Debates of Sept. 20th, 2024

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are 127 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-33. Motions Nos. 1 to 127 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 127 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

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

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 3.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 4.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 6.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 9.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 10.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 11.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 12.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 13.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 14.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 15.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 16.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 17.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 18.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 19.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 20.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 22.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 25.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 27.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 30.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 31.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 32.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 35.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 36.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 37.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 38.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 39.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 40.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 41.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 45.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 46.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 47.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 48.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 51.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 52.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 53.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 54.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 55.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 56.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 57.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 58.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 59.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 60.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 61.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 62.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 63.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 66.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 67.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 68.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 69.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 70.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 71.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 72.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 73.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 74.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 75.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 76.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 77.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 78.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 79.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 80.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 81.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 82.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 83.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 84.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 85.

Motion No. 86

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 86.

Motion No. 87

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 87.

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 88.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 89.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 90.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 91.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 92.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 93.

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 94.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 95.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 96.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 97.

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 98.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 99.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 100.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 101.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 102.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 103.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 104.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 105.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 106.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 107.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 108.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 109.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 110.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 111.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 112.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 114

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 115

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 115.

Motion No. 116

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 116.

Motion No. 117

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 117.

Motion No. 118

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 118.

Motion No. 119

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 119.

Motion No. 120

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 120.

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

, seconded by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, moved:

That Bill C-33, in Clause 120, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 80 with the following:

“(1.‍1) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must provide for the prohibition of the loading and unloading of”

b) by replacing line 6 on page 81 with the following:

“December 31, 2025.”

(c) by deleting lines 7 to 14 on page 81.

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

moved:

That Bill C-33, in Clause 120, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 24 and 25 on page 80 with the following:

“(1.‍1) Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must provide for the prohibition of the loading and unloading of”

(b) by replacing, in the English version, line 27 on page 80 with the following:

“(1.‍2) In making regulations referred to in subsection (1.‍1), the”

(c) by replacing line 3 on page 81 with the following:

“(1.‍3) Regulations referred to in subsection (1.‍1) must pro‐”

(d) by deleting lines 7 to 14 on page 81.

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

moved:

Motion No. 123

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 121.

Motion No. 124

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 125

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 126

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 127

That Bill C-33 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise and to have numerous amendments in my name. I am proud to be working hard on behalf of the people of Northumberland—Peterborough South.

As some may know, I am the newly minted shadow minister for transportation for our side. I was on the finance committee, and we spent a lot of our time studying the economy. I even did so in my career before that. I just want to put things in context in terms of where the Canadian economy currently is. I will relate that back to transportation and to the bill; I hope we will have an understanding of why Conservatives, and really all right-thinking folks, cannot support the legislation in good conscience.

Let us wind back the clock to April 30, 2014. The New York Times put out the article “Life in Canada, Home of the World's Most Affluent Middle Class”. Does that not seem long ago? It was when Canadians could afford housing, when there were available and affordable rents, when food was at a reasonable cost, when the dream of Canada seemed as alive as ever and when the promise of Canada was shining perhaps brighter than ever in Canada's history.

We then heard from a Liberal candidate at the time who said that better was always possible. That is true, but we found out that, in this case, better was certainly not the result. We have seen this both empirically and subjectively. We have seen that GDP per capita, which is perhaps the best measure of the standard of living for Canadians, has flatlined. Over the last decade, the standard of living, or the GDP per capita, has seen zero growth.

We will hear from members of the opposition who say that this is because we are stuck in a bad world economy. We have had the pandemic and other events; there is no way we could have possibly done better. However, that is just simply not true. We can compare those numbers to other benchmarks. One easy benchmark for us is that of the United States of America, which is geographically quite close and shares many things in common with Canada.

During that same time, in the United States, the GDP per capita grew by nearly 19%. The GDP per capita is, in many ways, a substitute or an equivalent measure of our standard of living. We know, in contrasting and comparing it to peer nations, that Canada has done exceedingly poorly and that we are on a trajectory that leads us down a very dark path.

Let us also compare the case historically. Perhaps there have been other times when we have had these challenges and emerged on the other side brighter. Maybe we were paying this price for a reason. Unfortunately, the damning truth is that our GDP per capita has not grown this little since the Great Depression. We had decades and decades of going through tumultuous world events and recessions. We have never seen a standard of living flatline or, in real terms, decline as we have under the Liberal government.

We have talked about where the Canadian economy, over the last nine years, ranks in history. We have benchmarked it now with the United States of America. Let us look at them both. Back in 1984, the Canadian economy was producing 88% of the value generated by a U.S. worker per hour. By 2022, that collapsed to 71%. It is actually quite well known why this is. The problem has been diagnosed by many, including the deputy of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers. She said that we are in a productivity crisis and that this is a “break glass” moment for the Canadian economy.

