44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will ask forgiveness again from my colleagues in the House and those who are watching. I have asthma, and the smoke is killing me today.
It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Bill C-33. As many of my colleagues know, I spent a lifetime in the transportation industry prior to being elected, doing everything from owning and operating a small ground-handling business to serving in various management and executive roles in the airline and airport side of the industry. I spent a lifetime in promotion of our country's opportunities. I know a little bit about ports, airports and supply chain logistics.
I spent a lifetime in pursuit of our national, provincial and regional opportunities, including tourism, air service development, supply chain logistics, and the safe and secure transport of our goods to market. It is through the lens of these experiences that I stand here today to offer some comments on Bill C-33 and not only the failures I see in this bill but also the failure of the government after the last eight years. It is a failure to realize the key opportunities that Canada has in our logistics, our geographic positioning in the world, our ports and airports.
Canada's transportation industry has long been a pillar of our nation's economy. It connects people, businesses and communities from coast to coast to coast. Simply put, it connects Canada to the world. We are, after all, a trading nation. Our success as a nation is predicated on our ability to get the goods we produce to market, our ability to seamlessly move the products and services we produce, facilitating safe and secure transport, and seamlessly accessing our country, to and from our communities.
From 1903, when Wilfrid Laurier launched our national railway from Winnipeg to Prince Rupert, the freight rail sector of Canada's economy has been the backbone, moving more than 320 billion dollars' worth of goods annually from coast to coast to coast.
Canada's national railway is the only transcontinental railway in North America. It connects three coasts, those of the Atlantic, the Pacific and the Gulf of Mexico. Almost all sectors of Canadian economy are served by its freight trains, including manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources, wholesale and retail. In recent years, we have seen the fragility of our supply chain and our transportation network.
Railways are a vital mode of transporting goods within Canada and to our international markets. They provide a cost-effective and efficient way of transporting bulk commodities such as minerals, grains, forest products and manufactured goods. The reliable and extensive rail network supports the competitiveness of Canadian industries and facilitates international trade.
The railway industry directly employs a significant number of Canadians. It encompasses a diverse range of jobs, including train operators, engineers, conductors, maintenance workers, administrative staff and more. We must always ensure that those workers, those Canadians who are on the front line, whether it is in our ports, railways or our airports, are always safe and secure. This bill does nothing. It does not go far enough to ensure that. Additionally, the railway sector indirectly supports employment in related industries such as manufacturing, logistics and supply chain management.
Railways enable industries to access raw materials, transport finished goods and connect markets. The efficient movement of goods by rail contributes to cost savings, supply chain optimization and business competitiveness. In the last eight years, Canada has taken a step back in our global competitiveness. Why is that? It is because, in our previous Conservative government, we had a government that understood what Canada had, the opportunities that we had. It invested in trade agreements, bilaterals, with other countries, and it invested heavily in our ports and airports.
We had a strategy. We had a game plan on how we were going to capture the world and connect to the world. One example is the Asia-Pacific gateway program, where the former Conservative government invested a billion dollars in our ports; our airports; our roadways, working with our provincial governments; and our railway system. I will be the first to say we did not go far enough, but we had a plan to continue putting Canada on the map. When I look at the list of the top 60 ports, I see that I have toured almost every one of them. I stood there, whether it was in Antwerp or whether it was in Rotterdam, and saw the efficiencies. I dreamt that, one day, and I have always said this, if Canada ever figured out what we wanted to be when we grew up, we could flip this world on its ear.
Canada could be what Rotterdam is to the EU. We could do that here, whether it is connecting our ports to our airports or connecting our ports to our railways and our roadways. I have not heard anybody in this debate talk about the intermodality of our network, our supply chain and our transportation network. If we are catching fish off the coast of Prince Rupert and transporting them by truck to rail and then onto an airplane and just, in the same day, catch that day service in Asia, we have those opportunities.
The world needs more Canada. It wants more of the products we have, but we continue to fail. In the last eight years, we have seen a government that has allowed rail blockages and has allowed labour disruptions to continue, and that sends a message, not only to our competitors but also to our customers, that Canada is not open for business. Bill C-33 would not address any of that.
We have talked about the congestion being experienced in our ports and our airports, whether it is warehousing that we cannot get or is backed up, staff disruptions or employee disruptions, labour disruptions or rail capacity.
If members will indulge me, I would like to share a letter I received this morning. It is from one of my constituents, who owns a lumber mill. I have been very vocal about championing our softwood lumber industry. Time and again, our rail service, or lack of rail service, in this country is failing our softwood lumber or forestry industry. Simply put, it cannot get rail cars. What happens? The products, worth millions upon millions of dollars, sit in the yard.
