House of Commons Hansard #358 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was jobs.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of Saanich—Gulf Islands calling on the House to develop a national poverty strategy to ensure all Canadians have respect and dignity in their lives.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
November 26th, 2018 / 3:20 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have a notice of a request for an emergency debate on the same topic from three members, and I will hear from the three in the order I received the requests.
The hon. member for Durham.
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 52, I ask that we have an emergency debate on the situation in Oshawa, the Durham region and Ontario as a result of the announcement by GM today with respect to the planned closure of the operating facilities and assembly plant in Oshawa.
Already we have heard that 2,500 jobs are at risk there. I would suggest that it is potentially even larger. A study a few years ago suggested 4,000 direct jobs would be at risk, and up 33,000 in southern Ontario from indirect impact on the supply chain network, which is tightly integrated in Ontario and the Great Lakes manufacturing region. There is a risk of a $1.1-billion hit on annual GDP to the country. For Ontario specifically, that study showed that after two years, there could be a drop of $5.2 billion to the GDP of Ontario as a result of closure of General Motors of Oshawa operations.
There are many questions to ask with respect to why Oshawa was not considered part of GM's global competitive future. Historically, the productivity levels of the workers in Oshawa, who live throughout the Durham region, has been unparalleled. The flexibility the line offers there allows for multiple products, from trucks, which are hot selling now, through to sedans and others.
What were the circumstances? This is going to impact thousands in Ontario. We have to explore what the tariffs on steel and aluminum, and the retaliatory tariffs, possibly had to do with this decision, as well as the economic conditions, and NAFTA, the free trade agreement, I would add.
We saw a USMCA tabled, but we would not have free trade in Canada with our U.S. partners were it not for GM Oshawa, the epicentre of the auto industry that led to free trade in the Auto Pact between Canada and the U.S. in 1965. That is how fundamental autos have been. Since that time, Canadians in Oshawa, people from General Motors in the area, including my father when I was young, have produced cars, 85% of which were sold into the U.S.
Trade, tariffs is fundamental here. We also have to look at the threat posed by President Trump with respect to 232 tariffs on the auto, and the potential imposition. Did that have anything to do with it? As well, there is the regulatory and tax environment in Ontario. It was noted that the government was planning to exempt General Motors from the carbon tax scheme, but certainly smaller and medium-sized parts suppliers in their network across southern Ontario were not going to be exempt.
I would end with this. This has been over a century, since in the late 1800s when the McLaughlin family from Enniskillen started making carriages. Sadly my community of Bowmanville would not lend the family some money years later, so they moved it to Oshawa. The McLaughlin Carriage Company and later McLaughlin Motor Car Company was not just the epicentre of the auto industry in Canada, Sam McLaughlin was a director and original investor in the General Motors Corporation itself. The auto industry and General Motors owes its success to McLaughlin, McLaughlin Buick and his partnership with Mr. Durant that led to General Motors we have today.
We can express our sympathy for the families impacted, but on this side we do not want to explore giving up on the conditions that led to this decision. From being a world-class plant with the best employers, the best position within the North American marketplace, what has changed to make us be one of the plants named today? As parliamentarians, we owe it to bring this debate to the floor. I am glad others have echoed our sentiment for this.
According to Standing Order 52, I hope you, Mr. Speaker, will allow us the opportunity to advance the interests of our constituents and this wider issue that will impact all Canadians.
Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, earlier today I submitted a letter to your office asking for an emergency debate, pursuant to Standing Order 52.2, about the news we all heard this morning that GM would be closing up its operations in Oshawa. This is devastating news for the 3,000-plus workers who will lose their jobs. It is also devastating news for their families, for the city of Oshawa and the surrounding communities, for the province of Ontario and for the entire country.
The effects of this closure will be huge. The economic and human effects will be felt far and wide, beyond just Oshawa and the GM facilities. Up to 30,000 people who work in jobs dependent on the auto sector could also be affected. That is 30,000 more families that will experience the incredible hardship of a closure like this.
I have some personal experience with a closure like this, as the president of my local union. When Stelco announced its major closure, I saw the effects on workers and their families. The stress of the closure and the financial hardship even led some of my members to take their lives.
Make no mistake, the effects of this closure will be severe and difficult. That is why we need to have a debate about what can be done immediately to help the workers, their families and the community.
Both GM and the Premier of Ontario may be saying the ship has sailed, but we do not accept this is a done deal. The Liberal government must explore options to encourage GM to reverse its decision, including targeted investment that will ensure these workers can continue to build the vehicles that Canadians need now and into the future.
