Debates of Oct. 8th, 2024

Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2023-24 annual report of the Office of the Taxpayers' Ombudsperson, entitled “Fair Access to Service”.

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities presented to the House on Tuesday, April 25, 2023, be concurred in.

I am rising in the House today because I want us to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on the impact of commercial shipping on shoreline erosion. I am rising today to talk about this issue because this report was tabled in the House about a year and a half ago, on April 25, 2023, and nothing has happened since. It has been radio silence. It is as though the committee never even wrote a report. Yes, there was a response from the government, and I will come back to that. However, people are still dealing with the same problem. Our shorelines are continuing to erode, and the government has not acknowledged that nor has it taken any further action.

The committee tabled a report in the House, but the response that it got was unsatisfactory, because nothing has been done. I figured that, if the House were to concur in this report, then we would be sending an even stronger message to the government that it is time to take action and consider the reality that people are facing on the ground.

I will therefore provide a brief history of events because, despite the government's failure to follow up on this report, the people on the ground continue to deal with erosion.

Why is reference made more specifically to erosion caused by commercial shipping? In the 1950s, the St. Lawrence Seaway was built to enable larger vessels to reach the Port of Montreal. As we know, ships have only gotten larger and they carry even more containers, petroleum and cargo. This is the way international shipping achieves economies of scale. Because the seaway was built to allow larger ships to pass through, the St. Lawrence River is no longer in its natural state. It is not the same river as it was 100 years ago.

Needless to say, bigger ships cause bigger waves, and the wake from passing vessels causes erosion, which little by little eats up people's land each year, so people started to protest a little. Although people could agree that increased river freight traffic creating economies of scale would boost the economy and be in the interest of regular folks who purchase these goods, there were negative consequences for some. Having recognized this in the 1960s and 1970s, the government set about building structures to protect against shoreline erosion caused by commercial shipping.

In the 1990s, as we know, the Liberals began making cuts everywhere. Wherever they could, they made cuts, cuts and more cuts. Among these cuts, the Liberal government of the day officially did away with the shoreline protection program in 1997, which means that for over 25 years now, the St. Lawrence shoreline has been completely neglected. Most of the structures built in the 1960s and 1970s are now over 50 years old. They have fallen into disrepair and are no longer effective.

In unprotected areas, erosion continues. In areas that have some protection, the structures are crumbling and are increasingly ineffective, if they even remain at all. In the 1990s and even before that, the government wrote a letter to shoreline residents, abdicating its responsibility. It told these residents that the protection structures it had built no longer came under its responsibility, and that henceforth it would be up to them to maintain their land, because the government would no longer be doing so.

That is a bit odd given that it is the federal government that manages the waterway. It was the federal government that expanded the St. Lawrence River to allow boats to pass through. It is the federal government that regulates the St. Lawrence River and waterways in general. However, citizens are the ones who have to foot the bill. That is a bit of a problem. There are huge economic benefits to transporting goods on the St. Lawrence River. Between these efforts and this report being produced, no one, not even the citizens affected by this situation, are asking that boats no longer be allowed on the river. That is not the idea. The idea is that there are people who suffer the consequences, and they should be protected and compensated. They should not have to face the repercussions this transport has on their private property all by themselves.

The government acknowledged responsibility for changing the river, which is no longer in its natural state. The ships using the waterway are getting bigger and bigger, and they are affecting the shoreline. Even so, the government avoided taking responsibility and told the public that it wanted to save money by making them pay. The thing is, government scientists did not necessarily agree with the government.

Two scientists who worked at Environment and Climate Change Canada—federal government scientists—conducted a study in the 2000s. They studied 1,600 kilometres of shoreline from Cornwall, Ontario, to Montmagny, in the Lower St. Lawrence. They studied 1,600 kilometres of shoreline, which is a lot. They found that 70% of all the erosion between Cornwall and Montmagny occurred between Montreal and Sorel-Tracy. Worse still, 86% of erosion attributable to commercial ships occurred there as well. In other words, controlling for other factors, such as tides and winds, scientists found that 86% of all erosion caused by commercial shipping occurred between Montreal and Lake Saint-Pierre. That is serious. That is a big deal.

