SoVote

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/8/23 9:28:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. There have been various train accidents in rural Canada. In one accident in particular, in St-Lazare, Manitoba, about five or six years ago, rail cars tipped over and there was a little bit of leakage and spillage. The one thing that was really apparent was that there was no connectivity. It seems that when we hear about something that happens in, let us say, Winnipeg, everybody has cellphone connectivity and all the emergency services can actually cut in. I am wondering if the member could comment on that, and when it goes to committee, if we could keep an eye on that and see if we can get some language around that.

122 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/8/23 9:29:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. Our trains are running on the Ontario Northland route, coming through Temagami, running through some very rugged country. If they go over, it is an ecological disaster and we need a response immediately. These issues of being able to get the word out, of being able to make contact, are very important, and I think that these are things that we need to look at in the legislation, because Canada is a very large, rugged, isolated country where trains are travelling through some very rough terrain, and we need to make sure that we have all of the proper protections in place at every level, especially if we are dealing with a potential derailment.

121 words

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

Jun/8/23 9:29:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay for making a number of excellent points about this legislation. From my point of view, coming from another part of the country, one important part of this legislation that needs clarification is what it needs in terms of protecting the Salish Sea from the use of our area as free parking for freighters that are backed up out of the port of Vancouver. I am also very concerned about rail safety, very concerned about the appalling record of the privatized large freight-moving trains in this country and the callous disregard for worker safety. I would like to ask the hon. member to expand on that point.

121 words

Mr. Charlie Angus

Jun/8/23 9:30:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, I remember Bill Blaikie standing in the House and saying that if we allowed these corporations to self-police, workers would die. We have had 60 deaths over the last 20 years. That is appalling. Sixty deaths is absolutely unacceptable. In Lac-Mégantic, 47 people were incinerated, and nobody was ever really held accountable. That is not acceptable. We must do better. People's lives are worth more, and we have to stand up for them.

81 words

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

Jun/8/23 9:31:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what a pleasure it is to talk on what I believe very much is progressive legislation, and it shows in a very clear fashion—

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 9:31:31 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South is rising on a point of order.

15 words

Mr. Philip Lawrence

Jun/8/23 9:31:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would grant unanimous consent if the hon. member wanted to split his time.

16 words

Split

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/8/23 9:31:40 p.m.
Watch

I understand that this is silly time. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

