44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 8:30:27 p.m.
- Watch
I will give the member for Hamilton Centre a chance to ask a question.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville 10 to 15 seconds to answer.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
It being 8:30 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 6, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was a fine question, but the truth of the matter is that it is not either-or; it is both-and. We are in favour of continuing on with the commitment, and it is time the member realizes there is a role in this country for small business, and women are really good at it. In our rural scenarios, it is a very good way to provide care, which this program would not do.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:16 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, 2022, the division stands deferred until Monday, June 12, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I seek the consent of the House to share my time with the intrepid member for Jonquière.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:32:00 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the intrepid member for Jonquière just joked that I should have said no myself. I am going to run out of time for my speech.
On July 6, 2013, 47 people died as a result of a train derailment involving 72 tank cars carrying crude oil. This tragic event reminds us of the significant risks associated with this activity. The industry needs to be better regulated. With regard to this tragedy, I would like to refer to the work of Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny, author of the book Mégantic: une tragédie annoncée, published by Écosociété.
Ms. Saint-Cerny began her investigation by looking at the journey of William Ackman, the owner of Canadian Pacific, or CP, at the time. Mr. Ackman took over the railway company on May 17, 2012, as shareholders were outraged at their total return of 19%, while competitors got a return of 56% to 117%. Ackman hired Hunter Harrison, a former CEO of CN, Canadian National.
To increase profits, Harrison presented a four-point plan: increase the convoy, increase the speed, reduce maintenance and reduce the number of employees. Convoys would be five times heavier and longer, with a length far exceeding one kilometre. They would be 15% faster and 4,500 positions would be eliminated within six months. Saint-Cerny tells us that Harrison profited from the phenomenal increase in the transportation of petroleum products, which increased from 500 tank cars to 140,000 in 2013, with the use of block trains, that is long convoys of black oil tankers, the famous DOT-111 tank cars, which were obsolete and condemned by all safety agencies in the U.S. and in Canada.
Block trains reduce travel time by going directly from their point of origin to the destination, without stopping to load or unload cargo for various clients. To increase profitability, CP subcontracts its convoys to Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway, or MMA, whose network represents the shortest line between Montreal and the Irving refinery in Saint John, New Brunswick.
Ackman and Harrison do not care that MMA has the worst accident record in North America. On the contrary, they have nothing but admiration for its owner, Edward Burkhardt, who privatized railroads in New Zealand and Estonia. They admire him above all because he is the man behind the notorious one-person crew practice, which was a determining factor in the Mégantic disaster.
Harrison can brag that he really delivered the goods. As Saint-Cerny reports, 10 months after he started working for CP and two months before the tragedy, the company announced its largest profits in its 132-year history. Of the 25 largest listed companies in Canada, CP posted the best return to shareholders in 10 months, with a return of 26%. In 2016, Harrison was the highest-paid CEO in Canada.
Anne-Marie Saint-Cerny's other target is the federal government. She quotes the mission statement of the department responsible for railways, which says, “Transport Canada develops safety regulations and standards, or in the case of railways, it facilitates the development of rules by the rail industry”. She also pointed out that Transport Canada recognized, at the time, that the primary responsibility for safe operations rests with the industry. The quoted report then states that Transport Canada “can order the development of a rule or the amendment of an existing rule”. The real issue is when it says that the Railway Association of Canada, “in consultation with its member railways, would then draft the rule.”
In addition to writing its own rules, the company self-monitors and has its own policy for protecting assets the company administers or owns.
The Conservative transportation minister at the time, John Baird, who was responsible for this delegation of power, ensured Transport Canada's discretion by rendering the organization useless. While there were once 7,000 people overseeing transport safety in Canada, there were only 43 inspection positions at the time of the tragedy.
The title of Saint-Cerny's book, which can be translated as “Mégantic: a tragedy foretold”, says it all. The risk of such a tragedy happening was very high, both because of corporate greed and Ottawa's complacency. This summer will mark 10 years since the tragedy. It will be 10 years since 47 people lost their lives for bigger profits. It will be 10 years since hundreds of lives were changed forever because of Ottawa's lax attitude. It will be 10 years since the downtown core of this community was razed to the ground.
In 10 years, have things really changed? I would say that things evolve very slowly in Ottawa. Ten years later, we have Bill C‑33. It does not solve everything, but it is another step in the right direction. Obviously, we will vote in favour of the principle of the bill.