What is the explanation for this? It is fairly straightforward. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the river is wide. There is plenty of room. Ships can navigate without any problems or impact. However, approaching Montreal, the river gets narrower and shallower. Even though the river is narrower and there is less room to navigate, the ship does not get any smaller. It stays the same size. The ship's impact is far greater in places where the corridor is narrow than in places where it is wide and waves have time to subside before reaching the shoreline. In certain areas, the effect of the waves could even be said to be marginal, since there are so many other factors that have a far greater impact than vessel traffic. For the area between Montreal and Lake Saint‑Pierre, however, the scientists' research and data are clear. The main erosion factor between Montreal and Sorel‑Tracy is commercial shipping. That is significant.

This is the exact area where my riding is. The people of Verchères, Varennes and Contrecœur suffer the consequences of this problem on a daily basis. They live with this all the time, and it is stressful for them. We conducted a survey, which some members of the public worked on as well, and it found that half of shoreline property owners in and around Verchères, Varennes and Contrecœur are seeing serious erosion problems. This issue is affecting hundreds of people and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. For these people, the stress is not only psychological but financial as well. As the protective infrastructure crumbles, it is taking land with it. Sometimes bits of land fall into the water, so people are afraid to walk along the edge of their property because the river might swallow it up. Holes are appearing all over their land. Some people even worry that their house will fall into the river. That is how bad the erosion is. Despite all of that, they are the ones who would have to pay for a fix. That does not sit well with me.

I was elected in 2015, but we really got down to work on this issue in 2017. Seven municipalities sent us resolutions calling on the federal government to acknowledge the situation and reinstate a shoreline protection program. We received support from the cities of Varennes, Verchères, Contrecœur, Sorel-Tracy, Lavaltrie, Lanoraie, and Repentigny. All of these cities took a stand and insisted that the issue was important and urgent, that a problem existed locally, and that the program had to be reinstated. The letter was sent to Mr. Garneau, but despite media coverage, he simply never answered it. My constituents were pleased to see their MP taking charge of the issue, and these events whetted their appetite, leading them to wonder whether he could help them even more, so a short time later, in 2018, I wanted to find out where things stood. I decided to hold a town hall meeting.

We rented a hall in Verchères and it was filled to capacity, with no seats to spare. Over 150 people showed up and there were no empty chairs in sight. It was standing room only. Everyone agreed that this problem had to be solved. It is not a problem that I made up. When rooms are full to overflowing and people come together to support a cause, it is because they have problems that they want solved.

We therefore presented a petition to the House of Commons and formed a citizens' group that exists to this day. The group is working hard to raise public awareness of this issue. Our petition netted 2,300 signatures. When it was tabled in the House, we held a press conference. We were accompanied by elected officials, mayors and various groups.

The then transport minister, Marc Garneau, did not even respond to the petition. The House's rules state that the government has 45 days from the tabling of the petition to respond, but the minister never responded. I wrote to the Speaker of the House, but Mr. Garneau got off scot-free. The Speaker did not reprimand him because an election had been called, meaning that the minister was no longer required to respond to the petition. It was dead and buried.

The election took place. Unfortunately for the Liberals, I was re-elected. The same minister was re-elected as well. This forced us to table another petition in February 2020. We also filed a notice of a motion in 2020 at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, calling for a study to be conducted on shoreline erosion, for the committee to hear witnesses and for people to be allowed to come talk about what they were experiencing. This time, we did hear back from the transport minister. It certainly took some time. Basically, he said that erosion was caused by several natural factors and that he was aware of the problem and was working hard on it. He never really saw the light, so to speak. We were told that they were aware of the problem but that they would not be doing anything more about it, that it was not caused solely by ships but by other factors as well. That is what they said, despite the scientific data I spoke of earlier.

By 2021, residents had had enough. They were really unhappy. They launched a $50‑million class action suit against the government, authorized by the Quebec Superior Court. When citizens take their government to court, things must be really serious. In February 2022, my motion for a proposed study was adopted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In the fall of 2022, we heard from witnesses, and they were unanimous. The experts, scientists, residents, cities and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative all agreed. It was not just experts from Quebec, by the way. The consensus included experts from Ontario as well.