Last week, the Liberal government gave corporations like General Motors a $14 billion tax giveaway. The Prime Minister said that it would guarantee jobs remaining in Canada. However, today we are seeing how much the Liberal government does not understand what working people are going through, with thousands of our layoffs sending shockwaves to our manufacturing sector.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order, please. The hon. member seems to be getting into what would be debate in the event that I grant debate. I would like him to stay to the key point of why there should be an emergency debate. I think I understand what he is saying. I got the gist of it. Maybe he could come to the conclusion.
Scott Duvall NDP Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, those affected by this morning's announcement do not want to hear about who is to blame. They want to hear about how the jobs might be protected, about alternatives to closing the plant and how the government might step in and offer solutions. They want us as parliamentarians to address how we might protect the well-being of them and their families.
We owe it to the workers and their families to try and find a solution. That is why we must have this emergency debate as soon as possible.
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
Mr. Speaker, as it sounds like we are all in agreement that his debate is necessary, I will be brief in my remarks.
I am rising pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on GM's decision regarding the closure of the Oshawa plant. This is of course terrible news for the women and men whose jobs will be affected, along with their families and the community. I understand today's new will have a major impact on the community surrounding the plant, as well as the network of suppliers that support all the plants impacted by GM's announcement.
As co-chair of the Liberal auto caucus, with the member for Guelph, I believe an emergency debate is appropriate so the House of Commons can consider this very serious issue.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. members for Durham, Hamilton Mountain and Cambridge for their interventions in relation to this request, which I am prepared to grant, for an emergency debate to take place this evening.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege, which I notified your office about two and a half hours ago. It involves the quite unusual case of the member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
As you know, under our Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, there are very few prescriptions on what a member of Parliament must do to perform his or her duties, but there is one at least that we try to hold each other to account, and that is Standing Order 15, which requires members of Parliament to attend to their duties on Parliament Hill in the House of Commons, representing their constituents. There are, of course, exceptions to this. Members of Parliament sometimes have parliamentary duties, delegations, travelling around the country or outside of Canada, and they may be on official business. However, that is not the case, to the best of our knowledge, with the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel.
If you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the last we heard was a statement by the member. I can remember him giving essentially his farewell speech last April 25, I believe. He was congratulated by members in the House and people from the opposition wished him good luck and best of luck in his future endeavours. To my knowledge, that was the last we heard of it. It happens from time to time that members of Parliament choose not to continue to work as members of Parliament and go on do something else.
It was much to my surprise, and perhaps to the surprise of many members of Parliament, that since that April date, while the member of Parliament has not performed his duties as a member of Parliament, he has still been a member of Parliament. He did not give notice of his resignation nor did he stop receiving the many benefits, including salary, which he is entitled to as a member of Parliament of the House of Commons. We find this quite extraordinary. I am sure there have been cases somewhere in the past, but I have not heard of them.
Typically, things come up in life. Sometimes it can be medical reasons or other things that we are all quite compassionate about and that we then reach out with much sympathy for an MP or his or her family. However, we have no knowledge of that in this case. The only thing that you, Mr. Speaker, have heard and that I have heard in terms of evidence is that last statement of April 25 from the member from Montreal, saying that he was finishing and quitting. However, that has not been true.
We have social media posts and whatnot. We have some suggestion of a special assignment that he was sent on by the Prime Minister, which the Prime Minister's Office has rejected, or at the very least not acknowledged. That is certainly not sufficient to qualify him under any of the rules that we have. The privilege is quite straightforward. The rules that guide us in terms of attendance are quite straightforward.
My concern is that allowing this type of behaviour to not be considered, we as members of Parliament are simply saying that it is fine that an MP can take his or her seat, duly elected from his or her constituency, and then just not show up for work but still receive pay, the ability to travel and all of those other things that are meant to allow us to do our jobs on behalf of the people we represent. If someone can simply not show up yet receive all of those benefits and we as members of Parliament and you as Speaker simply say that it is fine, then essentially we are condoning that behaviour.
While Canadians' opinion of politicians and members of Parliament go up and down over the years, as I am sure you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and too often more down, then we must be invested with the effort to try to raise expectations, at the very least the expectation of showing up to work. Other Canadians in any other jobs, if they had gone into work in April and said that they were quitting and then for the next seven months did not show up for work but still received their pay, most Canadians would expect some sort of consequence to that. We have rules that do govern us, and we believe those rules should apply.
