Debates of Sept. 21st, 2023

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑33. If the people listening do not know what it is and have not heard of it, that is not unusual.

It is not a very exciting bill. Let us just say that it is far, very far, from revolutionary. To pique interest in the bill, a very original title was found: an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Understandably, it is a large bill.

When I read it, I feel like every law in the country will be amended. When we look more closely at the bill, we soon realize that is not the case. All that to say, above all, we have no idea what this bill does. When we read its title, we have no idea what it is for. As I said, a lot of creative effort was put into a title that would say what the bill does and its purpose.

One might wonder why the Customs Act included in the bill. Will it affect the issues surrounding Roxham Road, illegal border crossings, illegal weapons crossing at the border? As we know, Roxham Road is now closed. It may no longer be a problem. However, it still was when the bill was introduced.

With respect to the Railway Safety Act, will the self-regulation of railway companies finally be ended, a kind of situation where they do pretty much whatever they want, greatly weakening industry oversight? Will this part of the bill really bring railway companies into line? No, they will not be brought into line. There is absolutely nothing to prevent CN or CP from sleeping at night, I guarantee. I do not think it will change much in their lives.

Regarding the Canada Marine Act, there are a few changes. We can start to see some substance. I say some, but not too much.

The fact that nobody is talking about it just goes to show that the bill will not change much in the lives of ordinary Canadians. Usually, when the government tables a bill, it is a big deal. Everyone is waiting for it. People are on the edge of their seats. We wonder what provisions it will include. Sometimes, the government leaks little bits to journalists to stir up interest in the bill. Then there are articles that come out. When the bill is tabled, there is a big press conference. There are media tours. Sometimes, there are regional tours in cities affected by the bill. There is a lot of noise around a bill. Normally, a bill is something important. After all, we are changing the laws of a country.

However, for Bill C‑33, there has been nothing. No one has talked about it. We hardly knew it even existed until we debated it today in the House.

I did a lot of research and I ended up finding something on the web that talks about the bill. It went almost unnoticed. The article is entitled, “a bill to strengthen collaboration between Quebec ports”. With such a title, I thought there might be something to enable Quebec ports to work better together. Moreover, this is one of the requests of Quebec ports, to be able, for example, to issue joint calls for tenders. I read the bill and saw that there is absolutely nothing in this document that will allow Quebec ports to work together more.

It seems that the former minister told the journalist some tall tales. The article states that close collaboration will lead to strategic investments that will improve facility services and performance while also strengthening the supply chain.

That reads like gibberish. Essentially, this is not about collaboration between ports but collaboration between the ports and the Department of Transport. In the end, that is the reality. Perhaps the journalist would have liked the bill to address the topic because the ports asked for it, but the minister was not clear in his response and that led to this article.

The article also talks about the supply chain. What would be interesting to know is what in Bill C-33 will truly help the supply chain. However, if we read the bill carefully, we can see that there is not much there that affects the supply chain. There is virtually nothing, unless the minister wants to personally start managing—or micromanaging—the ports one by one.

The fact is that, when Bill C-33 was introduced, there was a supply crisis virtually everywhere. There were problems with the supply chain, so Bill C-33 was announced. They said that the bill would improve the supply chain, but there is nothing in it for the supply chain. It is simply a way of spinning things to make people believe the bill is actually useful.

They wanted to make the bill ultramodern and topical, but that did not happen. To prove my point, I searched the text of the bill to see if it contained the words “collaboration” and “Quebec”, since there was talk of better collaboration between ports in Quebec. I will be honest, the word “collaboration” appears twice in the bill. However, those instances are in provisions that refer to railway safety. In fact, “collaboration” and “Quebec” appear nowhere together.

I also searched for the word “Quebec”. That word also appears twice in the bill, but, in both cases, it is to address minor matters concerning the management of leases by port authorities. This has nothing to do with collaboration between ports. To get back to the article, we will need to talk to the journalists. Indeed, the minister will need to explain how he came to tell us that. However, the minister will not be able to explain it because he is no longer there. There was a change of ministers.

Clearly the minister wanted to lead us down the garden path, because there is absolutely nothing in the bill to allow for collaboration between Quebec ports. It would have been a good opportunity to do that. Unfortunately, it is a missed opportunity.

The ports also asked to be allowed to issue joint calls for tenders and have more flexibility in raising funds. These are great ideas, but disappointingly, they are not in the bill. Ministers do not typically table bills every day. When a minister does get to table a bill, it is a unique opportunity for them to make their mark on history, usher in change and be remembered as someone who accomplished important things on behalf of a great country, Canada. I wish I could say on behalf of Quebec, but we are in the Parliament of Canada, after all.

Unfortunately, this is a missed opportunity because no one will remember Bill C‑33. The minister will not go down in history; he is no longer in office. There is now a new minister who has to champion this bill, but I have not heard him say much about it publicly.

This bill lacks vision. It looks like the government is asleep at the wheel. The bill appears to have been drafted by a bunch of bureaucrats in the minister's office who brainstormed ways to better manage Canada's transportation system. They put it all in there—bits about ports, bits about customs and bits about rail transportation—but the end result lacks cohesiveness, vision and ambition. All it is is a bunch of little measures they threw together and called a bill, and then the minister introduced it in the House. It is utterly lacking in policy direction or vision.