Everyone agreed that it was Ottawa's responsibility to take care of this and to compensate people and protect them from damage, especially in areas where the erosion is mainly caused by shipping due to the channel being narrow.

In the spring of 2023, the committee's report was tabled in the House. Not only did all the witnesses who appeared before the committee agree unanimously, but all the parties seated around the table also agreed unanimously. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities produced a unanimous report. I was pleased. I was really excited. I thought we had reached the goal and that Ottawa would finally get it. I thought the unanimous committee report would make something happen. Everyone was in agreement. This is not about partisan politics. These are facts, and it is about being sensitive to what people are going through.

There were six recommendations in the report. They were all very good, but I want to focus on one recommendation in particular. It is the most important one and reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada re-establish a shoreline protection program in areas of the St. Lawrence River where erosion is due in large part to shipping, in particular where the channel is narrow and more exposed to wake, in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments, Indigenous groups, industry and scientific experts.

It was the government that wanted to add that last part, after “wake”, but we can live with that. We have no problem working with other groups. What is important is that the federal government take the lead, since it has a responsibility to do so. That is what the motion said.

The report contains five other recommendations that are all very interesting. I will read them quickly.

The second and third recommendations state, “That the Government of Canada continue to invest in research that focusses on providing technical guidance to help assess best solutions to shoreline erosion” and “That the Government of Canada draw up an inventory of the areas affected by erosion along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterway”.

The fourth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada support research aimed at finding the most appropriate way to protect the banks and to protect their ecosystems from damage caused by vessel traffic.”

The fifth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada evaluate the effectiveness of current voluntary speed reduction measures for commercial vessels and consider applying them on a larger scale through formal regulations.”

The sixth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada explore the possibility of setting up a fund for the restoration and enhancement of riparian environments affected by erosion that would be financed by the commercial users of the river corridor.”

Those are the committee's six recommendations and, as I said, the report was adopted unanimously.

What was the government's response? The government basically said that it was taking the six recommendations under advisement and would be getting back to us about what it was already doing. Which means it was thanking us for our work, it would not be listening to us and it was already taking action. What is it doing? There are some research projects here and there, and there has been a voluntary reduction in ship speed. Meanwhile, the people on the ground still have to contend with the problem.

The sad part is that things never change. People have been fighting this since the program was abolished, of course, but as far as I am concerned, I started in 2017, which means we have been fighting this battle for nearly eight or nine years and telling the government to listen to these people who have been living with a problem that the government itself recognized at the time. Why is it no longer able to recognize it now? Its reasons are shortsighted. It wants to save some money and pinch pennies at a time when people are in financial distress because it would cost them a fortune to repair their land. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars per landowner. It is unconscionable to expect a handful of people to bear the brunt of this entire problem.

They tell us the same thing all the time: The erosion is caused by multiple factors, they are working hard, it is a shared responsibility and so on. I am fine with the part about shared responsibility, but most of the problem is due to shipping, which is causing most of the erosion in this section of the river.

It is not normal for citizens to have to drag their government to court in order to be heard. It is not normal that petitions must be tabled, citizens mobilized and resolutions adopted by municipalities and sent to the minister, nor is it normal that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities issue a unanimous report only to see the government drag its feet. This is not normal. It is not normal for the government to dismiss reports prepared by its own scientists who are telling it that the problem is in its own backyard. It is not normal for Ottawa to wash its hands of its constitutional responsibilities. Commercial shipping and navigation in general comes under federal jurisdiction.

The government, however, says that it is not its job to take care of it. There is a problem. If it is not the government's job to take care of it, let it offload the responsibility to another government, or let us declare independence. Perhaps the Quebec government will take care of it, because as we can see, Ottawa is not interested in doing its job.

In conclusion, I expect the federal government to respect the people in my riding. I expect the study tabled by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which was carried out in a serious way, with witnesses, and whose findings were unanimously accepted, to be acknowledged by the government and taken seriously. I expect the House of Commons to confirm the work done in committee so that it has more weight, so that the government really listens to what the people want and solves the problems happening on the ground. Most of all, I expect the government to implement the recommendations set out in the report. In my opinion, that is the starting point. I am totally baffled that this short-sighted government is trying to avoid taking the problem seriously.

