in British Columbia, the extreme climate occurrence that took out a good portion of the supply chain infrastructure in my province and caused some real concern and disturbance for the supplies that companies and citizens across our country require. There is also of course the impact of the pandemic on the supply chain. We saw during the pandemic a whole host of concerns, unfortunately very few of which are addressed in this bill. However, I do note there are some incremental improvements we can get behind.

I hope to focus my comments on the concerns I have heard from communities, from people in British Columbia and other parts of Canada who are impacted by the operation of the supply chain. The supply chain does not exist in a vacuum. It runs through places where people live. For years and years, people have been expressing concerns about the impact of the transportation of goods on their lives. I was somewhat dismayed to see that those concerns from citizens and the concerns from workers in the supply chain are not reflected in a more substantive way in the legislation before us.

The response to this bill has been rather tepid. As much as anything, the response has been that it is a missed opportunity to do something much more far-reaching and ambitious. However, as I mentioned, there are items in this bill that are supportable, so we look forward to seeing it get to committee where we can work with all parties to make amendments that strengthen its provisions.

I am going to focus my remarks on the portion of the bill that relates to changes to the Marine Act, that is, the operation of our ports, and changes to the Railway Safety Act, which is something very pertinent to the region I represent.

I will start with the topic of rail safety. I want to note at the outset that this year marks the 10-year anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy that took 47 lives and destroyed the downtown of a beautiful community. I came across comments from a fellow named Ian Naish, the former director of rail accident investigations with the Transportation Safety Board. He said in February that safety measures introduced since the Lac-Mégantic disaster have been “marginal”.

We also saw in East Palestine, Ohio, a major rail disaster that impacted thousands of people. In the wake of that disaster, Kathy Fox, the chair of Canada's Transportation Safety Board said, in referring to rail safety in Canada, “Progress is being made, but it's very, very slow. I can't say [Ohio] couldn't happen here.” These remarks should be of great concern to Canadians, because we see the volume of dangerous goods shipped by rail increasing every year.

I mentioned in my question to my colleague across the way a moment ago the work of the transport committee, on which both he and I sit. That committee, in May, released a report with 33 recommendations, and I am somewhat disappointed to see that this bill does not address any of them. One of our big concerns when it comes to rail safety is the use of something called safety management systems. This was brought in, I believe in the 1990s, under a Liberal government. Prior to that, there was a much more conventional approach to the regulation of the rail sector and the use of enforcement to do so. Safety management systems are really a form of self-regulation by the companies themselves.

This has been a concern for a number of watchdogs that keep track of changes in the rail sector. Since the Transportation Safety Board has kept a watch-list, this is a set of issues that are of concern and that Canadians should be watching when it comes to safety.

The Transportation Safety Board states, “operators that have implemented a formal safety management system (SMS) are not always able to demonstrate that it is working and producing the expected safety improvements.” I will also note some words from the Auditor General of Canada:

...Transport Canada was unable to show whether departmental oversight activities have contributed to improved rail safety. In addition, the department did not assess the effectiveness of the railways’ safety management systems—despite the many reports over the last 14 years recommending that Transport Canada audit and assess these systems.

The picture I am trying to paint is one in which the government has largely allowed these multi-billion dollar rail companies to look after their own safety, and the oversight of them has been sorely lacking. Particularly on the anniversary of the worst rail disaster in 150 years, Canadians should be concerned about that.

Bill C-33 does contain one small change giving the minister the ability to require companies to address deficiencies in their safety management systems. However, this is a discretionary power given to the minister and really relies on his or her willingness to use that power. At the very least, safety management systems should be made public. Currently, they are proprietary systems owned by companies and not open to public scrutiny.

Bruce Campbell, a rail safety expert who wrote a book on Lac-Mégantic and who has been looking into these issues for years, says, “Transport Canada must ensure that [safety management systems] are part and parcel of an effective, adequately financed, comprehensive system of regulatory oversight: [one-site] inspection, surveillance and enforcement supported by sufficient, appropriately trained staff.” He goes on to say that SMS, currently protected under commercial confidentiality, should be accessible to outside scrutiny. We would very much like to see the government make safety management systems public so that the public can see what railway companies are doing to ensure the safety of their communities.

It is incredible that small rural communities, like many in the riding I represent, are responsible for protecting their residents from potential disasters involving these multi-billion dollar rail companies that are shipping dangerous goods within metres of residents' houses. Many of these communities rely on small volunteer fire departments. They have limited equipment and capacity, yet we see hundreds of railcars with extremely volatile compounds being shipped right through communities every single day. It boggles the mind that the responsibility for responding to emergencies rests—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Could the hon. member for Saskatoon—University take the call outside the chamber, please?

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

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

Madam Speaker, as I was saying, we need companies to be responsible for protecting communities from their commercial activities. I think that is very reasonable.

Moving on to the portion of the bill that deals with ports, these are some of the more substantive changes being proposed by the government. I will start by noting the importance of the Marine Act and ports to northwest British Columbia.

Of course, the riding I represent is home to the port of Prince Rupert. It is one of North America's fastest-growing ports. It is currently the third-largest port in Canada, and it is a port that has really transformed the face of that community over more than a decade. With incredible growth and expansion, it is now by far the largest employer in the community and has been bringing a lot of benefits to that place, and some concerns as well.

In 2022, the port of Prince Rupert moved 24.6 million tonnes of cargo through its facility, which is a pretty astonishing volume of goods. Of course, this has benefits and impacts up and down the supply chain. The community I live in, Smithers, which has long been a railway town, has hundreds of railroad workers who work for CN and are involved in the transportation of goods from the port.

Last year the port of Prince Rupert completed some exciting projects. There is the Fairview-Ridley connector road shore power project, which I will talk about in a moment, and work is under way on the South Kaien import logistics park. They are assessing the feasibility of a second container terminal, which reflects their really ambitious plans for growth.

The changes to the Marine Act we are looking at in the bill before us really reflect an attempt by the government to solidify the role of port authorities as public institutions and as publicly accountable entities. I think that is a worthwhile project, but we need to ensure that it is done effectively so that the changes actually result in more accountability, transparency and value to the Canadian public.

The changes to the Marine Act would include enabling port authorities to act as intermodal hubs and establish inland ports, and would establish a regulatory authority for traffic management and a streamlined review of port authorities' borrowing, although I would note the bill stops far short of doing what the port authorities are asking when it comes to their borrowing authority. The bill would require ports to provide more information on their activities and their decision-making to government; expand the eligibility of port authority boards and amend their membership; require them to submit publicly available strategic plans; require periodic reviews of port governance; and require them to establish advisory bodies for indigenous communities, local stakeholders and local governments. Finally, the changes to the Marine Act would establish a regulatory authority to require port authorities to set five-year climate plans and targets. I think that is important, and I will speak to it.

There is a difference between real accountability and window dressing, and I think the port association, which has expressed concerns about the added burden of these regulations, is right to be concerned if they do not effectively increase accountability and transparency. When we look at the advisory committees, for instance, I think there are many examples throughout our country of advisory committees that do not actually perform a substantive role, that are there as a sort of PR project and do not improve governance or adequately reflect the concerns of the community or the stakeholders who are being consulted. As such, for these changes to really have the effect the government is hoping they will, we believe there needs to be some degree of independence and there should be clear linkages to port authority decision-making.

A number of advisory committees are being called for in the legislation. The government is talking about requiring port authorities to set up three advisory committees. I was remiss in not mentioning the port of Stewart, a much smaller port in northwest B.C. but an important one nonetheless. For port authorities in smaller communities, the requirement to establish three different advisory committees might be more than is required. We need to look at how we can amend that to ensure that we are properly reflecting the need for additional consultation and the capacity of the community to provide that consultation.

Let us move on to the requirement for port authorities to set climate plans. I believe this is important. The activities of ports make a small but real contribution to Canada's overall emissions. There are great opportunities at ports to reduce emissions and drive down climate pollution. This requires the establishment of five-year climate plans. There is very little detail in the legislation as to what those plans would include. Our view is that, at the very least, five-year climate plans should align with the other climate accountability legislation the government has passed, legislation that we have worked hard to strengthen. It should also be consistent with Canada's national ambitions around reducing greenhouse gases and our international commitments.

As I mentioned, there are huge opportunities at ports to reduce the climate's impact and drive down emissions, and we are seeing some of those opportunities already realized in British Columbia. Shore power, in particular, is a mature, commercially viable technology that is used extensively throughout the world. Last year in Prince Rupert, the port authority embarked on a shore power project. Shore power essentially allows vessels to plug into electricity and not rely on their diesel auxiliary engines when they are tied up in the port being loaded or unloaded. This not only reduces particulate matter in the local community and improves air quality, but it reduces greenhouse gas emissions significantly.

That project is going to make a huge difference. I believe the shore power project in Prince Rupert will reduce emissions by over 30,000 tonnes per year, which is incredibly significant. There is also a shore power project in Victoria at the cruise ship terminal there, which will see very similar benefits.

There is a need to decarbonize shoreside operations as well, including the container handling equipment. This is the equipment at the container terminal, which currently relies on diesel. That is a huge opportunity, not only to make the port's operation more efficient, but to drive down climate emissions. We also need to make parameters around climate planning more robust if this legislation is truly going to drive change. As I said, we need to align it with national ambitions and international obligations.

I will turn back to some of the pieces around accountability and representation when it comes to port governance. One thing we need to recognize, and I am not sure if it is adequately recognized in this legislation, is the central role workers play in the operation of the supply chain, both rail workers and port workers. One of the things I have heard loud and clear from port workers, particularly in British Columbia, is that there is a need for their perspectives to be incorporated into port decision-making.

Currently, on boards of directors of port authorities, there is space dedicated for local governments and for representatives from the prairie provinces. However, there is no seat on port boards of directors for the workers who allow our ports to function. These workers have specific knowledge, expertise and experience that would be of great benefit to the port authorities.

We have submitted that there should be a seat at the table for working people, for the employees of those port facilities. We believe that by working at committee, we can amend this legislation to ensure that workers have a voice in the conversation and a place in the governance of our port authorities.

A final area of concern for residents is marine traffic and anchorages. It has been raised specifically by residents of the south coast of British Columbia in the vicinity of the southern Gulf Islands.

During the pandemic, we saw incredible congestion at the Port of Vancouver. We saw many cargo and container ships backed up and anchored in various locations throughout the Salish Sea and the surrounding waters, which caused real impacts on residents who live in these small communities.

The residents are very concerned about the use of ecologically sensitive coastal areas as essentially parking lots for these large ships. They are worried about the impact on marine mammals, particularly whales, like the endangered southern resident killer whales. They are worried about the impact of anchor dragging, the risk of collisions with whales, noise pollution, air pollution and light pollution. All these things affect people's lives in a very real way.

It is disappointing to see that, despite the media coverage of their concerns, despite writing the minister repeatedly and making the minister aware of these concerns and impacts, the bill before us would do very little, if anything, to address those concerns.

We will be working very hard to ensure that the concerns of those residents are reflected in meaningful amendments. We are talking about areas that Parks Canada has proposed as national park reserves. These are very special, nationally significant marine areas. We are going to ensure those are protected from the impact of shipping traffic, and I look forward to that.

Bill C-33, as others have said, is not as ambitious as it could be, but we look forward to working, through the committee process, with all parties to strengthen it and see if we can get it to the point where it is supportable.

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

Madam Speaker, one issue I want to pick up on is that there are some environmental concerns, there is no doubt about that, but there is also the economics of ensuring that our ports are efficient and effective. The legislation does some modernization of sorts, which will help facilitate a better system.

Canada is very much dependent on our ports. Could the member comment on the economics of this and why it is so important that we deal with this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I see the legislation as representing two opportunities. One is an opportunity to make the supply chain more resilient, more efficient and more competitive. The other opportunity is to ensure that the impacts of the supply chain on people in communities are managed properly and mitigated wherever possible.

On the former point, the bill would move things ahead through things like data sharing, changes to port security and the scrutiny of cargo coming in, trying to reduce bottlenecks, giving the minister more discretionary powers to unstick things when there is congestion in the supply chain and giving port authorities more tools to realize opportunities. All that is relatively positive, and we can get behind them.

However, the real missed opportunity is on the latter point, which is dealing with the long-known impacts of rail traffic and shipping traffic on communities. This is where I believe the member's government has not gone far enough, and we hope that future legislation and amendments will take care of that.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was a lot of anticipation with the bill from a many stakeholders in the community. I agree with my colleague from the New Democratic Party that there was a missed opportunity on many fronts.

The Chamber of Shipping said that this legislation missed out on addressing the root causes of supply chain congestion and that the additional powers only addressed symptoms of congestion and could aggravate managing cargo efficiently. Could he comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, the central tension here is between a supply chain that is largely dominated by private players, by companies that move goods through our country, and the fact that ports, and many other aspects of the supply chain, fall under federal jurisdiction and are the responsibility of the federal government accountable to the people. Where is that balance between ensuring the public interests and allowing the private interests the flexibility to complete in a global market. In many ways, the bill would require increased accountability from companies in the supply chain and from port authorities.

What we saw during the pandemic was some very serious disturbances, and a lot of the accountability for that falls to the government. Allowing more public tools to address challenges in the supply is warranted to some degree as long as it is done in a way that is responsible.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my NDP colleague on his speech, which was nicely balanced.

I have to say that we have had plenty of opportunities to discuss the benefits and shortcomings of Bill C‑33. We also had the opportunity to visit various ports in Canada last spring, if I am not mistaken, and my colleague took part in that visit.

He clearly laid out what he would have liked to see in the bill. I agree with most of the points he raised. However, I would like to add a few more.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that Bill C‑33 is actually going to change the rules of the game and make a big difference. Is this really what the port representatives were asking for during our tour last year? Is this really what will help solve the problems facing our communities, towns and villages?

Personally, I am not convinced, but perhaps he could talk more about that. Does he think this bill is the gold standard, the greatest bill we have ever seen?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The member's question is whether the bill would be a game-changer, and it is very clear from the debate so far that it would not. It is clear from the feedback from stakeholders that it is not, whether the stakeholders be port authorities, shipping companies or residents of communities impacted by the supply chain. I have not heard anyone express excitement about the potential that the bill holds.

There are some incremental improvements in the bill around data sharing, efficiencies and providing flexibility in some cases. There are a few areas in which there is improved accountability.

Largely, and reflecting on the tour that he and I were on, listening to the needs of Canada's supply chain, this is a missed opportunity to do something truly bold and ambitious, and that delivers for Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the speech of my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, was terrific, profound and deep. He is an extremely effective advocate for the people of northwest British Columbia. He has been an outspoken advocate for transportation safety and affordability, and also ensuring that jobs in ports, for example Prince Rupert Port Authority, go to local communities. He has been extraordinarily good at all those things.

The member mentioned the issue of safety management systems, which we termed, when the NDP fought against this initiative, as “self-serve safety”. This was an initiative of the Harper regime and one of the many examples of that regime ripping apart the protective net for Canadians, eliminating inspections that should be the responsibility of the federal government and handing them over to corporate CEOs.

We have seen the tragic results, the dozens of deaths. Some of the worst rail accidents in Canadian history have happened since the Harper regime ripped apart that protection of regular inspections from federal authorities. Tragically, the Liberal government has done nothing to put those safety systems and inspections, which are so important for public safety, back into place.

What do we need to do to restore that confidence in rail safety and ensure that the federal government provides the effective oversight so our rail systems are safe?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby is right. The actions of the Harper government to essentially move to this form of self-regulation caused some real challenges. It probably has contributed in a big way to many of the railway accidents and disasters that we have seen across the country.

We need to ensure that the federal regulator has the tools required to provide oversight for these multi-billion dollar corporations that are operating our railways. There is a heap of evidence that they do not currently. They are relying on a form of self-regulation, and they do not have the capacity, the boots on the ground. They do not have the regulatory framework to properly enforce safety rules and protect communities and workers. We need to do that.

Safety management systems are fine as a complementary measure, but right now they are doing the entire job and they are not doing it well. We need tough rules, with proper enforcement and proper inspections. In many ways, we need to get back to basics where the federal government actually provides oversight and works on behalf of citizens instead of corporations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have heard both the Minister of Northern Affairs and other Liberal members of Parliament speak to this bill. Unfortunately, what I have not heard from them is the impacts of climate change on the opening of the Northwest Passage and how that could deeply impact the opening of communities in my region in the Arctic.

I am saddened to see that the bill does not have more about ensuring that the Arctic would also be covered in the efforts toward the supply chain for efficiency, resilience, security and safety. I wonder if the member agrees that we need to ensure that there is better investment so that the Arctic could be covered in this aspect as well.

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

Madam Speaker, absolutely, and the impact of climate change on the north and on the Arctic presents some real concerns, particularly for communities in that region. If the supply chain and shipping is going to increase its activity in that area, we need to ensure that there are very strong regulations that protect the people of that place in a meaningful way.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑33. If the people listening do not know what it is and have not heard of it, that is not unusual.

It is not a very exciting bill. Let us just say that it is far, very far, from revolutionary. To pique interest in the bill, a very original title was found: an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Understandably, it is a large bill.

When I read it, I feel like every law in the country will be amended. When we look more closely at the bill, we soon realize that is not the case. All that to say, above all, we have no idea what this bill does. When we read its title, we have no idea what it is for. As I said, a lot of creative effort was put into a title that would say what the bill does and its purpose.

One might wonder why the Customs Act included in the bill. Will it affect the issues surrounding Roxham Road, illegal border crossings, illegal weapons crossing at the border? As we know, Roxham Road is now closed. It may no longer be a problem. However, it still was when the bill was introduced.

With respect to the Railway Safety Act, will the self-regulation of railway companies finally be ended, a kind of situation where they do pretty much whatever they want, greatly weakening industry oversight? Will this part of the bill really bring railway companies into line? No, they will not be brought into line. There is absolutely nothing to prevent CN or CP from sleeping at night, I guarantee. I do not think it will change much in their lives.

Regarding the Canada Marine Act, there are a few changes. We can start to see some substance. I say some, but not too much.