Therefore, I rise on the tool that I am able to use here today, on a question of privilege, which I then defer to you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. If that is accepted, we would then send the matter, with some urgency, to the procedure and House affairs committee so it could hear proper testimony, evidence, from the member of Parliament and from whomever has any information about this. We would simply shine a light on this behaviour. Is there a viable reason for the member's absence for the last seven months, and two months more, and as best as we know, when he plans to resign? However, neither your office nor the Clerk's office has any notice of an actual resignation.
If the member is saying that for nine months he just does not have to come to work, but there is a reason for it, then we can hear that testimony. The procedure and House affairs committee, in my opinion, would be the best committee to judge what has to happen next, whether that be suspension or any of the other methods it has.
To me, this seems like a pretty clear-cut case of someone breaching one of the relatively few rules we have as members of Parliament, because we do have some latitude in how we perform our duties. Not every MP does it the same. My goodness, one of the basic standards should be showing up. If the MPs simply do not show up, then the 100,000 or 130,000 people they represent do not have a voice. That is the way this works. No one else can represent them. No one else can vote on their behalf. When somebody simply says, “Well, I am entitled to this position and I don't have to show up to it” then that sends the worst of all possible messages to Canadians and Canadian voters.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will take our letter under consideration, that you will look at this as a clear-cut case of privilege, that we can expeditiously move this toward the procedure and House affairs committee, which I think is the most appropriate committee of the House, and that we can say to not just all the MPs but to all Canadians that we take this work seriously. MPs come here with the best of intentions and, ideally, with the best work ethic possible. To simply condone or ignore behaviour that falls far short of that standard would be an indication that we as a collective House simply do not feel this is important. I do not believe that is true.
Member of Parliament for Saint-Léonard—Saint-MichelPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I would associate myself with much of the remarks of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, recognizing as well that members of Parliament have the privilege to do this job as they see fit, for the most part. The question here is that the member in question has made it explicitly clear that he will not attend the House of Commons. That is what is so different here. We have seen many cases, tragic cases even, where members have suffered from cancer and setbacks.
We had Keith Ashfield, a good friend of ours in the last Parliament, who had to spend much time seeking medical treatment and no one on any side of the House begrudged him for being away to take care of his health during that difficult time. That is not the same as having a member declare to Canadians that he will not attend the House of Commons to perform his duties as a member of Parliament. That is what is so shocking about this case and what makes it so different from all of those other circumstances that may keep a member, through no fault of his or her own and for reasons which may be out of his or her control from attending here.
However, to say that the member is pursuing another line of work that will prevent him from doing his duties, that is what makes this case so exceptional and that is why it should be a matter that seizes the office of the Speaker. This truly is an exceptional circumstance and we need to deal with it in that manner.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I do not know anything about this case and I am not saying it is not a problem. However, when you rule on privilege, just to remind the Speaker, you have to explain how a member's ability to do is his or her job is deterred by the question brought forward.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope and the hon. member for Yukon for their interventions. I will consider the matter and come back to the House in due course.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-86, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, Canada presently has the lowest unemployment in 40 years. What is also amazing is that Yukon has recently had the lowest level of unemployment in the country. The north normally has higher levels of unemployment. Therefore, this is fantastic for my riding. It is amazing and exciting for Yukoners that we are virtually at full economic employment.
What has caused this great level of work in Canada and particularly in Yukon? There are two items that have made a major contribution to this.
The first is the record level of infrastructure spending, double what has ever been spent before by any government in any part of Canada. In my riding, as an example, over 60 projects have already been announced for over $400 million for virtually every community in Yukon. There is probably nothing more gut-wrenching for people than to not be able to feed their family, to not have a job, to not be able to pay the bills. It must be hard for people to have to tell their family they have to move because they cannot afford to live where they are, or they cannot send their kids on school trips or buy them clothes similar to the other kids' or to not have good food.
The fact that there are so many infrastructure projects putting so many people to work is so edifying. However, that is not the end of it. Last May we signed an infrastructure agreement for $445 million more over the next 10 years for our riding.
The second area that I think is a big contribution to the low unemployment rates is the contributions we have made to all different categories of needy people in my riding an all of Canada. By increasing the GIS, thousands of seniors have been lifted out of poverty. We have increased support for students in general and have more support for low-income students. We have also doubled the number of summer jobs for students, and there are still more waiting. There were more applications to fill even when the number of jobs were doubled.