However, I am still pleased, because there were Liberals on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities who heard the witnesses and what they had to say. They saw the facts, and they voted with the rest of the committee members. They understood that there was a problem that needed a solution. They agreed with the solutions that were proposed. If these Liberals agreed with the proposed solutions when they were in committee, I think they will be able to convince the government. If the government is really serious about the problem, it has no choice but to agree with the facts I have stated. It can only act responsibly, right?

The whole purpose of the House is to hold the government accountable for its actions and to highlight the everyday problems faced by our constituents.

We are doing our job. I can say that I am doing my job. Now it is up to the government across the aisle to do its job.

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

Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence has been a critical issue for the government for many years. We have had studies at committee, and there have been a number of budgetary and legislative actions dealing with the St. Lawrence, at least in part.

This is a report that the member admits has been sitting on the Order Paper for 18 months. I cannot recall offhand, and I have been here for quite a few question periods, whether the Bloc has ever raised this issue in the form of a question during question period; the member can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe he has ever stood up and asked such a question. Why has the Bloc made the determination today to use this particular concurrence report? I guess it takes us off the Conservative filibustering, but I am curious as to what rationale was used 18 months ago when this report was tabled.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Liberal member mentioned this, because it will allow me to correct some misperceptions.

I did have the opportunity to ask questions about this subject in the House in oral question period, and I am fairly certain that the Liberal member was there because he has been a member of Parliament for a few years now.

With respect to the report, it is pretty simple. It was tabled 18 months ago. We expected the government to read the report, respond and take action. A year and a half later, we are starting to get impatient. Time is passing, and we are wondering what the government is doing.

Why not make sure that the message gets through by asking the House to vote? That is much more powerful than a vote in committee.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely interesting to note that it has been shown that we need to act now to protect the St. Lawrence shoreline. My colleague is absolutely right, and I share his opinion, just as I share his opinion concerning the urgent need to take action to protect the French language.

Yes, this is urgent, but why is the Bloc Québécois propping up the government, not calling for an election?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred that my colleague ask a question about the report, since I am sure that some of his constituents, and certainly some Conservative members, live in areas along the St. Lawrence River. Some of these citizens surely would have liked to learn more about the situation and hear their member fight for it.

To get back to my colleague's more specific question, I think we have made it very clear, on numerous occasions, that our goal is not to work for the Liberals or the Conservatives, but for Quebeckers. Our goal is to make gains for Quebec.

If we can make gains for Quebec, we will try to do so. If, one day, we find that this is no longer possible, perhaps a government will fall.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his speech and for his advocacy on this. It is so important that we not only acknowledge but also actually reduce the impact of shipping on these important corridors.

My colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has also put forward a bill that would grant legal protections, rights of nature, to the St. Lawrence River. We are facing a climate emergency, which is having devastating impacts; we also know that human activity and other economic activity is having an impact on these areas.

Can the member speak to his support, or not, for the idea of granting rights to nature and to the St. Lawrence River?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have not seen my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie's bill. I have not read it, so it is hard for me to take a stand on it on the spur of the moment.

Nevertheless, I will take advantage of my colleague's comment to make something perfectly clear. Our goal is not to prohibit shipping, but rather to mitigate the impact of ships' passage so that citizens do not have to face this problem alone.

There are economic benefits. However, these economic benefits must come with some form of compensation or restitution for those who suffer harm. The environment is central to this issue. That is why it is important to do as much as possible to ensure that ships have as little adverse impact as possible.

There are many possibilities, including reducing speeds, redesigning hulls and keeping ships as far away from the shore as possible. There are many steps that could be taken, but I think this problem will require a complex, ongoing effort.

Unfortunately, despite all the efforts and attempts that have been made so far, there is one key measure that this government has failed to implement, and that is spending real money to protect the shoreline.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his lessons in political science, history and how to be a good MP. I think they were all quite relevant.