The fact that nobody is talking about it just goes to show that the bill will not change much in the lives of ordinary Canadians. Usually, when the government tables a bill, it is a big deal. Everyone is waiting for it. People are on the edge of their seats. We wonder what provisions it will include. Sometimes, the government leaks little bits to journalists to stir up interest in the bill. Then there are articles that come out. When the bill is tabled, there is a big press conference. There are media tours. Sometimes, there are regional tours in cities affected by the bill. There is a lot of noise around a bill. Normally, a bill is something important. After all, we are changing the laws of a country.

However, for Bill C‑33, there has been nothing. No one has talked about it. We hardly knew it even existed until we debated it today in the House.

I did a lot of research and I ended up finding something on the web that talks about the bill. It went almost unnoticed. The article is entitled, “a bill to strengthen collaboration between Quebec ports”. With such a title, I thought there might be something to enable Quebec ports to work better together. Moreover, this is one of the requests of Quebec ports, to be able, for example, to issue joint calls for tenders. I read the bill and saw that there is absolutely nothing in this document that will allow Quebec ports to work together more.

It seems that the former minister told the journalist some tall tales. The article states that close collaboration will lead to strategic investments that will improve facility services and performance while also strengthening the supply chain.

That reads like gibberish. Essentially, this is not about collaboration between ports but collaboration between the ports and the Department of Transport. In the end, that is the reality. Perhaps the journalist would have liked the bill to address the topic because the ports asked for it, but the minister was not clear in his response and that led to this article.

The article also talks about the supply chain. What would be interesting to know is what in Bill C-33 will truly help the supply chain. However, if we read the bill carefully, we can see that there is not much there that affects the supply chain. There is virtually nothing, unless the minister wants to personally start managing—or micromanaging—the ports one by one.

The fact is that, when Bill C-33 was introduced, there was a supply crisis virtually everywhere. There were problems with the supply chain, so Bill C-33 was announced. They said that the bill would improve the supply chain, but there is nothing in it for the supply chain. It is simply a way of spinning things to make people believe the bill is actually useful.

They wanted to make the bill ultramodern and topical, but that did not happen. To prove my point, I searched the text of the bill to see if it contained the words “collaboration” and “Quebec”, since there was talk of better collaboration between ports in Quebec. I will be honest, the word “collaboration” appears twice in the bill. However, those instances are in provisions that refer to railway safety. In fact, “collaboration” and “Quebec” appear nowhere together.

I also searched for the word “Quebec”. That word also appears twice in the bill, but, in both cases, it is to address minor matters concerning the management of leases by port authorities. This has nothing to do with collaboration between ports. To get back to the article, we will need to talk to the journalists. Indeed, the minister will need to explain how he came to tell us that. However, the minister will not be able to explain it because he is no longer there. There was a change of ministers.

Clearly the minister wanted to lead us down the garden path, because there is absolutely nothing in the bill to allow for collaboration between Quebec ports. It would have been a good opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, it is a missed opportunity.

The ports also asked to be allowed to issue joint calls for tenders and have more flexibility in raising funds. These are great ideas, but disappointingly, they are not in the bill. Ministers do not typically table bills every day. When a minister does get to table a bill, it is a unique opportunity for them to make their mark on history, usher in change and be remembered as someone who accomplished important things on behalf of a great country, Canada. I wish I could say on behalf of Quebec, but we are in the Parliament of Canada, after all.

Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity because no one will remember Bill C‑33. The minister will not go down in history; he is no longer in office. There is now a new minister who has to champion this bill, but I have not heard him say much about it publicly.

This bill lacks vision. It looks like the government is asleep at the wheel. The bill appears to have been drafted by a bunch of bureaucrats in the minister's office who brainstormed ways to better manage Canada's transportation system. They put it all in there—bits about ports, bits about customs and bits about rail transportation—but the end result lacks cohesiveness, vision and ambition. All it is is a bunch of little measures they threw together and called a bill, and then the minister introduced it in the House. It is utterly lacking in policy direction or vision.

We just started a new parliamentary session, and this is the bill that the government has decided to prioritize. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a climate crisis, an inflation crisis, but they decide to take a bunch of random little measures and put them before Parliament, saying that this is the priority for the fall. There is something here I do not understand. Perhaps the government will have a chance to explain later, but I, for one, do not really see where it is going with this.

It is quite apparent that the government is lacking ambition and ideas, both in its legislative agenda and in this infamous bill, which really does not contain much of anything.

There are a few things in there, to be fair. For example, there is a provision that prohibits “interference with railway work...in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations”.

We asked what "threatens the safety” means in concrete terms. Does it mean that people can no longer demonstrate on the tracks? Can workers no longer go on strike? We do not know. We need clarification on what “threatens the safety” means. How is that put into practice? We are looking forward to finding out.

The bill also provides that the minister can order a rail company to take corrective measures in relation to a safety management system. That is not a bad thing. If a problem is not resolved after many warnings, it will allow the minister to order that the problem be resolved. The minister could now have that power.

The minister can issue or cancel security certificates, for example. Anyone transporting dangerous goods will be required to register. That is not a bad thing. Previously, anyone could transport goods without being registered. It is about time that became mandatory.

In an emergency, the minister may direct a person to cease an activity or conduct other activities relating to public safety. That is not a bad thing.

The minister will be authorized to make interim orders and give emergency directions. This could apply to boats, for example, and could be used to prevent a ship from entering a port and keep it at sea. That is another power being given to the minister, but it does not mean the minister is allowed to manage the supply chain. The minister will certainly not spend their days determining which boat can or cannot enter a port and which one gets priority. That is not how it will work. However, in the event of a major crisis, we can see how it might be useful for the minister to have this power in their toolbox.

There is also mention of authorizing logistics activities in ports but it is a poorly kept secret that there are already logistics activities at the ports. It is now written in black and white; it will be done.

The bill mentions releasing quarterly financial statements for ports, which will allow for greater accountability. There is a provision requiring port authorities to establish advisory committees for indigenous peoples, municipalities and communities. Some will call it “meeting mania”, but I would not say that. I think ports need to be accountable to the public, conduct consultations and listen. Sometimes we may have to impose the things that are missing. There has been a lot of unhappiness in the past with the federal government, which does what it wants and sometimes tells others to put up and shut up. We need to make some effort to listen to what people are saying. That is not a bad thing.

There is a requirement for a climate change adaptation plan. No one will object to that. However, is the plan binding and are there quantifiable targets? No, there are no directions, just an obligation to present a plan. However, we are in a climate crisis, whether we like it or not. Parliament has passed net-zero legislation. I find it unfortunate that there is no consistency between this bill, meaning the desire to achieve net-zero by 2050, and port security requirements. This is clearly a flaw.

The Bloc Québécois, and surely members from the other parties, will want ports to assist in the effort like everyone else. Having a plan is not enough in 2023. This is not 2000; it is 20 years later and it is time to go further.

The minister will also have the power to appoint chairs of boards of directors. This raises a red flag. I will talk about that a bit later. Basically, we can see that, from the top of his ivory tower in Ottawa, the minister will be able to micromanage ports. In an emergency, that can be good, but we hope he does not abuse it. The reality is that ports are managed by port authorities. I do not particularly want to see the minister travel to each and every port to micromanage it.

We can also see that, from his ivory tower, the minister can decide who will be the board chair at the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Trois-Rivières and the Port of Saguenay. That bothers me a bit because, often, the Liberals do not necessarily choose chairs for their accomplishments, their field expertise, their achievements in operations management or their great vision for the future.

For me, and I do not know about the others, putting the words “Liberal” and “appointment” together raises all sorts of red flags. In general, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I have the impression that the Liberals are not necessarily looking for someone who is competent. Instead, they choose someone on the basis of their political loyalty to the Liberal Party, to the minister or to the Canadian government. Unfortunately, if this ever happens, nothing can be done to stop it. That is not what we want. We want someone who is chosen for their skills, because they are the best person for the job, not because they are a friend of the Liberal Party. This is a big problem for us.

Their priority was to introduce a dull, unambitious bill that puts everyone to sleep. Usually, we are at the edges of our seats when the government introduces a bill. However, as trivial as the bill is, the government still found a way to put a partisan touch on it to assume a bit more power.

These are not crisis management powers, but powers to appoint Liberal friends to important positions where they will have a little more control over what is happening in our regions. As we know, ports are the gateway for goods that move across the country.

For me, this is important, even critical. For example, more than half of Quebec’s GDP goes through ports. That is huge. With this bill, the government will not fill these positions with management experts who are accomplished managers. No, they will appoint friends of the Liberal Party so that they are indebted to the minister and will do what he tells them to do. This has the potential for political interference, which I find serious. The government can already appoint staff. It can already appoint people to port boards. It already has its eye on what is going on. It can already develop directives, programs or bills. It can already convene them. No, it wants to decide how things are going to happen and even decide to appoint friends to these positions.

For me, this is a big problem. I hope that, in committee, we will ensure that this part of the bill is removed because, in my view, it does not work. The Liberals had this idea of appointing their friends here, there and everywhere. They have not yet done so, but if we look at appointments, we can see that there are already quite a few Liberal friends on the boards of directors. However, they did not give any thought to the idea of appointing, for example, the people who work in the ports to the boards of directors. There are thousands of workers at these ports and they may have things to say to the boards. That could have been interesting, and we would like to make an amendment to the bill to ensure that workers can be heard when decisions are made at ports. These are the major points that I wanted to talk about today.

Often, the government will introduce a boring, anodyne bill, thinking no one will take any notice. However, we did notice one thing, which is that the Liberals have decided to give themselves the power to appoint their friends to key positions, such as presidents of ports. Hell is often paved with good intentions, but when the wrong tools are put into the hands of the wrong people, that leads to bad results. This power, or at least these tools, should not be given to the Liberals. We know what they are like. If they are asked not to touch the candy dish in front of them, but there is no lid and no one is watching, we know what will happen. It is easy to guess. We all remember the sponsorship scandal; we all know what the Liberals are like. They are partisan to the bone, unfortunately. That is a tendency we must fight against and guard against.

Despite the many flaws in Bill C-33, we nonetheless plan to support it because we think it can be improved. We think that what the government is presenting can be improved, which will not be difficult because there is not much to this bill. There is definitely room for improvement. It can be improved and made more palatable, more acceptable.

True, there are some improvements in the bill. I would be lying if I said there were none at all. That said, as long as we are spending time on this bill, we might as well try to make it useful and even better than what the government introduced.

The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to work with the Liberals, provided they decide to work with the opposition instead of trying to shove a bill down our throats without listening to what anyone else has to say. In the past, I have had some very constructive discussions with the previous minister. I have also had discussions with the current minister. I hope he will be as open-minded as his predecessor. He previously told us that he was willing to incorporate several of our proposals into the bill.

In the coming months, during the committee study, we will see whether or not that open-mindedness is genuine. That could obviously have an impact on our final vote after the committee study, when the bill is sent back to the House. If there is no collaboration on the one side, why would there be any on the other? We are here to work for Quebeckers, not for Canada. There must be something for Quebec in the bill. Quebeckers must benefit in some way, and that is what we are going to ensure. The government can count on us to keep working hard to achieve that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. I too have concerns about granting new powers to Ottawa, especially regarding rail, but also regarding ports, since that could cause problems.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether, during the committee study, he will be pointing out to the government that there are no measures in Bill C-33 to stop stolen vehicles from being shipped out of Canada. I for one could not find do not see any. One of my constituents told me that he had a tracking chip in his vehicle and that he knew that his vehicle had gone beyond the gate at the Port of Montreal. He saw his vehicle being loaded onto the ship, and he watched it sail away. He was able to track his vehicle as sailed off, and he alerted the police, but the ship was already beyond the jurisdiction of the Sûreté du Québec.

There may have been 35 or 40 stolen vehicles aboard that ship. Vehicle thefts are driving up insurance rates in Canada, and that affects all Canadians. Are there any measures in Bill C‑33 that could reduce exports of stolen vehicles from Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The short answer is no, there is nothing about that in the bill. However, it is interesting that my colleague brought this up, because our colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is our public safety critic, came over to see me earlier and told me that this is a big problem.

Bill C-33 amends the Customs Act. It deals with port management. We know that, at this time, lots of stolen vehicles are leaving the country through our ports. I asked my colleague if she had seen anything in the bill that could help with that problem. The answer was no. It is sad, but I suppose that this was not one of the Liberals' ambitions. They already have so few, and this was not one of them.

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

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the Bloc will be supporting the bill to go to committee, and a final vote will determine the terms of amendments. The member has made reference to the fact that he has had some relatively positive discussions with respect to the former minister and is waiting to see what happens with the new minister. I suspect he will find a high sense of co-operation with respect to passing it. I disagree with him. I think there is a lot of modernization within the legislation that will be to the betterment of Canadians.

The question I have for the member is this. Based on the last question, he mentioned that he has a number of changes. He was just posed a question about automobile thefts on ships. Do any of his amendments deal with the suggestion that member has brought forward?

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

Madam Speaker, we may have amendments to that effect, of course. However, we will have to see if Bill C-33 allows for that. When an amendment is introduced, it has to relate to the text, and there is not much text regarding the Customs Act in the current bill.

We will certainly try to find a way. If we do find one, I hope that we can count on the members opposite to support us. It will take majority support to get that passed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see the terrible impacts of deregulation in Calgary right now, with 348 cases of E. coli and children in ICU and on dialysis, because the Conservatives do not believe in the basic protection of health.

The same week that Danielle Smith should have been there for the families in Calgary, she was getting her photo taken with the Saudi princes because they, like Danielle Smith, believe in burning the planet as quickly as possible.

I raise that in the context of this because the Conservatives told us that deregulation would make safety on the trains better and we ended up with Lac-Mégantic.

Why does my colleague think the Liberals are continuing this pattern of not insisting that we have proper safety and regulations? We do not want to have what is happening in Calgary happen anywhere else.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a relevant issue, namely the pattern of deregulation that we have seen in the railway industry and that has continued under the Liberals. It could be said that they are adding some small fixes, but nothing substantial.

The Liberals and Conservatives both eat from the same trough. They are both beholden to big business, particularly Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. CN and CP are so big that they are like a state within a state. The Canadian government is anxious to give CN and CP whatever they want.

If they were ever to form government, I would like to see the NDP adopt a stricter policy toward them. That would make me happy. However, I would need to see it to believe it.

I think Quebec has a different vision. We know that the great railway lines running from one coast to the other are part of the Canadian identity. They are sacrosanct. Going after them would be unthinkable, from a Canadian perspective.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, our ports are in crisis. Canada, including Quebec, is dependent on trade in goods. The Port of Vancouver currently ranks 347th out of 348 ports worldwide.

Does the member for the Bloc Québécois believe that adding more red tape and regulations will help us be more productive and efficient with respect to trading goods?

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

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities toured Canada's ports in the spring. Most of the port officials told us that they were planning to expand and that they expect international traffic to increase over the coming years due to our trade. As I said earlier, about 50% of Quebec's GDP goes through the ports, so they are absolutely vital.

Is there anything in the bill that will allow the ports to manage their operations more efficiently? The answer is no. What the bill provides is greater accountability from the ports toward the government and the public, more data sharing. That is not a bad thing, but it is not going to fix the problems that ports are currently facing. It mainly gives the government more control over the ports. In a crisis, as I mentioned, these are things that may be useful. However, I do not see how the minister could get involved in managing the ports himself on a regular day-to-day basis. It makes no sense.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He touched on this issue briefly earlier, but I am particularly interested in a phenomenon that is growing in Canada, not only at the Port of Montreal, but also at the Port of Toronto, namely vehicles being stolen and exported overseas.

When we ask the Canada Border Services Agency questions about this issue, the CBSA responds that it may not have enough officers to conduct searches. The CBSA says it gets a description of the contents of each container and that, if officers have doubts about what is written in the record, they will conduct a search. However, in many cases, they are just relying on their instincts. There is not necessarily a protocol.

I thought that a bill to amend the Customs Act would offer a good opportunity to put a protocol in place to counter this phenomenon. As I understand it, however, there is virtually nothing about this in the bill. Do I have that right? Should the government hurry up and look into the phenomenon of vehicle thefts and exports?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that it is essential. Anyone whose car was stolen would be anxious to know whether it went to another country in the days that followed.

We are seeing more and more news reports about this issue. There was one on a country in Africa where, if I am not mistaken, there were cars with the Quebec licence plates still on them. That is crazy. These people did not even make the effort to remove the plates. The cars were brought to the port, loaded onto the ship and then unloaded over there. They kept their licence plates on even after they got there. That is insane. The members on the other side need to wake up.

Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in Bill C-33. If it is possible to improve the situation or at least combat this phenomenon by amending this bill, we are very willing to do so. Since there is very little text in this bill for us to amend, we will have to use our imaginations and get creative. Sometimes, however, if we are too imaginative or creative, procedure will get in the way of our amendments being adopted.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill C-33.

I hope members had productive summers in their ridings. It is good to be back to reconnect with my colleagues on all sides of the House.

Bill C-33, on the face of it, deals with the technical subject matter of port and railway systems in Canada, but I think this bill also exposes a philosophical gulf that exists between those of us in the Conservative Party and, frankly, those in the other three parties, in how they act and vote, if not how they always sound. The Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP have an approach that emphasizes a big, centralized government that is constantly seeking to weaken the decision-making powers, not only of private individuals, but also of the institutions that are supposed to hold delegated authority and respond to local circumstances and independent economic factors. Their agenda is a centralizing one, pulling that authority away from individuals, with losses of their freedom, and pulling that authority away from institutions that are supposed to be able to operate independently.

We have the Bloc, and I think this was demonstrated by the speaker before me, wanting to rhetorically position itself as being a decentralizer, but in fact, if we look at the way Bloc members vote, we see their support, for example, for the Liberal carbon taxes, in particular the second carbon tax, and it boggles the mind that a party that, on the one hand, says it wants to divide the country and make Quebec its own country, is on the other hand, supporting these kinds of from-Ottawa measures that impose additional costs on Quebeckers.

It is becoming clear that Conservatives stand alone when it comes to offering a different vision, which recognizes the role, yes, of the federal government, but also the richness and diversity of experience and capacity that exists across this country and, therefore, supports affirming the decision-making responsibility of other institutions, provinces, municipalities and, in this case, port authorities and recognizes the importance of having a multiplicity of different institutions making decisions that respond to those local circumstances.