That is after nine years of a complete lack of care for productivity, which not only underlines our GDP per capita but also, more importantly, powers our economy and our standard of living. We have professionals, non-partisan and arguably non-biased economists, saying from coast to coast that the Liberal government has led us to this productivity decline and, therefore, the flatlining of the standard of living. Of course, those who are wealthy have not done too poorly, but those in the middle class have suffered. I see it in my riding every day. We see individuals who used to donate to food banks and are now clients of food banks. Two million Canadians are going to food banks every day.

One key factor of any economy, something that has provided a real lift throughout history, is transportation. In fact, there is perhaps no better example than Canada and the construction of our railway. Transportation can power and transform an economy. It can take an economy from one that is lagging to one that is succeeding. What is the record, after nine years, of the Liberal government? We have seen inaction and incompetence, probably in equal parts. What happens is that, in an economy, there are factories and people producing things. However, that matters very little if we cannot get those products and services to market. Unfortunately, that continues to be a tremendous challenge here in Canada. We see almost constant work stoppages because of the Liberal government's failure to effectively manage ports, airports and other transport sectors. We see its inability to get major projects built to get our valuable resources to market.

As if it were not enough to have legislation that has acted to prevent growth and kneecap our own economy, such as the no-pipeline bills and other legislation, we have now decided to bring in legislation that promotes bureaucracy over productivity. Over the last hundred years, if we have any doubt, we have seen the impact of bureaucracy on productivity. We have an absolute slam dunk case. I have no doubt that, in 20 or 50 years' time there will be people studying this decade. They will look at this in history and say that we had a country with an amazing economy. The New York Times said that we were the most affluent middle class in the world, but in just 10 short years, we saw a government actively work against its own people to develop our economy and increase productivity.

Let us talk a bit about Bill C-33 specifically. I am always a big fan of listening to experts, as opposed to politicians. Thus, I want to read into the record some quotes from individuals, folks who are actually on the ground. These are the boots, not the suits, who are talking about it.

The CEO of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities said:

The concern for the smaller ports really was in the heavy reporting that's associated with the bill. It'll be a question mark on whether this will be a lot of new work that's required or if it's a repackaging of material that's already being provided.

One of our larger ports actually said they'd have to hire [multiple] full-time people. This was going to cost them [hundreds of thousands of] dollars a year.

This is one of a million productivity cuts that are slowing down our economy.

I want to read one more thing here from the executive vice-president of the Trois-Rivières Port Authority. He states, “Bill C-33 and its extension, Bill C‑52, restrict the Trois-Rivières Port Authority's ability to fulfill the mission entrusted to it by the Canada Marine Act.”

We see over and over again that the Liberal government is standing in the way of Canadians realizing their dreams and of the Canadian economy realizing its potential.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech as he talked a bit about productivity. He also complained on behalf of the port authority, saying that it has to spend the money. Could the member explain to the House how we can improve productivity in Canada without businesses' actually making investments in the tools and technologies that are required to improve productivity?

To improve productivity, we first have to focus on removing low-wage workers so businesses can either train the existing workforce to be more productive or invest in tools and technologies to improve productivity. Could the member explain how businesses can improve productivity without investing?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the reasons behind Canada's productivity is that Canada has been among the worst when it comes to developed countries' attracting capital.

We absolutely need capital, but the only way we are going to get more capital and increase productivity is to have a carbon tax election.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to tell us about one of the proposed amendments, the one aimed at systematically appointing port authorities that represent workers to boards of directors.

I would like to know where he stands on this specific amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, of course Conservatives will continue to stand up for workers.

What I am troubled by, though, with the legislation is that it could lead to the loss of hundreds of good-paying union jobs. Common-sense Conservatives will stand up for union workers by growing the economy and making sure that the private sector and private unions expand.

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the member going forward.

I am certainly not here to say that our ports and our railway infrastructure are not in need of improvement, because I think I have been on the public record saying that they are. It is my position and the position of our party, though, that the bill would have a net negative impact on productivity.

Perhaps in the future we can work with the member to improve our infrastructure to increase productivity and help people.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I come from those prairies where that grain is grown and needs to be shipped. We are very landlocked, and the ports are incredibly important to us.

Everyone who runs a small business or any kind of agriculture business, anything in our province that needs the ports, is looking at the bill and saying it would be new reporting requirements, increased red tape and regulatory burdens, and new advisory committees. This is not how we run something efficiently, by adding more of these issues that would actually decrease the efficiency and competitiveness of our ports.

I would just like a quick comment from the member.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a tough but fair question.