There was one part of his speech that caught my attention. It was when he said that 70% of the erosion is impacting an area near Montreal and Lake Saint-Pierre. My colleague referenced a 1,600-kilometre study between Cornwall and Quebec City.

In his opinion, if 70% of the erosion had happened closer to Cornwall, or even a little further, near Toronto, would the federal government have paid?

Based on almost every other measure that the government is investing in, the answer is yes. I am curious to hear what my colleague thinks.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a very good question. I think that I can answer it by giving another example.

When we said that Quebec's resources were at capacity and that the federal government needed to find solutions for asylum seekers and temporary residents, such as fair distribution among the provinces, we were called every name in the book. However, when the other provinces started saying that there was a problem, then all of a sudden, Ottawa started listening. Unfortunately, that is often the case. When Quebec has a problem, Ottawa does not seem to think it is serious or important. The government seems unable to listen to Quebec. Unfortunately, that is one of the reasons Quebeckers think that they would be better off in their own country. This government does not work for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the committee on transport for bringing this forward and being a champion on this issue. As my colleague noted, Conservatives on the committee supported the recommendations and supported the general thrust of the report. As a Great Lakes MP, I share his concerns, but we also added a supplementary report with a lens from fiscal responsibility because there are existing budgets, existing resources and existing expertise that could be brought to bear for this problem.

From my colleague's time on the committee, he will know that we have had many discussions, just to give two examples, regarding wasted funds on the Canada Infrastructure Bank and wasted funds on McKinsey consultants. Maybe what is lacking, because I will agree with my colleague, is that the current Liberal government is all talk and no action. Maybe what is lacking is political will, because obviously the resources exist.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work at committee. I read the Conservatives' supplementary opinion. Obviously, I understand their point of view. They want to limit spending. They simply say that they have no problem with investing in this, but that the money needs to come from somewhere else, so spending in other areas will have to be reduced. I agree with the member that there is a lot of waste on the part of the federal government.

However, where our points of view differ is in where the money should come from. I think that there is a lot of waste, particularly when it comes to the money going to the oil industry. It is unnecessary, especially since we are investing in an obsolete industry that should not get any more of our money. Instead, we should turn toward the economy of the future. Unfortunately, when we invest money in a sector with no future, it only delays the work that needs to be done. We need to focus on a zero-emission economy for the future. It would be far more productive and profitable. This is an example of where we could get the money. Our shorelines will still be there in 50 years, so it is important that we take care of them. It would be nice if we could save people's properties before their houses end up in the water.

[Louis-Philippe Sauvé, Bloc, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks is behind the federal government's inaction in this matter. More broadly, there is something that struck me in his presentation, and that was the federal government's insistence on meddling in the provinces' jurisdictions while neglecting its own responsibilities.

Generally speaking, what does he think is behind the federal government's attitude in this regard?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously prejudiced against the federal government, but I wanted to give it a fair chance.

I initially blamed the lack of a response, and especially the lack of proactive measures, on the minister in place at the time, Marc Garneau. It was almost impossible to schedule a meeting or have a discussion with him. We felt like he was asleep at the switch. We could not believe how uninterested he was in solving problems that were presented to him.

Since then, there have been three other transport ministers. There was the member for Mississauga Centre, the member for Honoré-Mercier, and now the member for Oakville. There seems to be constant turnover, and apparently, this is not the top file for incoming ministers. Every time, we have to contact the new minister to fill them in on the issue. Often, they are not from Quebec. To them, it is not an important issue, because it only affects Quebec. They think we should deal with it ourselves, even though it is the result of the federal government's inaction.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise and speak on the St. Lawrence River and just how important that river has been, not only for us today, as a nation, but also for tomorrow and the days before. I think of the history of Canada and the important role the St. Lawrence River played to our overall development as a nation. My ancestors came from that whole area of the St. Lawrence River, and many of them would have been on the St. Lawrence and witnessed, even back then, issues related to the shoreline.

The point is that, whether it is my ancestors who lived close to the St. Lawrence River and used the St. Lawrence river or today, there have always been concerns in regard to the shoreline. However, I think that the overall support in the general direction of how the St. Lawrence has contributed to Canada being the nation it is today is overwhelmingly positive. We have seen economic development and community development that has been to the great benefit of all.