We just started a new parliamentary session, and this is the bill that the government has decided to prioritize. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, a climate crisis, an inflation crisis, but they decide to take a bunch of random little measures and put them before Parliament, saying that this is the priority for the fall. There is something here I do not understand. Perhaps the government will have a chance to explain later, but I, for one, do not really see where it is going with this.

It is quite apparent that the government is lacking ambition and ideas, both in its legislative agenda and in this infamous bill, which really does not contain much of anything.

There are a few things in there, to be fair. For example, there is a provision that prohibits “interference with railway work...in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations”.

We asked what "threatens the safety” means in concrete terms. Does it mean that people can no longer demonstrate on the tracks? Can workers no longer go on strike? We do not know. We need clarification on what “threatens the safety” means. How is that put into practice? We are looking forward to finding out.

The bill also provides that the minister can order a rail company to take corrective measures in relation to a safety management system. That is not a bad thing. If a problem is not resolved after many warnings, it will allow the minister to order that the problem be resolved. The minister could now have that power.

The minister can issue or cancel security certificates, for example. Anyone transporting dangerous goods will be required to register. That is not a bad thing. Previously, anyone could transport goods without being registered. It is about time that became mandatory.

In an emergency, the minister may direct a person to cease an activity or conduct other activities relating to public safety. That is not a bad thing.

The minister will be authorized to make interim orders and give emergency directions. This could apply to boats, for example, and could be used to prevent a ship from entering a port and keep it at sea. That is another power being given to the minister, but it does not mean the minister is allowed to manage the supply chain. The minister will certainly not spend their days determining which boat can or cannot enter a port and which one gets priority. That is not how it will work. However, in the event of a major crisis, we can see how it might be useful for the minister to have this power in their toolbox.

There is also mention of authorizing logistics activities in ports but it is a poorly kept secret that there are already logistics activities at the ports. It is now written in black and white; it will be done.

The bill mentions releasing quarterly financial statements for ports, which will allow for greater accountability. There is a provision requiring port authorities to establish advisory committees for indigenous peoples, municipalities and communities. Some will call it “meeting mania”, but I would not say that. I think ports need to be accountable to the public, conduct consultations and listen. Sometimes we may have to impose the things that are missing. There has been a lot of unhappiness in the past with the federal government, which does what it wants and sometimes tells others to put up and shut up. We need to make some effort to listen to what people are saying. That is not a bad thing.

There is a requirement for a climate change adaptation plan. No one will object to that. However, is the plan binding and are there quantifiable targets? No, there are no directions, just an obligation to present a plan. However, we are in a climate crisis, whether we like it or not. Parliament has passed net-zero legislation. I find it unfortunate that there is no consistency between this bill, meaning the desire to achieve net-zero by 2050, and port security requirements. This is clearly a flaw.

The Bloc Québécois, and surely members from the other parties, will want ports to assist in the effort like everyone else. Having a plan is not enough in 2023. This is not 2000; it is 20 years later and it is time to go further.

The minister will also have the power to appoint chairs of boards of directors. This raises a red flag. I will talk about that a bit later. Basically, we can see that, from the top of his ivory tower in Ottawa, the minister will be able to micromanage ports. In an emergency, that can be good, but we hope he does not abuse it. The reality is that ports are managed by port authorities. I do not particularly want to see the minister travel to each and every port to micromanage it.

We can also see that, from his ivory tower, the minister can decide who will be the board chair at the Port of Montreal, the Port of Québec, the Port of Trois-Rivières and the Port of Saguenay. That bothers me a bit because, often, the Liberals do not necessarily choose chairs for their accomplishments, their field expertise, their achievements in operations management or their great vision for the future.

For me, and I do not know about the others, putting the words “Liberal” and “appointment” together raises all sorts of red flags. In general, unless there is evidence to the contrary, I have the impression that the Liberals are not necessarily looking for someone who is competent. Instead, they choose someone on the basis of their political loyalty to the Liberal Party, to the minister or to the Canadian government. Unfortunately, if this ever happens, nothing can be done to stop it. That is not what we want. We want someone who is chosen for their skills, because they are the best person for the job, not because they are a friend of the Liberal Party. This is a big problem for us.

Their priority was to introduce a dull, unambitious bill that puts everyone to sleep. Usually, we are at the edges of our seats when the government introduces a bill. However, as trivial as the bill is, the government still found a way to put a partisan touch on it to assume a bit more power.

These are not crisis management powers, but powers to appoint Liberal friends to important positions where they will have a little more control over what is happening in our regions. As we know, ports are the gateway for goods that move across the country.

For me, this is important, even critical. For example, more than half of Quebec’s GDP goes through ports. That is huge. With this bill, the government will not fill these positions with management experts who are accomplished managers. No, they will appoint friends of the Liberal Party so that they are indebted to the minister and will do what he tells them to do. This has the potential for political interference, which I find serious. The government can already appoint staff. It can already appoint people to port boards. It already has its eye on what is going on. It can already develop directives, programs or bills. It can already convene them. No, it wants to decide how things are going to happen and even decide to appoint friends to these positions.

For me, this is a big problem. I hope that, in committee, we will ensure that this part of the bill is removed because, in my view, it does not work. The Liberals had this idea of appointing their friends here, there and everywhere. They have not yet done so, but if we look at appointments, we can see that there are already quite a few Liberal friends on the boards of directors. However, they did not give any thought to the idea of appointing, for example, the people who work in the ports to the boards of directors. There are thousands of workers at these ports and they may have things to say to the boards. That could have been interesting, and we would like to make an amendment to the bill to ensure that workers can be heard when decisions are made at ports. These are the major points that I wanted to talk about today.