This is an important bill in its policy implications. However, it is also an important bill in the way that it demonstrates a Conservative vision of emphasizing strong institutions, respect for arm's-length institutions and divisions of power, our belief in big citizens as an alternative to big government, and the role of mediating institutions.

Bill C-33 is entitled “strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act”. My preferred alternative title is, “strengthening Liberal control of the port system”. It is not strengthening the port system, but strengthening Liberal control of the port system. It is on that basis, and for some of the reasons I have already indicated, that we do not support it.

I do, though, in passing, want to extend my best wishes to the outgoing minister, who tabled this bill and has since, from what I understand, announced his intention not to seek re-election. I know that he has been in public life for a long time. I wish him very well.

Those who are not as familiar may ask how ports function in Canada. Each port has its own board, and that board is able to act relatively autonomously. It is supposed to act at arm's length from the government, which includes electing its own chair. It is also supposed to be able to look at the best interests of the port. It is supposed to be able to look at what is in the economic interests of the country, but also of that particular region, taking those local factors into account. It is also supposed to be able to develop structures for engagement and consultation that, while reflecting broad, unifying principles, are appropriate to the particular local circumstances.

The way, for instance, indigenous consultation happens at a port may vary depending on the particular local circumstances, such as the proximity of indigenous nations and so forth. This ability of ports to act at arm's length recognizes that one size does not fit all. It recognizes that expertise, local decision-making and an understanding of local factors are very important in the case of port management and in general when it comes to government decision-making. Creating institutions that can be responsive to particulars of local circumstances is important. This existing structure of ports is a reflection of that reality, and it stands in contrast with the Liberal centralizing vision held, if not officially then certainly enacted by all of the other parties in this place, save for the Conservatives.

This bill seeks to make changes that bring ports, to a greater extent, under the domination of the central government. This is where we obviously part company with the direction.

On the structure of ports, members of the ports are appointed by the federal government. There is a federal role in making these appointments, and that does provide tools for influencing the direction of ports, but it creates a balance that allows autonomous, arm's-length action on a day-to-day level. However, the federal government is still selecting the individuals it believes to be appropriate.

The bill would change the authority structure in a number of ways. It would make the boards subject to ministerial direction and would also allow the minister to appoint the chair. The previous structure was that the minister appointed members of the board, but the board would then elect its own chair, which again still involves a substantial role for the government but gives the board more autonomy in identifying the person who is best positioned to lead the board. The new structure would involve the minister appointing the board members and also the board members appointing the chair. It would also make the board subject to ministerial direction and would mandate certain structures around environmental and indigenous consultations.

Those considerations and consultations are obviously very important, but the specific structures that may be appropriate can legitimately vary depending on the size of the port and the local circumstances. They could well be matters subject to innovation and exchange of information rather than the requirement of standardization.

This is a centralizing Ottawa-knows-best type of Liberal bill, and Conservatives are opposed to it. In many respects, this bill is a missed opportunity insofar as there are things that are important about how we could be strengthening our port and rail system, but instead, the Liberal approach to strengthening anything is to try to strengthen their control or involvement in that particular thing.

We are opposed to this expansion of direct government control over the ports for four main reasons, which I will now proceed to discuss. There is, first of all, a general conviction about the importance of subsidiarity; second, a concern about the current government in particular expanding its management of things; third, the Liberal record on appointments raising some concerns about why the Liberals are trying to pass legislation to give themselves more control and ability to shape direction through appointment; and finally, highlighting how scale differences matter at the port level, and there are particular reasons in this case why having a diversity of structures for how certain issues are engaged with is quite worthwhile.

First, on the principle of subsidiarity in general, I subscribe to the general principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected as possible. Better decisions are made when the local experiences of the people affected are harnessed. This comes from a basic recognition of universal human potential for responsibility and creativity. If they harness the views and experiences of more people who are directly involved a situation, they will get better outcomes than if there were a smaller number of people with less immediate experience involved in that decision. A belief in subsidiarity flows naturally from a belief in human dignity and human potential for creativity.

Our constitutional framework is designed to recognize the value of that subsidiarity, which is why not every decision is made by the federal government. We have areas of responsibility of provincial jurisdiction. We have strong municipalities, and we also have arm's-length institutions that act within the federal government. Subsidiarity is not incompatible with the belief that there are also certain kinds of decisions that are of a scale and a nature that do require larger levels of coordination or action by a larger entity, such as, let us say, the national government. The impulse to subsidiarity is not to say that no decisions should be made collectively because there are certain kinds of things where the nature of the scale requires that action.

I want to point out in particular that, in this context, our Conservative plan on housing does involve recognizing the need to push municipalities to do more in getting housing built. This is completely compatible with the principle of subsidiarity because we see a situation in Canada right now where we are so far behind in getting homes built that there is an urgency that requires more pressure to move forward. There has also been a lack of appropriate scale in considering the response to this.

Members will notice in the discussion on this that the Prime Minister has tried, at certain points, to say that this is not really his responsibility and this is not something that he is going to get involved in. However, the Prime Minister has a housing minister. The government seeks to create policy on this. It is just that the government's policy has been ineffective. In the plan that Conservatives have put forward, it is about pushing municipalities, setting targets for them and tying federal funding to commitments to move forward. However, it is not about taking away that authority from municipalities or trying to micromanage specific decisions. Rather, it is about using the tools we have to create incentives, define what a national objective should be and reward them for moving toward that objective.

This is just to illustrate that obviously, on certain areas, there is a vital role for the federal government to engage in, but there has to be a healthy interplay. With the Liberals, the irony has been that, on some areas where the federal government needed to engage, they have tried to avoid responsibility. However, the Liberals have, at the same time, tried to intervene, rhetorically if not directly, in areas that are very clearly not their jurisdiction, butting in on things that very obviously have nothing to do with the decision-making power of the federal government.

Again, as it applies in the case of ports, we can see the importance of local decision-making and the impulse of the government to ignore the role of local decision-makers and to move counter to this principle of subsidiarity, which is a principle that, sadly, the Liberals do not believe in.

In their ideal vision of the world, all of the decisions that are of significance to this country would be made by a small group of people inside the Prime Minister's Office, without even harnessing the full energies of our national parliamentary democracy. I think that has had some dire consequences in many obvious cases, and on this point I will move to the next, which is the challenges with the government's centralizing impulse in particular, in a context where the government has demonstrated profound incompetence in all aspects of our national life.

I will not have time to detail all of these points, but in a context where the government is failing to do its job, is failing to make life more affordable for Canadians and has failed on environmental policy, on housing and on many other fronts, it is nonetheless persistent in saying that it wants more control of people's lives and that it wants to be able to exercise more control and direction over previously independent bodies. I will point out as an obvious example, in one particular case, the on-again-off-again labour disruptions, or the back-and-forth associated with that, the harm that was done and the failure of the minister to resolve that situation.

Environmental policy is something that, rhetorically, we hear a lot about from the government, yet the government is missing all of its environmental targets while using environmental policy as an excuse to impose new taxes. The way the Liberals talk about it, if one does not support their tax plan, one is against taking action on the environment.

The reality is that the government's tax plan has made life less affordable for Canadians and has not actually allowed it to achieve any of its targets. Sadly, we see the other parties in the House, the NDP and the Bloc, in lockstep with the government in its insistence on imposing new taxes. This is a space in which the government is trying to take more control for itself again, telling provinces that they have to have a carbon tax or it will impose one directly from Ottawa.

It has not worked on many fronts. We can talk about the government's approach to passports. We can talk about its policy failures during COVID and about the fact that fewer houses are being built today than decades ago, even when our population was smaller. We have a government that has, across the board, been either incompetent or malicious, yet it is seeking more control over institutional decision-making, through Bill C-33. We are not prepared to give them that control.

The third point I wanted to raise around this is that we have a particular concern about the government's desire to use this bill as a tool for strengthening its power of appointment, in terms of its ability to appoint chairs of boards. We have heard numerous stories about the flawed approach the government has taken to appointments, appointing donors or consulting supporter information before making important appointments, trying to whitewash issues by appointing people who have close relationships with the Prime Minister. This is the way the government has approached appointments, so it will not be surprising that there is no appetite on this side of the House to give the government more control over the appointment process when the current system, the election of a chair of a board by the existing members of the board, is working just fine.

I will quickly make my last point, which is that, obviously, in terms of important decision-making, scale matters. There are many different kinds of ports that have very different circumstances because of such massive variations in the amount of traffic that goes through them. We recognize the importance of all ports. We want them to thrive and succeed in ways that reflect their local circumstances and the expertise of those who are running the ports. That means avoiding Ottawa-knows-best, Liberals-know-best and one-size-fits-all approaches to this.

In conclusion, Conservatives recognize the importance of freedom, local autonomy and subsidiarity. We reject the centralizing we-know-best approach of the Prime Minister and of the other three parties in the House that are supporting his vision. I believe that our alternative approach in opposing the bill and emphasizing local autonomy, expertise and the importance of community-based decision making is a much better approach and one that would be much better received by the Canadian public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will provide a comment on the member's last few statements alone, in which he talked about having some local autonomy and local input. We are expanding looking at ways in which there could be advisory committees to the port boards. People need to realize that when we think in terms of the Conservative Party, its total disengagement from the federal government's having a role to play should be of great concern.

At the end of the day, the economic security and the whole food chain and the way in which it gets distributed, not to mention all the other economic benefits, are coming out of our ports and out of our railways. We have the Conservative Party saying the government does not play a role and that they want to minimize that role. I would suggest to the member that Canadians are concerned about issues like safety, port congestion and what role the government plays to ease those tensions.

Does the member not see any value whatsoever in regard to modernizing or at least attempting to modernize our port authorities and the safety of our railways? Does he see any benefit in that at all in terms of federal government involvement?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question was a target-rich environment, so I will try to get through it as much as I can.

The member began by saying that the bill is about looking at having local committees providing input. No, it is not. The bill is about mandating particular structures around consultation committees, structures that may well be appropriate in many cases, but not in every case.

The member says a lot of things that are obviously not true about our approach and our position. Again, it is important to underline that a belief in the importance of subsidiarity is not a belief that every decision, from military to everything else, should be made by municipalities. Rather, it is a position that, in determining the appropriate scale at which decisions should be made, it is important to make those decisions as close to the people actually impacted by them as possible and engage the broadest number of people possible. However, there are nuances, and I spoke to those nuances. I am willing to again if the member would find it helpful.

Finally, he equates modernization with centralization. He says that if we do not support a power grab by the minister, then we are against modernization. Modernization can mean a lot of different things in different contexts, but insofar as modernization means moving toward the future, or is seen as being synonymous with improvement in the way we discuss these things culturally, then I would say that emphasizing subsidiarity, local control and local responsiveness could well be a better form of modernization than the centralization proposed by the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really liked what my colleague said at the end of his response to the previous question, that the government is equating “modernization” with “centralization”.

That brings me to the question that I want to ask him. Often, in banana republics or poor countries, the system in place allows people to secure a position not because they have the necessary skills or degrees, but because they asked their friend who is a senator or mayor to give them a position as a favour.

Now, we are seeing something similar happening with this government. A minister in this government wants the power to decide who will be president of a port.

Does my colleague see this as modernization, or rather as a continuation of the Liberals' habit of appointing their buddies to positions?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government right now, through this bill, is asking for more power. It is saying it wants to be able to exercise greater influence over ports, and particularly over the process of appointments. It wants to take over what has historically been the role of the board itself, to select its chair. The government wants to appoint that chair itself. The government is coming to Parliament asking for more power when it comes to appointments.

If we are going to evaluate that desire for power, I think it is important to look at how the government has used this power in the past. We can see with the vast powers of appointment the federal government already has that there have been many instances of clearly partisan filters as opposed to competence filters being applied by the government, whether in an attempt to manage away sensitive issues by appointing people who are close to the Prime Minister or by looking at who has donated to the Liberal Party when considering appointments.

I do not think it is reasonable for a government that has so clearly failed to demonstrate a commitment to competency in appointments to then come back and ask the House to give it more power in the area of appointments.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about harnessing the experience of people directly impacted, and that it is not in this bill. I absolutely agree.

The act would create indigenous engagement committees for port authorities. When I talk to Nuu-chah-nulth people in my riding, that is not good enough. They actually want a seat at the table. They want an appointment for each nation whose territory the port authorities reside on, for whose waterways and lands they are on. That is identified in the truth and reconciliation call to action number 92. It explicitly states that they “call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.”

Does my colleague agree that indigenous peoples should not just be sitting as an advisory committee, but that they actually deserve a permanent seat at the table for every port authority whose lands and waterways they reside on?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague and look forward to working with him on the government operations committee with the revisions that have been made to committee memberships.

When it comes to indigenous engagement, I think it is important for that engagement to happen and for it to be driven by the particulars of the circumstances in terms of where the port is. Just because of location and where indigenous nations are, it seems to me that there would likely be significant variation in terms of the approach taken, depending on where those ports are and what nations are proximate, how many there are and so forth.

The member's proposal is an interesting one, but any kind of mandating and structure from us in Ottawa should be done very carefully, if at all. A better approach would be to recognize the need for local boards to make evaluations and determinations around how this proceeds.

To his point about indigenous representation on the board, it is the power of the minister to make these appointments. The minister currently, without this legislation, has the power to determine who sits on the board. The minister could appoint members. I suppose what he is suggesting is not so much that. Maybe he is suggesting the nations themselves would be able to make these appointments. I welcome him to further illustrate what that structure could look like, and I am sure he will make those points if the bill gets to committee.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-33. Let me begin by thanking the sponsor, the Minister of Transport, and you for allowing me to participate in the very important second reading debate on this bill, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, with regard to improving the safety and security at Canada's marine ports. I believe we can all agree that this piece of legislation is intended to achieve many goals that would eventually streamline the work taking place at our marine ports, increase our supply chain resiliency and ensure the work at our ports is environmentally sustainable, all while increasing safety and security measures to keep our goods safe and protect Canadians from harm.

Before I continue, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara Centre.

I want to take the time today to further explore the measures we are proposing to enhance border security at our major marine ports.

The Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has an important mandate to provide border services that support national security and public safety priorities while also facilitating the free flow of persons and goods. Each and every day, at marine ports from coast to coast to coast, the CBSA upholds its mandate by screening and examining imported goods arriving on container vessels. I want to make it clear that in their role, CBSA officers, whose daily activities would be affected by the proposed amendments in this bill, are already authorized to examine all shipments crossing Canada's border to ensure harmful goods are intercepted before they can enter our communities.

Today, the government is seeking to modernize the existing Customs Act authorities to resolve long-standing security risks and reduce obstacles to efficient trade at our marine ports. Modernizing the Customs Act would enable the CBSA to further address issues that may leave our marine ports vulnerable to organized crime and that may compromise the agency's ability to achieve its safety, security and facilitation mandate.

These changes are directly aimed at reducing delays and enhancing security at our marine ports. They would also result in long-term cost savings for Canadian importers, the trade community and consumers, and would ultimately help our economy continue to grow by reducing backlogs and lowering the costs associated with delays.

In order to help continue reducing criminal activity at the ports, we are proposing the following three changes to address security threats associated with organized crime, smuggling and internal conspiracies.

The first step the government is proposing is meant to address security gaps and reduce delays by requiring that high-risk shipments are made available for examination upon request of an officer. This would be achieved through Customs Act amendments and the creation of new regulations.

Second, the government is seeking to increase the security of high-risk shipments by introducing an amendment that would require that goods be brought to a secure area upon the request of an officer. This, in turn, would require marine ports to create secure areas that meet security requirements.

Lastly, Customs Act amendments are being proposed to enable the creation of new monetary penalties to help ensure that all entities involved in this supply chain comply with the new requirements. Penalties for non-compliance would be proportionate to health, safety and security risks.

Allow me to further elaborate on the three proposed changes to clear up any ambiguity that members may have regarding them.

In short, the first proposed amendment relates to making high-risk import shipments available to a CBSA officer for examination in a timely manner. The agency has noted that high-risk shipments selected for examination are not always made available by the terminal operators. This leads to supply chain congestion, delays for importers and an increased risk of tampering and removal of contraband while containers await examination by CBSA officers.

As it stands now, there is no defined time period in either legislation or regulation. This amendment to the Customs Act would provide an authority to make new regulations prescribing the time and manner of making shipments available for examination. Furthermore, these obligations would extend to other entities within the supply chain who have the care and control of goods, including terminal operators.

The second proposed amendment would require those responsible for these shipments to bring them to a secure area in accordance with the regulations. Currently, the Customs Act does not provide a definitive or specific obligation to ensure that high-risk shipments awaiting examination are moved to a dedicated secure area within marine terminals. As a result, shipments are at risk of being tampered with, and their contents, including drugs and weapons, are at risk of being removed by criminals prior to examination.

I acknowledge that some may argue that existing measures are enough. However, there are many documented instances of containers being breached and unknown contents being removed, while remaining unsecured and easily accessible by internal conspirators when stored with all types of marine cargo on port properties.

Can we truly not continue to advance our security measures to keep up and stay ahead of those committing illicit activities? Adding extra layers of security means that Canadians can feel safer knowing that more contraband and dangerous products are being stopped and therefore do not enter our communities.

To help ensure compliance with these new requirements, additional contraventions would be added to the CBSA's existing penalty system, which would allow the CBSA to issue penalties when goods are not delivered within established time frames. Currently, only the person reporting the goods to the CBSA can be compelled to present them, and there is no timeline within which to do so. As a result, only the persons reporting the goods can be held responsible. In the marine mode, this means that the CBSA cannot compel others who may handle these shipments, such as terminal operators, to make them available to the CBSA in a timely manner.

The government is taking action to ensure the right parties take responsibility for their role in the process. This would lead to fewer delays and lower storage fees for importers, as goods would be moved to secured areas at the right time, examined sooner and released once cleared by the CBSA. This is expected to translate into lower costs for consumers down the line. I believe that having lower costs on commodities is something that every member in this House can support.