It is interesting that the member opposite said that this is completely a federal responsibility, yet if we take a look at part of his argument, it was that commercial vessels are using the St. Lawrence. He referenced speed as one of those issues that causes a problem, and the wakes are a problem. I acknowledge that, but one of the actions that was taken by the government a while back was to recognize that the province and Ottawa needed to work together, and that is why they put together a committee of both provincial and federal reps. I will go into a little more detail on that shortly.

I wanted to pick up a bit in terms of why this is, and that is why I posed the question I did to the member. This has been an issue for a long time, as I have talked about. I do not question that at all, but the report itself was tabled almost a year and a half ago. If we take a look at the Order Paper, what we will see is pages and pages of reports that have been brought to the standing committees. If one wanted to, they could stand up every day for the rest of the session until the next election and bring forward concurrence requests.

I question whether that is the most valuable use of the time here on the floor of the House of Commons. It takes nothing away from how important this issue is for all of Canada, because it is a trading corridor. Products that come in through the St. Lawrence are distributed throughout the country. All of Canada benefits if we have a healthy St. Lawrence River, so I do not question the importance of the subject matter.

I am surprised, as the member made reference, that he has raised it in question period. I do not know how I would have missed that, because there are not very many question periods I have missed over the years. I will have to wait and see, but I am glad he raised the issue during question period, and hopefully he will continue to do so, because it is an important issue. That is one of the reasons there is such a detailed response to the report from the department, and I am going to talk about that response, but before I do that, the question I had posed to the member was this: “Why today?”

Since we have been back in session, I think it is fair to say that there has been marginal time on government legislation. Initially, the Conservative Party would go into the Order Paper, look through the pages and pages of reports, and start taking out concurrence reports in order for the government not to be able to talk about legislation. Now, if we were not talking about the report today, we would be talking about the privilege issue that was raised by the Conservative Party.

Yesterday, I posed a question, and I think it is a legitimate question, in terms of the St. Lawrence and the many issues in the reports that are on the Order Paper. Yes, they are important issues, and there are many ways they can be dealt with, but is there a concentrated effort to prevent legislation from being debated? Whether it is the Citizenship Act that the Bloc, NDP and Liberal members support and the Conservatives oppose, or the military court that every member inside this House supports, the legislative agenda is being held up.

I am debating whether or not it is actually a privilege issue, which is supposed to be supreme in terms of the order of debates. However, it is being utilized as a tool of obstruction and not the privilege itself. If I had a choice of talking about what the member is raising with the St. Lawrence River—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I actually think that maybe the member is solving it now, but I was just wondering if he could let us know exactly how Liberal corruption fits into the St. Lawrence. We know it fits somehow, but if he could connect the two, that would be great.

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

That is not a point of order, but maybe a point of debate.

We will return to the hon. parliamentary secretary, and I am sorry for the interruption.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's point of order has made the case for me that, if I had a choice to talk about the games the Conservatives are playing, day in and day out, or the St. Lawrence River, I would rather talk about the St. Lawrence River. However, I will expand upon the topic.

Just like the St. Lawrence River is important to all of Canada, especially the province of Quebec, the issue of water erosion goes far beyond the St. Lawrence River. I would argue that talking about the shores of our oceans, rivers and lakes, as well as the impact of our commercial, residential or recreational activities along them, would be a wonderful debate to have. I would also argue that the St. Lawrence River is a very important part of our lives. If I were in opposition, I would encourage a debate of that nature.

I will give an example. The Red River and the Assiniboine River are two rivers that connect in the city of Winnipeg. To our communities and our cities, our rivers are so very important. Our Red River, our Assiniboine River and our Seine River are some of Winnipeg's greatest assets, but we are, unfortunately, seeing riverbank erosion taking place. There has been a big push, in which I have ultimately argued the opposite of what the member opposite was saying about who has responsibility.