Often, the government will introduce a boring, anodyne bill, thinking no one will take any notice. However, we did notice one thing, which is that the Liberals have decided to give themselves the power to appoint their friends to key positions, such as presidents of ports. Hell is often paved with good intentions, but when the wrong tools are put into the hands of the wrong people, that leads to bad results. This power, or at least these tools, should not be given to the Liberals. We know what they are like. If they are asked not to touch the candy dish in front of them, but there is no lid and no one is watching, we know what will happen. It is easy to guess. We all remember the sponsorship scandal; we all know what the Liberals are like. They are partisan to the bone, unfortunately. That is a tendency we must fight against and guard against.

Despite the many flaws in Bill C-33, we nonetheless plan to support it because we think it can be improved. We think that what the government is presenting can be improved, which will not be difficult because there is not much to this bill. There is definitely room for improvement. It can be improved and made more palatable, more acceptable.

True, there are some improvements in the bill. I would be lying if I said there were none at all. That said, as long as we are spending time on this bill, we might as well try to make it useful and even better than what the government introduced.

The Bloc Québécois can be counted on to work with the Liberals, provided they decide to work with the opposition instead of trying to shove a bill down our throats without listening to what anyone else has to say. In the past, I have had some very constructive discussions with the previous minister. I have also had discussions with the current minister. I hope he will be as open-minded as his predecessor. He previously told us that he was willing to incorporate several of our proposals into the bill.

In the coming months, during the committee study, we will see whether or not that open-mindedness is genuine. That could obviously have an impact on our final vote after the committee study, when the bill is sent back to the House. If there is no collaboration on the one side, why would there be any on the other? We are here to work for Quebeckers, not for Canada. There must be something for Quebec in the bill. Quebeckers must benefit in some way, and that is what we are going to ensure. The government can count on us to keep working hard to achieve that.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. I too have concerns about granting new powers to Ottawa, especially regarding rail, but also regarding ports, since that could cause problems.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether, during the committee study, he will be pointing out to the government that there are no measures in Bill C-33 to stop stolen vehicles from being shipped out of Canada. I for one could not find do not see any. One of my constituents told me that he had a tracking chip in his vehicle and that he knew that his vehicle had gone beyond the gate at the Port of Montreal. He saw his vehicle being loaded onto the ship, and he watched it sail away. He was able to track his vehicle as sailed off, and he alerted the police, but the ship was already beyond the jurisdiction of the Sûreté du Québec.

There may have been 35 or 40 stolen vehicles aboard that ship. Vehicle thefts are driving up insurance rates in Canada, and that affects all Canadians. Are there any measures in Bill C‑33 that could reduce exports of stolen vehicles from Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The short answer is no, there is nothing about that in the bill. However, it is interesting that my colleague brought this up, because our colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, who is our public safety critic, came over to see me earlier and told me that this is a big problem.

Bill C-33 amends the Customs Act. It deals with port management. We know that, at this time, lots of stolen vehicles are leaving the country through our ports. I asked my colleague if she had seen anything in the bill that could help with that problem. The answer was no. It is sad, but I suppose that this was not one of the Liberals' ambitions. They already have so few, and this was not one of them.

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

Madam Speaker, it sounds as though the Bloc will be supporting the bill to go to committee, and a final vote will determine the terms of amendments. The member has made reference to the fact that he has had some relatively positive discussions with respect to the former minister and is waiting to see what happens with the new minister. I suspect he will find a high sense of co-operation with respect to passing it. I disagree with him. I think there is a lot of modernization within the legislation that will be to the betterment of Canadians.

The question I have for the member is this. Based on the last question, he mentioned that he has a number of changes. He was just posed a question about automobile thefts on ships. Do any of his amendments deal with the suggestion that member has brought forward?

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

Madam Speaker, we may have amendments to that effect, of course. However, we will have to see if Bill C-33 allows for that. When an amendment is introduced, it has to relate to the text, and there is not much text regarding the Customs Act in the current bill.

We will certainly try to find a way. If we do find one, I hope that we can count on the members opposite to support us. It will take majority support to get that passed.

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

Madam Speaker, we see the terrible impacts of deregulation in Calgary right now, with 348 cases of E. coli and children in ICU and on dialysis, because the Conservatives do not believe in the basic protection of health.

The same week that Danielle Smith should have been there for the families in Calgary, she was getting her photo taken with the Saudi princes because they, like Danielle Smith, believe in burning the planet as quickly as possible.

I raise that in the context of this because the Conservatives told us that deregulation would make safety on the trains better and we ended up with Lac-Mégantic.

Why does my colleague think the Liberals are continuing this pattern of not insisting that we have proper safety and regulations? We do not want to have what is happening in Calgary happen anywhere else.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a relevant issue, namely the pattern of deregulation that we have seen in the railway industry and that has continued under the Liberals. It could be said that they are adding some small fixes, but nothing substantial.

The Liberals and Conservatives both eat from the same trough. They are both beholden to big business, particularly Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. CN and CP are so big that they are like a state within a state. The Canadian government is anxious to give CN and CP whatever they want.

