Debates of June 12th, 2023

Bill C-33—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich hearing these protestations from the Conservatives regarding time allocation. If memory serves, the former Conservative government used time allocation 115 times. The Conservatives even had a cake in the lobby to mark the 100th time they invoked time allocation.

I understand that the Conservatives have already decided they are going to vote against this bill at second reading. Has the minister had any conversations with the Conservatives that convey an intention to work in good faith to improve this bill on behalf of all Canadians?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his work and diligence at the transport committee. As he is the transport critic for the NDP, we have been working together on advancing the public interests of all Canadians, including on safety in the rail network.

I had conversations, including here in the House of Commons, in the chamber, during the first debate on Bill C-33 with my hon. colleague, the transport critic for the Conservatives. I encouraged him to work together on making sure that we pass a good bill for Canadians. Unfortunately, as my colleague said, I have seen no sign of their willingness to work together on a bill that is of paramount importance to Canadians and our supply chains.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could expand. When we look at the importance of the legislation to our ports and our rail yards, which are important to our whole supply chain, this is a critical updating of legislation that would make things that much more safe for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, quite frankly.

The fear was that, if we did no bring in time allocation, this legislation would never pass. At least, at the very minimum, it would not get through until sometime in 2024 or 2025, and only if the Conservatives were prepared to do so. That is the reason we had to bring in time allocation.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing this issue back into focus.

Canadians know that over the last couple of years, because of COVID, extreme weather events, labour shortages and the illegal war in Ukraine, we have seen tremendous disruption in our supply chain. Our government established a supply chain task force last year, and it came back with a solid number of recommendations, 21 to be exact. Some of them were focused on port congestion. This bill would enhance the ability for ports to manage and ease congestion. In fact, it would enable ports to create inland terminals. Ports were not previously encouraged to do so. We are now empowering ports to manage vessel traffic in their jurisdictions.

Those who live on the west coast know about the issue of traffic jams along the west coast, where for a long time no one has had the responsibility of managing traffic. This bill would create that ability. It would also enhance rail safety. This is an important bill for the safety of Canadians and for the resilience of our supply chain.

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

Mr. Speaker, leave it to this minister to be the one to tell Canadians that they have never had it so good when it comes to our ports, air travel and rail.

Our airlines are still a disaster under the minister's watch. He is going to blame that on COVID. Our ports over on the west side of the country are the third worst and ninth worst in the world under his watch. That is his track record.

This bill is about 109 pages of nothing. All it would essentially do is establish a couple of committees that would not accomplish anything. It has nothing to do with setting up production. It is only about setting up more committees that would have more Liberal insiders to give more recommendations that are never going to be acted upon.

Why will the minister not do the right thing, scrap this bill, start again, actually listen to Parliament and give us time to debate it? Time allocation after five hours is brutal. This is a minority Parliament, and the Liberals think they still have a majority. It is time to get back to democracy. What does the minister think?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians would take that member seriously if he knew what he was talking about.

Canadians do not believe the Conservatives when they say the government is responsible for all of the problems happening around the world. I would take the member seriously if he could provide some common sense in his questions.

Having said that, this bill has been tabled in the House of Commons for months. We continue to want to work with our colleagues across the aisle from all parties to make sure that the bill, when it is ready to pass in the House of Commons, has been fully debated. The committee would have the chance to welcome witnesses and experts to debate the bill.

I am looking forward to having a constructive discussion not only with members of the NDP, the Bloc and the Green Party, but also with the Conservative Party. That is what Canadians expect of all of us.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits of having been in the House for a while is I do have recollection of previous Conservative governments. I watched the Harper government bring in time allocation time and time again. Therefore, it is quite rich to see Conservatives stand up in this House and complain about the use of time allocation. I would point out as well that the Conservatives are correct that time allocation can be an abused process by a government if it is using it to limit debate. However, of course, it is not abusive if it is doing it when the opposition is trying to filibuster and is trying to frustrate the legitimate business of the House, which is what Conservatives are doing in this House. Canadians need to know that.

I was in the House the other night when the Conservatives put up 15 speakers to debate their motion to strip the short title of a bill on child care. That was the entire debate. Therefore, when the opposition is using that kind of process to frustrate the will of the democratically elected majority in the House, which is what is happening in this place, that certainly justifies the use of time allocation. I wonder if my hon. colleague would agree.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. Do not take it from me; it is the leader of the Conservative Party who has publicly been telling Canadians that he is going to filibuster and delay and cause havoc here in the House of Commons, instead of focusing on the country's business and on what Canadians need and deserve.

This is an important bill for our supply chain. If hon. colleagues have any objection to some provisions of the bill, that is great; that is what the House of Commons debates are for and that is what committees debates are for. However, this is just to delay for the sake of delaying and just to filibuster for the sake of being unhappy about the fact that members of different parties are working together. What is wrong with that? When we see members from different parties working to advance the interests of Canadians, that is what Canadians expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the arguments from the government, the members of the Conservative Party and the NDP. I find them all interesting.