The letter suggests that, if people in federal and provincial governments care about the forest industry and its remaining companies, then urgent action on the lack of CN service is required. If action isn't taken, the permanent closures seen thus far in 2023 will continue. My constituent says that if forest products cannot be shipped to market weekly, especially because the market is a difficult one, the industry will not survive. Companies will have to close, or perhaps move to the southern U.S., where they will not have to deal with CN's terrible service. According to the letter, nobody in government, federal or provincial, has yet had the courage to take on, never mind fix, the problem of CN's lack of service to the forestry industry, which has been a serious one since 2014. This person says that the industry has been begging for help, to no avail, and that they are extremely disappointed and unimpressed. They feel that the farming industry has been treated with more importance, with the passage of legislation and a considerable improvement in the level of services.
I put that into the record because I have met with the current Minister of Transport. I have met with his predecessor and I have met with their predecessor.
From the day that I was elected, I have continued to raise these issues. I have raised them with the minister who can actually do something about it, and I have raised it with the company, repeatedly. There are mills, not only in my riding but also in ridings in western Canada, that are closing because we cannot get our products to market. Do not even get me started on the fact that the government, after eight years, cannot secure a softwood lumber agreement, but our forestry producers are facing unbelievable tariffs and penalties on top of not being able to get their product to market. They cannot get rail cars. Why is that? It is because of our rail capacity.
We had a former government that invested in twinning highways, putting overpasses in so we could move goods on longer loads and twinning railways so we could have double-stacked rail cars going through. We had a former Conservative government that invested in land terminals so that if there were land constraints at the port, goods could move inland, like in Prince George, where I am from. It has CN Worldwide Distribution Services right there. It has a large yard where the cars are interchanged. Not only that, but it invested in airports. The airport in Prince George has the third-longest runway in Canada. It can handle the largest aircraft and can compete with any airport in terms of handling cargo. Straight through my riding, I was on the world stage in the promotion of the Port of Prince Rupert and the Port of Vancouver. The Port of Prince Rupert is the fastest and greenest route to Asia in North America. It has the deepest open-water port. It connects to the fastest and greenest rail network into the U.S. Midwest.
We have so much opportunity, and the current government just does not see it. I do not know whether the Liberals do not see it or just do not want to act on it. It is not like we are not telling them this. They stand there and promise they are going to do better. There is lots of talk about prorogation. Perhaps we will go into an early election if the speNDP and Liberal coalition breaks. I would assume that there will be some big announcements about what the Liberals are going to do again if they get elected. If they get elected, what are they going to do? They will probably not follow through with their promises, which is what we have seen time and time again.
The maintenance, expansion and improvement of the railway infrastructure requires significant investments. These investments create jobs during the construction phase. They contribute to the economic activity of our communities. Furthermore, ongoing infrastructure development helps enhance capacity and efficiency of the rail network, leading to increased productivity and economic benefits, not only for the communities that they serve, but also all across our nation. Again, I will go back. It puts Canada on the map. It gives us another opportunity for economic success and prosperity. We have not seen that with these guys.
I heard the member for Winnipeg North say that, under their government, the Liberals invested in CentrePort or they started CentrePort. That was not done by the Liberals. I was on the front lines with CentrePort from the very beginning. It is an incredible port that was started by a Conservative government with considerable dollars for marketing and efforts and investment in terminals with the project. Again, intermodality would bring the products into CentrePort, and it could ship them into the U.S. Midwest as well by air, by truck or by rail. These are things that I have not heard anybody talk about in this.
I do not have the benefit of sitting on the transport committee. I would love to do it someday, maybe. I know we are back and we have capable people who work on that file. Our shadow minister is incredible. The whole transport team is incredible, and I know that it raised these issues within the committee.
It is just frustrating when we see a bill, like Bill C-33, that is probably well intentioned, but did the Liberals listen to the stakeholders who were there? They did not. Time and again, whether it is this bill or a Fisheries Act bill when I had that file, they say that they do consultations, but they do not.
Our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands brings up good points. It is frustrating that we just spent the whole day talking about climate change. Canada's transportation network is among the greenest in the world. It gets our products to market. It supports good-paying jobs. It allows Canada's products, whether they are tech products, agriculture products or natural resources products, to get to market so we can benefit the world.
As I said early, the world needs more Canada and we have great producers right here, but they struggle with getting their products to market. Why? It is because we failed them. More specifically, the government has failed them over the last eight years.