If they were ever to form government, I would like to see the NDP adopt a stricter policy toward them. That would make me happy. However, I would need to see it to believe it.

I think Quebec has a different vision. We know that the great railway lines running from one coast to the other are part of the Canadian identity. They are sacrosanct. Going after them would be unthinkable, from a Canadian perspective.

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

Madam Speaker, our ports are in crisis. Canada, including Quebec, is dependent on trade in goods. The Port of Vancouver currently ranks 347th out of 348 ports worldwide.

Does the member for the Bloc Québécois believe that adding more red tape and regulations will help us be more productive and efficient with respect to trading goods?

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

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities toured Canada's ports in the spring. Most of the port officials told us that they were planning to expand and that they expect international traffic to increase over the coming years due to our trade. As I said earlier, about 50% of Quebec's GDP goes through the ports, so they are absolutely vital.

Is there anything in the bill that will allow the ports to manage their operations more efficiently? The answer is no. What the bill provides is greater accountability from the ports toward the government and the public, more data sharing. That is not a bad thing, but it is not going to fix the problems that ports are currently facing. It mainly gives the government more control over the ports. In a crisis, as I mentioned, these are things that may be useful. However, I do not see how the minister could get involved in managing the ports himself on a regular day-to-day basis. It makes no sense.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He touched on this issue briefly earlier, but I am particularly interested in a phenomenon that is growing in Canada, not only at the Port of Montreal, but also at the Port of Toronto, namely vehicles being stolen and exported overseas.

When we ask the Canada Border Services Agency questions about this issue, the CBSA responds that it may not have enough officers to conduct searches. The CBSA says it gets a description of the contents of each container and that, if officers have doubts about what is written in the record, they will conduct a search. However, in many cases, they are just relying on their instincts. There is not necessarily a protocol.

I thought that a bill to amend the Customs Act would offer a good opportunity to put a protocol in place to counter this phenomenon. As I understand it, however, there is virtually nothing about this in the bill. Do I have that right? Should the government hurry up and look into the phenomenon of vehicle thefts and exports?

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

Madam Speaker, I think that it is essential. Anyone whose car was stolen would be anxious to know whether it went to another country in the days that followed.

We are seeing more and more news reports about this issue. There was one on a country in Africa where, if I am not mistaken, there were cars with the Quebec licence plates still on them. That is crazy. These people did not even make the effort to remove the plates. The cars were brought to the port, loaded onto the ship and then unloaded over there. They kept their licence plates on even after they got there. That is insane. The members on the other side need to wake up.

Unfortunately, there is nothing about this in Bill C-33. If it is possible to improve the situation or at least combat this phenomenon by amending this bill, we are very willing to do so. Since there is very little text in this bill for us to amend, we will have to use our imaginations and get creative. Sometimes, however, if we are too imaginative or creative, procedure will get in the way of our amendments being adopted.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on Bill C-33.

I hope members had productive summers in their ridings. It is good to be back to reconnect with my colleagues on all sides of the House.

Bill C-33, on the face of it, deals with the technical subject matter of port and railway systems in Canada, but I think this bill also exposes a philosophical gulf that exists between those of us in the Conservative Party and, frankly, those in the other three parties, in how they act and vote, if not how they always sound. The Liberals and their coalition partners in the NDP have an approach that emphasizes a big, centralized government that is constantly seeking to weaken the decision-making powers, not only of private individuals, but also of the institutions that are supposed to hold delegated authority and respond to local circumstances and independent economic factors. Their agenda is a centralizing one, pulling that authority away from individuals, with losses of their freedom, and pulling that authority away from institutions that are supposed to be able to operate independently.

We have the Bloc, and I think this was demonstrated by the speaker before me, wanting to rhetorically position itself as being a decentralizer, but in fact, if we look at the way Bloc members vote, we see their support, for example, for the Liberal carbon taxes, in particular the second carbon tax, and it boggles the mind that a party that, on the one hand, says it wants to divide the country and make Quebec its own country, is on the other hand, supporting these kinds of from-Ottawa measures that impose additional costs on Quebeckers.

It is becoming clear that Conservatives stand alone when it comes to offering a different vision, which recognizes the role, yes, of the federal government, but also the richness and diversity of experience and capacity that exists across this country and, therefore, supports affirming the decision-making responsibility of other institutions, provinces, municipalities and, in this case, port authorities and recognizes the importance of having a multiplicity of different institutions making decisions that respond to those local circumstances.

This is an important bill in its policy implications. However, it is also an important bill in the way that it demonstrates a Conservative vision of emphasizing strong institutions, respect for arm's-length institutions and divisions of power, our belief in big citizens as an alternative to big government, and the role of mediating institutions.

Bill C-33 is entitled “strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act”. My preferred alternative title is, “strengthening Liberal control of the port system”. It is not strengthening the port system, but strengthening Liberal control of the port system. It is on that basis, and for some of the reasons I have already indicated, that we do not support it.

I do, though, in passing, want to extend my best wishes to the outgoing minister, who tabled this bill and has since, from what I understand, announced his intention not to seek re-election. I know that he has been in public life for a long time. I wish him very well.