I hope members can now understand the urgency and need for these amendments to the Customs Act as something that is not driven by politics, but is a security requirement that would benefit the safety of all Canadians. The changes outlined in this bill would ensure that the CBSA continues to fulfill its mandate to protect and secure Canada's borders and incoming goods while further protecting Canadians from harmful products.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a fairly narrowly focused question regarding the leadership of the port authorities. What is the thought process behind the ministerial appointment of a chair as opposed to having it be more locally governed? That seems to add a layer of process. Timing and delays are ostensibly what we are trying to address here. Are there some service standards around the timing of ministerial appointments? What is the basic reason for that change away from local authorities?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question is certainly well outside the scope of this piece of legislation, as the member knows. My entire speech was based around the security of containers and the changes to the act that we are putting in place to assist with ensuring that those containers can be kept in a secure location, can be properly monitored by CBSA and, most importantly, can be dealt with in a timely manner that increases the efficiency of our ability to process containers.

I appreciate that the member has a very specific question that is completely unrelated to this bill. I would encourage him to perhaps ask that question in question period, provided that the Leader of the Opposition has released his iron grip on what Conservatives are allowed to say these days.

Nonetheless, I look forward, hopefully, to a question that relates to the substance of my speech.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question I asked earlier. We know the act creates indigenous engagement committees for port authorities, and I know that is important. However, when I meet with the Tseshaht and Hupacasath, whose lands the Port Alberni port authority resides and operate on, for example, and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, they say they do not want just an appointment to the board made by, say, the province or the federal government. They want a permanent seat at the table.

The operations of the port authorities in their territories have a huge impact on wild Pacific salmon, economic development and, of course, the future of our region. Does my colleague not agree that indigenous nations have a right to, and should have, a permanent seat on the port authorities in their territories, as the ports operate on their waterways and lands?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the question was not about the substance of my speech or the bill specifically, although I will indicate that I do agree with the member that all stakeholders involved in a particular indigenous community should have proper say. I recognize that this is the introduction of and first debate on this bill. After we pass the bill, it will go to committee, and then I think he will have an opportunity to raise those concerns.

If his concerns fall within the scope of the bill specifically, then I am sure the member can advocate for them and communicate with other members of the committee to see that changes are made to the bill to address them. However, in principle, I would agree with him that stakeholders, in particular indigenous communities, should have a say in this, especially as it relates to land that is rightfully theirs.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before the bill we are debating was introduced, a working group looked into this matter. The mandate of that working group, created in March 2022 by the transport minister at the time, was to study recent supply chain disruptions. Factors like pandemics, COVID-19, climate change and flooding were mentioned, among other things.

I think the mandate of the working group is important, but I do not see the connection between that mandate and the bill before us. The bill seems to be an empty shell of the much-vaunted announcement that promised this was the start of a major national supply chain strategy.

My question is this: Basically, what needs to be done for things to change? I will conclude by saying that the measures also refer to addressing the labour shortage. This was not successful at the Port of Montreal. The government passed a special law rather than improving working conditions because workers are also part of the supply chain.

My question is the following: How can this be considered a strategy? How will the problem of a major labour shortage in supply chains be resolved?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard discussion from other members today in relation to a working group that worked prior to the bill being brought before the House. However, I have been looking at the bill itself, not the work of that group. I will say that if the group and those who did the work feel that something is missing in the content of this bill, certainly when the bill gets to committee, they will have an opportunity to address it at that time.

I focused a lot of my speech on improving the supply chain by ensuring that these containers are dealt with in a proper manner, so I would say that this bill does address efficiency and improving the supply chain.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity this afternoon to thank all members and all parties of the House for participating in this very important second reading debate on Bill C-33, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, with respect to improving the safety and security at Canada's marine ports.

I would like to further describe the rationale for the measures that are designed to enhance the security of Canada's marine transportation system.

Transport Canada has the important mandate of promoting a safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system. In addition to developing policies and programs for marine security, the Minister of Transport also has the lead responsibility for marine security policy, coordination and regulation across government, a whole-of-government approach.

When introduced in 1994, the Marine Transportation Security Act was intended to address a long-standing omission in federal powers and better equip the government and the marine transportation industry to respond to any threat to the security of people, goods, vessels, ports and facilities in the Canadian marine environment.

In the decades following, Canada's marine security landscape has changed significantly. While concerns around physical disruption perpetrated by terrorist actions still exist, emerging challenges, such as cybersecurity and biosecurity, are challenging our current threat-focused security framework.

Canada's marine transportation system is a central component of our national, provincial and regional economies. It is one of the primary means for moving Canadian exports to market and for imported goods from abroad to arrive in Canada, as well as in the Midwest in the United States, through the networks we have established throughout the many years of partnerships with different sectors. As such, it is an important enabler of Canadian economic growth well into the future.

As an example, my home riding and region of Niagara is an integral part of our economy. Niagara, which is known as a multimodal transportation hub, is essential to the overall Canadian economy and is growing to be one of the nation's most strategic trade corridors, therefore strengthening Canada's overall international trade performance.

Security events, however, can have a significant impact on port and marine-related operations, which in turn directly affect the efficiency of Canada's supply chains. Concerns over security issues, including a dated regime, can lead to the perception of Canada as a weak link in global supply chains that can affect when and where companies decide to invest. Hence, this is the reason for the bill.

Such a perception could adversely affect Canada's relations with other major trading partners and have significant impacts on future opportunities for economic growth and development, like what is happening in the Niagara region as a transportation hub, with respect to the movement of trade and people. Right now the transportation committee is discussing high-speed rail to bring the country closer together and enable us to welcome visitors who can move around our great nation with great fluidity in tandem with the movement of trade within the infrastructure we have established throughout the past century.

A secure transportation system promotes a secure economy, a resilient supply chain and further supports the competitiveness of Canadian ports. In a constantly changing world, Canada's marine system needs a modern security framework to adapt and respond to increasing complex challenges in tandem with other methods of transportation, such as rail, road and air.

Today, as part of Bill C-33, the government is seeking to modernize the Marine Transportation Security Act to ensure that it remains modern, usable, flexible and a consistent piece of Transport Canada's legislative framework. Modernizing the act will enable the government to have access to tools to address new and emerging security concerns, reflecting the challenges, but, more important, addressing those challenges so we accrue over time confidence with future as well as present international investors.

The proposed amendments will introduce new ministerial authorities, such as the power to make interim orders, the ability to require ports and other marine facilities to accept vessels that have been directed to these locations, and the ability to issue emergency directions to persons or vessels to address immediate security threats.

Unlike other marine legislation, the current Marine Transportation Security Act does not provide effective tools to be used in exceptional circumstances across the industries. The ability to make interim orders will align across Transport Canada's legislation and allow the department to take immediate action to deal with security threats or risks, or take action to address a threat to marine transportation security or to the health of persons in the marine transportation system. This will allow us to better protect the integrity and efficiency of Canada's supply chains.

The proposal will also introduce new regulatory-making authorities that will allow Transport Canada to: one, implement a cost-recovery framework; two, address maritime threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system; three, implement formalized information-sharing channels with federal partners; and, four, establish exclusion zones for vessels.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted emerging biosecurity threats, such as global pathogens, which pose significant risks to public safety and the broader Canadian supply chains, as well as those that flow to Canada, into the U.S. and to our binational partners internationally.

The marine environment poses a unique vector for virus transmission, with cruise ships, for example, or vessels interacting in northern and remote communities. An outbreak on board a vessel or at maritime facilities could cause significant impacts to workers' health and security, which would have a direct effect on our supply chains.

Finally, this proposal will support a shift in the approach to marine security since the act was first established. The shift includes enabling the department to enter into agreements with partner organizations to oversee enforcement of the act and its regulations. This will allow Transport Canada to leverage expertise of organizations and the capacity of other government departments, once again, a whole-of-government approach.

The proposed amendments to the act included in the bill will modernize Canada's security framework, but, most important, it will create more fluidity to ensure more confidence in our transportation system across our great nation.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague across the way for his advocacy of Great Lakes governance and fishery issues. I support him and join him on those issues.

On today's speech, his colleague previously chastised me for asking a question on an issue that was not relevant to the bill, specifically, the movement or the authority of the minister to appoint chairs of the port authorities.

Would my hon. colleague across the way agree that members of the House, particularly if they are speaking in favour of government legislation, should familiarize themselves with it, because, for the record, that is part of the bill?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's involvement in the Great Lakes issues as well, and I thank him for that.

This is a whole-of-government approach. Essentially, when we look at appointing people to different authorities, and I want to mention that these authorities are federal government authorities, there is a lot of communication that happens between the federal government, the minister, the whole of government, different departments, as well as the authority itself.

I would anticipate and expect that when appointments are made, like all appointments that are being made, there will be a great deal of discussion with the authority itself and the partners that we work with almost on a daily basis. With that said, the right person will be chosen for those positions that would otherwise by appointed by the minister.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing railways, ports, and so on, I would like to bring up the fact that last year we learned that CN, the largest railway company in Canada, had no francophones on its board of directors, a flagrant contravention of the Official Languages Act.

The same happened with Air Canada. English-speaking Canada may be less aware of this, but, in Quebec, people are unable to receive services in French, and pilots and flight attendants who do not speak French are often in the news. There are thousands of complaints every day. We do, however, have an official languages act. Technically, these companies are subject to that legislation.

Does my colleague not think that this is a bit of a scandal? Should we not work harder to ensure that these companies comply with the Official Languages Act?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the short answer would be yes. We should be dealing with that in partnership with those agencies with which we do business. May I suggest for the member that with this going to committee after the bill moves through second reading, that the member who is sitting right next to him bring that issue up. Of course, we can come forward with some recommendations to help deal with that situation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has spoken to the New Democratic caucus about this legislation and has raised some serious concerns.

The legislation was drafted completely ignoring the recommendations that were brought forward by the national supply chain task force and the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In its report on railway safety, there were 21 recommendations, none of which have made it into this bill. Six of them, in fact, were on labour shortages, yet we do not see labour shortage mentioned at all in the legislation.

I wonder if the member could speak to how that could be included when the bill is taken to committee and improved upon at that place.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the short answer is yes. One of the things we do cherish and respect in the House is the work of committees.

Being on the transport committee since 2015 with her colleague, we look forward to integrating a lot of the reports that we have completed, whether it be the ports modernization review, the St. Lawrence Seaway review, the labour strategy or the task force that looked after supply chains. The intent of the committee will be to come forward with an integration of those recommendations, and, again, as a whole-of-government approach to ensure that all legislation is very consistent with each other. However, most important is that it aligns so that it best serves those who it is supposed to serve, and those are the customers who are within the supply chains. Of course, it would create net fluidity.

Updating the legislation and updating the means by which we want to move people and goods around the committee is ultimately what the committee, the House and this government are trying to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is incredibly important to people in my constituency. The issue is not just container ships, which have been mentioned in the supply chain, but bulk carriers, particularly of coal and grain.

I would like to put it on the record that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is massively inefficient and incompetent, and the result is we have a backup of a virtually permanent parking lot in our sensitive marine areas. Freighters and bulk carriers that pay nothing for the privilege of free parking are ripping up the benthic organisms on a daily basis and are damaging the habitat of endangered whales.

The legislation would go some way to create an authority for the minister to insist that these ships be moved, but we will need amendments at committee. I want to flag it right now so that members of the transport committee and the new Minister of Transport become aware that this is a hot issue and we are red-hot angry through Saanich—Gulf Islands, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Let there be no more; we have had it.

I hope the government is ready for amendments.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love the candidness of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. We always know what she is thinking, so I give her credit for that. Absolutely, we do look forward to the member attending committee and coming out with some of those amendments.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, there is a provision in the bill for the minister to establish exclusion zones for vessels. I am sure we will hear a lot from the member and her partners, who will give us those messages loud and clear. At committee, we will be sure to get that work done on her behalf.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

One of the most defining moments since I was elected was when the rail lines in my riding, both the CN and CP rail lines, were washed out. There were over 30 wash-outs in the Fraser Canyon. In fact, one day in November two years ago, I was in a meeting with the minister of emergency preparedness. I walked out of that meeting into a media scrum asking about all the latest drama of the Conservative Party of Canada. I nearly lost it, because on that very day when they were asking about the status of a senator in the Conservative caucus, the rail lines in B.C. had been cut off, our highways had been washed out and our entire transportation infrastructure connecting British Columbia to the rest of Canada was not functioning.

We faced some serious challenges in British Columbia, but the press gallery here did not care about that. In fact, it was not even on its radar that British Columbia was cut off. Unfortunately, Bill C-33, written by the public servants in Ottawa under the former minister, falls very short of what we need in British Columbia to ensure Canada has a competitive infrastructure network to ensure we can export and import goods, and so that our marine ports, our inland ports and airports have the infrastructure they need to maintain a well-functioning, competitive economy.

It goes without saying our infrastructure network creates billions of dollars in economic activity every year, 3.6% of Canada's GDP, and employs hundreds of thousands of people. In addition to that, one in five jobs in Canada are directly related to trade. Therefore, those one in five jobs are directly related to Canada's ability to move, store and efficiently transport the goods we produce here and sell abroad and the goods Canadians consume and import from other countries.

Going back to the landslides that washed out the rail infrastructure both for CN and the CP rail lines in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the former minister of transportation started to take very seriously the challenges Canada was facing with supply chains. Good, he did that. He established a task force, to great fanfare, to address some of the pressing issues we had.

I had a chance to look over that report last night. Some of the key recommendations included to unstick the transport supply chain. The report goes into detail about how the Vancouver port authority is ranked right now as one of the worst and inefficient ports in the world. This is largely because of what has already been raised in this debate: we cannot move container traffic out of our ports quickly enough, mainly because we do not have the infrastructure to do so.

The second thing the report called for was to digitize and create an end-to-end supply chain visibility for efficiency, accountability planning and investment in security. I will note this bill does touch upon a few of those things by allowing other ports of entry to go through the CBSA process of marking where our goods are coming and going.

The task force talked about establishing a supply chain office. When I hear that what I hear is the department in Ottawa has not allocated the right number of people in its department to deal with the first problem, which is unsticking the transportation supply chain. What I read in the expert report is that Ottawa has not been doing a good enough job under its current mandate to make sure goods can flow efficiently in Canada.

The fifth point was to engage indigenous groups. This bill does talk a bit about more consultative powers in conjunction with indigenous people. I will note that in my riding one of the largest employers of indigenous people is the rail lines and the Ashcroft Terminal. Yes, there are tensions from time to time, but I do believe the private sector is already taking reconciliation seriously in the number of indigenous people it is hiring, and those jobs go a long way in those rural and remote communities, especially for first nations.

The next recommendation in the report talks about protecting "corridors, border crossings and gateways from disruptions [and interruptions] to ensure unfettered access for commercial transportation modes and continuity of supply chain movement.” Again, I see this recommendation tied to the first one, to unstick the transportation supply chain. We are not doing a good enough job of moving goods efficiently in Canada.

The next recommendation is to engage the U.S., provinces and territories to achieve reciprocal regulations and practices. Again, it is related to the first point, to unstick the transportation supply chain. We are not doing a good enough job of moving goods efficiently in Canada.

The report discusses revising the mandate of the Canadian transportation authority agency. All in all, with regard to the national task force, the former minister communicated very clearly to Canada and to private enterprise that he was going to take action, that we were going to see some major improvements.

It goes without saying that under the previous Conservative government, billions of dollars were invested in western Canada under the Asia-Pacific gateway.

We had Highway 17 created. Some of our rail lines were twinned in certain places. There were new interchanges and overpasses put in to ensure that goods could move smoothly. We had legislation put in place to improve the commercial viability of our exporters and importers, to make sure that Canadians could get the products they needed and vice versa, globally, again, because Canada is a trading nation.

When we turn to the legislation here today, what I see is a lot of new red tape, new authority and a prescriptive, bureaucratic approach that does not address the key issue that the very minister who put this legislation forward wanted to respond to when he established the national supply chain task force in the first place.

Where does that leave us here today? Small businesses across Canada are decrying the increased shipping costs to access the Asia-Pacific gateway. We have had labour disputes at our ports in British Columbia recently. We have thousands upon thousands of businesses that are not working as quickly as they want to because they are constrained by our supply chains, by our rail networks.

What I want to see from this government, as this legislation moves forward, is to look at rewriting the focus of this bill, to ensure that we accomplish a few key things, namely what measurable improvement can we attribute to this legislation to make goods move more efficiently in Canada? What regulatory hurdles that currently exist can be removed to ensure that our small businesses, our exporters and importers, can get the products they need quickly enough?

I know that in Saskatchewan, farmers are constantly scared about the bottlenecks that we face in British Columbia. Saskatchewan produces some of the best pulses in the world, yet it cannot get those products to market quickly enough because our transportation rail infrastructure is not there.

I know that importers of Korean steel in British Columbia are facing much higher freight costs, largely because of some of the issues raised here today. Those products are sitting on a ship off the coast of Vancouver Island because they cannot get a docking quickly enough at the port of Metro Vancouver. These are all things that this legislation can address but it is not there yet.

It goes without saying that I will not be supporting this legislation but I do hope that, at committee stage, the government can do a 180 and refocus its efforts on the recommendations that are well received from the national supply chain task force, to do something that is going to support small businesses, Canada's overall GDP and competitiveness in a very challenging global economic climate right now.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the closing remarks of the member's speech, he said that he will not be supporting the bill, but he hopes that once it gets to committee, the government will accept the recommendations.

My questions are: First, would the member support the bill if it came back with the recommendations, as he indicated? If the answer to that is yes, then why would he not support the bill to get to committee?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, until the major issues are unstuck, as the report from the national task force clearly outlines, I do not think the bill can be supported. The minister had an opportunity when he tabled this legislation to rely upon the expert advice he sought in the first place. It would be irresponsible for me to support this legislation in its current format, because the minister himself did not take the recommendations he sought from an expert panel in the first place.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I noticed some gaps in the bill. A major one is the lack of acknowledgement of the impact of climate change. The Northwest Passage is opening up and ports in the Arctic are going to become more necessary. I wonder if the member agrees that, when the bill does get to committee, witnesses will need to be called from the Arctic to talk about the importance of ports in the Arctic.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do believe that we need to hear about the challenges that the Nunavummiut face with respect to port access, and that is a very legitimate concern that I think should be addressed in the legislation. Canada is an Arctic nation, and I hope that we give it the attention it deserves at the committee stage.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Earlier, he talked about red tape, particularly the additional administrative burden. Along with several of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, I recently met with representatives from port authorities. They told us that they were consulted on Bill C-33 but nothing from the things they mentioned during consultations was included in this bill. In particular, they asked for more autonomy to ensure their development.

