Bill C-33

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

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

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

Transport

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

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

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

[Stephen Scott]

First, thank you for raising the issue. It's an important issue.

The parliamentary transportation committee report from 2022 was a very important report, and it was helpful input into our continuous cycle of regulatory and policy modernization. The vast majority of the 33 recommendations have been completed or have actions under way to complete.

The reason you didn't see more of those in Bill C-33 is that Transport Canada as the safety regulator already has quite extensive legislative powers to move forward with an agenda, so additional legislative changes were not needed to push forward the vast majority of the actions in the report. There are a few that I think we're still studying, but the vast majority are under way.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

I just want to expand this a bit.

A couple of years ago, the transportation committee prepared a report on railway safety. It had 33 recommendations in it. Then we came along with Bill C-33, not to be confused with the 33 recommendations. This was the big chance the government had—the one chance—to update transport in Canada, yet none of the 33 recommendations in that rail safety report were acted on.

I'm just wondering if you could comment on why that was. I could go through some of them. We have fatigue regulations. We have the number of inspections that Transport Canada does, when those inspections occur, whether they are random and whether there is a risk. You do a risk analysis of dangerous goods. Is that public? There were all of these recommendations for rail safety.

I don't have to add in why we need this. We had Lac-Mégantic. We had the horrific runaway train incident in the Rockies at Field a couple of years ago.

I'm surprised that the government had this opportunity. I know you're not the government specifically, but you should be giving it advice on why none of these recommendations were implemented.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

Request for Witness to Attend at the Bar of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

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

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

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

Industry and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medical Assistance in Dying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Grand Chief Cody Diabo, Mohawk Council of Kahnawake]

Shé:kon sewakwé:kon!

I am Grand Chief Cody Diabo with the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake. The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake thanks the committee for the invitation to make submissions regarding Bill C-61, the first nations clean water act. We thank you for this opportunity, since the consultation process—like so many consultations, stating it frankly—are quite abysmal.

The MCK stands with indigenous peoples across the land who struggle for clean water. However, we oppose Bill C-61, which reproduces Canada's flawed positions on the inherent governance rights of indigenous peoples and limits Kahnawake's right to govern waters in our own backyard. The Kanienkehaka of Kahnawake have been self-governing since time immemorial. We exercise our inherent right to self-government in accordance with Haudenosaunee law, not with any delegated authority.

The watersheds of the St. Lawrence Valley have always sustained our community and our people. We fish, hunt and trap, harvest food and medicines, camp, canoe and raise our families on these waters. We have a deep connection to them. They are an integral part of our culture and our society.

It is the Kanienkehaka of Kahnawake, and no one else, who protect the waters that sustain us and who decide how our water treatment services will be managed.

Our main objection to Bill C-61 is that it pretends to affirm our inherent right of self-government in relation to water while attempting to subordinate our laws to federal legislation. The primary mechanism for this is clause 8 of the bill, which is offensive for two reasons.

First, clause 8 reinforces Canada's paternalistic posture by subjugating indigenous jurisdiction to a generic suite of federal laws. This is unacceptable. Indigenous jurisdictions are not based on or constrained by Canadian law. It cannot be artificially limited to areas of jurisdiction that are considered integral to distinct indigenous cultures. The MCK did flag this in the very limited consultation that took place before the bill was tabled—like so much other legislation that is out there that we provide comment to.

Second, to add insult to injury, when we saw the next draft of the bill—the one that's before you—the MCK was outraged to see that additional laws had been added to clause 8 without any consultation whatsoever. The Canada Marine Act and the Canadian Navigable Waters Act have huge implications for governance of the St. Lawrence Seaway, which runs directly through our territory.

Including these laws in clause 8 seems to single out Kahnawake and attempts to severely limit our ability to govern our own waters. It is wildly contradictory with Bill C-61's stated purpose to recognize that protecting the waters we drink requires recognizing our rights to protect those waters ourselves.

