SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Mar/10/23 10:27:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy. I want to take a second to express my gratitude to the workers in our ports and in our transportation systems. During the last three years, where we faced unprecedented challenges, the workers in our transportation system stepped up and showed up to work every day. While some of us could work from home, they showed up on the job to make sure that our supply chains continued to move and to be resilient. I want to assure my hon. colleague that labour and the voices of workers are incredibly important. To make sure that we do things right, in our government, we will always stand up for their rights and continue to listen to their input and to their advice.

130 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/10/23 10:28:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. minister. I want to acknowledge that he has been working extremely hard on a number of supply chain issues that have an immediate impact on indigenous nations in Saanich—Gulf Islands and throughout the areas of the Salish Sea. I want to acknowledge that this bill is encouraging to many of us, but I want to ask a question very bluntly. Can there be amendments, and how open will the minister be? The supply chain issue to which I refer, which has the biggest environmental damage on the issues of rail safety and ports, is the placement of freighters, representing free parking to freighters where the Port of Vancouver does not have the capacity to move them through quickly. It causes environmental damage, and it offends indigenous rights in Saanich—Gulf Islands. Is the minister open to amendments?

148 words

Hon. Omar Alghabra

Mar/10/23 10:29:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her kind words. This bill is an important bill. It would further enhance the resilience and strength of our supply chains, of our ports and the safety of our rail network. This bill does not necessarily cover everything that can be done and needs to be done. This bill is a result of the review that was done over the last few years on rail safety and port modernization. As we have demonstrated, we are always willing to work with our colleagues in the House of Commons to identify opportunities and to introduce amendments. I look forward to her input, as well as my colleagues' in this chamber.

117 words

Rail

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 10:30:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment the minister. On a couple of occasions, he came to Winnipeg and met with long-haul truck drivers. The role that they play in our ports is of an essential nature. There is a great deal of interest by the long-haul truck driver industry in the bill. I would be very interested in getting the minister's thoughts on the critical role that our long-haul truck drivers play in the supply chain.

80 words

Hon. Omar Alghabra

Mar/10/23 10:31:01 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for his hospitality. I had a chance to visit him in his communities and to visit many truck operators and truck drivers in Winnipeg, in his riding, to express my personal gratitude to them. Truck drivers have stepped up during an extraordinary period of time and have delivered goods that Canadians depend on. We may not have spent a lot of time, as Canadians, thinking about how goods to get to our shelves or to our kitchen tables, but we knew during the pandemic that we depended on our truck drivers. I know truck drivers take pride in their work and understand how important their work is. Our government is committed to working with them to improve their working conditions and to improve their safety. It is important that we listen to their input and continue to support what they do.

147 words

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Mar/10/23 10:32:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question is regarding the minister taking over the ability to appoint the board chair. It says in the legislation that he would be able to do so after consulting with the board. However, we know that the minister has ignored the recommendations of port users when they have put forward board nominees. He has ignored the recommendations of the prairie provinces when they have put forward nominees. Given the minister's track record of ignoring the recommendations from the groups that are putting forward nominees for board positions, what is to stop him from ignoring the board, as he has done in the past, and simply making a choice that he wants to do his government's bidding?

121 words

Hon. Omar Alghabra

Mar/10/23 10:32:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is trying to personalize his question, but let me be very clear. Ports are public institutions. They are there to serve Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is really important that the port mandate is in line with government's expectations and commitments. Therefore, it is important that the board of directors is aligned with government's objectives. Yes, we need to be careful and sensitive about this and make sure that the ports have the independence they need, but, at the same time, make sure that they maintain their responsibility to the public.

101 words

Mr. Mark Strahl (Chilliwack—Hope, CPC)