What stands out on reading this bill is that there is more reporting. They are being asked to do even more.

I would like my colleague to tell us, if Bill C-13 is sent for study in committee, whether he would be in favour of having less red tape, particularly for small authorities that that do not always have the capacity to manage all that administrative burden.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the member mentioned, I also heard the port directors say that their perspective was not included in the bill.

I hope that the government will listen to the private sector and the port directors at committee stage so that we can improve the bill and promote our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the speech from my hon. colleague for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon nicely dovetailed with mine on the concern for prairie farmers.

The member mentioned pulse growers in Saskatchewan, but wheat growers in Alberta and barley growers all face the same problem: the massive inefficiencies at the Port of Vancouver where bulk carriers sit idly, which costs everyone. It costs prairie farmers, shippers, customers and our environment in Saanich—Gulf Islands, while these large freighters cool their heels sitting on our coast with free marine parking.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague for his support when my amendments get to committee.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the amendments of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands yet, but I hope in good spirit, if they are there to improve the flow of goods in Canada, they may be something I could support if I were on the transportation committee.

I will note, representing the Ashcroft Terminal, that they had three specific concerns that they wanted to see addressed in the legislation, as follows: the inclusion of intermodal containers in the final arbitration process, the continuation of extended interswitching and the contracting terms of the shipper contracts provided in the CTA, which may hurt shipper remedy rights moving forward.

I just wanted to put those three things on the record as well. I kind of botched the third one, but I see I am out of time.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. That is quite a mouthful, but it is simply known by its short title of “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act”.

By way of background, in April 2017, the then minister of transport, the hon. Marc Garneau, launched a review of the Railway Safety Act. Then in 2018, he announced a review of Canada port authorities to optimize their role in the transportation system. In late 2022, the previous minister of transport received the Final Report of the National Supply Chain Task Force, 2022, as other members have noted.

Bill C-33 was brought forward in response to the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review. If passed, this proposed legislation would amend several existing laws, as indicated in the long title of the bill.

What has become increasingly obvious is that urgent action is needed to address supply chain congestion. In fact, this is exactly what the Final Report of the National Supply Chain Task Force 2022 called for: urgent action to immediately address supply chain congestion.

It is rather typical of the government to refuse to take action until the issue has reached a crisis point. We have been waiting four years for a plan to modernize our ports, and this bill fails to address the root causes of supply chain congestion.

While this comes as no surprise, it is nonetheless frustrating that the government continues to propose inadequate legislation to address important issues such as this one. Bill C-33 does not offer solutions to long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. Instead, it seemingly indicates that the status quo is just fine.

There is also nothing in the bill to address labour disputes that impact supply chains. While it does clarify that rail blockades are illegal, which was already known, the real issue here is with enforcement. This clarification will do nothing to change the reality of rail blockades. Only the enforcement of our laws will.

Since this bill was tabled, there has been a change of minister. This may be due to a realization by the government that it has failed on this file. It may be an attempt to save face by shuffling ministers around, pretending that the Liberals have recognized their shortcomings and that changes will be made.

However, the pattern has been set. The government will continue to put forward flawed policy and centralize power in Ottawa. Speaking of centralizing power, the ports are supposed to operate at arm's length and work in the best interests of both the national economy and the supply chain. However, the previous minister of transport made it clear in his speech on this bill and while answering a question from my colleague, the member for Chilliwack—Hope, that the government is shortening the arm's length and trying to exercise more control over the ports.

This is an area of deep concern. Ports must have the freedom to operate effectively. This starts with letting them elect their own leadership. The ports do not need Liberal ministers to choose the chairs of local port boards. Ministerial authority to appoint the chair reduces the independence of ports.

This raises the following question: Why does the government believe that it should be the one to appoint the chairs of port authorities? It has not come forward with any reasonable explanation for this measure. Canadians do not need more centralized decision-making in Ottawa.

An unfortunate vice of the government is its hubris, which causes its members to think that they have the Midas touch, despite breaking all that they touch. One only needs to look at how the Prime Minister has run his cabinet for the last eight years, dictating to it and centralizing power in the PMO. This has resulted in disaster after disaster.

Another aspect of this bill that would hamper the work of Canadian ports is the new reporting requirements. These requirements would reduce the efficiency and competitiveness of Canadian ports, and they would be especially burdensome for smaller ports. This is yet another hallmark of the Liberal government: extending its control over larger enterprises and drowning smaller businesses in red tape, reaching the point where they are completely reliant on the government.

Furthermore, overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape would increase costs, which would inevitably be passed on to Canadian consumers. Additionally, the new proposed advisory committees could restrict the ability of ports to make decisions that would improve their capacity and efficiency.

Businesses do not need more government regulation; they need more freedom to be able to operate efficiently on their own. They do not need the government to tell them how the business should be run. The people who work in this industry and at these ports know better what they need to do to increase efficiencies. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to ports across the country does not take into consideration the unique challenges at different ports.

Decision-making by local port authorities is key to modernizing and improving the efficiency of ports around our country. Again, the additional ministerial powers in this bill would limit local decision-making by port authorities, leading to further delays in modernizing our ports. This, in turn, would reduce their efficiency and impact competitiveness. The result would be higher costs passed on to consumers, contributing further to the cost of living crisis that the government has created in this country.

One piece missing from this bill is the provision of any solutions to long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. This is a crucial part of the supply chain. However, the government has left this out, demonstrating that it has no intent to properly fix the issues that were highlighted in the task force report. This shows a worrying lack of understanding of the important aspects of the supply chain. Instead of taking the opportunity to make changes and address this issue, the government seems to be content to let the opportunity pass as it continues to double down on poor policy.

While Conservatives will always support measures that strengthen our supply chains, we cannot consent to efforts from the Liberal-NDP coalition to centralize power in Ottawa and put ports under the thumbs of Ottawa gatekeepers. Conservatives will not support propping up ineffective gatekeepers, which have only made life more difficult for Canadians. The Liberal-NDP coalition needs to work to remove gatekeepers, not validate them by granting them more power and responsibilities.

Conservatives cannot support an increase in red tape and bureaucracy, especially in our supply chain. While the Liberals want port authorities to be aligned with their objectives, as stated by the previous minister, we believe that ports should operate in the best interests of the national economy and the supply chain.

With a country the size of ours, we need an efficient supply chain in which all parts work well together. I believe that the government should go back to the drawing board and draft a bill, which it could present to this House, that makes good, substantive changes to our supply chain and addresses the concerns that were raised by the task force.

A bill purporting to address supply chain congestion must address all the concerns from stakeholders and remove the “Ottawa knows best” solutions that seem to be a hallmark of the government. This bill does neither.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked the end of my colleague's speech. She referred to the “Ottawa knows best” approach that is often taken. In her speech, she also spoke about the centralizing power that the Liberal-NDP coalition is trying to develop. I completely agree with her.

However, her remarks are somewhat inconsistent with what I heard yesterday. Her leader said that he was going to make infrastructure support for cities conditional on them meeting their housing targets, even though we do not know what those targets are. Is that not an “Ottawa knows best” approach? Is that not just another form of centralization?

I would like my colleague to explain that.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observations by my colleague in regard to the Ottawa-knows-best approach that the government tends to take. I agree with him that we see more of the same in this bill.

I know that the final report of the national supply chain task force called for urgent action to immediately address supply chain congestion, and I am sure he would agree with me that the bill that has been tabled in the House does absolutely nothing to address the concerns of the task force. Again, additional ministerial powers would simply limit decision-making by local port authorities, which I know members of his caucus are very concerned about, and would lead to further delays in modernizing our ports all across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about something that is worth elaborating on so that we can understand her position. She has an opportunity to illustrate her point to those watching us.

Even though there is not much to Bill C‑33, there is still something that bothers me, specifically the minister's will to have control over the appointment of board chairs of ports across Canada, in other words deciding who goes where. Worse yet, we know that when Liberal ministers do this sort of thing, the people who are selected are not accountable to the public. Their objective is not to develop the ports, but to please the minister. Most of the time, the people who are chosen are friends of the minister or friends of the Liberal Party.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this aspect of the bill is an improvement.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to listen in on the debate on this bill. I would suggest that another hallmark is that the current government is well known for appointing its friends and Liberal supporters, not only to benefit itself when it comes to decisions made by decision-making bodies but also to line the pockets of Liberal insiders and friends. I absolutely do not believe they have done anything to address that status quo in this bill.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every morning past my little house in northern Ontario, we hear the big rumbling of the train. I always love that sound. My family worked the trains, and when I hear that train whistle in the distance, I feel good. However, that train carries huge tankers of sulfuric acid from the smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, and it goes past my house.

Every morning as I hear that rumble, I want to know that those smelter cars are on tracks that are safe and that our workers are able to make sure they can look after them, because a derailment of that nature would be catastrophic in our region of the north where we have fragile lake systems. It would be catastrophic anywhere in this country, particularly going through many of the cities and communities across the country. We saw the disaster at Lac-Mégantic where so many people died because of a lack of regulation.

I want to ask my colleague about the importance of this. We have been told self-regulation works. It does not. We need to see strong measures to make sure that what we are transporting across this country is transported safely, for the workers, for the communities and for the environment. There is the necessity of making sure the federal government lives up to its responsibility of ensuring that is done.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives understand that not only is an efficient transportation system key to ensuring reliable supply chains, but also a safe transportation system, including a safe rail transportation system, is key. We need reliable supply chains if we want to grow Canada's economy. We support measures that strengthen our supply chains, and I believe safety is one of those measures.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be speaking about strengthening the board governance of Canada's strategic ports. My riding of Steveston—Richmond East is home to all of the above: rail, air and sea. It is an island city by nature, one which I look forward to the Speaker's visiting sometime.

The governance model that underpins Canada's port authorities was designed to establish responsible stewardship of these key strategic assets and to position them as commercially oriented actors that can act credibly in the marketplace. The day-to-day operations of these port authorities are directed by independent boards of directors that are responsible for ensuring that port planning, decisions and operations are made firmly within the public interest. In this context, the Minister of Transport retains the critical role of setting the strategic direction that guides the work of these boards.

For 20 years, this governance model has served Canada well. It has provided Canadians with world-class services while ensuring that capacity grew in support of Canada's economy in a gradual and financially sustainable manner. At the same time, Canada and the world have evolved. Our trade with the world is growing and is increasingly diversified. The shipping lines that support the trade have consolidated and are building even bigger ships, and the logistical connections between transportation services and shippers are growing in intensity and technological innovation. These developments underline the importance of ensuring that our ports can adapt to serve our national supply chains and global connections to the world.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that ports undertake their national mandates in very local contexts. As Canada's ports have grown, so too has public interest in their operations. In the eyes of indigenous and local communities, port governance is not only a question of orchestrating safe marine trade but is also now, more than ever, intertwined with environmental sustainability and our important national agenda for reconciliation. Simply put, Canada port authorities are being called upon to be more adaptable and responsive to an increasingly complex operating context. Things have changed since they were created over 20 years ago.

At the centre of government's approach to ensuring that port governance keeps pace are three important objectives: ensuring that port boards have the right people in the right positions to manage these strategic assets, structuring ongoing engagement with indigenous and local communities to better inform decision-making, and enhancing reporting to enable better public engagement, accountability and oversight. I will speak to these three objectives in turn.

Having the right composition and people in place on boards of directors is key to supporting enhanced board performance. This is why the government is proposing to add an additional prairie province director on the boards of the Thunder Bay and Prince Rupert port authorities in recognition of the role these ports play in the export of prairie commodities. In addition, greater flexibility is being proposed to enable more than one municipal directorship in instances where a port is located in more than one municipality. Recognizing board leadership of these strategic assets is critical, and Bill C-33 proposes to enable the Minister of Transport to designate the board chair from among and in consultation with the directors.

With respect to engagement with indigenous and local communities, this bill proposes to establishment structured mechanisms to enable more meaningful and ongoing dialogue. The port modernization review undertook extensive stakeholder consultations. During these engagements, it was noted that the depth and quality of relationships among port authorities, indigenous and local communities can vary. Such relationships are key to aligning expectations and goals and to informing port decisions that have economic, environmental and social implications. As a result, this bill proposes the establishment of three separate advisory committees at the port management level for engaging with indigenous nations, local communities and local governments. These committees would enable more meaningful and structured opportunities for engagement.

The third key governance objective this bill seeks to advance is increased reporting as a means of promoting transparency in port planning and operations, including environmental performance. Bill C-33 would reinforce port authorities' due diligence in planning by requiring them to provide land use plans on a five-year cycle. This would facilitate input from local communities and stakeholders in the port planning process. In addition, the proposed measures would modernize financial reporting and disclosure requirements that align with internationally recognized standards. Bill C-33 would further require port authorities to publicly report on greenhouse emissions and establish climate adaptation plans. These measures would position ports to be leaders in managing climate risks. Importantly, these new environmental reporting requirements would align with the government's ambitious climate change agenda and would be consistent with the requirements for other public institutions.

To promote ongoing improvements to port governance aimed at ensuring that these entities remain best in class, Bill C-33 would require port authorities to undergo a triennial assessment of board governance practices. This is an important best practice in corporate governance that befits assets of such national importance. These assessments would evaluate the effectiveness of and adherence to governance practices, including those related to record-keeping practices, the use of skills matrices and the promotion of diversity in recruitment. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada to inform future policies that help port governance remain best in class. Taken together, these important governance reforms would establish more proficient, transparent and accountable port authority boards consistent with the important role played by ports as instruments of public policy.

These measures build on the successful foundation established in the 1990s, when the Canada Marine Act was first enacted. They would update port governance to modern realities and serve to better align national and local realities, and they would do so by maintaining ports that are nimble market actors and can better support Canada's connections to the world.

We are pleased to advance these reforms. Bill C-33 would fundamentally reposition Canada's port authorities and maintain these world-class facilities that underpin our critical supply chains and national economy.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat the question I asked this morning because I did not get an answer.

I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I am not sure what to make of it. We are dealing with a bit of a catch-all bill on ports and railway companies. However, the earth is burning right now, with forest fires raging everywhere. We have never been so ineffectual in the fight against climate change. We also have a housing crisis, and 3.5 million housing units need to be built in Canada. It is absolutely ridiculous. In 2022, Canada spent $50 billion on the oil industry. Meanwhile, there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec.

Is Bill C-33 the only thing the Liberal government has to offer in response to all the crises erupting across the country?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a bit in there, and yes, it is important. I talked about Steveston—Richmond East, where I am from, which is surrounded by water and has all the supply chains, being the gateway city that it is.

We do take all of those things into account, and we have seen the leadership of the boards and the consultation that I spoke about, which are needed in order to make all of these decisions. For example, the Port of Vancouver takes into account marine animals and the sounds coming from the ports. These kinds of improvements are going to continue to be made, and this bill reflects all of those decisions.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to follow up on comments made by my colleague.

I cannot believe that this speech was about the board and the focus of the board. Right now, what we are in need of is some management of the traffic in the port. The operations in the water need management. I was out on a port tour this summer in Vancouver, and it is the Wild West of port traffic. No one body has authority over that, and it certainly is not the boards or elected municipal politicians who are going to manage it.

This is a serious problem. This is a safety, transparency and equity problem. How is this bill going to increase equity, increase safety and improve governance at the ports?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised. This is about collaborating, listening to local communities and understanding the unique needs they have. The speech was about consultation, taking advice and listening to communities and what their needs are to make these decisions. They are important decisions.

I do not know why the member would not want to work with the community that is so important to the areas we represent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Liberal colleague's speech earlier. Obviously, words matter. One part of his speech caught my attention, and I would like to go back to it.

He said that one of the bill's objectives is to ensure that port boards have the right people, that the right people are sitting at the table. Who are these right people? Does he mean to say that the people there now are not the right people? Does he mean that the wrong people were appointed in the past?

The government actually has the authority to make numerous appointments to the boards of directors. In fact, this bill specifically discusses the appointment of port board chairs.

In the minds of members on the other side, does “the right people” mean Liberal Party supporters?

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

Mr. Speaker, the work we do here is for the people. It is about the people. We need to listen and collaborate.

In no way does the bill say they have to be from one party or another. What I said was they need to represent the communities that are impacted by the supply chain. We saw the negative impacts of this during COVID. We need to see to the needs of the people who are operating on these corridors and take their advice. We need experts from the industries. Those are the people we need to listen to.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a fantastic home. Our country spans more than half of the northern hemisphere and crosses more than six time zones. It is quite incredible. We are the second-largest country by way of geographical size and have the most extensive coastline, spanning more than 240,000 kilometres. It is amazing.

Our home is vast, and the early years of Confederation were spent ensuring that our nation would be built in such a way that it would allow all of this land to be united. From coast to coast, Canadians built infrastructure that was necessary to move goods from one end of our country to the other and to equip themselves to be able to send our goods across the water to other countries. Rail, of course, played an incredible role in this and continues to play a role in our country's ability to get trade goods to market and within the confines of own country.

The project of our very first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was a masterpiece of sorts. It was the Canadian Pacific Railway, which was meant to unite us as a nation. It was meant to serve our economic well-being as a country, and it did just that. In fact, it was so visionary that it continues to do just that.

Rail and national infrastructure were pivotal to how our nation was built, and we remain united today. As these means of transport and infrastructure were set up, both on the national and subnational levels, our economy grew and we fashioned ourselves as a nation committed to trading. To this day, we are an export nation. It keeps us strong, but only as much as our infrastructure is strong.

Canada is blessed with a plethora of natural resources, abundant land and incredibly hard-working people who will get the job done, that is, when the government frees them up to do so. Canadians work hard. They work hard between every coast in this country to build, grow, harvest, mine and collect the fruits of their labour and then get it to market. Our domestic economy feeds and fuels the world. In fact, there is such great capacity in this regard that I truly wish the government would get out of the way and allow us to excel.

Nevertheless, our rails and ports provide the means for our industries to deliver what Canada has to offer to the world and to bring to Canada what the world has to offer to us. The infrastructure across our great land provides the opportunity for every worker, farmer, business owner and their family to be sustained. It allows them to get the goods they need for their households and their businesses.