The MCK has actively called out the exclusion of Kahnawake from any participation in the governance and stewardship of the St. Lawrence River and the Seaway. In the context of Parliament's consideration of Bill C-33, we ask you to amend the Canada Marine Act to include the recognition and protection of our rights—on your end, that is. The MCK has also repeatedly requested changes to Seaway governance to honour our right to participate in governance of these crucial waters that are firmly within our territory. Our concerns have been met with total silence, as I pointed out, like so many others have.

True reconciliation requires Canada to stop trying to govern over us and over all aspects of our territory. The sooner Canada realizes that it does not have jurisdiction over first nations peoples, the sooner we can have true reconciliation.

While the MCK fully supports ensuring all indigenous people have access to clean water, we oppose the inclusion of Seaway-specific legislation in Bill C-61 and strongly caution Canada against a piecemeal approach to extracting itself from what is rightfully our jurisdiction.

Finance

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

One of them is saying, “Hear, hear!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Accounts

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

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

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

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

Motions in Amendment

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise here today to speak to Bill C-33 at report stage. It has gone through committee and is going toward third reading. This is an act that would amend a number of other acts, and I will not list them all, but it is essentially a bill that would update and improve the safety, security and efficiency of our rail and marine transportation systems. I am also happy to report that the NDP will be supporting the bill because it is clearly needed, and it has been needed for a long time, as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands mentioned.

This bill represents the effort to strengthen the efficiency, resilience, security and safety of Canada's supply chains, which is a subject often talked about here. We have studied it at the international trade committee, and we are increasingly aware of the issues. The bill would provide some steps toward solving those problems.

The bill stems from the government's Railway Safety Act review, the port modernization review and the 2022 supply chain task force final report. The bill is also intended to provide the foundation for a forthcoming national supply chain strategy.

I would like to thank the wonderful member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, who is the NDP transport critic and has been a real champion for improving the safety, security and efficiency of our transportation networks. He even took the train across Canada last year to get back to his riding in northern B.C. and shipped his canoe on the same train. He actually uses his canoe to visit constituents along the Skeena River.

Why will we support this bill? We note that many of the changes it would make to existing legislation are highly driven by corporate interests. This bill falls short on addressing the concerns of municipalities, indigenous communities and workers, and does not implement the recommendations made by the national supply chain task force report or the standing committee on transportation's recommendations on railway safety. I think those would be two obvious things to reference in the legislation, but they are ignored.

When we talk about safety and security of our railways, ports and shipping, we are talking directly about the safety of workers, who are the people who actually move the people and products that are essential to our supply chain. This bill is a missed opportunity on several fronts. Rail workers and communities have been calling for improvements to rail safety, many of which were recommended in a June 2022 report by the Standing Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities. This bill is silent on the recommendations from that report, and it was tabled two years ago.

Similarly, port congestion during the pandemic raised serious concerns regarding ships using anchorages in the Salish Sea near communities in ecologically sensitive areas. This was going on, I must admit, prior to the pandemic. The wonderful Sheila Malcolmson, the then MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, brought this up repeatedly, just as the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did. This is something that needs to be fixed. The bill goes part of the way there, but not far enough. The NDP managed to pass amendments to reduce anchorage times in these areas, but were not able to pass amendments to improve rail safety, which is the topic the bill is supposed to be about.

When it comes to strengthening port governance, workers deserve a seat at the table. It is important that new requirements for consultation and reporting reflect the capacities of both large and small ports. It is also critical that these new requirements are more than corporate window dressing, that they are rigorous enough to deliver true, transparent accountability to communities, workers, first nations and the environment. The NDP passed amendments giving workers representation on port authority boards; expanding advisory committees for surrounding communities, municipalities and first nations; and creating different requirements around financial reporting for small and large ports to address capacity issues.

The government needs to go further to address corporate capture in Canada's supply chain, particularly in the rail sector. Multi-billion dollar corporations still operate with little federal oversight. The Auditor General has raised serious concerns over the years about the government's reliance on safety management systems as the main safeguard for workers and communities. Better transparency, stronger federal rules and more rigorous enforcement are needed more than ever.

I want to run through some of the NDP amendments to the bill that were adopted at committee. The amendments would require labour representation on the board of directors of port authorities, something that will go a long way in making things smoother with labour relations in our ports.