We have supported low-income people with huge amounts of funds through the child tax credit. It is income-tested. Single mothers could get over $6,000 a child under this plan. Some people talk about the cancelled sports credit and other credits like that where people might have received $50 or $100. However, I think people would rather have the $6,000 to really help them raise their children. The other thing we did was we made it non-taxable. Parts of it in the past were taxable. A single mother, who I think was a reporter, came to me in shock when it came to the tax time of the year and found that she had to pay a huge amount of income tax on the child tax credit, which she was not prepared for at all.
The credit has been increased recently, and faster than we thought we would be able to, by indexing the child tax credit. It is going to continue to rise. In my riding alone, it will increase to $5.6 million from 2018 to 2023 for children in very low-income families.
Another area that helps low-income families is day care. As members know, we had a national day care program under the Hon. Ken Dryden. However, the opposition parties got together and replaced Prime Minister Martin with Prime Minister Harper, who cancelled the national child care program. We have initiated a new program. For my riding, the agreement has been signed with the federal government and the minister in Yukon for $7 million over three years.
Another group that has been helped is veterans. The one item I would especially note is that employees now make trips to Yukon three or four times a year to help veterans and veterans of the RCMP in Yukon.
Another group that is disadvantaged is those suffering from mental health and addictions. That has been a high priority for our government. There has been a big need for funding in Canada. My riding alone will get roughly $1 million this year.
This deals with contributions to a vast majority of low-income people. However, there is one large group that I did not mention, and that is the low-income workers. In this budget we have added a low-income worker benefit so people can keep more of their hard-earned money to help them pay the bills as things are getting more expensive for everyone.
In my riding alone, the Canada workers benefit is going to help 1,600 workers. People can imagine across Canada how big this program is. It helps two million workers across Canada, and lifts 70,000 of them out of poverty.
People may ask why I brought up all these contributions to the needy in the context of the great boost to the economy and the full employment. The reason is, it is the right thing to do. That is the most important reason to do it. The second reason is that people really need these funds. Of course when they spend them, they go to small businesses, whose taxes will be reduced, and other expenditures in the economy.
All this employment actually leads to another problem, one which in a way is nice to have, and that is a lack of employees. Everyone has heard in the House of Commons and other debates the number of improvements to the immigration system to deal with this, and the increased training funds. In fact, the 2016 budget was a training budget. A significant portion of those funds goes to training aboriginal people, which is important in my riding.
There is something else exciting for me in the bill. Mining is so important in my riding. In fact mining has been the biggest contributor to the GDP virtually every year since the century before last century, since 1897. Every year since 2003, for anyone who was not here at that time, I have been lobbying very hard to get the mineral exploration tax credit extended. In my riding, the vast majority of exploration projects depend on this credit. I have been fighting year after year, no matter who is in government, to get that extended. Indeed, it was extended each year. I was excited to see that again this year it was extended. I thank PDAC, perhaps the biggest mining association in the world, and MAC, and the Yukon Chamber of Mines who at the Yukon Geoscience Forum a couple of weeks ago applauded my efforts in lobbying for this every year.
Something even more exciting is what the minister announced in the fall economic statement. PDAC was asking for this too. I think it was asking not only for a one-year but a three-year extension as the first priority of a number of things it was looking for. The minister announced not a one-year extension, not a three-year extension, but a five-year extension. It is so critical to such a big industry in Canada. I am so excited about this. Finance ministers, no matter what party, are the ones who say no to all the things that come forward, so for the minister to say yes to making this expenditure is exciting for me, for my riding and for the mining industry. I thank the Minister of Finance for this great success story. The mining industry is the biggest employer of indigenous people, with 16,500 jobs in Canada.
Another problem that all this employment creates is the need for housing. As one of the first members of the Yukon Anti-Poverty Coalition, we have been lobbying for affordable housing for years as well. The new national housing plan, again, is the biggest in Canadian history, of some $40 billion. I have already announced projects in a vast majority of the communities with a population in my riding and the communities of Whitehorse, Carcross, Haines Junction, Burwash, Old Crow, Pelly Crossing, Dawson, Watson Lake and Carmacks.
Also very exciting is the $1 million for the women's entrepreneurship program. I congratulate the women's business network and Tammy Beese. There is another $32 million for the Yukon government, which will spend it and help the economy.
Finally, CanNor, our economic development agency, was about to expire when this budget came in. Again, I thank the Minister of Finance. He made it permanent and provided $20 million a year and another $2 million for innovations and skills, and funded the huge innovation centre so that Yukon is in with a digital economy like everyone else.