Rail is literally in the centre of my home city of Lethbridge. We are home to the High Level Bridge, which spans the Oldman River. It is the largest railroad structure in Canada and the longest trestle bridge in the world. It is at the core of our centre.

Canada's railways and ports are more than just the infrastructure that gets stuff from point A to point B. Infrastructure is a piece of the Canadian nation-building legacy, and it is the vital artery of our economy, which is not just our present but also our future. To believe in our infrastructure and keeping it strong is to believe in the Canadian people, our country and its vibrancy going forward, because without a thriving economy we cannot have a thriving people. Without infrastructure to get product to market, we cannot have a thriving economy. Therefore, infrastructure is essential to our economy, which is essential to the strength of our people and this dear country we love.

Let me be clear. Our infrastructure in this country has its fair challenges, in particular infrastructure around transportation, so I understand the desire to address those challenges, fix problems and look for greater efficiencies and greater effectiveness. However, this bill does not do that. This bill does not answer the call that was put out for meaningful change. Overall, this bill is an abysmal failure in that regard.

Bill C-33 is a failed attempt to strengthen the port system and railway safety. It amends several acts in order to do that. It was drafted in response to the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review.

It was delivered with promises to improve affordability, to improve safety and to improve efficiency, and it was delivered by a minister who is no longer functioning in that capacity. I wonder if that is perhaps a bit symbolic of the confidence we should have in the bill. More than that, the draft of the bill, the content of the bill, speaks for itself in terms of how much confidence we should have in it.

Bill C-33 fails in so many ways to address the issues that are at play. For starters, it fails to address the urgent need to alleviate supply chain congestion. This was outlined in the final report put forward by the national supply chain task force. Stakeholders have said that there is nothing in this bill that would improve supply chain efficiencies. For example, there is nothing in this bill to address labour disputes that impact supply chains.

Furthermore, the bill does not solve long-standing issues between railway shippers and railway companies. There is also nothing in the bill to address the Port of Vancouver's inability to load grain in the rain. Folks, let us be clear here: It is Vancouver; it rains all the time. If we cannot load in the rain, when are we loading? If we are not loading, how are we getting product to market? Wait. We are not. That is why we basically have a congested parking lot known as the Port of Vancouver.

It is a problem. It is driving up the cost of goods and is making it so that some of our store shelves do not have products on them to begin with. This bill had the opportunity to address some of these key issues, but it failed.

I hear all the time from those in my riding about their frustrations concerning these things. They simply want to get their product to market in a reasonable fashion. Farmers want to get their grain onto trains so those trains can go to ports and those ports can let others take the commodity across the ocean. That is how this needs to work. That was the potential of this bill. It had the potential to address these issues.

It is a failure in and of itself that it did not. However, on top of that, the bill decided to heap on even more bureaucracy and more red tape to make things even more difficult. Not only did it fail to solve the issue, but it actually creates more issues. There is a good piece of legislation for everyone.

As I mentioned, our port is already a mess, but the government has decided to apply a bit more red tape to see how much more of a mess it can create, so out comes Bill C-33. In this bill, the government decided to implement a new advisory committee. No doubt this could restrict ports in making decisions to improve their capacity and efficiency. That is a problem.

Bill C-33 would also increase the ministerial authority to appoint the chair of port authorities, therefore reducing the independence of our ports, which are supposed to operate at arm's length from the government. Additional ministerial powers would limit local decision-making and would lead to further delays in the modernization of our ports. In the end, the overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape would increase costs, which would then be passed on to consumers, consumers who are already paying through the roof due to the government's inflationary spending and carbon tax.

Clarifying that the railway blockade is illegal certainly will not reduce disruption. Imposing a one-size-fits-all approach to ports and to railways across the country does not recognize the unique challenges faced in this vast nation. The entire bill is symbolic of a government that is incredibly out of touch and not willing to listen to the true needs of this nation. For this reason, I will not be voting in favour of the bill, and I would urge the House to act in the same way.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I did not get a chance to bring up in my speech, but my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques mentioned it. The Conservatives are criticizing the fact that the ports will have additional red tape imposed on them. That is a concern we share.

We agree with the Conservatives that the bill does not meet the expectations of port representatives. The representatives made certain requests, but none of them are included in the bill. That said, we do see value in some of the additional accountability measures, such as the idea of setting up advisory committees to forge links with cities, local residents and indigenous communities and to help develop climate change adaptation plans.

We have a question, however. The legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all approach. The same rule applies to everyone. The problem is that some ports, like the ones in Vancouver and Montreal, are bigger, while others, like the one in Saguenay, are quite a bit smaller. I am more familiar with Quebec than I am with Canada, but it seems to me that there must be small ports in other areas of Canada that might have more trouble than the others in dealing with these rules.

We would like to propose an asymmetrical approach so that the smaller ports are not forced to meet certain requirements, such as filing quarterly financial statements. Preparing those statements takes a lot of time, energy, financial resources and accounting work that could be put to better use in these smaller ports. The federal government does not need quarterly financial statements for small ports.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think where the hon. member, I and my colleagues can agree is that we are looking for that supply chain clog to be resolved. We are looking for greater efficiencies and effectiveness. We are looking to actually resolve the real problems that exist. I think where we agree is that the bill would not do that. In fact, it would not only fail to address the issues that currently exist, but the bill would create more problems.

My hon. colleague is highlighting the fact that a one-size-fits-all approach is being taken, as if every single port across the country is the exact same and therefore should be subjected to the same sort of scheme. We are this vast country. We are this vast land. We are this massive geographic nation. We have to come up with something different. There has to be something more efficient, more effective and more unto the service of Canadians rather than unto the service of bureaucracy.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question. This bill is going to pass second reading and go on to the committee. I would be very interested, whether it would be directly through the committee or even through me, to hear the member's comments and/or amendments she would like to see made to the legislation. Maybe she can comment today on what specific amendments or changes she would make to really strengthen the legislation to then serve the purpose it is intended to serve.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I were eating in a restaurant, my server brought out a dish and maybe there were a couple of hairs or a fly in there, and I would send it back, I would not say to sprinkle some cheese on it and it would be fine. I would ask that the meal be tossed and that a new meal be brought to me. The same is true with the bill. Let us toss it, let us restart and let us get it right.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, there was a portion of the member's intervention where she described Nunavut to a tee. Because of the lack of investments that have been made in Nunavut, our economic opportunities have been well below the rest of Canada. Ports are an important opportunity for Nunavummiut to be part of generating and contributing to Canada's economy. With climate change, we have seen the Northwest Passage opening up a lot of traffic and therefore there is the need for more ports to be established in the Arctic region.

I wonder if the member agrees that when the bill comes to committee, we need to ensure there are witnesses called from the Arctic to ensure that Nunavut's unique needs will be met through the bill.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit Nunavut and 11 of its remote communities. It was an absolutely spectacular opportunity. I walked away with such an appreciation for the vastness of the north, and the uniqueness and specialness of that area.

One of the things I observed, and she is drawing attention to it, was the lack of access to goods and resources. It is putting those who call Nunavut home at a significant disadvantage compared to the rest of the country.

The whole vision behind national infrastructure, in particular the railroad and the ports, was to unite the country and give us equal access to goods, both in and out. I absolutely believe that we should be bringing witnesses forward who can testify to the fact that Nunavut has been underserved and that changes are needed in order to do better for the sake of our unity as a nation.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

The parliamentary secretary asked a great question about how we could fix this bill once it went to committee. Being on the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the bill was very interesting to me, especially being from Saskatchewan where we are landlocked. The railways are an important mode of transportation for our commodities. It is a bit disappointing that this has missed the mark in improving the efficiency of the railway system and ports.

I will talk about agriculture for most of this speech, because it is interconnected between agriculture and our supply chains in our transportation system.

Like most of us did, I had a lot of time this summer to go around the riding and visit folks. I was able to get the member for Thornhill out to Regina this summer, and we got her on a combine. We were combining lentils just outside of Regina. We were also able to get the chief superintendent from the Depot Division, F division, on a combine as well. That day we were combining durum.

What these all have in common is that once they go from the field to the combine to the bins, the next step is to get them to the port. That is the transportation system we have in the country.

The thing that happens so often, almost like clockwork every winter, is a slowdown of the trains because they cannot pull as many cars because of the cold weather. We really need to focus on this and have more options available to get our commodities to market. We have heard this time and time again from producers across Saskatchewan and the Prairies.

I know my friend from Red Deer—Lacombe would hear many of the same complaints from producers and from the agriculture sector as a whole. They are very good at getting their yields off the field; the problem is getting them to port.

My colleague, the member for Lethbridge said it very well, that one of the aspects we were looking to strengthen is the efficiency of the port system. Not being able to load grain cars and ships in the rain in Vancouver is a substantial problem. This could have been addressed in this legislation to strengthen it.

Bill C-33 would amend seven existing laws, including the Canadian Marine Act, the Customs Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, the Marine Transportation Security Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada.

My colleague from Lethbridge talked about the ever-increasing bureaucracy and red tape that was added in this current iteration of Bill C-33. We do not need more red tape when it comes to our ports. I think everyone in this chamber would agree that we have to be more efficient at transporting our goods. Canada is an exporting economy. We see that now more than ever in Saskatchewan.

We have some big players in Saskatchewan. The head office of Viterra in Saskatchewan. I talked to its CEO and he put it very clearly that we needed more efficiency at the Port of Vancouver. We did talk about this bill a little this summer when we ran into each other. He was looking forward to seeing what was in it. I had a chance to give him a call the other day and he was quite disappointed. In fact, many stakeholders have been disappointed in what this bill has provided so far.

Some of the people who were not consulted on the bill were CP Rail, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, Canadian Marine Pilots, Western Grain Elevator Association, Port Nanaimo, Canadian Canola Growers, Global Container Terminals and the Chamber of Shipping.

One of the comments from CP Rail was that after working on this for four years that it was a whole bunch of nothing. That is one of our main stakeholders with regard to the bill. When one asks what could be done better, we could have a conversation with CP on how this bill could be improved. I hope CP Rail representatives are on the witness list when we get this to committee.

Another one of the people who could be consulted is a man from Saskatchewan, Murad Al-Katib of AGT Foods. This company transports and ships across the world. One thing he says is that getting container ships is a difficult thing to do in Canada.

What we could do is have conversations with the people on the ground who need the railway system improved. One thing I would like is to have the witness list include some of these people when this legislation comes to committee, people like Murad Al-Katib and companies like Viterra. These people have used the port system.

The Port of Vancouver is the gateway to the world for us as exporters. There are efficiencies we could improve on, obviously. Like I said earlier in my speech, we really need to be able to load grain cars in all weather. We have to do it safely, of course, but we need to be able to do it in all kinds of weather.

When we are trying to get our goods to market, in talking to the railways about the huge inefficiencies, another thing we could do is get some pipelines built. If we take some oil cars off the railways, then we would have the ability to actually ship more grain on a daily basis.

When it comes to Saskatchewan, and my colleague from Alberta agrees, there is no more efficient way to ship oil than through a pipeline. We have seen through other legislation like Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines act, that we cannot get things built in this country.

When we talk about the overall vision for infrastructure across this country, that vision needs to include more pipelines being built to get oil from west to east. We do not have those conversations. There needs to be infrastructure debate in this chamber about how we are going to move forward into the 21st century. This also includes building pipelines. It includes the electricity grid as well, because we need to become more efficient when it comes to shipping materials across our beautiful country.

One of the other things I found very interesting is some of the amendments and the impacts they would have on the ports, such as the proposed amendment to expand Canadian port authorities' mandate over traffic management, including vessels moored or anchored. We talk about expanding the port authorities' mandate. Have we had that discussion with the port authorities? Do we know if they have the capacity to even expand that mandate? That is the question I have for the parliamentary secretary, and hopefully we can get that answered when we are in committee.

Another question I have is on enabling the development of inland terminals. Have they talked to some of the proponents that would be building and expanding these terminals and what they need to see in this legislation?

Another amendment would be to streamline the review process for port authorities' borrowing. Obviously, that is something we could have a conversation about and discuss in committee as well. On establishing new regulatory authorities to oversee Canada's marine security framework, whenever there is talk about expanding authorities, I would like to have conversations on what that means to shippers and distributers across the country.

I would also like to have the conversation about how we are going to be able to get goods then across the ocean. We talk about getting to the port. We also need more efficiency when it comes to having the ability to load ships with grain. We need to be building more capacity to ship LNG. We have had Germany and Japan come to our country and ask for help when it comes to LNG. One of the reasons we cannot do it is because we do not have the capacity to load these vessels to get the LNG to different areas of the world. That is a conversation we should be having as well.

The United States built five, six or seven LNG terminals over the last three or four years and we have built nothing. We have become a country where it is almost impossible to build infrastructure under the current government. People want to be able to invest in our country, but the goalposts keep moving on when we can actually get something built. We are then really having trouble attracting foreign investment to our country because they do not see how we would have the capacity to export.

We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in this country over the last eight years because of investment flowing from Canada straight to the United States. This is because investors believe our infrastructure is not sufficient to be able to transport the goods they want to produce in our country.

We have a wealth of natural resources and we do not have the ability to get those resources to port and then to the destination after that. Therefore, this bill, unfortunately, misses the mark in trying to create more efficiencies at the Port of Vancouver. It misses the mark and increases our capacity on the railways. For that reason and many reasons, after reaching out to stakeholders, they do not like the bill, we do not like it either and we will be voting against it.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I have to give some credit to the member for Regina—Lewvan for really engaging, and I think that is the whole point of the process. Now that the bill is going to pass at second reading and go to committee, we are now going to have the opportunity to engage. I take, with great respect, a lot of the comments that he made and a lot of ideas that gave, and I am hoping he can bring those to committee and/or at least pass them on to me so I can bring them to committee.

At the end of the day, what we are trying to do here is all about leveraging government investments. I know in my riding, for example, we were able to leverage $175 million for a project where the private sector and government got together and made the projects happen.

The last thing I want to mention in leading to my question is that one does not work in isolation of the other. Whether it is a ports modernization study, whether it is a St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation review, whether it is a supply chain review, they all work together and are fluid.

With all that the member has proposed and brought to the attention of the House, does he intend to bring it to the committee and be part of the process so that this legislation would do exactly what it is intended to do?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will be bringing some of our ideas to committee, either by me, if I can sub in, or through my wonderful colleagues who are on the committee that this bill will be going to.

I appreciate the ability to add to the witness list because there are a lot of agriculture stakeholders who need to be consulted about this legislation and amendments need to be proposed to make it better. My hope is that when the witnesses and experts in the field of transportation come to committee to talk about what was missed in this bill, our colleagues from the Liberals and NDP will listen and not just shoot down their ideas.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a bit about history. In 1913, the National Transcontinental Railway was completed a few kilometres from Senneterre. Today, we are talking about rail safety, tracks that are too old throughout my riding and Quebec, safety concerns with the transportation of goods, gaps and red tape.

What does my colleague think about a secure area to reduce port congestion?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many of us can have conversations about aging infrastructure in our ridings across the country. Something that has been overlooked in the last eight years is putting money into infrastructure, especially in transportation, in almost all aspects. We should have the conversation around adding more money to infrastructure.

The government is very good at wasting money on pet projects, but when it comes to putting money into infrastructure, it has failed miserably. We have seen the Asian infrastructure bank fail, we have seen the Canada Infrastructure Bank fail and not build one project. I think all of us should be able to bring forward infrastructure projects in every riding. There are 338 ridings across the country where the government could put money into something that will actually help Canadians and stop wasting money on pet projects.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague say the old Conservative mantra that they are going to build pipelines, pipelines, pipelines. I was reading the indictment of the people of California against ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, Conoco, Phillips, and it says:

Rather than warn consumers, the public, and governments, however, Defendants—

That is big oil:

—mounted a disinformation campaign beginning at least as early as the 1970s to discredit the burgeoning scientific consensus on climate change; deny their own knowledge of climate change-related threats; create doubt in the minds of consumers...

...Defendants have promoted and/or profited from the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels...

This has forced the state of California and the people of the world to pay for the damages. What we are seeing is the big tobacco moment.

My hon. colleague is saying big tobacco and big oil will continue to pollute the planet and it will be good. I would suggest that he read the indictment from the state of California against all the big five oil companies that knowingly discredited climate science and are knowingly destroying our planet.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the member is catching up on California law and the state of California. Our leader has been going to Timmins—James Bay so often. We are getting so much support, and there will be a Conservative member. He could actually retire in California after the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech my colleague just made addressing some of the challenges that are faced, certainly when it comes to Bill C-33.

There are some significant trade challenges that the prairie provinces are facing when it comes to getting our commodities to market. I know some of the trade challenges are starting to make headline news.

I am wondering if my friend and colleague from Regina—Lewvan would be able to comment on that.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment. Obviously he knows a lot about agriculture.

We are having huge issues getting our goods to market. I am looking forward to hearing his speech in the not-too-distant future on how we could help make sure our agricultural producers are supported and how we could help them get their goods to market.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑33 comes at the end of a series of initiatives taken by the Canadian government over the past six years. Beyond the various committees that could have addressed the matter in previous Parliaments, let us consider the following initiatives.

In 2018, there was the ports modernization review. In 2022, there was the final report of the supply chain task force, which was tabled in the House in October of the same year.

The objectives of Bill C-33 are as follows: to eliminate systemic barriers in order to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; to expand the mandate of Canadian port authorities in relation to traffic management; to position Canada's ports as strategic transportation hubs; to improve the government's understanding of ports and port operations; and to modernize provisions relating to rail safety, security and the transportation of dangerous goods. I will focus mainly on that last point.

Bill C-33 contains a series of proposals affecting the following federal acts: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Customs Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.

First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be referred to committee, since a number of improvements could be proposed. We will have to be responsible and trustworthy enough to undertake the legislative and regulatory tightening required for the amendments that are to be debated.

A decade has passed since the unspeakable tragedy in Lac‑Mégantic that claimed the lives of 47 people and left an entire community forever scarred. For people in Quebec, this tragedy is an unavoidable part of any conversation about rail safety, which, as I said, is the subject of my remarks.