The government says that the Conservatives have been filibustering the whole time for a while now. That is true. I can say that I have seen the Conservatives filibuster a lot and try to slow down procedures over the past few weeks.

The NDP members are telling us that the Conservatives were worse than the Liberals and they too kept using closure motions. That is also true. The Conservatives used to impose closure motions all the time. The question is, what type of Parliament and environment do we want to work in?

I wonder if, given that the Conservatives abused closure motions in the past, the government really needs to do the same. We can also talk about what is happening now and wonder whether we should short-circuit procedure and the functioning of Parliament because the Conservatives are abusing procedure to slow down the work of parliamentarians.

Those are questions I have. The government may have some good answers for me because I am not convinced that the best way to deal with this is to respond with “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and do the very thing they criticize.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is not the idea of an eye for an eye at all. We continued to exhaust all options, including sitting until midnight. We have been providing members of Parliament here ample opportunities to debate, to express their opinion and express the opinion of their constituents on many occasions. MPs are working hard around the clock. We are also here in a minority Parliament; we need to work with other parties to advance the agenda of Canadians. That is why we have provided members of Parliament all opportunities to debate, to engage in a healthy and rigorous discussion. We are also working with our colleagues from other parties to advance and improve bills that go through the House to ensure that we address the pressing interests of Canadians today.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all of this is quite interesting. Historically speaking, since the time of Tommy Douglas right up to Thomas Mulcair, the NDP has supported time allocation motions only 14 times in 17 Parliaments. If we multiply 17 Parliaments by four years each, that is a lot of years. It averages out to 1.2 times per Parliament, which is very reasonable.

Today marks the 37th time that the NDP has supported a Liberal time allocation motion in Parliament. I do not know what kind of bug bit the NDP, but, honestly, it was big and it bit hard.

A total of 37 times. That is pretty incredible considering that this political party used to have a very different sense of autonomy and political awareness than what we are seeing now. Can the minister tell us how it is that the NDP, an independent political party that very much leans to the left politically, can support the government in this kind of procedure so often and so consistently?

For years, the Liberals have said that the Conservatives abused this procedure. Now, they use it more often than we ever did.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would expect Conservatives to at least use some humility when they talk about time allocation, because we know what the Conservative Party did when it was in power. How many times did it use or misuse time allocation? Now it is upset to see different parties within this chamber working together on a plan to improve the lives of Canadians.

If the Conservatives are serious about advancing the interests of Canadians, we would think that instead of filibustering for days on end they would focus on the agenda of Canadians. We would think they would work together with other MPs on making sure that the bills that come through the House of Commons are focused on what is best for Canada and Canadians.

Therefore, while I understand they are the official opposition, I would ask them to show a little humility.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech on Bill C-33 on March 10 of this year, the member for Chilliwack—Hope remarked:

There is nothing in this bill about what would happen to our supply chains and our international reputation when there are labour disputes that impact the supply chain either at the ports or on our railways.

It sure sounds as if he wants the government to interfere in the collective bargaining process, which often happened when the Conservatives were in power.

Can you comment on this and, in general, on how they treated workers at our ports and railway systems compared to our government's approach?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I cannot comment on it, but I am sure the Minister of Transport could.

The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is really important to remind Canadians of what the Conservative Party stands for. The Conservative leader claims to speak on behalf of the working people. He claims to employ common sense. That could not be further from the truth.

The Conservatives are trying to undermine the role of unions in protecting the interests of Canadian workers. As my hon. colleague commented in his quote, it is clear they support the idea of limiting the ability of unions to negotiate their own collective bargaining agreements.

Our government has said before and will continue to say that we believe in the power of collective bargaining agreements. We believe that when the parties reach an agreement at the negotiating table it will last longer and be fairer for workers and our economy.

That is our position. However, the Conservatives have revealed that they do not believe in the power of collective bargaining agreements.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the Port of Vancouver this weekend, which is very concerned about the pending strike and what the government is going to do.

In light of this time allocation legislation, with only five hours to talk about the legislation, its impact on possible labour disputes going forward and whether that has even been talked about, could the minister bring us up to speed on what his plans are to date to make sure that a collective agreement is put in place so we do not face the charges in the supply chain that the parliamentary secretary talked about or a situation where people cannot get the goods they need for the summer?

As we know, not only could there possibly be a strike at the Port of Vancouver, there is a strike in Long Beach. That basically means that all of North America on the west coast would be shut down. Does the government have a plan, or is it just going to sit and watch and let its NDP partners sit and watch with it?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect my colleague. I know he, as the former critic of supply chain, worked hard on the fluidity and health of our supply chains.