Mar/10/23 10:33:41 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be a part of this debate today on Bill C-33, which would make amendments to several different acts. Supposedly, based on the press release from the government, this was going to have a profound impact on supply chains and rail safety. Having spoken to dozens of stakeholders over several weeks, they do not see it. Quite frankly, this is a missed opportunity. This is after four years of government consultation. As the minister said, opportunities do not come along very often to change the way our ports and rail systems operate, and this was a missed opportunity to actually make a difference and improve the supply chain in this country. The general feedback we received is that this is actually heading in the wrong direction. We heard a lot of stakeholders who said this will do nothing to improve supply chain efficiencies, while others have said it will make them worse. The best the minister received from the feedback I heard is indifference. That is certainly not a ringing endorsement of what has been touted as being a major change to supply chain systems and a major answer to the supply chain problems we have seen plaguing the country for the last number of months and years. My colleague referenced the national supply chain task force report, which explained the urgency of this situation and proposed several changes that should be made on an immediate basis. We just do not see enough of that urgency. We do not see enough of what was in the supply chain report in this bill. This is the first opportunity the government has had to show it was listening to that report, and we just do not see it. There is nothing in this bill about rail service reliability or the relationship between shippers and rail companies. In fact, it simply seems to indicate that the status quo is just fine. There is nothing in this bill about what would happen to our supply chains and our international reputation when there are labour disputes that impact the supply chain either at the ports or on our railways. There is nothing here about how we would to reconcile concerns with loading grain in the rain, for instance, in Vancouver. All of these were missed opportunities. In fact, as the minister indicated a couple of times in his speech, the ports are at arm's length. He just indicated in his answer to my question that, in fact, that arm is getting shorter and shorter. The government is extending its arm into the ports to impose its will on what are supposed to be independent authorities. It is quite shocking to hear the minister openly admit that the problem clearly is that the ports do not do what Ottawa wants enough and that it needs to exert more control over the ports. The ports are supposed to operate in the best interest of the national economy and the best interest of the supply chain, not in the best interest of the government in Ottawa. Some of our primary concerns revolve around the changes that have been made to the governance system at the ports. The independence of the ports should start with the ability of the board of directors to elect its own chair. That is the current way the system operates. I have certainly not heard that this has been a major issue that has impeded the operation of the ports, but we see an “Ottawa knows best” or “Liberal government knows best” approach when it says the local port boards cannot be trusted to select their own chairs, as they currently do, and that the minister himself needs to make those selections. I will also note that the port users, the port tenants, the shippers, the grain companies, and so on, have had their influence on the boards diluted. There have been additional board positions given to local representatives. There are two additional board positions, both given to government entities, and no additional seats given to compensate for the people who actually run our ports and get our goods from our farms to the customers overseas. I think that is an oversight. I also think that the overly prescriptive and bureaucratic red tape nature of imposing a “made in Ottawa” solution on consultation is going to prove very difficult to manage in many of the ports across the country. Bill C-33 seems designed to be imposed on big ports, like the Port of Vancouver. There are 17 port authorities in Canada and some of them are very small. There are no provisions in the bill to allow for any flexibility for the smaller ports, which may not have indigenous communities in their proximity or which may not have the capacity to set these things up without significant new costs, which will be passed on to port users and to Canadian consumers. These are imposed costs that will be passed along at a time when we are already dealing with record inflation. These are going to be inflationary costs that will impact the costs of the goods that Canadians need. The Port of Vancouver, for instance, already has robust indigenous consultation, robust community consultation and robust local government involvement. As for creating advisory boards, I have heard some feedback from folks who have maybe one first nation in their entire province. How would they set up an indigenous advisory board to deal with that situation? As for the Port of Vancouver, in my home province of British Columbia, who would be on this board? It certainly would not just be the handful of first nations that are in the Vancouver area. It would be communities who are up the Fraser River. It would be communities that are along the shipping routes. Now that it would be an official consultation board mandated by law, there will be questions about who would be on it, who would be part of it and what role they would play. If there is nothing in the legislation that indicates what the role of that board would be or what the powers of that board would be, would they simply give advice that can be ignored? Would they have the power to actually prevent the ports from exercising their authorities? We just do not know. I think that is what we have heard a lot of in the stakeholder feedback we have received, which is that there are a lot of changes that have been made where the Ministry of Transportation or the minister says, “Oh no, do not worry about it. That is not what we meant when we put those changes in the legislation. We will find a way around it. We did not mean that the minister would appoint the board chair. He would just consult with the ports and then take their advice.” That is not what the legislation says. I think that this is poorly drafted legislation that leaves an awful lot to interpretation and will actually create greater uncertainty for the ports at a time when they need more