Certainly the supply chain element is interesting, and there is plenty to say about that. I want to focus on rail safety without necessarily tying it to the supply chain issue. There have been recommendations, round tables, consultations, reviews and audits. That all served to inform people, but none of it can replace what really matters, which is a regulatory and legislative framework.

In all honesty, we have to acknowledge that the work that was done in 2017-18, the many Transportation Safety Board reports that identified recurring safety issues and deficiencies, and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's observations on the matter all sent a clear signal that we need to study Bill C‑33.

I have said it before and I say it all the time: Words matter. Using vocabulary that is clear, and prescriptive if necessary, is already a step in the right direction. There is so much data and benchmarking available that I will be the first to admit that guiding regulatory policy in this sector is a huge undertaking. Companies have a duty to help us help them.

In 2022, there were 225 main-track accidents in Canada, 18% more than the 10-year average for this type of track, which is the rail network's main artery. The country's largest rail union is speaking out about fatigue, working under pressure and understaffing in the sector. These problems are addressed in Bill C‑33.

Among our neighbours to the south, elected officials are pointing the finger at the role of precision scheduled railroading, known as PSR. It is a railway management system created by none other than Hunter Harrison. If members have read anything about Lac‑Mégantic, they will recognize Mr. Harrison's name. PSR was introduced at Canadian National in 1998 and at Canadian Pacific in 2012. It has been the favoured management system of most major rail companies here and in the U.S. for more than a decade.

The objectives of PSR, according to its infamous creator, are to provide frequent and reliable service, control costs, optimize assets and operate safely. He even added that there should be fewer employees, but they should be made to work harder.

In practical terms, it is a management approach designed with maximum profitability as its priority. This system aims to put longer, faster trains on the rails more quickly in order to keep operating costs as low as possible, all with fewer staff. The average length and weight of CN trains have tripled since 1990. This is directly linked to the implementation of this PSR system.

When unveiling financial results in 2018, CP emphasized the importance of PSR. It was important for profitability. When Le Devoir analyzed the company's annual reports in 2023, it discovered that CP's profit margins shot up almost 500% between 2012 and 2022. I just want to remind everyone that the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy took place in 2013. Furthermore, 2012 was no ordinary year in CP's history. That was the exact year Mr. Harrison, the creator of PSR, joined the company.

Why am I addressing rail safety from this angle? I am talking about it because the pursuit of profitability using PSR management is the fraternal twin of the culture of self-regulation that has prevailed in Canada for far too long. The power to change things involves the ability to exercise that power, which is regulatory. Of course, we need to protect the supply chain, workers and remote communities. However, we need to understand that it would be a mistake to continue with self-regulation or to encourage more self-regulation in the rail industry.

I want to quote an article from La Presse on this very subject. It states: “Ottawa sets guidelines for the companies, which develop their own security system and usually do their own inspections.” That means that the companies do everything. The article goes on to say, “According to experts, the problem is that, in recent years, Transport Canada has resolutely become a department with an economic mandate, and it is neglecting its safety mandate.”

The article quotes one source as saying, “There were even memos from the minister reminding us that we were an economic department...In short, we were there not to stop trains but to keep them running.” That quote is from 2013, the year the Auditor General of Canada published her audit on rail safety at Transport Canada, the year of the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy.

In 2022 and 2023, the supply chain got a lot of attention, proving that the railway is vitally important to the economy. To not engage in some thoughtful deliberation on the potential of the railway and the best safety practices in terms of monitoring, reporting and record-keeping would, in my opinion, be a missed opportunity and an irresponsible choice.

I believe that the long-awaited Bill C‑33 has some progressive aspects that could be improved upon in committee. Generally speaking, the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion in the ports, the creation of financial penalties for safety breaches, the strengthening of safety management systems, and the prohibitions on interfering with or damaging railway structures or operations are measures that the Bloc Québécois welcomes.

As elected members, we have a responsibility to ensure that members of the public know they are safe in areas where railway activity is present, not just for now or in a week, but for the long term.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with this bill is that there seems to be a downloading of authority to Ottawa in various aspects of this bill. I would ask my colleague from the Bloc Québécois about this. Certainly we have seen how increased bureaucracy, increased red tape, has not actually led to a safer circumstance, whether that be on our rail system, in our ports or in negotiations with labour and whatnot. It has not actually increased the efficiency or safety of our ports and railroads.

Does this member share my concern about whether this downloading of more authority and more processes in offices in Ottawa is an effective solution to addressing some of the challenges this bill purports to address?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand what downloading of responsibility my colleague is talking about. As I understand the bill before us, elected officials have the power to impose requirements on companies.

However, if my colleague's question is about giving companies greater freedom, I am totally against it. At present, the Government of Canada simply sets benchmarks and then the companies do as they please. This is what has happened. This is the reason Canada's rail safety regime is so lax.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. This is extremely important.

Under the Harper government, rail safety regulations and inspections all became a thing of the past. They were replaced by a self-management system, which put company directors in charge of managing rail safety. Since that time, the number of deaths has grown, and several tragic, horrifying accidents have happened. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has done nothing to correct this irresponsible move by the Harper government.

I would like my colleague to tell us how important it is to reinstate rail safety inspections with federal government oversight to improve rail safety.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by being positive. There have been some improvements, such as reducing train speeds, enhancing track inspection requirements, and making tank cars sturdier. However, according to Ian Naish, a former director at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the changes were marginal.

Yes, a lot more work needs to be done and only the government can do it.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we know, Canada was built on the railway and has since trended toward constant deregulation. That, of course, led to the Lac‑Mégantic disaster. The only thing that has increased since that tragedy is the transportation of oil by train, which has increased dramatically. That is the only thing that has changed since 2013.

This bill proposes increased regulation for goods. A few years ago, however, a group of people from Saint‑Hyacinthe launched an initiative in my riding called Convoi‑Citoyen. They ventured onto the tracks and discovered exposed wires and tracks sitting on wet soil instead of cement.

Should we not also be addressing inspections of the tracks themselves?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too know people from Mégantic. They are inspecting the rail lines themselves. Some might say that they do not have the right to do so, but the work will not get done otherwise, and they do not want to go through that again. That is obvious. No one wants to go through that again.

Yes, we absolutely must be more prescriptive in what we ask of rail carriers.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to debate the important issues that Canadians face.

Before I jump into the subject matter of Bill C-33, I would note that yesterday represented the second anniversary of the 2021 election. In that regard, I would note my deep appreciation to the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for the opportunity to continue serving them in this place, to be their voice in Canada's Parliament. A big thanks goes to my wife, Danielle, my kids and my whole family for their support, as well as my staff, volunteers, campaign team and everybody it takes to make elections happen.

It is interesting that the Liberal Prime Minister, in the course of the last election, promised that if he were elected with a minority, he would call an election after two years. That is another broken promise by a Liberal who cares more about power than he does anything else. He also promised, I would note, after which I look forward to jumping into the substance of Bill C-33, that he would not join a coalition with the NDP, despite Conservatives suggesting that this would be an inevitable result. They laughed at us then. We turned out to be the ones who were telling the truth, and the Liberals were exposed for once again misleading us and holding on to power at any cost.

As we get into the debate on Bill C-33, once again we have before us a bill where, if we read the preamble, there is very little to disagree with. I have said this often when it comes to Liberal bills. The Liberals are great at making announcements, proposing things and saying they are doing things, but when we dig into the substance of what we have before us, it certainly falls short.

We have a bill that touches on a whole host of different things when it comes to our rail sector and our ports, including some of our deep sea ports. There are seven acts that would be affected. In Canada, as a country, both the rail and sea transport sectors are absolutely fundamental to the success of our nation. We have to be able to transport our goods and resources, whether the raw resources that come from the ground or the value-added resources in every segment of the economy that are produced everywhere across our nation. We need to have a transport sector that we can trust and that is reliable, safe and secure and that not only Canadians can trust, but also, when it comes to investment, our customers around the world can look at our system and know and trust that it is doing the right thing.

Concerns have been highlighted. Transport ministers seem to fall at an astonishing rate. In 2017, a few transport ministers ago, the now-retired Marc Garneau, who was then transport minister, launched the statutory review of the Railway Safety Act. Over the course of the last number of years, we have seen different steps in that process. It was in October of last year that the previous transport minister received the final report from the national supply chain task force; now we have this bill before us. However, when it comes to whether this bill deals with the concerns that have been highlighted, we are increasingly hearing that it does not, pure and simple.

I would note that one of the first issues that I dealt with, as did many of my colleagues after we were elected in 2019, was the rail strike just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were blockades and protests that had virtually ground our economy to a halt. In fact, it would have been very interesting to see what the impact on the economy of the Liberals' mismanagement of that situation would have been. We did not have the opportunity to see direct impacts of that. Of course, we know that in the aftermath, we immediately went into the COVID pandemic, and our focus for the last number of years obviously changed dramatically.

The bill we have before us would change aspects of railway safety, including security. There are prohibitions and some changes to the way that things would be classified. We need to ensure that railway companies are able to address security and, when it comes to ensuring that appropriate clearances for the staff of rail companies are provided, as well as that there are continual reviews.

I would just note that when it comes to the review portion, it is great to ask for statutory reviews but I am sure I am not alone, like many in this place, who would note that statutory reviews rarely happen when they are scheduled to. I will be asking the Library of Parliament to go through and look at all of the statutory reviews that are currently missing.

It is great to talk about a statutory review, but it is nothing more than boilerplate language. It does not do much good if one does not actually plan to review it.

I believe that some of these things are laudable in their intent but when it comes to the substance of whether they accomplish it, many Canadians do not realize that railway companies actually have their own police forces because of some of the history associated with the importance of that as a sector of our economy and the growth of our country. Some of the dynamics of that and, in some cases, legislation that is almost as old as the country itself needs to be reflective of present-day reality. These are important questions that have to be asked when it comes to committee.

This is the sort of bill that truly takes a huge amount of time to get into some of the substance so I will go very high-level here.

One of the challenges that has been brought to my attention is that there are two things that take place. One is that Ottawa gets a whole lot more authority which, interestingly enough, the Bloc supports, which is an irony, I would suggest.

At the same time, they are downloading a whole bunch of the work to port authorities that do not necessarily have the resources to accomplish the objectives that will be brought forward if this bill is passed unamended.

What I fear will be the case is that we will have more red tape and more bureaucracy slowing down the decision-making process when it comes to our ports. We know how essential that is. It was only months ago that we had a strike at the Port of Vancouver where it, certainly in western Canada, ground our economy virtually to a halt. I believe it was half a billion dollars a day in economic impact and it will take months to clear the backlog.

When it comes to products, whether it is dried commodities like agriculture, whether it is oil or the carbon-based products that are essential for so many economies around the world, which Canada has a strong record of being able to provide, we have to make sure we do this right.

I think that it is not the answer to increase bureaucracy and download responsibility without understanding the impacts that this will bring about on the people who are actually responsible for making sure that our economy is moving. I say “moving” very specifically.

I would bring up an example that emphasizes my point.

Today in question period, the Minister of Health brought up natural health products. I know all of us in this place have heard a lot about natural health products over the course of the summer.

The unfortunate trend is that this government is desperate to make changes on things that do not actually help, especially when one sees the irony that the government is making a whole bunch of regulatory and bureaucratic changes to natural health products that nobody asked for and certainly very few people I have spoken to, whether in the sector or outside it, support, yet it is pushing this down the throats of small business owners, of Canadians and one of Canada's most trusted sectors.

That same health minister supports the selling of hard drugs on our streets.

I bring this up because it highlights the irony that one has a government that seems to be quick to propose things, to look for ways that it can increase the size of government, the inefficiencies associated with that and the red tape that impacts the ability for the economy to function, but when it comes to actually delivering, it fails and its priorities always seem to be in the wrong place.

The questions I have asked certainly need to be addressed at committee. I hope that serious amendments can be made so that we do not allow that same trend to slow down a sector that is already being slowed down by a Liberal government that is simply out of touch.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House, as we are all back to do work for the people.

One thing he did not mention in his speech was what the Harper regime did in devastating railway safety. Members may recall that what the Harper regime did was it simply eliminated the kind of inspection regime that is so important to guarantee railway safety by replacing it with self-servicing safety management systems that are run by corporate CEOs themselves.

That resulted in, which we are all aware of, some of the most disastrous accidents. The most tragic losses of life over the last few years have come as a result, in part, by moving away from inspections and the shift to self-managed safety with the safety management systems. We see, in this bill, no real reflection of what is needed to ensure that we rebuild those safety systems and federal inspections.

Does my colleague agree with me that the Harper regime made a mistake in self-managed safety? Does he agree with me and the transport committee that we need to re-enhance railway safety, which is something the bill does not do?

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

Madam Speaker, I opened my speech acknowledging that it has been two years since the last election. It was not long after that the NDP members broke their word to the people of this country, along with the Liberals. They suggested during the election that they would never form a coalition and they would never form a government with the Liberals.

We now have NDP members who seem to be regretting the fact that they have their own government, in actual fact and operational fact, in this place when it comes to being able to accomplish anything. They are now frustrated that their partners in crime, so to speak, are not doing what they want.

My suggestion is simply this: If the member is so concerned about the government they support not accomplishing what they want to bring forward, maybe they should have thought twice about entering an agreement they were not honest about in the first place, as they are not actually able to get anything out of it.

That is certainly a question I hear often. What does the NDP get out of it? Certainly—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that the member opposite has a tremendous beard, and I mean that with all sincerity. He has been growing it over the summer and it looks “Tom Mulcair-esque”, but I know he will not appreciate that comment as much.

The government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation this week that are non-cost in nature; they are legislative reforms. One was Bill C-33, but there was also Bill C-49, which is about enabling tremendous economic opportunities in the energy sector in Atlantic Canada.

Has my hon. colleague opposite had the opportunity to talk to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester or the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame about whether they are in support of this bill? This is what the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for, as is the premier of Nova Scotia. Has he had a conversation with them?

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

Madam Speaker, I will let the comment about my facial hair stand in the record now forever, but I thank him.

I would like to correct the member because the member asked a question in question period that I found really interesting. It was about how there is support for the bill that he referred to. However, he is quick to point to when premiers and stakeholders will support a bill, while failing to acknowledge when they oppose bills.

What is interesting is the bill he refers to, Bill C-49, specifically references provisions that were implemented through Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament. The very premiers who have said they want energy development, which we all do, whether it is new tech or something associated with traditional energy, also asked the government to repeal Bill C-69. The Liberals are now talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebeckers experienced the tragedy first-hand. It has been studied. We know that the regulations and inspections were insufficient.

We also know that in the business model I mentioned in my speech, precision scheduled railroading, or PSR, the company leaders' compensation is based on whether they have been efficient with PSR. However, PSR involves cutting down on inspections and staff and does not take human fatigue into account.

I do not understand why some people keep saying that we actually need less regulation. It seems to me that this tragedy shows we should be non-partisan on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that a member of a sovereigntist party would suggest that bureaucrats in the nation's capital are better at managing this sector of the economy. One would think it is better understood that increasing bureaucracy is not necessarily the solution. We need to make sure we have strong, effective regulations, not simply more red tape that would not accomplish the objective.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-33, legislation that would amend several acts and pertains to Canada's ports and railways. The legislation was initiated following reviews by the government, beginning in 2017 and 2018, respecting railways and ports, as well as the issuance of the final report of the government's national supply chain task force.

It is no secret that we have serious supply chain issues in Canada that have been exacerbated under the Liberals. After eight years of the Liberals, is it any surprise that our supply chains have worsened? Of course it is not, because after eight years of the completely incompetent Liberal government, everything in Canada is broken. Housing is no longer affordable. We have seen 40-year high inflation, an unprecedented spike in violent crime and a supply chain crisis. That is what we get after eight years of the Liberals. It is a total and utter disaster for Canada.

Consistent with that, what we have from these incompetent Liberals is the bill before us, which they have touted as the solution to modernizing Canada's transportation systems and strengthening Canada's supply chains. The best that can be said of the bill is that it is a missed opportunity.

Do not take my word for it. Take the words of key stakeholders. For example, CP Rail characterized Bill C-33 as a whole bunch of nothing. What a ringing endorsement from one of our largest national rail lines. This is in the face of what the government's own task force on supply chains characterized as a breaking point when it comes to the transportation supply chain system in Canada.

As bad as a whole bunch of nothing is, Bill C-33 is likely worse than a whole bunch of nothing because, in fact, the bill would likely exacerbate supply chain backlogs as a result of more red tape, more fees and more government. That is the position of the Chamber of Shipping and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Indeed, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities said in respect of Bill C-33 that what we do not need is more government. However, that is precisely what we would get with Bill C-33: more government, in the way of more red tape, additional regulatory burdens and duplicative reporting requirements for our courts.

Last March, when the then minister of transport, the member for Mississauga Centre, spoke to the bill at second reading, he claimed that it would reduce cost pressures, thereby making life a little more affordable for everyday Canadians. How can the member for Mississauga Centre, the failed and now former minister, square that assertion with the reality that is Bill C-33? It means more red tape, more regulatory burdens and more reporting requirements, the combination of which is going to increase costs that will be passed down to everyday Canadians. They are new costs in the face of a cost of living crisis manufactured as a result of the disastrous policies of the government, from out-of-control inflationary deficit spending to carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, which are increasing the cost of everything, including essentials. Now we have this.

For this bill, the key objective of which is to purportedly address supply chain challenges, more can be said about what is not in the bill than about what is in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that provides for railway service reliability. There is nothing to address long-standing challenges between our railways and shippers. There is nothing in the bill that provides for port authorities to make decisions based on what is in the national economic interest and the best interest of supply chains. There is nothing in the bill that addresses issues of labour disputes and the impact that such disputes may have upon supply chains.

Last summer, in July, we saw the very significant cost of labour disruption with a weeks-long strike at federally regulated B.C. ports. It was a strike that was completely unavoidable. It was a strike that was entirely foreseeable for those with regard for a simmering labour dispute once before.