I will just quickly end with a quote by Ronald Reagan, who said that if government sees something move, it taxes it; if it keeps moving, it regulates it; and if it dies, it subsidizes it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and he is right. We have exchanged conversations that, I would say, border on rants about how it feels to be in a community where a harbour authority really seems to lack accountability or caring concern, which affects the economy as well as the communities.

As a modern industrialized country with a significant value added to our economy from exports, our harbours have to be more efficient. They have to operate with accountability to their stakeholder groups that surround them, which include, as I said, people who want to ship goods. Prairie farmers, in particular, have been up in arms, and I have met with many of them about how inefficient it is and how unprepared CN Rail and Canadian Pacific are every single year.

By the way, the full name for Canadian Pacific recently has become Canadian Pacific Kansas City. CN Rail's biggest shareholder is Bill Gates. I am wondering how much these shippers of the key parts of our supply chains are really devoted to Canada, since they are owned and privatized elsewhere.

I would say that this bill would contribute to economic improvements by making our ports more efficient.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her talk on transportation, particularly on the port of Vancouver.

The member talked about supply chain disruptions in shipping grain from the Prairies to the port and off to overseas. One of those disruptions is the inability of the Port of Vancouver to load grain on rainy days, which we have quite a few of in Vancouver. Of all the supply chain problems, that seems like one that is looking for a solution. I wonder if the hon. member has a comment about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for Langley—Aldergrove. Obviously, he knows whereof he speaks.

There are quite a lot of impediments to the efficient loading of grain, even when we get the grain to port, even when there is actually a freighter there with holds ready to take it away. I do support the longshoremen's union. I know that it has negotiated in its collective agreements a number of restrictions on the way in which, for safety reasons, grain is loaded when it rains. However, I have to say that I think there are better solutions in the current state of affairs. We should be able to load grain efficiently, even when it rains, which is not a rare event at the port of Vancouver.

I sympathize with the member's question, but I do not think I have time to comment further.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my Green Party colleague for her very interesting speech. It is clear that she knows a lot about this file, even though she is not a member of the committee. I tip my hat to her. I would like to ask her a quick question about the amendment she is defending, because that is why she rose to speak.

Why is the amendment stipulating that we will stop exporting coal as of 2025 important? Also, why is it important that the Liberals and the NDP not give in to pressure from the Conservatives, who always oppose anything that could have a positive impact on the climate?

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

Madame Speaker, I would like to say a big thank you to my dear colleague, the member for Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, one of the opposition members who has made a very big effort to improve this bill to protect the environment.

It is absolutely essential that we take quick action long before the 2030 target. We must stop exporting coal via our ports. This increases delays for other products and goods. We must do this immediately.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another amendment—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will stop the hon. member there, given it is time for Statements by Members. The hon. member will have the opportunity to finish his speech the next time the bill is before the House.

Retirement Congratulations

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, thanks to the CBC/Radio-Canada, Canadians enjoyed open and equitable access to countless hours of amazing sport from the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. Canadians cheered on our incredible athletes as they won medals, broke records and pushed the limits of human performance.

The role the CBC plays as a public broadcaster in connecting Canadians to the Olympic and Paralympic Games is absolutely vital. The CBC provides accessibility to ensure that everyone from urban centres to remote communities can share in the excitement of the games equally. For decades, the CBC has brought the Olympics and Paralympics right into our living rooms and now right onto our devices.

Scott Russell, the king of Canadian sports broadcasting, has been our host through these moments of triumph and heartache for over 40 years and an astonishing 17 summer and winter Olympic and Paralympic Games. This summer, Scott announced that Paris would be his final games as a broadcaster. As he signed off with an emotional farewell, Scott shared that he has had the time of his life. Because of Scott's work, we have had the time of our lives too.

The Canadian government, all Canadian athletes and Canadian sports fans thank Scott. We love the king.

Amish Community

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent a rural riding that includes many in the Amish community. The Amish do not use electricity, phones or the Internet. They are pacifists, they do not vote and many are dual Canadian-U.S. citizens.

In April 2021, I first asked the Liberal government how it was communicating border restrictions and requirements to Canadians like the Amish. I followed this up in February, September and November 2022, both here in the House and in written questions, as I started getting reports that the community was facing fines in excess of $250,000 for failure to use the ArriveCAN app, to get the right COVID test or to quarantine. The government finally responded in January 2023 that it did not inform the Amish of the rules before they arrived at the border. Now the community is facing approximately $300,000 in fines and collection agencies have taken liens out against many of the Amish properties.

Was it the Liberal government's intent to discriminate against this community? If not, will it now rectify the situation and give the Amish their farms and lives back?