SoVote

Jun/8/23 11:33:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. There used to be a legion hall in my riding, not too far from my constituency office. Unfortunately, it closed down many years ago. For the longest time, although I have the second-largest riding by population size in Canada and the largest riding in Calgary, it did not even have a high school in it. It just so happens that I represent a very large area of many suburbs in Calgary, including old suburbs, places like Erin Woods and Ogden and Dover, as well. I will come to his riding if he invites me.

101 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Jun/8/23 11:34:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have such a lively audience here tonight in the chamber just past 11:30 p.m. It is fantastic to have a lively House of Commons. I really appreciate it. We are here to talk about strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada act, Bill C-33. This bill is important to me. The reason is that Saskatchewan, the province where I am from, is completely landlocked. We need our ports. We need railway access. Those are two hugely important fundamentals to the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, in 2022, had over $81 billion in gross domestic product for this country. That is a fantastic output and a fantastic number. Saskatchewan does a fantastic job. It definitely punches above its weight, especially for a province that has roughly 1.2 million people. We do a great job. Obviously, agriculture and the energy sector are the main drivers of the economy where I am from. I want to talk more about the agriculture side. In Saskatchewan, particularly southwest Saskatchewan, where I am from, we grow the vast majority of the pulse crops that the world relies upon, particularly the lentil crop. It is exported all over the world. Whether someone is growing organic crops or otherwise, we grow what the world wants and what the world needs. The only way we can get those lentils around the world to all the countries that have such a high demand for them and for the protein they provide is through rail. When I look through this bill, I see it is trying to do some things around safety. It is trying to do some very important things around modernizing our ports. It is trying to strengthen our ports. If we look at where our ports rank across the world, we see that we are right at the bottom. I am sure my colleague from Provencher, with whom I will be splitting my time, will want to touch on that later, so I will be sure to leave a few points for him to get to as well. Access to ports and access to rail are so important. We have CN, we have CP and we have some really fantastic short-line rail operators. Our short-line operators are actually leading the charge on safety in the railway system. In fact, one of the owners of one of the railway companies reached out to me recently to send me an email regarding some of the statistics that the short-line operators have in Saskatchewan around safety. There are zero incidents, month over month. There are zero incidents. They are running a high-quality rail line, taking care of their employees, providing great jobs and providing a service to the farmers, the producers and the shippers in Saskatchewan, and they are doing so while respecting the safety of the workers and providing high-quality service. That is what they are doing. The email I got was from the Great Sandhills Railway. Our Saskatchewan caucus recently met with Great Western Rail, another fantastic short-line operator in our region that does a fantastic job of providing that service to farmers. It does so safely, while providing the fantastic jobs that are required to be able to meet that demand. I was just messaging one of the exporters in my riding. They export farm equipment around the world. They export to 28 countries across the world. It is a farm implement dealership in a small town in Saskatchewan. It ships to 28 countries. How does it do that? It ships through the ports in Halifax, Montreal, Vancouver and, I believe, Prince Rupert. Earlier today I heard my colleague from British Columbia talking about what the port of Prince Rupert actually means. It is the closest port to the Asian markets. The ports in Halifax and Montreal are some of the ports in North America that are closest to the European markets. They are very important access points. One of the issues that they are dealing with in Vancouver is that it takes 12 days to get a container through. Montreal is closer to 10 days, and in Halifax, it takes 14 days to get a container through. Sometimes they are waiting over a month to even get a container. Trying to get access to the things they need to ship their products is not being addressed by this bill. There is mention in the bill about setting up advisory panels and empowering the minister to set up authorities to deal with a variety of issues. However, the one thing that is not included as one of the issues that they would deal with is the actual production of the ports and making sure that they are getting results for producers and shippers. The bill would not require rail companies to make sure that they are providing the fullest service to shippers. For example, CN does not do any business with Hapag-Lloyd. When we are sitting in Saskatchewan watching a train go past one of the many intersections that we have, we see Hapag-Lloyd's name on many containers. It is one of the more popular company names that we see going across Saskatchewan when we see sea cans going down the rail lines or on a flatbed truck, but CN does not deal with it. How is that going to work for exporters in a landlocked province trying to export products? They also have to import pieces so they can build the product they are trying to make and then export. However, one of the biggest players, CN does not even deal with it, and there are other companies CN does not deal with as well. This is severely limiting the options for people trying to export a product, but the bill does not deal with that. These advisory panels that the government is looking to set up would not deal with that. It is not a priority for this government. When we hear other colleagues talking about the bill needing to be withdrawn and strengthened, and that the government needs to do more, I would suggest that these are some of the things that need to be looked at in the bill. Why is it not a priority for the government to try to make sure that we get the best result for our exporters who do such a fantastic job? All across this country, we care about the environment, reducing emissions and reducing greenhouse gases. We do that all across this country and across party lines; everybody cares about that. We have innovators in the prairie provinces that make world-class products, and they do so in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. These are products that people in the rest of the world need. If they had the technology, if they had the products that our farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta have, they would be able to reduce their emissions as they harvest their crops in other regions of the world. They need what Canada has to offer, and without a robust port system, without a robust rail line, that cannot happen. I see that one of the advisory panels would actually deal with climate change, but do members think that it would bring this element of it up? No, not a chance. This will not be part of what the panel would talk about. My hope is that the government, if it is going to appoint these advisory panels, will actually talk to the shippers, exporters and manufacturing companies; the people who are trying to get their far superior products out to the world market. The government should talk to them when it is talking about how it is going to achieve some of the things that these boards are going to do. It should make sure that there are actually people in industry, who are involved in taking real and meaningful actions on these boards to make sure that we can actually get things done in a timely manner, to benefit our country and the rest of the world, and do so in a sustainable manner. That is the power that a robust rail line and port system could have in this country, because Canada has what the world needs and wants. We grow the products, we manufacture the goods and we export them. Some of those things have to get refined and brought back yet again, which is crazy; we could do much of that here in Canada. However, in order to do any of that, regardless of where we are at, we need a robust rail and shipping system, and we do not have that, but we could. We have had a trans-Canada rail line for over 100 years. It has been around for a very long time. It was a huge marvel to get that project done. However, we still have not reached the full potential that a valuable resource like that could have. We need to utilize it. The bill before us should be strengthening and building that up. It should be focused on lifting the entire country up so that we can use those ports, especially for landlocked provinces. We have not just what the world wants, but we have what our country needs, if we could even just get our goods out to the provinces and out to the edges. We have what is needed. I hope that the government will take these considerations to look at the bill and make a serious version of it so that we can actually accomplish what needs to be addressed.

