SoVote

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

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 10:10:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when situations occurred, just like the member has mentioned, at the airports and when tragedies occurred, like Lac-Mégantic, I know that many of the Conservative Quebec members had called upon the government to increase safety and take on other measures. There were many calls from the opposition benches to do more, when it came to making sure that our airports, which are independently operated at this point, worked efficiently. I want to know from the member why his intention is to oppose this legislation, which would allow for more safety measures and would allow us to address some of the concerns the Conservatives propose.

109 words

Mr. Dan Muys

Jun/8/23 10:11:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member was not listening. None of the concerns she just raised would actually be addressed by Bill C-33. No one, other than my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, has actually spoken more about safety. I was on the transportation committee when we introduced the rail safety report that was referred to in debate. This piece of legislation was actually the first report as I joined the committee, and it had started in the previous Parliament. None of those recommendations have been acted upon in this legislation. The supply chain task force started in January 2022. It had a report on October 6, 2022, eight months ago, with 13 immediate recommendations, the first of which was to deal with port congestion. None of those have happened. It is a big failure of the government.

143 words

Mr. Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, NDP)

Jun/8/23 10:13:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-52

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member talk about red tape, and part of my fear when the Conservatives talk about less government and less red tape are the impacts that would have on occupational health and safety, the safety of the actual rails themselves. We will recall that in 2015, it was the Conservative government that passed Bill C-52, which also amended the Railway Safety Act. Clause 17 of that bill repealed the definition of “fatigue science” concerning railway safety management systems. Between 1993 and 2014, the Transportation Safety Board attributed 22 railway incidents to fatigue as a factor or a source of risk. That is an average of one incident per year. Between 2015 and 2017, seven incidents occurred. That is an average of 2.33 incidents a year. Since the removal of fatigue science in the Railway Safety Act, we have more than doubled Canada's incidents of fatigue-related accidents in the railway industry. Would my friend from Flamborough—Glanbrook, who I know to be a reasonable man, correct the mistake of the transport committee's recommendations to address worker fatigue and ensure that railway employee safety is part of Canada's Railway Safety Act?

202 words

Mr. Dan Muys

Jun/8/23 10:14:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, I agree that my colleague from Hamilton Centre and I have a good working relationship and have had many conversations, in fact, recently at the Hamilton port on the transport committee's tour. As I referred to in the answer to the previous question, the very first report that was done when I joined the transport committee was on rail safety, and fatigue management was an important part of that study. We heard from witnesses on that, yet none of those recommendations are reflected at all in Bill C-33, which has been pointed out by others in debate. What is added in terms of red tape are more officers, more advisory committees, stuff that is not going to actually address any of those root problems.

128 words

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

Jun/8/23 10:15:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer back to something that my colleague mentioned in his speech about the position of Canadian railroads and the ability of our ports in relation to all of the other ports in the world. He said we are number 368 out of 370, I believe are the numbers that he used. He can correct me if that is not correct. We have the ability to repair lines and that sort of thing, as we saw from the November disaster that took place in the Rocky Mountains that basically isolated the west coast with regard to railroad travel. It was fixed within a week or two. Can the member elaborate a little more on what he thinks are some of the solutions to problems that could have been put into Bill C-33 that might have been used to get us back at least a bit closer to the top rather than being right at the bottom of all the ports in the world?

168 words

Mr. Dan Muys

Jun/8/23 10:16:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I have referenced, there are 13 immediate recommendations and eight more longer-term actions of the supply chain task force that have so far been ignored. We heard about the borrowing capacity of ports as the transport committee toured all of our major ports throughout the middle of March. There are those two things, as well as a host of other things, and we could learn from the examples of places like Rotterdam, Antwerp and Seattle that do much better jobs than we do here.