16 words

Secretary

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 9:31:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Madam Speaker, in all honesty, I thought he was standing up to offer his time as an add-on to my time, and I would be more than happy to take his 10 or 20 minutes, or however long he was going to speak, because I have a number of thoughts on this bill. When we think about actions of a government, we see that this legislation is a very good example to not only contrast the Liberals with the Conservatives, which I will get into in a bit, but also to show how the government uses legislation to advance both the economic interests and the safety interests of Canadians at the same time. That is what I really like about Bill C-33. The Prime Minister, different members of cabinet or members of the Liberal caucus as a whole, whether inside or outside the chamber, will often try to emphasize that the government and the Liberal Party genuinely want to deliver an economy that works for all Canadians. From coast to coast to coast, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. This is the type of legislation that can really make a difference to that end. From the very beginning in 2015-2016, we have dealt with issues such as safety for Canadians and support for labour in legislation we brought forward. That is why it was somewhat interesting that the Conservatives seem to be opposed to this legislation. I understand they are going to be voting against it. When the legislation first came up for debate back in March, there were concerns expressed by the Conservative Party regarding labour disputes in our ports and how the legislation was going to deal with them. That sends up a few red flags, or blue flags, since they are Conservatives, to be fair. Ultimately, as a government, we believe in the open and free bargaining process. The Conservatives seem to be hinting that we can anticipate some amendments if the Conservatives allow the bill to go to committee. That is one of the reasons we have to bring in time allocation on legislation. Even if it is legislation that sometimes the Conservatives give the impression they are supporting, like the previous bill that we were debating, or legislation such as this, which the Conservatives do oppose, if we do not bring forward time allocation, we would not be able to get through the legislative agenda. This is where it is nice. They often talk about majorities and minorities. In the last federal election, we got a minority government, and that is true. We are happy to say that Canadians entrusted us with the largest number of seats. We continue to focus on serving Canadians, and we are very grateful that we get a higher sense of responsibility and co-operation from at least one opposition party, and at times a second opposition party, that enable us to bring forward and ultimately pass legislation, which is so critically important. Other members have talked about the benefits of Bill C-33 and what the legislation would do, which I will expand on shortly, but I want to set the stage by talking about how industries in Canada are one of the economic driving forces of our nation. First, we have to recognize that we are a trading nation. Goods need to be transported in all areas of our country, in our ports and our rail yards, and I would even go beyond that. As some members of this House will know, the growth of the trucking industry has been incredible. The area I represent, Winnipeg North, I would suggest, has the highest concentration in the province, and it is growing. In fact, the other day I was out on Eagle Drive, providing support for the trucking industry and opportunity for trucks to travel in a safer fashion. It was the first time I was able to see a semi that was electric, and it was kind of cool to sit in a semi and push the button and not hear anything. The industry, like other industries, recognizes the need for change. This legislation is important, because it would substantially change the way in which our supply chain will be serving Canadians, and it is important that we get it right. When we think of the ramifications on the supply chain if we do not get it right, they are actually quite severe. I remember when I was in the third party a number of years ago, back in 2013-14, and I stood up and raised the issue of grain. I was talking about the piles of grain in the fields in the Prairies, but in the Pacific Ocean just west of Vancouver, there were ships waiting to get into ports, and there was a backlog of farmers wanting to get their grain to market. I do not quite understand all of the technicalities of it, but I can tell members that there were people around the world who wanted our grain, as our producers produce the best grain the world, but we had a difficult time getting it from the fields into the ships, and it was at a substantial cost. Those supply chains, in many ways, contribute to feeding the world, to providing widgets and food products to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, so when we look at the legislation, it focuses attention on ports and trains. However, I would like to focus a little more broadly than that, by looking at my home province of Manitoba. We can talk about the history of CN, CP and other trains, but particularly CN and CP and the impact that has had on the city of Winnipeg, let alone the province of Manitoba. The southern boundary of Winnipeg North is at the CP tracks, which has provided thousands of jobs over the years and continues to provide good jobs for many residents of Winnipeg, particularly in Winnipeg North. When I was a child, the CN yards were out in Transcona, and Winnipeg would not be what it is today if it did not have those rail yards. In fact, I suspect if members went along Pandora, they would find that many of the homes built on that street were built with wood from CN, such as box carts and so forth. At the end of the day, when we advance a few decades, we will see that these hubs or rail yards have been able to survive through time, with a great deal of modifications, because of how the world evolves and the changes that were required. One could think of the environment, for example, and what is being carried on our trains. We could talk about the Port of Churchill in Manitoba, which this government