1612 words

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 11:44:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me first take a moment to congratulate the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his earlier speech with respect to interoperability and the support that he had from his colleagues with respect to that private member's bill. As someone who spent 20 years of his life looking at copyright law, I think it is a great initiative and a great bill. Interoperability is critically important. When we took over government in 2015, we had a CETA and a TPP agreement that was dead in the water. At the time, I was parliamentary secretary for trade. We put work into reviving those two agreements, as well as signing a new North American Free Trade Agreement, given the new Trump administration at the time. Would the member not agree that those trade agreements, as well as the investments we are making in the Port of Vancouver now with this bill, are meant to precisely address the kinds of issues he spoke of, without presuming to know what the best solutions are for improving the rail system and for improving the port system? I think we all agree. We share his concern, and we agree that this is what has to be done. Would the member not agree that the bill would do precisely that by calling on experts to give us the best advice to improve the rail system and the port system as we move forward?

241 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/8/23 11:46:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in short, unfortunately the answer is no. My private member's bill, which deals with interoperability, could actually help deal with some of the issues in the rail line system. It is going to help pave the way to be able to do that, so we have some commonality there. When it comes to the trade agreements, my colleague from Abbotsford was somebody who negotiated a lot of those and got deals signed. Unfortunately, due to delays, maybe from some of the other countries and whatnot, the Conservatives did not get them fully implemented. Yes, the government finished some of those off, but it made some changes to them that we do not necessarily agree with. The big point about the Port of Vancouver in particular is that it is the third-worst port in the world. Prince Rupert is the ninth-worst port. These are ports that could have huge potential. They could be in the top 50 ports in the world with no problem. They could be, and they should be. The potential is there for them to be able to do that. I do not see anything in the 108 or 109 pages of this bill that would actually make sure that those ports go from being at the bottom of the pile to the top of the pile.