certainty. I want to touch briefly on the active vessel traffic management portion of the legislation. I think, obviously, that there is some need to give the port the authority to manage vessel traffic within its jurisdiction. I think that there is, again, a lack of certainty about what this will mean. How far out will the ports be given the authority to manage the vessel traffic? Is it just in their jurisdictions? Is it hundreds of kilometres offshore? These are things that need to be clarified. It also needs to be said that, by focusing solely on the marine vessel side of things and not on the rail side of things, the government has missed an opportunity again. It has not talked about rail service reliability, service levels, ensuring that shippers are well served by the rail sector, or that there needs to be reliable data so that the ships know when products are coming by rail. It seems to be focused entirely on the marine side. We also have concerns about what the government means by allowing the ports to manage anchorages. In British Columbia, there are significant concerns about what that means. Some want anchorages to be removed from certain areas altogether. Others would like to see the anchorages better regulated, and still others would like to see the efficiency of the ports brought up to a standard such that there would not be the need for so many anchorages. It has been difficult to deal with this issue in a post-COVID context, because there was such a backlog as a result of supply chain collapses around the world and therefore anchorages that had not been previously used were being used more often. What does it mean that the board would have control over these anchorages? Does it mean they would be able to remove them? Does it mean they could limit the number of days ships can dwell there? These are all questions that are very concerning to port users if we want to expand the ports. The Port of Vancouver has indicated it wants to expand and is looking to increase capacity. We cannot increase capacity at the port and reduce the ability for vessels to safely anchor to await their turn at the port. Would we simply remove these anchorages without consultation and without any plan as to what would happen when ships show up and have nowhere to berth or to safely anchor? Are they simply going to circle around burning fuel and wait for their turn to enter the port? That needs some clarity. Overall, on the rail safety side, we support the clarity on the fact that blockades of rail lines are illegal. I suspect most Canadians would have thought that was already the case. In fact, it already is illegal to cause a disruption to rail service. However, the problem is not with the rules; it is with the enforcement of the rules. I think increasing the clarity is a good thing, but if it does not result in increased enforcement activity, I do not think there will be much of a change on that front. There are concerns about the increased red tape and regulatory burdens. We want transparency at the ports, but we need it to be reasonable. I think there are concerns about whether the reporting requirements would simply be publishing data that the government already receives or whether they would be imposing a new burden on the ports, which, again, would all be passed down throughout the supply chain and ultimately onto consumers. Would quarterly financial reports, for instance, be a new requirement or would that simply be making public what the government already gets? I think these are questions that have not been answered. That also needs to be looked at in terms of the environmental reporting. The big ports are already doing this work. Would this be duplicative? Would this simply take the work that is already being done at the ports and put it into a format that is more universal? If we are burdening the ports with more reporting requirements when they are already doing this work, that is ineffective and inefficient and we need to make sure we are not duplicating the work. We also fundamentally disagree with the government here on what the role of the ports is. The port has to have a national lens on protecting the national supply chain; serving our international markets; and getting the goods of our farmers, shippers and creators to our markets. We heard from the minister here today that the government wants to impose a different set of rules. It wants a different focus for the ports and to increase the local perspective on that. The local residents are absolutely impacted, but the primary focus has to be on delivering goods for Canadians and our customers. We cannot get into other focuses for the ports. I think the government has done that by making these changes to the board of directors. By making those changes to these advisory boards, it is certainly increasing Ottawa's involvement, as well as local government involvement. It is increasing local interests that I think need to be heard but cannot divert the ports from their primary responsibility, which is to serve the national Canadian economy. When we hear the minister say that the port boards must align with the government's agenda, that does not sound like arm's-length governance to me but an arm of the government. There are just too many cases in this bill where it is imposing its perspective on the ports. It is imposing its agenda on the ports and doing so in a way that does not consider the different ports. Those in Saguenay, Thunder Bay, St. John's and all over the country have a different reality than the ports of Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax. This is a one-size-fits-all approach that will not improve our supply chain but instead increase the burdens on everyone in the supply chain. Most of all, it will increase the power of Ottawa at the expense of the independence of those port authorities. We believe the bill should go back to the drawing board. It does not do enough to address supply chain concerns. It imposes too many Ottawa-knows-best solutions and too much of the minister's authority on our ports. It does not do enough to improve the situation. Therefore, we will not be supporting Bill C-33. We think it is a missed opportunity. The governance changes cannot be supported. The additional costs that will be passed on to everyone throughout the supply chain as a result cannot be supported. After four years, the government should have done much better. We hope it will go back to the drawing board and come back with a bill that will strengthen our supply chain and allow the ports to do the job they are mandated to do. We hope it can do that without the heavy hand of the Ottawa-knows-best approach that, unfortunately, this legislation would impose.