As I said, we have spent a great deal of time talking about climate change in relation to the Bloc opposition day. Rail transportation is generally considered more environmentally friendly compared to other modes of transport, such as road or air.
One day, someone spoke to me about the rail system and the train going through their community all the time. I asked whether they would rather see the chemicals on that train be in trucks going through their community or would they rather see it on rail. Rail gets chemicals off the roads onto an area that is less inhabited, with less contact with the public and the community.
We cannot look beyond Lac-Mégantic. We never want to see one of those disasters again. Bill C-33 does not address the challenges that we see. We only need to look as far south to our friends to the south to try to make things better. When we make things better in terms of the safe and secure transport of goods and people, the world is our oyster. Canada can be whatever it wants to be. It sends a message to the world that we are open for business.
I remember going up in an elevator with the CEO of the Seattle port authority. She was a very nice lady. She saw my badge that said where I was from. She said, “You are from Canada.” I said I was. She said, “You are causing a lot of people in our business headaches.” I asked her why that was. She said, “We do not want Canada to become competitive.”
Our border communities, whether by road or by rail, lose so much leakage to our U.S. counterparts, our friends. Why? It is because its airports are more efficient. Its policy regarding airlines and ticketing is more efficient and cheaper. Its ports are also more efficient.
Whether it is goods or people, there is so much leakage transborder that we are losing that Canada could capture by just reinvesting and rethinking what we want to be when we grow up. We should start with our transportation network and have a real ports and airports strategy.
We can look to the south to see what the U.S. does when it invests in its airports and ports. It gives authority to those running the airports. It gives opportunities to the public and the producers, whether they are shipping or producing goods, whether the public want to go to and from, and visit friends and travel abroad, Canada has failed.
I cannot speak enough about the uncharacteristically high number of delays and cancellations seen within our aviation industry in recent months. It is not enough for our airlines and airports to sit there and point fingers at one another and assign blame. We have to do something about it. Only a government that is intent on making things better and actually helping our transportation ecosystem to realize its potential can do that.
At that time, we can move our goods to market, move our culture, share our culture, our people and our goods, and really make sure that Canada finds its place in the world market.
2690 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing a bit of a theme tonight, whether it is will Bill C-35 or Bill C-33. It is “let us do nothing”.
I have not heard a lot of opposition to what is in the bill. Generally, I am hearing that there should be other things in the bill; there should be additional stuff. That is sad to see. The opposition's purpose is supposed to be to hold the government to account, but it is seems like they will oppose anything for any reason, not valid reasons, because right now they just say that more needs to be done. I hear the member on that, but what is in this bill is good stuff. It is a step forward, and I urge the member to support this piece of legislation.
I also heard the member complaining that the legislation does not address labour disputes at the ports, and I want to understand that better. Is the member trying to imply that he would prefer to intervene with collective bargaining and the ability of unions to do that? Is that what the member is saying? I ask because oftentimes Conservatives say they stand for the little guy.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:54:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, well, my hon. colleague can sure read that question well from the lobby. I applaud her for that. Clearly she was only listening to what she wanted to hear. She did not listen to my entire speech.
The bill fails in all aspects. There is not enough there. As I said, even the stakeholders are saying that it is a nothing bill; it is a nothing burger. That is from the stakeholders, the people who have skin in the game, not somebody who sits here in the House or a bureaucrat who has no skin in the game and is not doing anything about it. These are producers who have real issues, and if we fail them, they lose their livelihoods.
I talked about the bill not going far enough in terms of safety and security and the secure transport of our goods and people. I talked about it not doing anything about the intermodality of our systems.
There is so much the bill could have done. However, they always say, “Well, it is good enough. Work with us and perhaps we will get this in place down the road. We just need to get it done.” I fail to see the reasoning in that. The bill does not do enough. It does not protect workers in terms of the safe and secure transport of goods, nor those who are working on our front lines.
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 10:56:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend from Cariboo—Prince George, I give my deep sympathies for the struggle he is going through tonight. He has had more than his fair share of health problems in the last year, and this does not seem fair.
To his point about access to rail and the farmers who cannot get the railcars needed to ship grain to port, the question for me is this: How is this a problem of over-regulation? This is a problem of greed at the corporate level by CN and CP.
I swear to God that these guys seem to be surprised every year by the fact that, in the fall, suddenly there is grain to ship. I think they should see it coming by now. It is rather a seasonal event and quite predictable, yet they lay off their workers and use the cars for other things, and then in the fall, surprise, surprise, grain farmers cannot get their goods to market.
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