For all these reasons, members can see why we are very excited in my riding about the economic interventions by the Minister of Finance.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a budget bill that is over 800 pages long. Despite Liberal members railing against omnibus budget bills when in opposition, this is double the length of any previous omnibus bill.
It is interesting to note what is in the bill and it is also interesting to note what is not in the bill. What is not in the bill is any information about when the government believes the budget will balance itself.
We have asked this question before and I wonder if the member has an answer to it. According to the government's plan, when will the budget balance itself? Liberals promised during the election that it would be done by this fiscal year, 2018-19. That was clearly promised by the Prime Minister. He told the media that this promise was very set in stone. Clearly, that is not the case.
When will the budget balance itself?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions.
The first was about omnibus bills. What the Liberals railed against was the improper use, not in budget times, of omnibus bills. If the bill is twice as long as any other budget implementation bill, it means we are doing twice as much as any other government.
In relation to the small deficit, we are leading the G7. It is not significant, especially given all of the investments I mentioned and the 500,000 new jobs. All of these workers are paying income tax and the businesses are paying taxes, and all of that is going into revenue.
Low-income seniors, low-income students, low-income workers, people getting child care, veterans, people being helped with mental health and addictions, people in the women's entrepreneurship program, people in the innovation centre and people with the economic development agency are very happy with those investments and that small deficit.
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for quite a long time and he is always the champion for the underdog and for many of the families in Yukon who struggle with the high cost of living, of food and so on.
I would like to hear the member elaborate more on the benefits of the infrastructure programs as well as on the child benefit that we now provide.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the member is right. One of the reasons I got into politics was to fight against poverty.
A number of things help low-income people. In my riding, there are a number of indigenous people and a number of rural communities where things are even more expensive. It is very important that Canadians get the child tax benefit, especially if there is no employment.
One of the important things I can tell all Canadians who are listening is to make sure they fill in their tax forms. Even for those who do not make a cent, there are a number of benefits available, such as the child tax benefit and the GST credit. Canadians cannot get them unless they fill out their tax forms.
One thing I did not mention is nutrition north. It helps people in the High Arctic with the high cost of food, which can be two, three or four times what is for the rest of us. Nutrition north has recently, through the economic statement, received more funds, and more studies have been done, helping people to collect country foods as part of the new investment.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Conservative friend across the way make the assertion that this legislation before us is twice the size of Conservative bills. I will just remind members of the House that that is a far stretch from reality, to say the very least. This is not to mention that the content of the bill before us is, in fact, related to the budget itself.
There are many aspects of budget implementation. One of them is very positive and progressive in the area of pay equity. A number of pages are dedicated to the issue of pay equity. There are many other social programs within it that I think move us forward.
Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is to pass this budget implementation bill?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be easier on me than he is with a lot of the question he asks others in the House. I am glad he was so tame on me.
I think everyone in the House, for the sake of the particular part of the bill on pay equity, wants the bill to pass.
I want to add my congratulations to the Liberals' women's caucus, which I have attended off and on for years, and to the all-party caucus for pushing to make sure this important provision got in. I would also like to compliment the finance minister on having recently had the first budget analyzed based on gender to make sure it was fair for everyone.
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-86, the Liberal government's second mammoth budget implementation bill, related to budget 2018.
As I begin my remarks today, I would invite everyone to reflect on the following section from the Liberal Party's 2015 election platform. Under the heading “Prorogation and omnibus bills”, there is a line that says:
Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals. We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.
These are stinging words, but as is so often the case with the Prime Minister, the promises he made in the Liberal platform document are not worth the paper they were written on.
The string of broken promises by the Prime Minister is long. Just last week, the finance minister reaffirmed another broken promise to Canadians. In 2015, the current Prime Minister pledged that his budgetary deficits would be small and temporary. However, with this bill and with the recent fall economic statement, the Prime Minister and his government have broken their promise. In fact, the federal deficit is three times what the Liberals pledged it would be, and we all know that more debt today means higher taxes tomorrow.
I could go on about the Prime Minister's broken promises and betrayal of Canadians, but there is a specific part of this bill that I would like to address. Buried in this bill between pages 589 and 649 are divisions 22 and 23, which make amendments to the Canada Shipping Act 2001 and the Marine Liability Act.
To begin, it must be noted that three shipping associations representing members across Canada were all taken by surprise at the inclusion of these clauses in a budget implementation bill. The pan-Canadian Shipping Federation of Canada, the B.C.-based Chamber of Shipping, and the Great Lakes St. Lawrence-based Chamber of Marine Commerce all expressed their surprise at the move, as well as their concern at the speed with which the bill was being rushed through the House of Commons and committee.