has invested in a great deal, and not only with financial resources but effort. I think of Jim Carr, in particular, and my colleagues, the members for Saint Boniface—Saint Vital and Winnipeg South, who put in so much effort. I must also say that in Kildonan, former members of Parliament MaryAnn Mihychuk, Robert-Falcon Ouellette and I had discussions, talking about the important role that the Port of Churchill could have, not only today but into the future. Those are the types of things that give life to a community. We could take a look at the trucking industry component that I made reference to closer to the beginning, and how the trucking industry complements both trains, ports and the shipment of cargo, and the supply chain. The legislation talks about the ways in which we can ensure that the changes that have been taking place and the modernization that is taking place within the legislation that we are proposing will ensure that Canada's supply chains, services and products are in a better position to meet market demands, while at the same time providing assurances for public safety. When I think of the issue of safety, it was not that long ago, many Canadians will recall, that there was the Lac-Mégantic incident. It was a horrific situation, because of a derailment and the impact that it had on a wonderful community in the province of Quebec. No doubt it was a driving force in terms of a number of initiatives that were taken, including the rail safety action review that we initiated back in 2017. After doing some work and recognizing that tragedy, along with some other issues, we put together that rail safety review back in 2017. For people from Manitoba, particularly the city of Winnipeg, there was a very recent incident that put a bit of a scare into the community, with the Winnipeg overpass on McPhillips. I made reference to the CP line being my southern boundary. Below the underpass is McPhillips Street, a street that feeds 90,000 residents, most of whom are in Winnipeg North. Twelve railway cars were derailed. The derailment happened just before eight o'clock in the morning. Imagine what rush hour was like then. McPhillips is a very busy street. The best way I can describe the types of cars that were derailed is that they were like tankers, black tube tankers, a dozen of them. At least those were the ones that were actually visible, derailed. Fortunately, even though they were derailed and twisted up, none of them fell over the bridge. None of them actually tipped, which was a good thing. As I say, there were 90,000-plus people just going to the north, not to mention Winnipeg Centre just to the south. That street had to be closed down for a while as we had to deal with that derailment. There was a Transportation Safety Board team that came out to check it out. There were other groupings of individuals that checked the site for hazards. It turns out that it was carrying bitumen that was being used for asphalt. I say that because I am very proud of the fact that in the Prairies we have a lot of commodities. We want to ensure that those commodities get to market. We want to ensure that our railways and our tracks are going to be there, not only for today but well into the future. Often, before it gets to the tracks, we go further west, to the B.C. coast, whether it is Vancouver or other ports. They play an important role. It is not just out west. One of my colleagues was telling me about Saint John, New Brunswick. I understand there are hundreds of millions of dollars being invested in that area, which has yet another port that has trains being hooked up. I think of the importance of that port and how those authorities are ultimately managed. Through this legislation, we are providing more opportunity for those authorities to be able to cover a wider scope of areas of responsibility. We are ensuring that they are going to be able to make those ports more efficient. We are ensuring that there is going to be a higher sense of accountability and more transparency. We have to ensure that people have a sense of what is actually in the ports, in terms of what is in the trains. As has been pointed out, the speed of a train has a profound impact. We cannot afford to get this wrong, because of the economics and because of the safety of our communities. Over the last number of years, the government has signed more free trade agreements than any other government in the history of the nation. That is a true fact. That emphasizes the degree to which the world has confidence in what Canada manufactures and produces and the commodities that we have to offer. It spreads across the spectrum, not to mention all the things that are coming into our nation. We are a trading nation. When the Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation, I would suggest that this legislation would assist with that, and not only for today but also for tomorrow. As a government that is concerned about our infrastructure, not only are we, through budgets, supporting infrastructure, but one only needs to look at CentrePort. The Minister of Transport was in the city of Winnipeg, investing in CentrePort as a way to build a safer environment for rail movement. These investments in infrastructure that we have made, along with the legislation that we are bringing forward, protect our industries. They will ensure that our supply chains are healthier going forward. As long as we have a government, as we do, that continues to work at developing and investing in things like our infrastructure, Canada will continue to be a country that is envied around the world. I would suggest that these strategic hubs, wherever they might be in Canada from coast to coast to coast, are not only economic drivers for the communities in which they are located, but also a lifeline to all of us, no matter where we live. That is why I said at the very beginning that I am quite pleased to be able to talk about this legislation, because it shows in a very real way what a proactive government can do to make a difference in the lives of all Canadians by legislatively putting into place safeguards and by ensuring that these hubs of activity continue to develop and provide economic opportunity. As I said, we want an economy that works for all Canadians. That is something we will to continue to strive for.