224 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Jun/8/23 11:47:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the ports that are close to our export markets. There are five ports in Canada, namely Prince Rupert, Vancouver, Saint John, Halifax and Montreal, that are licensed to take containers in. Recently, a number of us in Ontario toured a port in Picton where the owners have applied to be licensed to receive containers because it is closest to the city of Toronto, which is the largest market for our incoming containers. The owners have asked for no federal money. All they need is a licence. They are willing to pay for any CBSA costs required to clear containers, yet they are unable to achieve a licence. Bringing containers in closer to the city before moving from ship to rail reduces emissions and reduces transportation costs. Would my colleague not agree that this would be a logical, environmentally sound reason to offer a sixth port closest to our biggest market for incoming containers?

158 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/8/23 11:48:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is the common-sense approach that we want to see from a piece of legislation like this. As I mentioned in my speech, my hope is that, if the government follows through and sets up some of these advisory committees, it will not just stack them with activists but will actually stack them with people who are working on the ground, who have boots on the ground and are trying to find solutions for a positive change, not only in production but also for the environment and for our sustainability, and who would make sure that we get the best deal for Canadians going forward. They should also be trying to not only get those sea-cans shipped but also have them available to be used yet again for the next load, trying to get things done and dealt with in a timely manner. One of the problems we have is trying to get access to those cans so we can use them again and get products in. Then we could also send more products back out. What the member has proposed here would be a way to help speed that up and get a better result for Canadians.

207 words

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

Jun/8/23 11:49:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could the member expand a bit more on what impacts the transportation system had on the grain handling in 2013 and 2015 and how that impacted the farmers? That grain did not hit the marketplace in Vancouver until a year and a half later. Could the member comment on what negative impacts that had on farmers and on how this act would not react to that or solve those kinds of problems?

74 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Jun/8/23 11:50:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems at the end of the day is that it is always the producer who absorbs the costs. The shipper will pass the costs on to the handler, who passes them on to the producer, the farmer. Farmers are always price-takers; they cannot pass costs on to anybody. However, everybody always passes the buck and passes the dollar on, and it is the farmers and the producers who end up paying for it. When we saw those massive delays, the costs kept piling up, but who ended up paying more? It was the farmers. The quality of the grain that was being shipped was lessened; this was because of how much longer it took to get it somewhere so that it could be refined, dealt with and turned into the goods we need to consume. However, trying to get things dealt with in a timely manner is not addressed in this bill. Again, there are many upgrades that need to happen so that we can avoid catastrophes like what happened in 2013 and 2015.

181 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Jun/8/23 11:51:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-33 Bill C-21