Where were these incompetent Liberals? They were asleep at the switch until it was too late, and there was a significant cost in major disruptions to workers and businesses. Each day the strike lasted, there was nearly $1 billion in trade that was tied up and impacted. It cost the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. It was a half-a-trillion-dollar hit to our economy, not to mention the damage it did to Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. That is what we get with these incompetent Liberals. In the bill, predictably, there is nothing to address situations like this, and it is not just the strike that happened last summer. We saw other strikes. We saw other blockades. We have seen inaction and indifference from these Liberals.

While the bill would do nothing to address supply chain issues, despite the rhetoric of the government, it would provide for more Ottawa in the way it would centralize decision-making. It would add to port authority boards representatives from government entities, diluting representation from port tenants. That means that the suppliers and shippers, who know best about supply chain challenges, will have diluted control, all while increasing control for Liberal-appointed, Ottawa, know-nothing bureaucrats.

Then there are advisory boards that the bill would provide for that are poorly defined in their powers, but they could have the impact of impeding decisions of port authorities to grow, expand and modernize, which is exactly the opposite of what is needed to address real supply chain issues. Then we have the minister appointing chairs of port authorities, as the minister said, to align port authorities with decisions of the Liberal government instead of what their mandate ought to be, which is to advance the national economic interests of Canada.

This is a badly thought-out bill, a badly drafted bill. The Liberals ignored much of the feedback they received during the consultation process. The appropriate thing for them to do would be to scrap the bill, go back to the drawing board and get it right.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is my first speech since the resumption of Parliament. I wish everyone a good session.

I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard. We met this summer.

People say that this bill lacks substance and does not go far enough. Given our experience and that in committee, and considering what I heard from my colleague, I think some suggestions should be made in committee before we reject the bill's intent out of hand, particularly as it relates to safety. That is a critical part of this. What happened in Quebec must never happen again.

Does he agree with me that we should give ourselves the opportunity to do a thorough job in committee, and then he can say no?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Laurentides—Labelle, who I have a lot of respect for. I have enjoyed working closely with her on the procedure and House affairs committee.

I agree with the hon. member that rail safety is of utmost importance. One of the shortcomings of this bill is that it does not go far enough to enhance rail safety. The transport committee did a rail safety report, which has been sitting on the shelf for several years. It contains a number of good recommendations, but none of those recommendations have been incorporated into the bill.

The problem with this bill is that there are too many problems with it. If it were a matter of fixing a few things here and there with some amendments, then we could support it going to committee. However, the problem is that there are too many issues, particularly on the port authority side. It is on that basis that we cannot support the bill. It is on that basis that we are calling on the government to go back to the drawing board.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, Lori Desrochers and Pamela Fraser are two people have family members who perished in separate instances as workers for CN Rail. These deaths were not investigated by an impartial government or police investigation, but were investigated by CN Rail's own private rail police and corporate risk management. Since then, unfortunately, the families have received no justice and CN Rail has faced no consequences.

Does the member believe that railway corporations should be able to avoid being held accountable for the death and injury of their workers by investigating themselves?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me express my condolences to the families. I am not familiar with the facts of each of those incidents.

However, rail safety must come first. We need to have appropriate legislation in place and an appropriate regulatory regime to ensure accountability across the board and to ensure that the safety of rail workers comes first.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. We are here to work and to study the issues. Naturally, the government has its faults, including its failure to do nothing at all for long stretches of time. Then, oops, taking action becomes politically expedient. At that point, it will do pretty much anything as quickly as it can, a bit like what happened in Mégantic, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

There was talk of track work and expropriations occurring before Transport Canada had issued any authorizations. At a minimum, this raises questions about how the government manages its files. However, our duty as an intelligent opposition is precisely to take the government by the hand now and then and show it what to do.

I urge my colleagues to come sit in committee and speak freely. We can make important changes to a bill in committee. When I think of the people of Mégantic, I feel it is our duty to do this work.

Have I moved him at all?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Berthier—Maskinongé's speaking about addressing some of the problems and failures that resulted in the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic. There is no one who has been a stronger champion for addressing rail safety measures arising from the issues from Lac-Mégantic than my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

This bill is fundamentally flawed. It is a bad Liberal bill, and we, in the official opposition, are not in the business of supporting bad legislation coming from the government, which is being propped up by the NDP. I am certainly not prepared to support a bill that key stakeholders, such as the Chamber of Shipping and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, have made clear would make the supply chain crisis worse, not better.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to speak in this venerable House on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport, which, for those who do not know, is in downtown west Toronto.

I am here to talk on Bill C-33. The formal title is very long, but I am going to say it. It is an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, which is being called the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act.

It is a really long title, but basically it is a bill that would modernize a number of bills that impact our supply chain here in Canada. It would enhance our competitiveness as a nation, encourage more investment, allow for more input from local and indigenous stakeholders, improve environmental sustainability, integrate more environmental considerations and so many other things.

The global economy continues to be in flux as we have a war going on in Europe, which is impacting the world, and inflation, which we are all trying to tackle, and as there continues to be global power shifts. As all of these things continue to dominate what is happening in our world, it is absolutely imperative that we strengthen our internal economy and do all we can to be more resilient within our country. Strengthening our supply chains is one key way for us to be able to do this.

Of course, there are so many other ways to do this. There are some members in the House who know I am a huge supporter of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and harmonizing regulations, and it is one of the other ways we could build resiliency into our economy and grow our GDP, at no to low cost, but that is not what I am here to speak about.

I will continue to focus on Bill C-33. With whatever time I have left, I am going to focus on three key things. One is what this bill is proposing to change and why. The second thing I want to talk about is why this bill is important for the residents of my downtown west Toronto riding of Davenport, and third, I will talk about why these changes are super important for the Canadian economy.

On what this bill is proposing to change and why, we have spoken a lot about this, not only today but also on other days we have debated this bill, so I am not going to be saying anything new, but over the last few years, Canadians have experienced supply chain challenges and the associated economic impacts first-hand.

Government and industry have also struggled to adapt in the face of disruptions, and there have been many. We have had the pandemic. We have had extreme climate events, which are not going away. This is going to be the new normal. We have had changes in trade patterns, which will continue. We have also had Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has had huge implications agriculturally on energy supply and many other things.

All of these numerous stresses have exposed limitations and weaknesses in our national transportation system, which has been absolutely the backbone of our economy. It has also underscored the importance of supply chain resiliency going hand in hand with system efficiency.

As a result, our federal government has engaged in a number of reviews and talked to a number of stakeholders and industry leaders, and we are proposing a number of changes to improve our supply chain resiliency across our country. One of the many changes we are proposing is Bill C-33.

Bill C-33 would do the following: amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and rail transportation systems operate; remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; expand Canada's port authorities' mandate over traffic management; position Canada's ports as strategic hubs to support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth; improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and modernize provisions on rail safety, security and transportation of dangerous goods.

All of these measures would also support the flow of essential goods and would implement tools to mitigate risks and impacts of future supply chain challenges. Taken together, all these measures would improve the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and support operations that are safe, secure, efficient and reliable.

That is why we have introduced Bill C-33. In terms of the second part of why this bill is important for the residents of Davenport, colleagues may find it surprising that, in my 12-square-kilometre riding in downtown west Toronto, I have three separate railway tracks. One is owned by Canadian Pacific and the other two used to be CN lines, but they are now owned by the local regional transit system. In any case, these three lines are part of our lives in my riding.

The first reason I care about this bill is that safety is top of mind for Davenport residents. We know that lots of materials and chemicals are being transported by the CP line that is running through this riding. This bill actually gives the Minister of Transport the ability to better protect Davenport residents. There are a number of different provisions that allow him to do that. It also gives the minister the flexibility and agility to respond to any changing situation along the railway lines, whether this is due to flooding or any other climate impacts, extreme weather events or other exceptional circumstances.

The other thing the bill would do is allow our government an increase in flexibility to quickly mitigate security threats to supply chains and to further enhance resiliency of our supply chains during times of emergency. That would also enhance the safety in my riding of Davenport; safety is important.

I will also say that a big issue for my riding is learning to live right on top of, not just next to, these railroads. A lot of the provisions that we are changing have not been updated in over 50, 60 or 70 years. The act will be changing provisions in a way that will allow our government to be a lot more responsive and a lot more agile in making changes, ensuring that we are considering the public and other stakeholders who will inform decisions around our rail safety regime and that it is more up to date and reflects the realities of today.

Maybe the last thing I would say is that, in my riding of Davenport, I have a lot of wonderful businesses. Any time there is an issue with ports or railroads, the businesses are impacted, and I hear about it if there is a hiccup in any way. When we had issues with the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver, I definitely received calls from a lot of worried businesses in my riding. A huge stress for businesses is when railway lines are not running as efficiently as they could be. They are absolutely elated that we are introducing this bill and that we will be making a number of improvements.

Why are these changes important for the Canadian economy? I think we have heard a lot about that. I will add maybe four things from my perspective.

The movement of people and goods is absolutely critical for our economy. Ensuring that our ports and our railroads are working as efficiently as possible is critical for us. The more reliable they are, the more it is going to encourage national and international investment in our railroads, our supply chains and our ports, which we absolutely need at this point in time. That is the second reason. Businesses do not like surprises. They like everything running on time, so having these changes that are being proposed is absolutely vital.

I will also say something that comes directly from Davenport residents, who have said, “Julie, I had a business. I didn't think about expanding.” However, more reliable ports and railway lines will actually allow businesses in my riding and right across Canada to update or expand. That will be really helpful to us and to our economy, both now and in the future. Overall, as I mentioned initially, we should be doing all we can to create a more reliable and resilient internal economy.

I will conclude by saying that, over the last few years, we have experienced a lot of supply chain challenges. They have had huge impacts on our economy. That is why we have introduced Bill C-33 in order to make sure we start addressing those issues. Our government will always take concrete action to strengthen our supply—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

It is time for questions and comments. The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will put this to the member for Davenport: If this bill is so great, as she seems to think it is, why do key stakeholders, such as CP Rail, characterize it as a whole bunch of nothing? Why have other stakeholders, such as the Chamber of Shipping and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, said that this would exacerbate supply chain issues because it would increase government regulation and red tape? Can the member explain how it is that the minister said that this would reduce the cost burden, in the face of a massive increase in red tape?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say that this bill has come together as a result of numerous consultations with a number of stakeholders and industry leaders across the country. It incorporates a lot of their suggestions. I can equally have a full page of all the people who are very happy to see this legislation move forward and believe that it is critical for us to have in order to improve our safety, the reliability of our supply chains and our overall economy here in Canada.

I will say to the hon. member, though, that this bill is not meant to solve every single problem that we have within Canada in our supply chains. However, that is why we will continue to work with Canadians and all stakeholders to continue to improve our supply chains and do everything we can to have a prosperous economy that benefits—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened in 2013, and Bill C-33 was introduced in 2023, 10 years later. Ten years passed between those two events, and the Liberals were in power for eight of those 10 years.

Why is it that, even in urgent situations where people are in danger, the Liberal MO is always to put things off indefinitely, introduce a bill that is too weak and spout a bunch of empty rhetoric only to sit on its laurels and justify doing nothing for another 10 years?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we all remember the absolutely awful tragedy that unfolded in Lac-Mégantic, where 47 lives were lost because of a tragic rail incident. We have taken a number of measures to strengthen the safety of our rail network, and this bill would provide additional measures, including the registry of dangerous goods and additional authorities for the Minister of Transport to ensure that we further build on the safety of our rail network.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, on July 6, 2013, a Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway train derailed and exploded in Lac-Mégantic, killing 47 people in one of the worst rail tragedies in our history.

Philippe Falardeau made a documentary entitled Ceci n'est pas un accident or this is not an accident. This disaster could have been predicted as a result of government policies that were initially introduced by the Conservatives but then maintained by the Liberals.

Unfortunately, Bill C-33 does not fix anything. Self-inspections, the lack of a two-driver requirement and the absence of requirements for brakes on these vehicles mean that a tragedy like this could happen again.

Are the Liberals open to amendments in committee to ensure that this type of tragedy never happens again?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it was absolutely awful on July 6, 2013, when 47 people perished from the derailment of the 72-tanker-car train transporting crude oil. I mentioned that our government had already taken some actions, and this bill would provide further, additional measures.

I would say a couple of things to the member. In my riding of Davenport, where we have a CP Rail line that also carries dangerous materials, it is something that is top of mind for me, as well as for many other people within the riding. Our government will never stop trying to improve the safety and security measures of our railway system to ensure the safety of Canadians. Of course, we are always open to excellent suggestions and recommendations during committee.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is typical Liberal government legislation. It would make things more difficult for Canadians, Canadian jobs and Canadian ports. The Liberals get a star, though, for increasing bureaucracy, regulations and red tape. It is a red star, which was a symbol, I believe, of a certain country not so long ago. This would not help our ports, and would lead to more inefficiencies and costs.

The Association of Canadian Port Authorities said that more government is not the answer. That is what we are seeing in this bill: more government. This bill would only add regulatory requirements and costs to the stakeholders, which would be passed on to Canadians. We are an exporting and importing nation. This forms a very important part of our economy. We are being stifled with regulations.

I was looking at a report today, written by the World Bank Group and S&P Global Market Intelligence about the container port performance index. These groups analyzed ports across the world; I believe it was 348 ports. They looked at wait times as an indicator of overall efficiency and said that international trade is very much affected by an efficient or inefficient port. A poorly functioning or inefficient port can hinder growth and have a profound impact.

I used to be a teacher of social studies, and I know of a lot of cities. When I was looking over this list, there were a lot I knew and a lot I did not know. On this list I saw, for example, Manila, Alexandria in Africa, Freetown and Mogadishu in Somalia, which is a failed state. I saw ports in Europe, in South America and all over the world. It listed the Canadian Port of Vancouver. Where is it on this list of 348 ports, which includes, as I mentioned, ports in failed states? It is number 347 out of 348. We are supposed to be a first world nation. This is terrible, and it falls fully in the lap of the Liberal government.

Why do I say that? For example, there was a Globe and Mail article in June that said that Canada used to be in the top 10 for ports a decade ago, 10 years ago. After eight years under the Prime Minister, I think we can put together what has happened in this nation. We have a Liberal-NDP government that is crushing our country through bureaucracy, through red tape and through socialism, or government control.

I go door to door during campaigns and other times and talk to people. People are very receptive in my constituency, but I find the people who are most receptive are from eastern Europe. Why is this? It is because they fled socialist governments and came to Canada for more freedom. They tell me that they are seeing the same trends in Canada under the Liberals and NDP as they saw in eastern Europe.

During the Cold War, the picture we would see would be long lines for bread. People would get there early in the morning to wait for the product, because everything was so slow. It is a by-product of socialism, of crushing government control.

We are seeing some real problems here. With the ports, for example, we have just a long, clogged-up port system. The efficiencies are not there. What the bill would be introducing is just more red tape, more inefficiencies.

I talked to a German tourist and was disappointed by what he told me. He has been to Canada at different times. He said that Canada seemed to be on the decline economically. He says that it does not have the vitality he used to see in the past.

We can thank the Liberals. We can thank the NDP for this. They will blame supply chains. Well, they are right. This bill could have been addressing supply chains. It does not; it makes things worse. They blame the war in Ukraine. There have always been wars happening. That is enough excuses from the Liberal government. It needs to stop making things worse for Canadians. There is an expression, “Everything he touches turns to gold.” Well, with the Liberals, it is quite the opposite. Everything they touch seems to be turning to ashes through their wastefulness and strangling regulations.

CP Rail said this about the bill: “After working on this for four years, it is a whole bunch of nothing.” I think this is actually being complimentary, because the bill is actually negative, worse than nothing.

There is a critical infrastructure project that was planned for years. There was a commitment by CP Rail and the Port of Vancouver, and it was led by the harbour authority, which was under the control of the federal government. That project has been put on the back burner now, because in four years, the price has tripled and is out of control. If we look at the increase in costs, it is primarily due to regulations, bureaucracy, assessments and studies. It is not even in the actual building of it, and it is out of control, taking years to get this project done.

I saw a little video clip from the Netherlands on X. It showed an underpass, which is what we wanted to get done in Pitt Meadows, that was built in one weekend. It shows all the pictures. We cannot get it done in years, let alone one weekend. These sorts of inefficiencies and regulations are just strangling us, and it is impacting the cost of living and inflation.

The Liberals are trying to deal with inflation by raising interest rates. Canadians are suffering. They wonder why the price of everything is going up. There are taxes and inflation. It is because of Liberal mismanagement, how they blow Canadians' money.

There was a project by a private corporation, the TransCanada pipeline, a pipeline that was going to be built for $7 billion. The Liberals bought it, and now what is the cost? It is $30 billion to $40 billion. It is out of control. They have no control. This is impacting.

They should actually focus on things like the Canadian Border Services Agency. Other ports, smaller ports such as the Port of Nanaimo and the port at Port Alberni want them in there to get more efficiencies.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 4:35 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, are deemed to have been put and a recorded division is deemed to have been requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Housing.

The hon. deputy House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 so we can start Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 21 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to an order made on Thursday, September 21, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Langley—Aldergrove to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-33.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #410

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #411

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would indicate that the official opposition House leader was not in the proper place to record his vote. That vote should not count so I think we will have to amend the vote totals.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

This is a reminder that we should be in our seats when we are taking a vote. It happened on both sides today when that was not the case.

The hon. House leader for the official opposition.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did try to vote by the app. It did not work, so I came in. I endeavoured to try to save the House time by not getting up after to register my vote so I just did it while the roll call was being done.

Thanks to the parliamentary secretary, I see that my effort was wasted, but I did have technical difficulties so I came into the chamber to register my vote.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on a separate point of order, since the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is being so particular about the voting rules, which I admire, if there is a review, there was a member who has voted during the last two video votes without a jacket.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to provide some clarification to the Conservative opposition House leader, if he was having technical difficulties, that would have been a point of order prior to the vote being announced, so I would suggest that his vote should not be allowed to count.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am just going to do a review with the table and get back to the House.

The proper course of action if someone is having technical difficulties is to wait until the end and bring it up. I know the hon. member was really trying hard to save us all some time.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I encountered technical difficulties in trying to use the app and I would like my vote recorded as a nay.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling very gracious. I am prepared to give unanimous consent to allow the member's vote to count.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given all that has transpired, I will seek unanimous consent of the House to have my vote recorded as a “nay”, out of respect to you.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)