I will give a tangible example. In Winnipeg, my suggestion was to have a water authority deal with all aspects of our waterways, including the Red River, the Assiniboine River and the Seine River, because the city of Winnipeg needs those rivers. In many ways, that would help the development of our city. The same principle could apply to the St. Lawrence River, along with the many other rivers that flow through our communities.

In Winnipeg, to a certain degree, we have a good starting point, which was put in place a number of years ago, with The Forks and its development. Prior to The Forks development, there was virtually no traffic going down to The Forks, where the Red and the Assiniboine rivers meet. As a direct result of the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, today, The Forks is Manitoba's number one tourist attraction. I suspect that, if members have been to Winnipeg, chances are they have been to The Forks. That development, including the protection of the shorelines, were investments made by not one level of government, but by all levels of government, as they recognized just how important our rivers are to our communities.

We do not have big ships bringing in all sorts of transport and products or exporting products. It is not the economic hub of the St. Lawrence River, but I can tell the member opposite that our waterways are of great importance to the city of Winnipeg. I suspect that, whether we are talking about cities such as Winnipeg or Edmonton, it is an importance issue, just as it is for the St. Lawrence River, in British Columbia, around Vancouver Island in the ocean, and around Halifax.

These are all important waterways, not only to the immediate communities, but also to all Canadians. Another example is the port of Churchill in Manitoba. It might not be unanimous among all politicians, but I would definitely like to see more activity taking place in the Port of Churchill.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I see some of my Conservative friends agree with that point, which is a good thing. I hope to see more development, because I understand and I appreciate the value of economics and the benefits to the communities.

Let there be no doubt, the St. Lawrence River was the lifeline for generations. As I have pointed out, my ancestors lived close to the St. Lawrence River. If it was not for the St. Lawrence River, who knows if I would even be here because of the role that it played in the development of the province of Quebec, not to mention all of Canada.

As members of government, we have recognized the harm that is caused, and that is one of the reasons why we have invested financial resources and have taken some budget and legislative actions, as we have in the past, to recognize and take actions where we can. That means also working with other levels of government. One can get a real understanding and appreciation in the change in attitudes from this government compared to Stephen Harper's government.

I suggest to the person who moved the motion to take a look at infrastructure dollars. Contrast the infrastructure dollars spent by this government to previous governments, in particular the Stephen Harper Conservative government. As a government, Liberals have spent more to support Quebec on infrastructure, in all likelihood, than any other government in generations. I would like to think that a good amount of those infrastructure dollars was to support the St. Lawrence River, either directly or indirectly. We are talking a great deal of money. That is why I say there have been budgetary measures, some more direct than others.

That is why I would suggest to my colleagues that this is an interesting report to read through. I was provided with some thoughts to share, and I will try to get into that right away. Before doing so, I would suggest to the members opposite that, in debating the issue, there is no reason why we could not have expanded that discussion in the form of an opposition day motion. With an opposition day motion, we would be able to get members to broaden the debate, to ensure that we are not only talking about the St. Lawrence. Members could represent, either directly or indirectly, aspects that need to be discussed. In my case, it would be a long family history that takes me back to the St. Lawrence that piques my interest in this particular river.

This is not something that is just in the province of Quebec. As I pointed out, it could be in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. One can ultimately go to the territories, to Churchill and so forth. All of these have an interest in not only what Ottawa is doing, but also how Ottawa can work with other jurisdictions to be able to make a difference. I would think that would be a more productive debate because, as the member himself has made clear, this is a debate that took place well over a year and a half ago.

There is the report, and there is a lot of material that I was provided with that I have not been able to get to. One of the things I should comment on is the voluntary speed reductions, just to show that I actually did get some information, because I do appreciate what it is that the member is trying to get across. That is why I made reference to the sense of co-operation.

In 1988, there was a joint initiative between the governments of Canada and Quebec, so the two governments, to create the St. Lawrence action plan, which “aims to conserve, restore, protect, and enhance the St. Lawrence ecosystem.” It has all sorts of initiatives. The government's response to the committee report also reads:

However, should the effectiveness of the voluntary measures diminish, there exist legislative powers under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001- namely the Vessel Operation Restriction Regulations and Navigation Safety Regulations, 2020 - which could provide a means of imposing regulatory requirements in areas of the St. Lawrence to address outstanding issues or concerns.