We studied the Vancouver port strike at the international trade committee, and people forget that we have had a very long period of peace with labour in the Vancouver port. The last strike was in 1969, so things have been working fairly well. Most of the time, if there is a disruption, it is a lockout, as we saw in the rail dispute recently. It is the corporations that are causing those problems.

Another amendment—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, the member and I do share something that is very near and dear to both our hearts, which is that the jurisdictions we represent are very strategic within Canada's overall supply chains and trade corridors, such as the Asia-Pacific. In my neck of the woods, it is the Niagara ports trade corridor along the St. Lawrence Seaway.

How does the member see Bill C-33 contributing to the overall Canadian economy with respect to the supply chains that are identified, the capacity needed within those supply chains, and with that, the creation of fluidity, primarily in our very strategic areas? Does the member see the bill contributing to giving the country a better and more strengthened economy?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour for me to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-33. I would like to begin by thanking my dear colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, for supporting my amendments this morning.

I am very pleased to finally be standing at report stage of the bill. I will recount Bill C-33's history briefly, but it has not been brief. The bill came forward for first reading in November 2022, so we are coming up on two years. We have to get the bill passed and through the Senate before an election occurs.

I want to thank the previous minister of transportation, who did the heavy lifting on this, the member of Parliament for Mississauga Centre. In the summer of 2023, it shifted to being the member for Honoré-Mercier, and yesterday it shifted to being the hon. member for Oakville.

The bill is critical legislation. It deals with rail safety and with issues relating to our ports. There are many sections to it, and obviously it deals with such substantially different issues.

This bill has to do with rail safety and the Canada Marine Act. It also has to do with anchorage, which is a key issue for my riding.

There are a lot of issues bundled up in the legislation, and I want to specifically, of course, address my own amendments. However, before I get into that, I really do want to salute the work of members on all sides of this place, particularly with respect to contributions from New Democratic members of the committee and from the Bloc Québécois members, for major improvements in the bill, following support from some Liberals on the committee and Green Party amendments at committee to improve the legislation.

For instance, some of my amendments that were accepted would make part of the fundamental purpose of the Marine Act to also respect the environment and indigenous rights. These are important elements because the system that is used out of ports along the B.C. coast significantly impacts indigenous rights and significantly impacts the environment, but the impacts have never been recognized before.

Some of the things that would be done here, and which are terribly important, are to try to improve the efficiency of ports along the B.C. coast. It would not be extra paperwork and extra regulation. It is trying to make sure that our ports operate efficiently in the interests of everyone from prairie grain farmers to first nations, indigenous peoples including Coast Salish peoples up and down the B.C. coast, particularly on southern Vancouver Island.

They have been negatively impacted by the failure of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority to ever consult first nations about the appropriation of their lands, their territories and particularly their traditional rights in the waters of the Salish Sea, which have been completely ignored for a very long time. Therefore, initially at first reading in November 2022, I was pleased and excited to see it and glad we finally had some improved legislation.

I will that say one of the things I am encouraged about, which came forward with the legislation and with some amendments, is that the minister of transport, if they have reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel is a threat or poses a direct or indirect risk to the security of marine transportation or to the health of persons involved, would now be able to direct the vessel to proceed to a different place.

Why does this matter so much? For members who are not coastal and who have not heard this really quite horrific situation, I will explain the inefficiencies, particularly in shipping goods in bulk. Container ship containers basically have computerized systems and bar codes along the side. When they come into the port authority, whether it is a port up and down the coast, Prince Rupert or Vancouver, the containers are read quickly and moved to the right place. They tend to be shipped out quickly.

The difficulty comes with shipping of goods in bulk, primarily coal, metallurgical and thermal; and different categories of grain, whether barley or durum, the wheat and barley that show up at ports. They do not get shipped efficiently, and then they have to be loaded into freighters that can have three or four different holds.