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-33 this evening. My folks always taught me that nothing good happens after midnight, and I want to remind the handful of my colleagues who are still with us and the fewer still who are awake that is it is only 11:50 p.m. and we will be wrapped up by midnight. What better way to spend the waning minutes of our evening together than with another speech on legislation that the Liberal government has brought forward? This legislation was an opportunity. We have had two reviews: the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review. We had a chance, and we still do, actually, to do something about the issues at our ports. We have critical issues with our supply chains and border security. However, with this legislation, as with many other bills, the Liberal government has missed the point. It does not matter what the problem is; the Liberal government only seems to ever have two solutions. It only has two clubs in its bag. One is to spend more money and the other is to add more government, or a combination of both, actually; there is probably a third option. Rather than do what is best for Canadians and for businesses, the Liberal government always does what is best for itself. It seems that the best thing for the government is always more government, more power, more control. The bigger government gets, the more pervasive it gets and the hungrier it gets, until it desires to control every aspect of the economy, industry and people, and the very words we say and the very thoughts we think. It is this need to control that has led, at least in part, to the multiple crises we are facing today, including issues with our supply chains, railroads, ports and border security. Let us go back a couple of years. Governments across the country, including the Liberal government, put in many restrictions during COVID that shut our economy down. They rigged their economies so that wealthy Liberal insiders and big businesses were able to get richer. The big box stores could stay open while mom-and-pop businesses and local businesses across Canada were forced to shut their doors. They borrowed and printed hundreds of billions of dollars and pumped this new money into the economy, creating unnecessary debt and fuelling inflation, which is now resulting in higher interest rates and an affordability crisis. Through these policies, the government consolidated dependency on government and made government, rather than industry, the central driving force of our economy. Fast-forward to today, and the same disastrous economic policies, policies that the government continues to double down on, have led to crippling inflation, a cost of living crisis for Canadians and higher interest rates, and we are on the verge of a housing crisis. These same COVID-era policies have crippled our government's ability to execute and provide the most basic functions of government, and the same disastrous policies have pretty much destroyed our supply chains. This is a Canadian problem now, and it is a problem the Liberal government has created through its policies. Government has caused it. It has been perpetuated on us, and it will continue to be that way. As I said before, the government always seems to have two solutions, more money or more government, or a combination of the two. That brings us to Bill C-33. When I look at this legislation, a few words keep coming up in my mind. First is “government gatekeepers”, and the other words are “more red tape”. The legislation provides a lot of measures to make it easier for government to control things. What it does not do is make things work better, smoother, faster or more cost effectively, while still focusing on safety. Let us start off by looking at our ports. The legislation adds new layers of red tape and reporting requirements that will make us less efficient and less competitive. There is no great shock here, but smaller ports will be hit harder than the big ones. Whether it is mom-and-pop businesses during COVID or our ports, with the Liberal government, the little guy always gets whacked and loses out. The Liberal government has stacked the deck against the common folk, because it thinks Ottawa politicians and bureaucrats know better than the people on the ground. New regulations will add to the cost of doing business, which means businesses will have no choice but to pass on those costs to consumers who already cannot afford what they are paying now. Advisory committees and ministerial interference will mean that the ports have less of a say in their day-to-day operations and fewer opportunities to make operational changes that might actually make things more efficient. The people who know best are usually the people on the front lines. These are the ones who are most impacted by day-to-day operations and often have the best perspective. However, in the minister's plan, those who are tenants of the ports do not even have a seat at the table and have no representation on the advisory committee. In short, this bill fails to establish that decisions are made in the best interests of our economy and supply chains, choosing instead to keep our ports tangled up in red tape and confusion. Again there was the potential here, an opportunity for parliamentarians and stakeholders to work together. As for border enforcement, we are all for that. If it is about streamlining, making things run more smoothly and more cost effectively, Conservatives are all over that. If it is about getting cheaper goods, particularly food, to Canadians faster, where is the “yes” button? Instead, we see the government adding more gatekeepers. In the case of our ports and borders, the Liberal government adds more gatekeepers. The bill is a missed opportunity to provide for the certainty and clarity needed to modernize our ports and supply chains and, by extension, to ensure stability of prices and availability for Canadian consumers. I would like to shift gears briefly and talk about another aspect of the bill, and that is the provisions for rail safety. First of all, there is the hypocrisy of the government that went so far as to enact the Emergencies Act on a group of peaceful truckers who just wanted to be able to do their jobs. We can juxtapose that with 2020, when we had groups of individuals blockading our rail lines, setting them on fire and blocking ports, all in violation of a court order, and holding up a construction project that 20 elected first nation councils had approved, a project that should have brought 9,500 jobs, many of them to our indigenous people. Instead the protests cost Canadians 1,500 jobs and the government did nothing, absolutely nothing. The hypocrisy that it would now bring in a redundant new offence for tampering with rail lines is so disingenuous. This is not an authority problem; it is an enforcement problem. We have measures in the Criminal Code that deal with this exact subject. The police already have authority to lay charges in the case of all these rail blockades. They just needed to be able to do their jobs, but instead their political masters hamstrung them with laws that go after the wrong people, like Bill C-21, for example. The Liberals do not go after the gangs that bring in illegal guns; no, they go after farmers and law-abiding firearms owners. When it comes to taxes, Liberals do not go after the super-rich who are hiding their money in offshore tax havens; they go after the small business owners and then call them tax cheats. They are always going after the wrong people. Driven by their ideology, they go for what they think is the low-hanging fruit, the easy pickings, like law-abiding citizens, because public perception is more important to them than public safety. This is why any new enforcement measures included in this bill will ultimately fail: It will be because there is a lack of political will to enforce the existing laws. Whether it is the economy, our ports, supply chains or law enforcement, we do not need to spend more money and we do not need more government; we need government to get out of the way.