2273 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Jun/8/23 9:51:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the very beginning of when the member started speaking, whenever that was. The member for Winnipeg North, I believe, made a novel argument that I have not heard in the House before when he spoke about the previous bill debated. We were providing critiques of the bill, and he said that we were prolonging debate unnecessarily. Since we agreed with the substance of the bill, we should stop debating. On this particular bill, when we are rising in the House to provide our perspectives from our ridings, and we oppose the bill, we should also not be debating the bill. I do not have a question. I just wanted to provide this as commentary. It is a novel argument that the opposition should simply cease to function, because we either oppose or like a bill; therefore, we should not debate it in the House, but just send everything to committee automatically. The government and the member seem to think that our role here is not to provide the views of our constituents in this chamber. However, that is the whole purpose of Parliament. I thought it was a novel argument. I just wanted to highlight that in the chamber.

207 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 9:52:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me highlight something for the member opposite. There are very few pieces of legislation that are more important to Canadians than the budget implementation bill. I want to read what the leader of the Conservative Party said in regard to the budget implementation bill. He said, “We have announced that we are going to use every parliamentary tool in our tool kit to block this disastrous, risky and inflationary budget from passing until the Prime Minister makes the commitment to balance the budget in order to bring down inflation and interest rates.... I will keep speaking and keep speaking and keep blocking...until the Prime Minister rises with a plan”. A few hours later, we passed it, but the point is that the Conservatives will use whatever tactics they can come up with to prevent legislation from passing, even legislation that I think they may end up voting in favour of. From the Conservative Party's perspective, it is a destructive force inside the House. With every piece of legislation, Conservatives try to prevent it from ultimately passing. If we did not have another opposition party that was prepared to assist us in getting legislation through, we would never be able to pass anything, including the budget. Ultimately, that would cause an election. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

223 words

Budget

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/8/23 9:54:10 p.m.
Watch

There is further discussion going on here. I just want to make sure we are done. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

25 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/8/23 9:54:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the back and forth is entertaining me, at any rate. I wanted to bring up something around the environmental disasters that we see happening time and time again. Interestingly enough, I met Linda Duncan, who was the member for Edmonton Strathcona before me, when we were both working on cleaning waterfowl that were impacted by a derailment right outside of Wabamun Lake, one hour west of Edmonton. Very dangerous chemicals were spilled into the lake. It was an ecological disaster. It is still causing a lot of challenges at Wabamun Lake. When I look at this bill, I know that some of the amendments or suggestions brought forward were not acted on in terms of making this safer or making sure that the emergency preparedness plans were in place. We know these things are happening. We know there are ecological and environmental disasters that last for a very long time, yet the government did not choose to accept some of the amendments that would have made it a safer bill. Could the member comment on that?

178 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 9:55:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that one of the ways in which we are able to advance legislation is by getting this support. It is often the New Democratic Party that provides this support. Even when, at times, it brings forward amendments, we will not necessarily support an amendment, for a wide variety of reasons. No doubt, they are very good reasons. However, it then means the NDP has to garner enough support from other political entities in the House. That is the advantage of a minority situation. I am very concerned. I think of a rail line and some of the dangers that are there, where it could be a spark from a train that causes a brush fire, especially when we think of what is taking place in our communities, particularly Nova Scotia, Quebec and Alberta, with all the wildfires. I am concerned about our water table, whether it is a lake or a river. That is one reason to ensure that we have legislation such as this, which provides more authority for the minister and ultimately provides more protection to Canadians and our environment. It might not answer all the questions coming forward, but it is a modernization. It would make a positive difference. We appreciate the support for the legislation, overall, that we receive from the NDP.

222 words

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

Jun/8/23 9:57:16 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-33, even if it is only in a question for the hon. parliamentary secretary. I have been waiting for this bill to come up for debate. It is a key and critical piece of legislation for people in my community, as I mentioned when I was asking a question of the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay. We have an incredibly frustrating, dangerous, environmentally damaging and constant situation of freighters that cannot get loaded properly in the Port of Vancouver because of inefficiencies there. They are backing up into the Salish Sea, where they take advantage of essentially free parking; this damages our ecosystems and ignores indigenous rights in the area. Therefore, I certainly will vote for this legislation to go to committee. I want to see amendments. It would, for the first time, say that the Minister of Transport could direct such vessels to move to other ports. However, as it is currently drafted, it is inadequate to really go where we need it to go to end the practice of anchorages being available to freighters, for free, to pollute our waters.