Those who are not as familiar may ask how ports function in Canada. Each port has its own board, and that board is able to act relatively autonomously. It is supposed to act at arm's length from the government, which includes electing its own chair. It is also supposed to be able to look at the best interests of the port. It is supposed to be able to look at what is in the economic interests of the country, but also of that particular region, taking those local factors into account. It is also supposed to be able to develop structures for engagement and consultation that, while reflecting broad, unifying principles, are appropriate to the particular local circumstances.

The way, for instance, indigenous consultation happens at a port may vary depending on the particular local circumstances, such as the proximity of indigenous nations and so forth. This ability of ports to act at arm's length recognizes that one size does not fit all. It recognizes that expertise, local decision-making and an understanding of local factors are very important in the case of port management and in general when it comes to government decision-making. Creating institutions that can be responsive to particulars of local circumstances is important. This existing structure of ports is a reflection of that reality, and it stands in contrast with the Liberal centralizing vision held, if not officially then certainly enacted by all of the other parties in this place, save for the Conservatives.

This bill seeks to make changes that bring ports, to a greater extent, under the domination of the central government. This is where we obviously part company with the direction.

On the structure of ports, members of the ports are appointed by the federal government. There is a federal role in making these appointments, and that does provide tools for influencing the direction of ports, but it creates a balance that allows autonomous, arm's-length action on a day-to-day level. However, the federal government is still selecting the individuals it believes to be appropriate.

The bill would change the authority structure in a number of ways. It would make the boards subject to ministerial direction and would also allow the minister to appoint the chair. The previous structure was that the minister appointed members of the board, but the board would then elect its own chair, which again still involves a substantial role for the government but gives the board more autonomy in identifying the person who is best positioned to lead the board. The new structure would involve the minister appointing the board members and also the board members appointing the chair. It would also make the board subject to ministerial direction and would mandate certain structures around environmental and indigenous consultations.

Those considerations and consultations are obviously very important, but the specific structures that may be appropriate can legitimately vary depending on the size of the port and the local circumstances. They could well be matters subject to innovation and exchange of information rather than the requirement of standardization.

This is a centralizing Ottawa-knows-best type of Liberal bill, and Conservatives are opposed to it. In many respects, this bill is a missed opportunity insofar as there are things that are important about how we could be strengthening our port and rail system, but instead, the Liberal approach to strengthening anything is to try to strengthen their control or involvement in that particular thing.

We are opposed to this expansion of direct government control over the ports for four main reasons, which I will now proceed to discuss. There is, first of all, a general conviction about the importance of subsidiarity; second, a concern about the current government in particular expanding its management of things; third, the Liberal record on appointments raising some concerns about why the Liberals are trying to pass legislation to give themselves more control and ability to shape direction through appointment; and finally, highlighting how scale differences matter at the port level, and there are particular reasons in this case why having a diversity of structures for how certain issues are engaged with is quite worthwhile.

First, on the principle of subsidiarity in general, I subscribe to the general principle of subsidiarity, which means that decisions should be made at the level closest to the people affected as possible. Better decisions are made when the local experiences of the people affected are harnessed. This comes from a basic recognition of universal human potential for responsibility and creativity. If they harness the views and experiences of more people who are directly involved a situation, they will get better outcomes than if there were a smaller number of people with less immediate experience involved in that decision. A belief in subsidiarity flows naturally from a belief in human dignity and human potential for creativity.

Our constitutional framework is designed to recognize the value of that subsidiarity, which is why not every decision is made by the federal government. We have areas of responsibility of provincial jurisdiction. We have strong municipalities, and we also have arm's-length institutions that act within the federal government. Subsidiarity is not incompatible with the belief that there are also certain kinds of decisions that are of a scale and a nature that do require larger levels of coordination or action by a larger entity, such as, let us say, the national government. The impulse to subsidiarity is not to say that no decisions should be made collectively because there are certain kinds of things where the nature of the scale requires that action.

I want to point out in particular that, in this context, our Conservative plan on housing does involve recognizing the need to push municipalities to do more in getting housing built. This is completely compatible with the principle of subsidiarity because we see a situation in Canada right now where we are so far behind in getting homes built that there is an urgency that requires more pressure to move forward. There has also been a lack of appropriate scale in considering the response to this.

Members will notice in the discussion on this that the Prime Minister has tried, at certain points, to say that this is not really his responsibility and this is not something that he is going to get involved in. However, the Prime Minister has a housing minister. The government seeks to create policy on this. It is just that the government's policy has been ineffective. In the plan that Conservatives have put forward, it is about pushing municipalities, setting targets for them and tying federal funding to commitments to move forward. However, it is not about taking away that authority from municipalities or trying to micromanage specific decisions. Rather, it is about using the tools we have to create incentives, define what a national objective should be and reward them for moving toward that objective.

This is just to illustrate that obviously, on certain areas, there is a vital role for the federal government to engage in, but there has to be a healthy interplay. With the Liberals, the irony has been that, on some areas where the federal government needed to engage, they have tried to avoid responsibility. However, the Liberals have, at the same time, tried to intervene, rhetorically if not directly, in areas that are very clearly not their jurisdiction, butting in on things that very obviously have nothing to do with the decision-making power of the federal government.

Again, as it applies in the case of ports, we can see the importance of local decision-making and the impulse of the government to ignore the role of local decision-makers and to move counter to this principle of subsidiarity, which is a principle that, sadly, the Liberals do not believe in.