1422 words

Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)

Jun/8/23 11:59:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk in this House about crime. I know that my constituents have been greatly affected by the illegal exportation of vehicles overseas. This piece of legislation would amend the Customs Act and give more authority for the screening of containers. Right now, it seems like everyone wants a free-for-all, but when we get to question period, they all want us to do more in making sure that people are protected and that their vehicles are not stolen. There are some good objectives in this piece of legislation and there is a need for government to provide oversight when it comes to dangerous goods and stolen vehicles leaving our country. What would the member have to say about that?

127 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Jun/9/23 12:00:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, crime is certainly a problem. From my perspective, the Liberal government has not pursued crime as diligently as it should. Stolen vehicles are a real issue, and we currently have legislation in place that could deal with that. It is a matter of enforcement and empowering our law enforcement and CBSA officers to do the job that they have the ability to do. They just need to be given the direction to do it.

76 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Jun/9/23 12:01:33 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed this week what many have long suspected, which is that the carbon tax increased inflation. The bank has also been forced yet again to increase its key interest rate to 4.75% in an attempt to try to get a handle on inflation. The prime rate is now a staggering 6.95%, the highest it has been in over 20 years. If the financial markets are to be believed, analysts predict that the Bank of Canada will have to continue to increase interest rates. This is hurting Canadians. In previous questions, given the very real and tough financial situation Canadians are facing, I asked that the government consider temporarily lowering the proposed carbon taxes. However, instead of thoughtful deliberation, I am often met with a barrage of indignation about not caring about the environment. It is as if the only two positions available on the issue are these: I love and support the Liberal position, and, thus, I am clearly a person who cares about the environment. Otherwise, I do not blindly support the Liberal position, which apparently makes me an anti-science, right-wing loon stick. Mr. Speaker, give me a break. I care about the environment just as much as any Liberal does. However, I also care about Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet. I care about people not being able to buy a home in their lifetime and not having to wait 25 years before they can save enough for a down payment. I care that people are unable to put food on the table. More than a quarter of a million people visited the Daily Bread Food Bank. This is the highest number of visits in its 40-year history. Does that not give the government pause? Is there really no one who is saying, “Hold on; something is not working here”? Before the parliamentary secretary jumps into her grocery rebate talking point, the money that they talk up, which is Canadians' money that the government is giving back, is honestly not going to go very far these days. Given the state of food inflation, it is not going to buy more than a couple of weeks' worth of food for a family of four, if that. The Governor of the Bank of Canada attributed 0.4% inflation to the carbon tax. I did some quick math to see what that 0.4% inflation will cost Canadians. I want to put it in perspective on a matter that I think matters for a lot of people right now: housing. According to the CMHC, the average mortgage in the first quarter of this year was $320,298. Thus, the carbon tax’s 0.4% in inflation is costing Canadians $1,281 per year in interest. When people are having to live paycheque to paycheque, that extra $107 per month in housing costs can mean someone having to skip a meal. Canada Day is less than a month away, and to help Canadians celebrate it, the government is adding yet another carbon tax: the clean fuel regulation. Aside from these never-ending taxes and interest rate hikes, the government also continues to be oblivious to tax cascading on gasoline. I for one did not campaign on the taxing of taxes. In the face of inflation-ignited economic pressures and staggering costs for Canadians, how, in good conscience, can the government continue to pick the pockets of consumers at the gas pumps? I do not think it is right. Therefore, I call upon the government again to axe tax cascading. I also ask that it seriously reconsider its economy-debilitating and inflation-producing carbon tax policy.

622 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 12:05:35 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I find it infuriating, in light of the week that we have had, to hear the member opposite, who ran on carbon pricing when he ran to be elected as a member of Parliament in downtown Toronto, say that he thinks it is appropriate to be in this place and arguing against a price on carbon pollution, which is one of the most effective mechanisms for fighting climate change. What we do know from what we see right across this country is that climate change costs. It costs when we see people being evacuated from their homes. It costs when we see the costs of food production going up because of droughts and floods. Quite frankly, I would think the member opposite may want to reconsider his position and what he thinks of the long-term future for our country. We are at an important inflection point. We know that carbon pricing is the most cost-effective way to address climate change. Compared to other alternatives, such as more regulations or big spending, experts agree that carbon pricing is, in fact, the least expensive of the options. We have seen carbon pricing work all over the world. In Europe, emissions are declining across industries thanks to carbon pricing. The member opposite may not realize it, but even in our home city of Toronto, we are seeing industries making the important changes to the way that they heat and cool their buildings, and to the way they fuel their industry because of carbon pricing. It is having an impact right now so that we can avoid future natural disasters, which are only going to keep happening if we do not take action now. I would ask the member opposite to think carefully when he talks about not taking action on climate change or when he says that he thinks he can parse out the different costs. Climate change is costing us. It is costing us every day. There is something else that Canadians will see in July and that is the climate action incentive. In fact, none of the money stays with the government. It is not a tax. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that point. The money is returned to Canadians to offset the costs. Eight out of 10 Canadians will receive more from the climate action incentive than they will have paid in increased costs due to carbon pricing. It is a way to make polluters pay.