195 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 9:58:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, having had the opportunity to be with the Minister of Transport in the city of Winnipeg on several occasions, I really appreciate the degree to which he would be open to ideas and thoughts. If there are ways in which the legislation can be improved, I would suggest to the member that she does not necessarily have to wait until it goes to committee; she can share those thoughts with the minister well in advance. There is one thing that I would highlight for the member, as I am sure she is already aware, because it was in an answer that I first learned today during question period. The minister responsible for oceans indicated that, when we formed government, 1% of Canada's ocean waters were actually being protected. Today, it is just under 15%. That is almost a fifteenfold increase, and we are on target to having 25% protected by the year 2025 and, moving forward, ideally hitting 30% of Canada's coastal waters. Obviously, this government is genuinely concerned about our coastal waters and our environment. That is why we have seen such significant movement on the conservation of our ocean waters, which we are responsible for.

201 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/8/23 9:59:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am noticing this all started in 2017 with the review. At that time, I was still back with the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and there was an issue with private crossings. Through Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, there is the Yellowhead Highway. There is Highway 1, and then the Yellowhead route runs right through the riding. There are over 100 private crossings that just go into farmers' fields, pastures and stuff like that. In the act and in the review act, there was no language around private crossings in rural areas. I have to say, this is a typical Liberal play. I was absolutely quite aghast at how vacant it was and how they just got forgotten about altogether. We fought that. Actually, I am still fighting it now as an MP. I have had several farmers and, actually, elevator and grain companies come to me and ask how they are going to deal with this when they want to close a private crossing, or tell me they have a $200,000 bill for a pair of arms where they are only accessing their own property. Therefore, would this bill deal with private crossings in this review, or has there been any thought by the Liberal Party on this?

212 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/8/23 10:01:23 p.m.
Watch

I can always depend on the hon. member to keep speaking. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

17 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Jun/8/23 10:01:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is a good question. I do know that it has been talked about at great length. In the province of Manitoba, there are even individuals who have died this year as a result of rail crossings. I do not know the exact circumstances surrounding this, but I do know that these are tragic accidents. I do not have an analysis of which ones are private, which ones have the crossings and so forth. It would be an interesting thing for the committee to look at.

88 words

Mr. Dan Muys (Flamborough—Glanbrook, CPC)