In their ideal vision of the world, all of the decisions that are of significance to this country would be made by a small group of people inside the Prime Minister's Office, without even harnessing the full energies of our national parliamentary democracy. I think that has had some dire consequences in many obvious cases, and on this point I will move to the next, which is the challenges with the government's centralizing impulse in particular, in a context where the government has demonstrated profound incompetence in all aspects of our national life.

I will not have time to detail all of these points, but in a context where the government is failing to do its job, is failing to make life more affordable for Canadians and has failed on environmental policy, on housing and on many other fronts, it is nonetheless persistent in saying that it wants more control of people's lives and that it wants to be able to exercise more control and direction over previously independent bodies. I will point out as an obvious example, in one particular case, the on-again-off-again labour disruptions, or the back-and-forth associated with that, the harm that was done and the failure of the minister to resolve that situation.

Environmental policy is something that, rhetorically, we hear a lot about from the government, yet the government is missing all of its environmental targets while using environmental policy as an excuse to impose new taxes. The way the Liberals talk about it, if one does not support their tax plan, one is against taking action on the environment.

The reality is that the government's tax plan has made life less affordable for Canadians and has not actually allowed it to achieve any of its targets. Sadly, we see the other parties in the House, the NDP and the Bloc, in lockstep with the government in its insistence on imposing new taxes. This is a space in which the government is trying to take more control for itself again, telling provinces that they have to have a carbon tax or it will impose one directly from Ottawa.

It has not worked on many fronts. We can talk about the government's approach to passports. We can talk about its policy failures during COVID and about the fact that fewer houses are being built today than decades ago, even when our population was smaller. We have a government that has, across the board, been either incompetent or malicious, yet it is seeking more control over institutional decision-making, through Bill C-33. We are not prepared to give them that control.

The third point I wanted to raise around this is that we have a particular concern about the government's desire to use this bill as a tool for strengthening its power of appointment, in terms of its ability to appoint chairs of boards. We have heard numerous stories about the flawed approach the government has taken to appointments, appointing donors or consulting supporter information before making important appointments, trying to whitewash issues by appointing people who have close relationships with the Prime Minister. This is the way the government has approached appointments, so it will not be surprising that there is no appetite on this side of the House to give the government more control over the appointment process when the current system, the election of a chair of a board by the existing members of the board, is working just fine.

I will quickly make my last point, which is that, obviously, in terms of important decision-making, scale matters. There are many different kinds of ports that have very different circumstances because of such massive variations in the amount of traffic that goes through them. We recognize the importance of all ports. We want them to thrive and succeed in ways that reflect their local circumstances and the expertise of those who are running the ports. That means avoiding Ottawa-knows-best, Liberals-know-best and one-size-fits-all approaches to this.

In conclusion, Conservatives recognize the importance of freedom, local autonomy and subsidiarity. We reject the centralizing we-know-best approach of the Prime Minister and of the other three parties in the House that are supporting his vision. I believe that our alternative approach in opposing the bill and emphasizing local autonomy, expertise and the importance of community-based decision making is a much better approach and one that would be much better received by the Canadian public.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will provide a comment on the member's last few statements alone, in which he talked about having some local autonomy and local input. We are expanding looking at ways in which there could be advisory committees to the port boards. People need to realize that when we think in terms of the Conservative Party, its total disengagement from the federal government's having a role to play should be of great concern.

At the end of the day, the economic security and the whole food chain and the way in which it gets distributed, not to mention all the other economic benefits, are coming out of our ports and out of our railways. We have the Conservative Party saying the government does not play a role and that they want to minimize that role. I would suggest to the member that Canadians are concerned about issues like safety, port congestion and what role the government plays to ease those tensions.

Does the member not see any value whatsoever in regard to modernizing or at least attempting to modernize our port authorities and the safety of our railways? Does he see any benefit in that at all in terms of federal government involvement?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that question was a target-rich environment, so I will try to get through it as much as I can.

The member began by saying that the bill is about looking at having local committees providing input. No, it is not. The bill is about mandating particular structures around consultation committees, structures that may well be appropriate in many cases, but not in every case.

The member says a lot of things that are obviously not true about our approach and our position. Again, it is important to underline that a belief in the importance of subsidiarity is not a belief that every decision, from military to everything else, should be made by municipalities. Rather, it is a position that, in determining the appropriate scale at which decisions should be made, it is important to make those decisions as close to the people actually impacted by them as possible and engage the broadest number of people possible. However, there are nuances, and I spoke to those nuances. I am willing to again if the member would find it helpful.

Finally, he equates modernization with centralization. He says that if we do not support a power grab by the minister, then we are against modernization. Modernization can mean a lot of different things in different contexts, but insofar as modernization means moving toward the future, or is seen as being synonymous with improvement in the way we discuss these things culturally, then I would say that emphasizing subsidiarity, local control and local responsiveness could well be a better form of modernization than the centralization proposed by the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really liked what my colleague said at the end of his response to the previous question, that the government is equating “modernization” with “centralization”.

That brings me to the question that I want to ask him. Often, in banana republics or poor countries, the system in place allows people to secure a position not because they have the necessary skills or degrees, but because they asked their friend who is a senator or mayor to give them a position as a favour.

Now, we are seeing something similar happening with this government. A minister in this government wants the power to decide who will be president of a port.