411 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong

Jun/9/23 12:08:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Someone is with the Liberals if they care about the environment, but if they do not, they are a right-wing nut, right? Hunger kills people too. Long-term issues are important, but in the immediate term, there are people who are going hungry. There are people who cannot afford a home. It pains me. Frankly, I do not understand the lack of compassion and empathy. Like me, she is a Toronto MP. In our communities, where housing costs are in the millions of dollars, that inflation is the equivalent of, on average, $310 a month more that Torontonians have to pay. I ask my colleague to please have some compassion for people who are struggling. I am not asking for it to be eliminated. I am asking for it to be temporarily reduced to provide relief for people who are struggling to make ends meet.

152 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Jun/9/23 12:09:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it again because maybe the member opposite did not hear me. Not taking action on climate change costs us. It costs us in increased food costs when there are droughts and floods impacting our farms. It impacts us when communities have to evacuate or have their homes destroyed by wildfires, as we are seeing in our communities. It costs us when we have to have firefighting resources directed to try to save those communities. Climate change costs us and we must all in this place take every action that we can to fight climate change. Carbon pricing is the most cost-effective way to do that.

113 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Jun/9/23 12:10:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, tonight, climate-fuelled wildfires continue across the country, almost 15 times the 10-year average for this time of year. Upward of 126,000 people across the country have been evacuated because of these fires. We know parents who are keeping their kids home from the playground because the air quality is so bad. Earlier this afternoon, I was pressing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. I am glad to be back in the House, now after midnight, to keep pressing for solutions, real climate solutions, such as public transit, for example. For us in Ontario, transportation is the largest source of emissions, at 32%. While electric vehicles may be part of the solution, they also have many drawbacks, including contributing to more sprawl and poor land use planning decisions, the embodied carbon of manufacturing EVs, the rare metals needed to manufacture them, and the fact that owning a car remains out of reach for many in my community. Canadian transit riders, by comparison, are disproportionately low-income workers. They are women and people from racialized communities. Many cannot afford to drive, and 64% have no access to a car, among those who take transit. It is why, prior to this year’s budget, I was pressing for the governing party to invest more in public transit, specifically recognizing that municipalities like mine are being forced to raise fares while, in some cases, simultaneously cutting services due to a lack of sufficient investment from higher orders of government, not that there is none, but that it is insufficient. Specifically, groups across the country such as Environmental Defence and the Canadian Urban Transit Association were sounding the alarm at the time, warning that transit systems are at risk of falling into a death spiral without critical operational support that had run out since the worst of the pandemic. Sadly, the budget missed the mark, with no new transit funds committed. This is what Nate Wallace, program manager for clean transportation at Environmental Defence had to say: “It is very disappointing to see that this budget does not include much-needed funds to support transit systems now.” Truthfully, to me, it is a shame that we are even talking about this. If we were responding to the climate crisis at the scale required, we would not just be talking about emergency operating funds. We need to be talking about going a step further, and I believe that the parliamentary secretary may agree with me on this, that we need federal funds so we can scale successful efforts to reduce fares altogether. One example was started by a friend of mine, Dan Hendry, co-founder and director of Get on the Bus, who piloted a program in Kingston, Ontario, that provided on-bus training and free transit passes to high school students specifically. What was the impact? High school ridership increased from 28,000 rides in 2012 to close to 600,000 rides annually, which is exponential growth in ridership among high school students, by providing training and free bus passes. Municipal leaders in my community are now looking at this model, and I would love for them to do it. I want young people in the Waterloo region to have better options. However, municipal leaders are having to discuss this without the benefit of federal funds to subsidize it. My question is this: Will the governing party step up for these emergency funds and go further, recognizing the crisis we are in?