2393 words

Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 10:53:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to express my disappointment with my colleague's take on the bill. I would say that he has said a couple of contradictory things. On the one hand, he said that the ports need to have a national lens. On the other, he opposes introducing representatives of the prairie provinces to the boards of the ports. On the one hand, he said that the ports need to be at arm's length from the government, which I agree with. However, on the other, his own leader is criticizing the government for policies that, by the way, the ports enacted under the Harper government. Therefore, he has made several contradictory statements. I would ask my colleague this: Will he really miss out on this opportunity for us to work together on strengthening the governance of ports? I welcome his ideas for amendments, but it would be prudent to send this bill to committee so that we, as members of Parliament, can work together on advancing the goal that we all agree on, which is making sure that our ports are more efficient and resilient.

187 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/10/23 10:54:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly disagree with the minister's characterization of my remarks. I have no problem with the provinces having representatives on the board; they already do. I have said that the users of the port, the tenants, are having their voices diluted by adding others to it. That needs to be addressed. As I said in my question to the minister, it does not really matter if the provinces and port users are supposed to have a voice in who is selected to the ports to represent them if the minister ignores their voices. He would be ignoring them if, when nominees are put forward by the provinces or port users, the minister said, “No, I know best. I am going to appoint people who have not been recommended because Ottawa and the Liberal government know best.” They do not know best, and they should start listening to those groups that are directly impacted.

158 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Mar/10/23 10:55:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, but we have some concerns. The various proposed measures may end up creating a disproportionate administrative burden for small ports. According to my colleague, how might we amend this bill in committee to ensure that the administrative burden is not excessive for small ports?

66 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/10/23 10:56:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I tried to address some of that in my speech. I think the bill was written for the Port of Vancouver. It was clear that the government looked at the Port of Vancouver and designed the bill around that port. This absolutely does not take into consideration a port like the Port of Saguenay, which has very different volumes and financial resources, as well as a different size. The bill is very clear. It imposes all three advisory committees, no matter where the ports are across the country; quarterly financial statement requirements; and a greenhouse gas emission evaluation. We have to delete all the clauses that impose these new burdens on all ports, because not all ports have the same capacity to manage them.

133 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/10/23 10:57:06 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Madam Speaker, my colleague noted his disappointment that Bill C-33 does not include more provisions to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain. I think comments like that raise alarm bells for a lot of working people, who have borne the brunt of the penchant for draconian back-to-work legislation among both Conservatives and Liberals. It will be no surprise to folks here in the House that New Democrats believe the best way to settle labour disruptions and achieve the best labour outcomes is at the bargaining table. What measures does my colleague have in mind to deal with labour disruptions in the supply chain? Does the member support our view that working people and their representatives deserve a voice on the boards of directors of our ports?

131 words

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/10/23 10:58:00 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course Conservatives support the collective bargaining process and believe that governments should support that process to ensure that our vital supply chains are not disrupted through labour stoppages, whether lockouts or strikes. We have seen the devastating impact of just the rumour of a strike or a lockout. It can cause millions of dollars of damage to the Canadian economy. We saw this when there was a stoppage on the CP Rail network for just a number of days. For every day of stoppage, it takes weeks to clear up. The damage to our international reputation is lasting. When people are not assured of the reliability of the supply chain in Canada, they look for other options. Moreover, there are other options in North America. That is what we want to avoid. The national supply chain task force spoke of this very clearly. That is what I was referring to: There is a need to ensure that our supply chains are treated like the valued service they are. We need to make every effort to prevent anything that would impact the reliability of our supply chain for our international partners.