Does my colleague see this as modernization, or rather as a continuation of the Liberals' habit of appointing their buddies to positions?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government right now, through this bill, is asking for more power. It is saying it wants to be able to exercise greater influence over ports, and particularly over the process of appointments. It wants to take over what has historically been the role of the board itself, to select its chair. The government wants to appoint that chair itself. The government is coming to Parliament asking for more power when it comes to appointments.

If we are going to evaluate that desire for power, I think it is important to look at how the government has used this power in the past. We can see with the vast powers of appointment the federal government already has that there have been many instances of clearly partisan filters as opposed to competence filters being applied by the government, whether in an attempt to manage away sensitive issues by appointing people who are close to the Prime Minister or by looking at who has donated to the Liberal Party when considering appointments.

I do not think it is reasonable for a government that has so clearly failed to demonstrate a commitment to competency in appointments to then come back and ask the House to give it more power in the area of appointments.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about harnessing the experience of people directly impacted, and that it is not in this bill. I absolutely agree.

The act would create indigenous engagement committees for port authorities. When I talk to Nuu-chah-nulth people in my riding, that is not good enough. They actually want a seat at the table. They want an appointment for each nation whose territory the port authorities reside on, for whose waterways and lands they are on. That is identified in the truth and reconciliation call to action number 92. It explicitly states that they “call upon the corporate sector in Canada to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a reconciliation framework and to apply its principles, norms, and standards to corporate policy and core operational activities involving Indigenous peoples and their lands and resources.”

Does my colleague agree that indigenous peoples should not just be sitting as an advisory committee, but that they actually deserve a permanent seat at the table for every port authority whose lands and waterways they reside on?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague and look forward to working with him on the government operations committee with the revisions that have been made to committee memberships.

When it comes to indigenous engagement, I think it is important for that engagement to happen and for it to be driven by the particulars of the circumstances in terms of where the port is. Just because of location and where indigenous nations are, it seems to me that there would likely be significant variation in terms of the approach taken, depending on where those ports are and what nations are proximate, how many there are and so forth.

The member's proposal is an interesting one, but any kind of mandating and structure from us in Ottawa should be done very carefully, if at all. A better approach would be to recognize the need for local boards to make evaluations and determinations around how this proceeds.

To his point about indigenous representation on the board, it is the power of the minister to make these appointments. The minister currently, without this legislation, has the power to determine who sits on the board. The minister could appoint members. I suppose what he is suggesting is not so much that. Maybe he is suggesting the nations themselves would be able to make these appointments. I welcome him to further illustrate what that structure could look like, and I am sure he will make those points if the bill gets to committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-33. Let me begin by thanking the sponsor, the Minister of Transport, and you for allowing me to participate in the very important second reading debate on this bill, strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, with regard to improving the safety and security at Canada's marine ports. I believe we can all agree that this piece of legislation is intended to achieve many goals that would eventually streamline the work taking place at our marine ports, increase our supply chain resiliency and ensure the work at our ports is environmentally sustainable, all while increasing safety and security measures to keep our goods safe and protect Canadians from harm.

Before I continue, I will indicate that I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara Centre.

I want to take the time today to further explore the measures we are proposing to enhance border security at our major marine ports.

The Canada Border Services Agency, the CBSA, has an important mandate to provide border services that support national security and public safety priorities while also facilitating the free flow of persons and goods. Each and every day, at marine ports from coast to coast to coast, the CBSA upholds its mandate by screening and examining imported goods arriving on container vessels. I want to make it clear that in their role, CBSA officers, whose daily activities would be affected by the proposed amendments in this bill, are already authorized to examine all shipments crossing Canada's border to ensure harmful goods are intercepted before they can enter our communities.

Today, the government is seeking to modernize the existing Customs Act authorities to resolve long-standing security risks and reduce obstacles to efficient trade at our marine ports. Modernizing the Customs Act would enable the CBSA to further address issues that may leave our marine ports vulnerable to organized crime and that may compromise the agency's ability to achieve its safety, security and facilitation mandate.

These changes are directly aimed at reducing delays and enhancing security at our marine ports. They would also result in long-term cost savings for Canadian importers, the trade community and consumers, and would ultimately help our economy continue to grow by reducing backlogs and lowering the costs associated with delays.

In order to help continue reducing criminal activity at the ports, we are proposing the following three changes to address security threats associated with organized crime, smuggling and internal conspiracies.

The first step the government is proposing is meant to address security gaps and reduce delays by requiring that high-risk shipments are made available for examination upon request of an officer. This would be achieved through Customs Act amendments and the creation of new regulations.

Second, the government is seeking to increase the security of high-risk shipments by introducing an amendment that would require that goods be brought to a secure area upon the request of an officer. This, in turn, would require marine ports to create secure areas that meet security requirements.

Lastly, Customs Act amendments are being proposed to enable the creation of new monetary penalties to help ensure that all entities involved in this supply chain comply with the new requirements. Penalties for non-compliance would be proportionate to health, safety and security risks.

Allow me to further elaborate on the three proposed changes to clear up any ambiguity that members may have regarding them.

In short, the first proposed amendment relates to making high-risk import shipments available to a CBSA officer for examination in a timely manner. The agency has noted that high-risk shipments selected for examination are not always made available by the terminal operators. This leads to supply chain congestion, delays for importers and an increased risk of tampering and removal of contraband while containers await examination by CBSA officers.