Furthermore, the Auditor General's recent audits, the Railway Safety Act review of 2018 and the studies done by the Standing Committee on Transport describe safety concerns with freight transportation. The bill responds to several recommendations of these reports, and we believe that many measures it contains will help improve railway safety.
In fact, during the 2017-18 review of the Railway Safety Act, I submitted a brief that pointed out some shortcomings. For example, I pointed out the following:
Gone are the days when trains essentially transported minerals, logs, grain or containers. This must be acknowledged....the current legal and regulatory framework is not suited to the sharp increase in the transportation of dangerous goods.
During its investigation of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the Transportation Safety Board revealed a number of serious deficiencies, both at the railway company and at Transport Canada: worn-out rail lines; fragile cars that were not suitable for carrying crude oil and that should have been decommissioned a long time ago; inadequate information on the content of the cars, making it very difficult for emergency services to do their work; a lack of coordination with local authorities; too few inspections; a lack of inspectors; a lack of follow-up; and too much confidence in the railway company's ability to police itself.
At the heart of the problem is the very architecture of the act and the self-regulatory regime it provides for. Protecting the public is the primary responsibility of the state. It cannot be passed down to a private company, which finds itself in a conflict of interest because lowering its costs means more profits.
It is not up to a private company to propose the security procedures it should be subject to or to verify whether it is in compliance. The act must be overhauled to ensure that the government fulfills the responsibilities it should never have delegated.
Here is another suggestion I made:
Rather than a simple update, your committee should recommend that the government propose, within the next two years, a complete overhaul of the Railway Safety Act, so as to put an end to the system of self-regulation by companies, and ensure that the government itself is responsible for establishing safety plans, ensuring compliance with them, and providing the internal human resources needed to fulfill these responsibilities.
This overhaul of the act should include a review of certain aspects of the Canada Transportation Act, even though the government committee's 2016 report did not propose any measures in that regard.
That was five years ago, but I am glad the government is finally moving in this direction. I also stressed the importance of better informing local authorities, in real time, of the arrival on their territory of rail convoys carrying hazardous materials. Some efforts have been made to that effect. Another point I raised was the need to reduce train speeds in densely populated areas, regardless of the size of the town, and to provide better support to municipalities in their emergency response.
On April 29 in Lac-Mégantic, there was a screening of the four-part documentary series Lac‑Mégantic. At that event, Gilbert Carette and Robert Bellefleur, members of the Coalition des citoyens et organismes engagés pour la sécurité ferroviaire de Lac‑Mégantic, recalled that years before July 6, 2013, residents spoke out against the industry, which was letting longer and heavier poorly maintained convoys carrying more crude oil, propane and other chemicals travel on worn rails. They said it was a conflict of interest that the safety inspections were being carried out by the companies themselves and approved by their own authorities.
Mr. Carette and Mr. Bellefleur are still calling for a public inquiry. While waiting for some light to be shed on this incident, while waiting for major changes to be made and for these problems to be corrected, we have here tonight Bill C‑33, which is a step in the right direction to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again.
1534 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:42:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the member is right to raise the issue of dangerous cargo and hazardous things that go through our municipalities and our cities. I very much recall what happened in Lac-Mégantic. Just a few weeks ago in the city of Winnipeg in my area, the CP tracks had some issues that caused McPhillips Street, a major thoroughfare that is travelled by 90,000-plus people, to be shut down. A lot of thought was given to what would have happened had the cars gone over and spilled onto the street itself, as opposed to just staying on the top level. There is a great deal of concern.
My question to the member is this. We have had a great deal of time. We have had lots of reports and recommendations now on the issue. I would like to know the member's thoughts on seeing this bill continue to progress through the House.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, obviously, the Bloc Québécois members support Bill C‑33, and we want it to go to committee so it can be properly studied.
Obviously, we feel it is taking a long time. This summer will mark 10 years since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Trains are getting longer and heavier. This is a self-regulating industry that is primarily concerned with serving its shareholders and turning a profit. That takes precedence over public safety and the public good, which are the government's responsibility. We are asking that this be corrected.
Bill C‑33 does this in part; it is a step in the right direction. Is it too little too late? Perhaps.
I want to reiterate that the citizens of Lac-Mégantic are still calling for a public inquiry into what led to this tragedy.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:44:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise with eagerness, because in my former life as a city councillor in a port town and in Hamilton Centre and with a home about 100 metres from a rail line, I had to continually fight the port, which wanted to put garbage incinerators into our community, and the rail lines, which I fought in order to get more transparency and more accountability around their shunting yards and around the piercing decibels of their operations in residential communities.