193 words

Mr. Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 10:59:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Robert Frost once wrote, “I am not a teacher, but an awakener.” My community of Windsor-Essex lost a great teacher this week. To many, he was “Tony” or “TJ”. To my brother and me, and countless students he awakened, he was “Mr. Johnston”. Born in Derry, Northern Ireland, Mr. Johnston immigrated to Canada in 1962, where he started his teaching career in Barrie before moving to Windsor. He taught at Holy Rosary, St. Alphonsus, Brennan, St. Michael's and my alma mater, St. Joseph's. An amateur boxer with an incredible memory, he was the original Google. He taught English, coached Reach for the Top quiz teams and loved coaching cross-country. He was the recipient of the 1997 Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence. He was proud of his Irish heritage and was a proud member of the Irish Canadian Cultural Club and the Gaelic League of Detroit. His ashes will be taken home to Ireland, but his lessons and his love for his students, those are ours to keep.

183 words

Mr. Gary Vidal (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, CPC)

Mar/10/23 11:00:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is with great sadness that I stand today and recognize the life of Brittany Macnab, a proud, young Métis woman gone way too soon at only 24. Brittany was a person who radiated kindness and generosity. While in high school, she volunteered for the hockey team that I coached. Every home game, we would find her working the door, selling 50-50 tickets and even singing O Canada when asked, all this because she was a good friend. It is no surprise that after high school, Brittany went on to become an amazing teacher. She was a teacher who cared deeply about her students and would routinely go above and beyond to build authentic relationships. As I stand here today, staff and students in Meadow Lake schools are wearing ribbon skirts, sashes, orange T-shirts, moccasins and mukluks in honour of Ms. Macnab, all this at the request of her grade 8 class. I want to offer my condolences to all who loved Brittany. She will be deeply missed.

174 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 11:01:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was in Winnipeg last week, and we participated in a press conference with the Premier of Manitoba. Come April, Manitoba is going to have $10-a-day child care. It is joining, from coast to coast to coast, a true national day care program that really matters. It is going to enable more women than ever to enter into the workforce. It is going to improve our economic situation. It is going to make a profound, positive difference in the lives of all Canadians. Moving forward with a national child care program is the right thing to do, and I, for one, hope that the Conservative Party will flip-flop its position and support a national child care program.

124 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Mar/10/23 11:02:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to dedicate my statement to people across Canada who are suffering through unresolved trauma and mental health problems, especially to those who have sought solace in substance use. I also want to recognize the family members, especially those who have lost a loved one to an overdose because of the toxic and deadly supply of street drugs. This is why a safe supply is needed. I urge my fellow parliamentarians, especially the Conservatives, to stop demonizing safe supply and decriminalization. Treatment and recovery are not at odds with harm reduction and safe supply. They are all part of a continuum of care, and we need more of both. At this time, more than ever, we need compassion. We must stop the stigmatization of people who use illicit substances, which pushes them further into the shadows and forces them to take a chance with their lives. Instead of criminalizing poverty, homelessness, addiction and drug use, let us focus on supporting the members of our communities who suffer from these health conditions.

174 words

Mrs. Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 11:03:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, throughout the month of March, the people in my riding and on the South Shore can indulge their sweet tooth while supporting an important cause that affects far too many families: suicide. In 2015, Martine Loiselle lived every parent's worst nightmare when her 25-year-old son Francis took his own life. In an effort to give her grief meaning, keep her son's memory alive and give back to the organization that had done so much for her family, she started Défi25, le goût de la vie. Every March, with the help of volunteers, Martine bakes cookies that can be ordered in exchange for a $10 to $25 donation. All the funds go to Suicide Action Montréal. To date, this initiative has raised $45,000. Let us accept this challenge. I invite everyone to visit the website, ledéfi25.com, and make a donation.

158 words

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Mar/10/23 11:04:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, representatives of Open Doors Canada came to Parliament Hill this week to highlight the 2023 World Watch List of the 50 most dangerous countries in which to live as a Christian. More than 360 million Christians around the world are suffering high levels of persecution and discrimination. Last year, 5,621 Christians were killed for faith-related reasons. An additional 4,542 were detained without a trial, arrested, sentenced and imprisoned. Christians are not the only ones who face persecution. Ahmadiyya Muslims in Bangladesh have also seen a recent increase in violence against their community, with homes torched and people killed: two dead and 100 injured, according to March 3 reports. I call on all members of this House to recognize that freedom of religion and belief is a fundamental right, not just here in Canada but around the world.

142 words