Talk about ramming a mammoth bill through Parliament, the bill was introduced on October 29. A day later divisions 22 and 23 were referred to the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, where we were invited to study and then submit any recommendations and/or amendments in less than two weeks.
Despite this ridiculously rushed timeline for reviewing the bill, the transport committee did hold two meetings where we heard from shipping stakeholders who, despite the time crunch, identified some areas of common concern. Our committee also heard from departmental officials about the proposed changes. One shocking revelation from the officials was that the changes being proposed were the most substantial changes to these acts in, in one case, 10 years and, in the other, 25 years.
These substantial legislative changes, with the potential to have a dramatic impact on the Canadian shipping industry, as well as all the way down the transportation chain, are being rammed through Parliament with hardly any time for prudent study. To me, this reflects the disregard with which the government treats the Canadian economy.
Further, I would like to highlight another way that the government is disregarding the transportation sector when it included these divisions in Bill C-86. Apparently, through the framework of the government's much lauded oceans protection plan, it was conducting so-called consultations on potential legislative changes related to marine safety and environmental protection.
These consultations ended on Friday, October 26, and, as I mentioned, this bill was introduced with divisions 22 and 23 on the morning of Monday, October 29. Given the tight timeframe, the Minister of Transport did not appear at committee, so we questioned the assistant deputy minister on how the department managed to craft 60 pages of legislation in just one weekend. Needless to say, we were not satisfied with the answers that we received and were left with only one conclusion, that these consultations were a farce.
While there were some elements of divisions 22 and 23 that stakeholders found agreeable, there was unanimity in the call for specific amendments. I would like to highlight a couple of these amendments that my colleague the member for Calgary Shepard argued for at finance committee. Regrettably, these amendments failed to be passed at the committee.
An amendment was proposed to section 690. This amendment introduced some safeguards regarding the use of the interim orders by the Minister of Transport. Stakeholders suggested that the parameters around which the minister could make an interim order needed to be properly defined. Additionally, they suggested that the use of an interim order needed to be precipitated and/or necessitated by a significant risk and/or an immediate threat. Without these constraining definitions, Bill C-86 would create uncertainty and this uncertainty could become the norm in the shipping industry.
They also suggested that it was essential that the proposal to give the minister the power to adopt interim orders under the Canada Shipping Act be sufficiently restricted through the appropriate checks and balances to ensure that their use would not open the door to the practice of governing by interim order as a workaround from the normal regulatory process. The new subsection they believed was required, because of the potential major ramifications of a minister's making an interim order, was also rejected by Liberal committee members.
This rejected amendment also proposed to reduce the length of time that an interim order would be in effect. The current bill allows for an interim order to be in effect for one year, plus an extension of two years if granted by the Governor in Council. Stakeholders felt that it was quite unprecedented that a new regulation could exist for three years without going through the normal regulatory process. The proposed amendment would have limited the length of an interim order from one year to 14 days and the Governor in Council extension to one year, which is more in line with other legislation.
Another amendment that also failed at the finance committee, but which should have been included in Bill C-86, proposed to amend clause 692. The purpose of this amendment was to introduce safeguards around the use of ministerial powers. What Bill C-86 proposes in clause 692 would go a step further than simply introducing new Governor in Council regulatory powers. In some cases, it would also enable the minister to modify the content of Governor in Council regulations relating to matters like compulsory or recommended routes, cargo loading, and navigation and anchoring by using a ministerial order for up to one year.
To curb this expanded power, the shipping stakeholders felt that their amendment was needed to ensure that the minister would consult with industry before making any order under this section.
In rejecting these reasonable proposals by the shipping industry, the government is turning a blind eye to the concerns of those workers and businesses that would be most directly impacted by these changes.
As the shadow minister for transport, I value the input of key stakeholders. This legislation and the Liberals' rejection of reasonable amendments is a reflection of their disregard for Canada's economy and future well-being.
I want to highlight a final area of concern that was given in testimony to our committee on November 6.
The witness appearing for the Chamber of Shipping noted that clause 692 of this legislation appeared to be another mechanism by which to implement a moratorium on specific commodities through regulation and interim orders, and not through legislation, as this government is doing with Bill C-48. The witness noted that this contradicted what should be the government's objective in providing a predicable supply chain. There is no question in my mind that the inclusion of this clause in Bill C-86 would have a further chilling effect on Canada's oil and gas industry.
The Liberal government has been bad for Canada's economy and this legislation would only take Canada further down this mistaken path.