88 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Jun/8/23 10:17:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are talking about Bill C-33, an act strengthening our ports and improving rail safety. One of the stated objectives of this bill is to improve supply chain disruptions, which are causing inflation. It looks like a very substantial bill, more than 100 pages long, and amends six or seven acts of this Parliament, but when we read through it we notice that it does not say very much at all. In fact, it does not do much at all in effectively tackling the many challenges that our ports and transportation infrastructures face today. I want to focus on the Port of Vancouver. My colleague has pointed out that its rating is not very good compared to other ports. It ranks roughly 380, or something like that, compared to the Port of Rotterdam, the land of his ancestry and mine as well, which is one of the most efficiently run ports, so it can be done. The Port of Vancouver is a very crowded piece of real estate, which is one of the reasons given why it is maybe not as efficient as some other ports. Of course, the Netherlands does not have a lot of land either, but it has still managed to use what it has very efficiently and effectively. Unfortunately, this legislation before us today does not really tackle the underlying basic problems regarding supply chain resiliency and efficiency. Every day my riding of Langley, which is very close to the Port of Vancouver, just a 45-minute drive, experiences the presence of the Port of Vancouver with so many trains coming through. It is the main line of the CP, and the CN runs through it as well. There are trains coming in with empty container cars, and trains with full containers heading out to the rest of Canada and down into the United States. CN and CP have been good, responsible corporate citizens. They have partnered with the Port of Vancouver in the last decade or so to build some overpasses so that traffic can keep flowing more or less smoothly. I say more or less, because it is not perfect. There is always room for improvement. If anybody from CP, CN or the port authority is listening right now to this speech at this hour of the night, they will know what I am talking about. Although we are very grateful for the overpasses, they would have been better placed at 200 Street, at the Fraser Highway crossing, close to the Langley bypass, to 216 Street, close to the new interchange with the freeway, so there is still work to be done. There needs to be improvement. That brings me to another local issue. Roberts Bank is going to be expanded. To give a bit of background, the Port of Vancouver is the largest port in Canada by volume shipped. As a matter of fact, it is as big as all the Canadian ports put together, and we are going to expand it. When I say it is the biggest, it is the amalgamation of three ports some years ago, the Port of Vancouver, the Fraser port, which has ports on the New Westminster side and the Surrey side, and also Roberts Bank, which is in the city of Delta. Roberts Bank is now going to be expanded. The port itself is an artificial island that was built in the Strait of Georgia, which we nowadays call the Salish Sea. It is a big island. There is a causeway that goes up to it with a highway on it and a couple of railroads. It is going to be expanded, I am not sure by how much, but it is a very significant infrastructure project. That brings me back to Langley. With all these trains coming through, the traffic is going to increase, so if somebody from CP, CN or the Port of Vancouver is listening, we are going to be looking for some more overpasses just to make sure Langley keeps on functioning while the port expands. We are talking about Bill C-33, which comes on the heels of the Final Report of The National Supply Chain Task Force 2022, commissioned by the Minister of Transport. I will read a quote from it, which states: A recurring theme in the report is the struggle of both government and industry to cope with uncertainties arising due to critical factors such as rapidly changing trade patterns, human- and climate-caused disruptions, shifting geopolitical risk, and increased consolidation in major transportation modes. As a medium-sized player in the global market, Canada is finding it difficult to overcome these challenges.... That is the introduction to the report. The authors of the report dig deeper, and my friend has already raised some of the immediate actions that were called for, but I am going to take a look at some of the longer-term ones. Recommendation 11 is to establish a supply chain office because the authors know that supply chain disruptions are one of the biggest problems we are facing. Unfortunately, the bill would not do much about that. I was at a round table with stakeholders talking about this report, and they were are all operators: marine operators, train operators from CP, etc. The port authority was there too, of course. One of the main concerns was bureaucracy upon bureaucracy upon more bureaucracy. They are looking for efficiencies. These people know how to do their business. They are asking government to please deregulate to allow private enterprise to make things more efficient. There were a couple of other things they mentioned, and I think this is really important to understand as well. They said to immediately address the significant transportation supply chain labour shortages in Canada. Now, when I talked to employers, and not just those in transportation, any employer, they tell me that one of the biggest challenges is that there are not enough people. I attended a meeting of the Western Canadian Shippers’ Coalition and its representatives told me that there are not enough people, not enough trains, not enough truck drivers, not enough people working on trains, not enough people repairing tracks and not enough people repairing trains. These are the fundamental issues that our transportation system and our ports are facing today. Unfortunately, this report does not get into that sufficiently. A couple of weeks ago, I went with the transportation committee, and I am not on that committee, but I tagged along with its members to the port of Prince Rupert. It is the third-biggest port in Canada after Vancouver and Montreal. It will soon become the second biggest port because it has huge expansion plans, and I applaud that. I think that is a fantastic idea. It is actually closer to the major Asian ports and hours by rail to Chicago. It is as quick to get to Chicago from the port of Prince Rupert as it is from Vancouver. I really applaud the expansion of that port. It has room and can build much more efficiently. To sum up, there are a lot of problems today in our transportation system and in our ports, and Bill C-33 would not do enough. I think the bill needs a major rethink. We will be voting against it. Of course, we are in favour of all the things that the minister said the bill was going to do, but we are saying that the bill would not do them. Bill C-33 needs a major rethink, and it needs to go back to the drawing board. The people who drafted this legislation need to understand what the real issues are. I have an amendment to present, which is being seconded by my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook. I move: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House declines to give second reading to 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, since the bill fails to improve supply chain efficiencies, address rail service reliability, improve labour relations, and weakens the ports’ ability to fulfill their mandate with an Ottawa knows best approach.