As it stands now, there is no defined time period in either legislation or regulation. This amendment to the Customs Act would provide an authority to make new regulations prescribing the time and manner of making shipments available for examination. Furthermore, these obligations would extend to other entities within the supply chain who have the care and control of goods, including terminal operators.

The second proposed amendment would require those responsible for these shipments to bring them to a secure area in accordance with the regulations. Currently, the Customs Act does not provide a definitive or specific obligation to ensure that high-risk shipments awaiting examination are moved to a dedicated secure area within marine terminals. As a result, shipments are at risk of being tampered with, and their contents, including drugs and weapons, are at risk of being removed by criminals prior to examination.

I acknowledge that some may argue that existing measures are enough. However, there are many documented instances of containers being breached and unknown contents being removed, while remaining unsecured and easily accessible by internal conspirators when stored with all types of marine cargo on port properties.

Can we truly not continue to advance our security measures to keep up and stay ahead of those committing illicit activities? Adding extra layers of security means that Canadians can feel safer knowing that more contraband and dangerous products are being stopped and therefore do not enter our communities.

To help ensure compliance with these new requirements, additional contraventions would be added to the CBSA's existing penalty system, which would allow the CBSA to issue penalties when goods are not delivered within established time frames. Currently, only the person reporting the goods to the CBSA can be compelled to present them, and there is no timeline within which to do so. As a result, only the persons reporting the goods can be held responsible. In the marine mode, this means that the CBSA cannot compel others who may handle these shipments, such as terminal operators, to make them available to the CBSA in a timely manner.

The government is taking action to ensure the right parties take responsibility for their role in the process. This would lead to fewer delays and lower storage fees for importers, as goods would be moved to secured areas at the right time, examined sooner and released once cleared by the CBSA. This is expected to translate into lower costs for consumers down the line. I believe that having lower costs on commodities is something that every member in this House can support.

I hope members can now understand the urgency and need for these amendments to the Customs Act as something that is not driven by politics, but is a security requirement that would benefit the safety of all Canadians. The changes outlined in this bill would ensure that the CBSA continues to fulfill its mandate to protect and secure Canada's borders and incoming goods while further protecting Canadians from harmful products.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a fairly narrowly focused question regarding the leadership of the port authorities. What is the thought process behind the ministerial appointment of a chair as opposed to having it be more locally governed? That seems to add a layer of process. Timing and delays are ostensibly what we are trying to address here. Are there some service standards around the timing of ministerial appointments? What is the basic reason for that change away from local authorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, that question is certainly well outside the scope of this piece of legislation, as the member knows. My entire speech was based around the security of containers and the changes to the act that we are putting in place to assist with ensuring that those containers can be kept in a secure location, can be properly monitored by CBSA and, most importantly, can be dealt with in a timely manner that increases the efficiency of our ability to process containers.

I appreciate that the member has a very specific question that is completely unrelated to this bill. I would encourage him to perhaps ask that question in question period, provided that the Leader of the Opposition has released his iron grip on what Conservatives are allowed to say these days.

Nonetheless, I look forward, hopefully, to a question that relates to the substance of my speech.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the question I asked earlier. We know the act creates indigenous engagement committees for port authorities, and I know that is important. However, when I meet with the Tseshaht and Hupacasath, whose lands the Port Alberni port authority resides and operate on, for example, and the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, they say they do not want just an appointment to the board made by, say, the province or the federal government. They want a permanent seat at the table.

The operations of the port authorities in their territories have a huge impact on wild Pacific salmon, economic development and, of course, the future of our region. Does my colleague not agree that indigenous nations have a right to, and should have, a permanent seat on the port authorities in their territories, as the ports operate on their waterways and lands?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the question was not about the substance of my speech or the bill specifically, although I will indicate that I do agree with the member that all stakeholders involved in a particular indigenous community should have proper say. I recognize that this is the introduction of and first debate on this bill. After we pass the bill, it will go to committee, and then I think he will have an opportunity to raise those concerns.

If his concerns fall within the scope of the bill specifically, then I am sure the member can advocate for them and communicate with other members of the committee to see that changes are made to the bill to address them. However, in principle, I would agree with him that stakeholders, in particular indigenous communities, should have a say in this, especially as it relates to land that is rightfully theirs.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before the bill we are debating was introduced, a working group looked into this matter. The mandate of that working group, created in March 2022 by the transport minister at the time, was to study recent supply chain disruptions. Factors like pandemics, COVID-19, climate change and flooding were mentioned, among other things.

I think the mandate of the working group is important, but I do not see the connection between that mandate and the bill before us. The bill seems to be an empty shell of the much-vaunted announcement that promised this was the start of a major national supply chain strategy.

My question is this: Basically, what needs to be done for things to change? I will conclude by saying that the measures also refer to addressing the labour shortage. This was not successful at the Port of Montreal. The government passed a special law rather than improving working conditions because workers are also part of the supply chain.

My question is the following: How can this be considered a strategy? How will the problem of a major labour shortage in supply chains be resolved?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have heard discussion from other members today in relation to a working group that worked prior to the bill being brought before the House. However, I have been looking at the bill itself, not the work of that group. I will say that if the group and those who did the work feel that something is missing in the content of this bill, certainly when the bill gets to committee, they will have an opportunity to address it at that time.

I focused a lot of my speech on improving the supply chain by ensuring that these containers are dealt with in a proper manner, so I would say that this bill does address efficiency and improving the supply chain.