In that joint committee, they took a look at speed reductions. When we take a look at it from a volunteer perspective, it was 90%-plus higher with the people or the commercial vessels that were actually obeying or following that. However, we still have other regulations and laws that are now in place, as recent as 2020, to ensure that, if there are additional things we could do, at least we would be open to it, and we have laws in place and regulations that can be supported.

I think there is all sorts of reasons to be optimistic. The issue is whether we can get the different levels of government to work together so we can ensure the recreational, commercial and residential activities are all being given fair treatment, debate and discussion in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my colleague's remarks.

The first thing that bears mentioning is that he said this might not be the most pressing issue of the day and that we could discuss something else. I hope that is not the government's actual response or position, because there are hundreds of people in my riding who have been fighting for this for years. They find the government's inaction discouraging. Now that we are talking about it, we are being told that the government does not want to talk about it today. I do not think that is the kind of response my constituents want to hear from their government.

The second thing is that the Liberal member said he did not remember hearing me speak of this during question period. I am going to list three dates and I would like to know where he was on each of them. Where was he on May 30, 2019? I think he was a member of the House then. On November 24, 2022, I am pretty sure he was a member of the House then too. The same goes for March 20, 2023, because he is very often in the House, as he has stated. This all means that he has the opportunity to be here. We know he is here. I would like him to take a look at those three dates, because I was in question period on those days and I spoke to the shoreline erosion problem.

The member complained that I never talk about other places, apart from the St. Lawrence, affected by the same phenomenon. The fact is that there are various causes. Tides are the main cause of erosion in the Magdalen Islands and British Columbia. In the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, navigation is the culprit. Even the experts from the Great Lakes and Ontario area who appeared before the committee said that the most pronounced effects occur on the St. Lawrence, in the vicinity of Montreal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite asked three questions. I know the dates: May 2019, November 2022 and March 2023. It would be interesting to find out when the actual report was tabled. It might have been after March 2023; we will have to get confirmation.

I am glad the member realizes it is an issue. I am going to go to the first part of the question. The member talked about hundreds of individuals in his riding who are interested. I can assure him that thousands of his constituents would have been interested in Bill C-63, the online harms act. I understand that the Bloc supports it, as do the NDP and Green members.

The government has been trying to get the bill passed, but those darn Conservatives will not let it pass. They can be a mean group of people. They bring up concurrence reports all the time. Now they are using questions of privilege. They are going out of their way to prevent the legislation from passing.

What would the member's constituents want? Would they want the legislation passed today, or would they rather have another day of debate on this specific issue? That is why I would encourage the members of the Bloc to look at an opposition day. Let us talk about shorelines but also allow for some of the important legislation, some of which even the Bloc party supports. However, it is participating in supporting the Conservatives by allowing concurrence reports.

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

Mr. Speaker, before our colleague from Winnipeg North's speech, there was a more informative speech from our colleague from the province of Quebec, whose riding is actually on the St. Lawrence. We are talking about the erosion of the St. Lawrence River due to shipping. I am reading from the recommendations from the committee report, which call on the Government of Canada to do this, that and the other thing.

My question for the member for Winnipeg North is this: What role does the International Joint Commission have with respect to maintenance of the St. Lawrence River? It is not just a Canadian issue; it is also an American issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we always have to be cognizant of the environment around us, which goes beyond our own shorelines, and the agencies that do the monitoring. I do not know all of them, nor would I pretend to know.

What I do know is that one of the greatest threats, as highlighted already this morning, is the issue of commercial use of the St. Lawrence River. Speed causes the wakes that are of great concern. That is why the federal government and the Province of Quebec put together a committee. It ultimately led to a reduction in speed, which is administered in a volunteer fashion. I believe that 98% of people are actually following it. That is pretty good, I would suggest. There is still room for improvement, but we will do what we can.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech, but I did not hear a reference to the shoreline protection program. The report outlines a clear recommendation to re-establish the program. It was cut in the 1990s. It has not been implemented by Conservative or Liberal governments. Why has the Liberal government failed to re-establish this important program?