Given the tragedies that have happened in Quebec and given the local impacts in those communities, does the member agree that we should ensure that both rail and port works within our local communities should provide greater transparency, better communication and co-operation with local government, and accountability to the local communities where they operate?
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:45:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment, which was absolutely warranted.
I see the same thing in my riding, in the city of Joliette. Obviously, there is no port, but there are rail lines. In any of the federally regulated sectors, companies do not feel accountable to local elected officials, the ones closest to home, the ones who represent us best. They are the ones on the ground, the ones in touch with everyday life, and they have to fight tooth and nail for accountability and information.
A few years ago there was an incident involving a train transporting chemicals in Joliette. It was very difficult for the mayor, the fire chief and the police to get information. A lot of progress has been made, and there is more accountability now, but it is still difficult. We have to dig deep, change people's attitudes and recognize local elected officials for who they are: our primary representatives.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:46:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the train in the Lac-Mégantic tragedy was carrying oil. I do not know if all the cars were carrying oil, but that added to the gravity of the disaster.
Can my colleague comment on whether pipeline construction would be a safer option than transporting oil by train?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:46:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, transporting oil by rail is very risky. The problem with pipelines is that they do not replace rail transportation to the pipeline. They actually increase transportation capacity. Pipelines are therefore risky too and do not do away with rail transport. The overall risk goes up. That is very concerning.
The government must make the safety of its citizens its top priority.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Joliette for giving me such a fine introduction. If I had the misfortune to cough during his presentation, it is because my eloquence pales in comparison to his. I was somewhat nervous. I hope he will forgive me.
The Bloc Québécois is voting in favour of Bill C‑33 on the grounds that rail activities need to be constantly regulated and inspected. To begin, let us remember that Bill C‑33 seeks to modernize the different laws on railways, ports and transportation of goods. The provisions in Bill C‑33 follow the recommendations of the supply chain task force, which was formed in March 2022 by the Minister of Transport.
The task force's mandate was to study the recent supply chain disruptions, namely the COVID‑19 pandemic, climate change and floods in British Columbia. I would like to take a look, with my colleagues, at some of the task force's mandates and perhaps come back to a problem that currently exists in Quebec. The task force's mandate includes the following:
...examine pressing supply chain congestion and fluidity issues in the Canadian and global contexts [and assess] the range of impacts on Canada's economy, including on the volume and value of trade and the capacity of infrastructure assets to accommodate trends in flows;
[note] collaborative opportunities to support a resilient North American and global trade network and address congestion by accounting for actions taken or considered by like-minded countries;
[work] with experts and partners in the Canadian and global contexts to identify structural weaknesses, policy or regulatory impediments, and/or market power imbalances that impact competition in modal and multi-modal sectors;...
[and, finally, establish] areas of action/recommendations that could be directed to federal and other levels of government and industry, to reduce congestion and improve the fluid and predictable operation of transportation supply chains.
The task force's mandates highlight the importance of making our supply chain fluid. Many people in Quebec noted a problem that may be unique to Quebec: access to railcars. Access to railcars has become very difficult. That is what I heard from people in the forestry sector, especially people at Chantiers Chibougamau, who are going through a very tough time. Our thoughts are with them.
In case some of my colleagues get the opportunity to go to Chibougamau someday, I just want to mention that the glued-laminated timber structures made by Chantiers Chibougamau are really spectacular. Unfortunately, they cannot use CN cars because access is restricted. That is also the case for Resolute Forest Products and many businesses working in the forestry sector.
In the next few months, these people will emerge from a significant crisis. We are not talking about that today, which is okay given that we are focusing on our efforts to support the people who have been evacuated from their homes. However, once the fires are put out and we get back to normal, we will realize that a lot of very expensive equipment was destroyed by the fires, and this will weaken the forestry sector, which is already suffering because of the ongoing trade dispute with the United States.
If we add to that the recurring logistics problems that these people have getting access to railcars, then things get even more difficult for them. The problem of accessing railcars was pointed out some time ago. Logistics experts at Resolute Forest Products showed me the losses they incur by not having access to railcars.
I think that the panel's mandate mentioned this idea of fluidity, but, unfortunately, we are not quite there yet. Even though certain critiques have been formulated and certain problems have been identified, it must be said that the bill responds to several recommendations from the task force's report, and we believe that a number of the measures in the bill will help improve railway safety.