What happens, and I am sure prairie farmers who are watching today will know that this is the case, is that CN Rail and CP Rail seem to be surprised every year by something called fall, and by the grain harvest, and they do not have the cars lined up to ship the grain efficiently to ports where it is going to go to other countries to make sure farmers can recoup their costs and other countries can buy our grain.

What happens is that one hold of a freighter gets loaded. The Port of Vancouver then says that there is no room for it in that port and to go sit up sit up near Galiano Island for a while, or near Pender Island or Gabriola Island. That is fine. They are told to just sit there and cool their jets. They get free parking there. There is no benefit to the local community at all. They just drop anchor and destroy the benthic organisms below. They make a lot of noise and contribute to the threatened status of the southern resident killer whales.

There are a number of things that the bill would do that would be improvements. One is to allow the minister of transport to redirect where ships are sitting, and I put it to my friends on the Conservative side of the House to think about this, because they want accountability. Why is it that our harbour authorities are so unaccountable, do not talk to local communities and do not have to care about it? They are a law unto themselves. The bill would begin to represent the concerns of indigenous peoples and communities up and down our coast.

I really want to get to my amendment before I run out of time. The amendment is to do something that was promised by the Liberal Party in the 2021 election campaign, which is to ban the export of thermal coal. Thermal coal, unlike metallurgical coal, is being shipped to other countries for the purpose of burning it, releasing greenhouse gases for electricity.

More galling than the export of thermal coal is that the thermal coal being shipped out of the port of Vancouver is coming from the United States. It comes up on rail cars. It contributes to coal dust through communities like Tsawwassen. It contributes to immediate negative health impacts. Why is it coming up from the U.S.? It is because the United States, up and down the west coast, has banned the export of thermal coal for climate reasons.

U.S. coal is being shipped up to Canada to be moved to our ports, and it slows down the efficiency of the ports because it is a bulk export with the same problem of getting it into different holds of different vessels to ship to another country. Meanwhile, the United States and the states up and down its west coast will not do this anymore.

There is the burden of a climate impact that is negative, a negative impact on the survival of our southern resident killer whales and an affront to indigenous rights, and all of this is contributing to the inefficiency of the port of Vancouver. There is an amendment to the bill that did get through committee at clause-by-clause, but it would not take effect until the year 2030.

My amendment tries to align the interests of existing and previous government promises in all these areas: climate action, protection of endangered species and respect of indigenous rights. In one fell swoop, the amendment would bring the banning of thermal coal up to 2025 instead of being postponed to 2030, and the current language is quite permissive in that regard.

Again, there are more aspects of Bill C-33 than I can cover in a short speech at this moment of finally getting to report stage, but I want to ask all members to consider how important it is to get to the bill finally, considering that clause-by-clause took place in December 2023. Here we are in September 2024. Let us get the amendments passed; I urge colleagues.

I would be very grateful for support for the amendment that I am bringing forward today on behalf of the Green Party to accelerate the banning of thermal coal from Canada. Metallurgical coal would still be going through our ports, but not the specific coal that, as I said, the U.S. states have already taken action on for climate reasons alone and that they will not ship.

Let us make sure Canada stops shipping thermal coal overseas. At the same time, let us take significant action to reduce the amount of noise driving our southern resident killer whales to extinction, and respect indigenous rights. I thank the W_SÁNEC Leadership Council for its work on this issue. I thank the citizen groups up and down southern Vancouver Island that track the freighters, and I urge all colleagues to expeditiously pass key amendments for the environment and approve Bill C-33 at report stage and then at third reading.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South on his new position. I know he is a passionate supporter of Via Rail and passenger rail improvement in this country. We hope to work together on that.

However, I support Bill C-33. I would ask the member to consider that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is massively inefficient, that the anchorages that it sends to sit for free parking in the waters of the Salish Sea, in my riding, sit there doing no economic good at all. It is because the service of moving goods by rail is so inefficient that prairie grain farmers cannot get their grain shipped out on time. They end up having one hole filled, and then the freighter is sent to sit someplace.

Everyone loses. Prairie grain farmers lose, workers lose and the environment loses. The bill before us offers some improvements. Would the member consider supporting the bill so we could improve the economic efficiency of the port of Vancouver?