1412 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/8/23 10:27:34 p.m.
Watch

The amendment is in order. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

20 words

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

Jun/8/23 10:28:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to drill down on something that is a widespread assumption without evidence, which is that the private sector is more efficient. I have been tracking what happened to my riding with the backup of freighters, as many as 27 at a time, all up the coast of Vancouver Island, all the way up to Ladysmith and Gabriola. It is very inefficient. Everyone loses. The grain shippers lose. The grain farmers lose, and people in my community lose. It did not use to be so bad. Members would never guess the law of unintended consequences at work here. What was the thing that changed, that made the shipment of grain so very inefficient? It was getting rid of the Canada Wheat Board. We did not know, at the time we were debating getting rid of the Canada Wheat Board, that one of the consequences would be that shipping grain would become a gong show. The Wheat Board used to organize the shipment of grains. Multiple farmers used to have the rails ready to go, and the grain was shipped more efficiently. Now we have a privatized system, and what is left of the Wheat Board is owned by Saudi Arabia.

203 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/8/23 10:30:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I are just going to have to fundamentally disagree on that. If members talk to grain farmers in the Prairies, and I am surrounded by a number of them, they had a bumper crop, and the problem was getting the grain to port. There are not enough trains, not enough people working on trains and not enough railroad capacity. These are the problems, and this is what needs to be addressed. The government needs to get out of the way to allow private enterprise to solve the problem. It will do it.

102 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 10:30:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it just shocks me because all day we listen to complaints from the Conservative Party about what more the government should do, and then we hear that the government should get out of the way. I feel like the Conservatives contradict themselves all the time. I would like to have a more in-depth explanation from the member of the amendment he has proposed.

66 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/8/23 10:31:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, the motion is pretty self-explanatory. I do not know what more I could say in depth. We think that Bill C-33, as well-intentioned as it is, just does not do enough. It needs a major rethink. The people who drafted it need to go back and read this report, which I was just referencing, and the very good, well-written reports coming out of the transportation committee.

72 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/8/23 10:31:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I understand there are lots of other issues with this bill and wanting to change some things within committee is key. One of the things I am concerned about is the safety of workers not being accounted for within this piece of legislation. About a year ago, I was talking to folks from IBEW, workers on CN, who put their very jobs on the line because they were so concerned with the safety of their work on the rail line. The national supply chain task force talked about rail safety for workers, the exhaustion levels they face and the fatigue. They made recommendations that are not in this bill. The transportation committee made several recommendations that are not in this bill. Could the member talk about the workers' safety and the importance of that? I would really love to hear his thoughts on that.

146 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta

Jun/8/23 10:32:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am in full agreement. Worker safety is number one. Safety is always number one for any company, and I applaud any company that has a good safety record. This bill does not do enough. As I said, it needs a major rethink. It needs to go back to the drawing board. That is one of the issues that needs to be addressed.

65 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209