The Bloc Québécois welcomes the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion at ports, the creation of a monetary penalty regime for safety violations, the strengthening of safety management systems and the prohibition on damaging railway structures or interfering with railway operations. However, if the bill is referred to committee, the Bloc Québécois will ensure that the proposed measures do not place a disproportionate administrative burden on small ports such as the Port of Saguenay, which is thriving these days.
I would like to come back, as my colleague from Joliette did, to the specific case of Lac‑Mégantic. I am sure that everyone remembers where they were on July 6, that fateful day, when the train came tearing down the hill near Lac‑Mégantic at 1:15 in the morning and derailed. It exploded in the middle of the town. When members are not busy, in the evening perhaps, I recommend that they watch Alexis Durand-Brault's TV series, which is quite interesting, as well as Philippe Falardeau's documentary, which shows the full scope of the tragedy and the way it left many people forever scarred.
These permanent scars could have been avoided with a bypass addressing the criticisms of Lac‑Mégantic residents. Unfortunately, last February, Public Services and Procurement Canada tore up the agreements it had signed with 17 landowners in Lac-Mégantic, Nantes and Frontenac and decided to forcibly expropriate their property instead. The federal government decided to expropriate these 17 landowners, even though, I must point out, it had already come to mutual agreements. This option allows it to avoid having to take into account the challenge led by UPA de l'Estrie and the authorization required from Quebec's Commission de protection du territoire agricole, which must be decided by Quebec's administrative tribunal.
The approach taken by the government on this issue is quite simply appalling. It is a bit of a cowboy approach. The ink was not yet dry on the agreements it had just reached when it promptly turned around and reneged on them. This is consistent with how the federal government has handled the rail bypass file over the past 10 years, sometimes in a disrespectful, expeditious and, dare I say, inhumane and perfidious manner.
The people of Lac‑Mégantic have already suffered enough because of this tragedy. The federal government must not add insult to injury by expropriating them in spite of signed agreements. After dragging its feet on the bypass project for a decade, and with the 10th anniversary of the disaster right around the corner, Ottawa, with typical arrogance, prefers to push everyone else around to make up for lost time, rather than do the right thing. This is certainly not the way to win back the trust of the people of Lac‑Mégantic.
The Bloc Québécois asked the government to take note of the fact that Quebec has its own legal processes and decision-making bodies, and in no way should they be ignored or circumvented by the federal government on the bypass file. Our political party also wishes to point out the importance of the Lac‑Mégantic bypass, which is much more than an ordinary infrastructure project. Rather, it is a social healing project. Consequently, if the government wants it to succeed, it must act respectfully towards residents.
1248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:56:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the speaker before him, the member talked about the legislation in a relatively positive way. He was maybe questioning some of the timing of it. I think it is important for us to recognize that we have had a great deal of consultations and work that has been been done. We have had two reports dealing with different aspects of the legislation, which were commissioned back in 2017 and 2018. We have had a lot to deal with in regard to the supply chain, which we witnessed throughout the pandemic.
I think what we have today is good, solid legislation, and I understand the Bloc supports sending the legislation to committee. Does the member, or does the Bloc, have any sort of specific amendments they would like to see at this time that they would be prepared to share with the government in advance of the bill's potentially being sent to committee?
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:57:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would say there is still a bit of work to be done, especially on small ports. That was pointed out earlier. I think the committee will also have some issues to address, such as how hard it is for us to get certain railcars in Quebec.
If the goal is to make our supply chains more fluid, we cannot do so just for the oil and gas sector. We also have to do it for other economic sectors. Difficulty getting railcars seems common among forestry stakeholders.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:58:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that about a year ago, several CN workers were on strike. They were signal and communications workers. These workers deal with a lot of safety issues and were concerned about their own safety and the safety of their comrades. The fatigue that a lot of train operators talk about was one of their key concerns, and they went on strike to fight for it. They had to fight for their own safety.
I know that the national supply chain task force report from last year had six recommendations about worker safety. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities had four recommendations on safety. None of those are in this bill.
I would like to hear the member's response and reaction to that.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:59:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Joliette pointed out in his speech earlier, the Mégantic tragedy happened in part because there was only one train conductor.
I am sure the committee will do that work. It will have to hear from workers' representatives too. That awareness is important. I quite agree with my colleague.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