I am also concerned about the ongoing negotiations on the west coast with unions and the B.C. Maritime Employers Association. The last thing Canadians want is another disruption to our supply chain, but I believe the best way to avoid that disruption is to let the parties negotiate an agreement at the negotiating table, and we are not standing idly by. We are there. We will offer mediators at the table; in fact, federal mediators are helping, and we are reminding both sides of their obligations toward Canada, the Canadian economy and Canadians, but we believe it is best that the parties reach an agreement at the negotiating table on their own.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the substance of the bill, one of the changes proposed is to increase the local government representation on the boards of directors of Canadian port authorities. I think this is welcomed by the local governments I have spoken with. However, another group that deserves representation is the workers of Canada's ports. These folks are integral to the operation of our ports. They have specific knowledge, expertise and experience that can benefit the operation and management of ports. We would like to see a seat at the table for the workers of Canada's ports.

I wonder if the minister could respond to this proposal, which we strongly support.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Those who work in the labour sector and represent workers have a unique perspective that can benefit the operations of our institutions, including ports. I want to express to my colleague my willingness and our government's willingness to work with him on advancing this principle he talked about. I am looking forward to sending this bill to committee, where we will get a chance to have a fulsome debate and look for opportunities to improve it, to ensure we address the point he is raising.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bill C-33 is the minister's baby. When ministers introduce bills that fall under their department's jurisdiction, they are usually very eager to see the bill in question take effect. In a way, I think it is to the minister's credit that he is pushing to advance his files and that he is excited at the idea of seeing his bill passed.

However, it is important for the House to have the opportunity to properly debate the bill, propose amendments and thoroughly examine it. Personally, I do not think that five hours of debate was sufficient. There are all sorts of issues on which we might have liked to make adjustments or changes.

Take, for example, small ports. The minister can comment on that. There are new obligations for ports that may be a good way to increase accountability. However, not all ports have the same resources as the Port of Montreal or the Port of Vancouver. Other ports are a lot smaller, and it could make things difficult for them if the government imposes a lot more obligations on them than they had to meet in the past.

I would like to know whether the minister is open to making accommodations for these ports that have different realities.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me make this point: I am enthusiastic about this bill, not because it is my baby, but because it would improve the lives of Canadians.

It would get things done; it would improve the congestion at ports; it would improve accountability and transparency; and it would address the climate issue. To my hon. colleague's point, I certainly have had a discussion with him and other colleagues about whether there is a way for this, because some of the provisions of this bill are intended to add accountability and transparency to ensure the ports are doing their job in consultation with local communities. However, I accept the fact that there are different circumstances for smaller ports, and we need to find a way to ensure that we uphold the principle but do not overburden these smaller ports. I am willing to work with my hon. colleague and other members of Parliament to ensure we find that balance.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the former party that used to represent labour, the NDP, no longer does. There is some laughter over there, but all the members need to do is talk to people in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, on the island and in the ridings they represent. I guess they are in for a rude awakening next election.

It is interesting that the workers at the Ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert have been without a contract for so long under the Liberal government. As these guys have been working together for the last number of years, we would think everything would be grand, but it certainly is not.

Meanwhile, we are trying to work out some those issues out in Parliament so that a good agreement can be made, and good legislation for workers is done. However, the minister insults the opposition by ramming it through anyway, even though the democratic process is part of what we do in this place. The minister is going to get up and talk about all the closure motions we did before, but he needs to get to the bottom of what we are asking him for, and that is the democratic process for a very important issue at our ports, especially at Vancouver and Prince Rupert. I wish he would talk specifically about that issue.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the democratic process will take its course in the House of Commons, but I wish the Conservatives were not filibustering. I wish the Conservatives were not putting obstacles against the interests of Canadians, against ensuring that ports are working better.

Every party in this chamber claims to represent the interests of workers, but Canadians are smart and they know what people are saying. If we listen to the words of the Conservatives, they are the ones who want to ram agreements through the negotiating table instead of allowing unions to stand up for their rights. Instead of allowing unions to have a full process of negotiating a contract with their employers, they want to force it upon workers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the earlier intervention from my Conservative colleague, the Conservatives are happy to stand up for workers as long as they are not fighting for better wages and better working conditions. Otherwise they are okay.

I heard the Minister of Transport talk earlier about port congestion, and that issue is very near and dear to my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For years, we have been dealing with the fact that the Port of Vancouver has been using our precious coastal waters as an overflow industrial parking lot. Transport Canada and the Port of Vancouver have treated my constituents, the first nations in my riding, with total indifference on this matter, despite repeated attempts to get it resolved.

I would like to hear this from the minister. What would happen in the bill that would allow this problem to be dealt with, and if it is not satisfactory, what action can he commit to so that my constituents can have peace of mind?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I often remind ports, including the Port of Vancouver, that they are public institutions. They are there to serve the public and they are there to ensure that they pay attention to their constituents and their stakeholders.

This bill would do several things, but let me address a couple of points the bill proposes that could help with the matter that my hon. colleague has raised.

First, the bill would require ports to establish advisory groups to ensure that local stakeholders are consulted formally and efficiently, instead of the ad hoc, insufficient ways that may have happened in the past. Second, the bill proposes that ports could create inland terminals. They would no longer have to build all their infrastructure on the coastline and would be able to look for other options.