Jun/8/23 10:02:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Langley—Aldergrove. It is always an honour to rise in the House, and today, to speak to Bill C-33, the strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act. That is just the short title. It is a bill that would amend seven existing acts of Parliament, but for a bill that does so, it would accomplish very little. Although I believe in the importance of improving the security of Canada’s transportation system and that urgent action is needed to fix our supply chain issues, this bill falls incredibly far short in achieving either of those goals. The reality is this bill is all optics and no results. It is typical Liberal legislation. It is a box-ticking exercise that creates the illusion that something is being done about a problem that the government has ignored for too long. We know that foresight, planning, operational excellence and managerial competence are not in the Liberal government’s wheelhouse. Actually, it is worse than that. This bill would increase red tape and regulatory burdens, forcing more costs to be downloaded to consumers. In these inflationary times, that is the last thing Canadians can afford. It would choke the tenants and users of our ports and stymie what should be a drive for efficiency and international competitiveness, while failing to address the root causes of the supply chain congestion. It fails to establish that decisions made by the ports must be in the best interests of the supply chain and the national economy. More government is not the answer. This is not looking to the best ports in the world, which are gateways to their continents and countries and are significant economic drivers for their regions. The Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, the country of my heritage, is the largest in Europe; it is the gateway to Europe, and it is hailed as the smartest port in the world. Rather than learning from experts and taking a serious look at what Canada could do differently, we are stuck at the bottom again. How is it that the Port of Vancouver, our main gateway to and from Asia, ranks 368th in efficiency out of 370 ports around the world? It is the third worst in the world. How did we get here? In 2017 and 2018, Transport Canada initiated two separate reviews with the goal of determining the necessary steps that would address supply chain issues and help avoid them in the future. That was five or six years ago. The best the Liberals could come up with is a bill that is a bunch of nothing. What a missed opportunity. What about the Liberals' own supply chain task force? Did they listen to the supply chain stakeholders and transportation experts they assembled? The world reached a supply chain crisis two years ago, and it was brewing before that. For a government that is good at convening, it convened. It brought together government and industry, logistics specialists, shippers, producers, transporters, manufacturers and more. They were good, smart people; let us give some credit for that. However, did the government listen to them? The task force even produced a fancy report with a colourful cover; it was called “Action. Collaboration. Transformation.” The title cleverly spelled out the acronym “ACT”, but it did not act. In its introductory line, the national supply chain task force report stated, “Canada’s transportation supply chain is nearing its breaking point.” How do we fix this? How could we “ACT”? What action could the government take now and into the future to fix it? On pages 34 and 35 of the report are meat of the answers. There are summary tables in a Gantt chart format that list 13 immediate response actions and eight long-term strategic actions. The minister welcomed this report with much fanfare. That was on October 6, which is over eight months ago. What has happened since? How many of those 13 immediate, meaning now, and eight strategic recommended actions does Bill C-33 address? Does it address a handful or any at all? The answer is zero. We are talking about shipping Canadian goods, our trade, the lifeblood of our economy. Eight months later, there are no immediate actions, none of which would actually be required to be legislated. How is it that none of those are done? Urgent action is needed to address the worsening supply chain congestion, but we also need to get to the root causes of supply chain congestion. The strategic recommendations would go a long way to, if members will pardon the pun, turn this ship around, but they are nowhere to be found in Bill C-33. How else is Bill C-33 flawed? I will go back to the red tape burden. There would be new reporting requirements that would reduce the efficiency, effectiveness and competitiveness of Canadian ports. They would be a particular burden on smaller ports, which cannot be ignored for their critical role in moving goods in the country, fuelling our trade corridors and driving economic activity. Where else does Bill C-33 fall down? It would not resolve the lack of financial flexibility our ports need. How do they compete with the best in the world and how do they modernize when they are prevented from accessing the private sector funds needed to make investments and grow? We visited as a transport committee the Port of St. John's, and it has a borrowing capacity of $4 million. That is effectively maybe one house in the greater Vancouver area, and maybe two in the GTA. It is a small amount. This is preventing the port from growing, and other ports are facing similar challenges. On rail safety, Bill C-33 would really only make modest changes that reflect existing practices. That is it. After all these years, there is nothing. What is a new offence for interfering and tampering with rail lines going to accomplish, when the police already have the authority to act on that? It is not a problem of authority; it is a lack of enforcement. The other changes to modernize our rail system that should have been considered in Bill C-33 are, again, a missed opportunity. One last point is that the bill would also give a tremendous amount of new power to the Minister of Transport. It would be more government and more red tape, and unfortunately, in the case of that minister, he is one who does not act quickly, if at all, as we saw in the holiday travel chaos in our airports in December and January. I am sure members can understand my skepticism. Canada's ports, airports and railways are a federal responsibility, and they are in an absolutely miserable state. A small but recent example of a Liberal government policy that is stymying our transportation corridors and supply chains is the rolling truck age program. For some unfathomable reason, authorities were looking to ban perfectly legal trucks from picking up cargo in the Port of Vancouver for the sin of being 12 years old or older, because trucks moving fewer goods is somehow going to help the congestion. The good news is that the pressure worked and the program was postponed for a third time until at least next year, and hopefully forever. Our ports need better than Bill C-33. Our railways need better; our shippers need better; our supply chains need better; our economy needs better; and Conservatives stand ready to deliver. Members can imagine a competent government that takes serious action on these burgeoning problems, removes the gatekeepers, gets our ports back on track and fixes our airports. If this bill is the best the government can come up with after eight years in office, it is time for it to step aside and let Conservatives fix the mess and unleash Canada's great potential for everyone.

1352 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209