586 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

Jun/9/23 12:14:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, public transit is dear to my heart. In fact, I do not own a car myself. I actually think an important part of public transit is including active transportation infrastructure, which is why I am so proud our government created the first national active transportation fund. Support for transit means greater quality of life for Canadians, and our government has made the largest investment in public transit in history. Since 2015, we have provided over $20 billion in federal funding to support public transit projects in communities across Canada. To ensure Canadians continue to benefit from transit options, the Government of Canada has introduced the permanent public transit program. I cannot underline the importance of that enough. It is permanent funding. It provides federal funding to support projects that deliver expanded urban transit networks, affordable zero-emission transit options, transit solutions for rural communities and additional active transportation options. The permanent public transit program provides $14.9 billion over eight years, including $3 billion per year ongoing starting 2026-27. This commitment builds on the support already available for transit across the country from existing federal programs, support that has been crucial during the pandemic as ridership has seen significant declines. The investments we are making in public transit will also reduce greenhouse gases through a commitment to support zero-emission transit options. That is why the Government of Canada is investing $2.75 billion through the zero-emission transit fund to help transit and school bus operators fund new vehicles and necessary supporting infrastructure as their transition their fleets. One exciting part is this also helps to create jobs in some of our communities. For example, the City of Toronto has purchased buses that are manufactured in Winnipeg, so there is another piece to this as well. Outside urban areas, we are helping to get Canadians moving through the $250-million rural transit solutions fund, the first federal fund to target the development of locally driven transit solutions for rural, remote and indigenous communities. The Government of Canada's continued investments in transit will help provide options for Canadians. Our investment in public transit is helping to provide an essential service to many Canadians, generate billions of dollars in economic benefits and help Canada meet its climate targets as we approach 2050. Now that public transit ridership in communities across the country is rebounding, the Government of Canada is supporting a strong and sustainable comeback. Through the safe restart agreement announced in 2020, our government committed to an investment of up to $2 billion to support municipalities with COVID-19 operating costs. We also committed to an investment of an additional $2.4 billion in funds to match provincial and territorial funding to support local transit authorities in cities and towns across Canada. This investment is helping our cities and towns to keep their transit systems running so Canadians can get to work and home to their families safely. For example, in British Columbia the safe restart agreement committed an additional $540 million in federal transit funding to support local transit authorities across the province. The transit investments we are making will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, provide health benefits and better serve disadvantaged groups, including women, seniors, youth and people who have low incomes. Public transit is very important. We are continuing to support it, and we will continue to do so.

565 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Jun/9/23 12:18:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I really appreciate, and I expected it this evening, that I do not need to convince the parliamentary secretary about the importance of transit, as a transit user herself. It means we can have a more adult conversation about what needs to be done in the midst of the crisis we are in. Again, I recognize and appreciate the funds that have been allocated in the past on transit but also want her, and the governing party, to recognize that this is not sufficient. First, it is not sufficient in terms of emergency operating funds that organizations across the country have been calling for and were not delivered. Second, it is not sufficient to ensure we can actually reduce fares to increase ridership at the pace required for young people, for example, to start habits of using transit from a young age and continue doing so in order for us to shift the curve on the climate crisis and address the transit and transportation emissions we know we have. How will she continue to advocate within the governing party to see the investments increase at the pace this crisis requires?

195 words

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Jun/9/23 12:19:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite and I can agree public transit is very important, and it is important for all the reasons he listed, including the fact that it helps people to get around. It is better for emissions. It is better for clean air in our communities and frankly it allows for a certain amount of freedom, particularly for young people who are too young to even have a driver's licence. It is very important we have a strong public transit system. That is why it is really important to recognize all of the investments our government has made to date, including, and I will reiterate this, the permanent public transit program, which was introduced in 2021. It provides $14.9 billion over eight years, including $3 billion per year ongoing starting 2026-27. That is how we are going to continue to support public transit.

148 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/9/23 12:22:20 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, back in March, I travelled with committee members of the indigenous and northern affairs committee to my riding in Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk and the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife. We met with many of my constituents and with Canadian Rangers in both of my communities. We went to the joint task force north headquarters office in Yellowknife as well. We heard from my constituents, especially Canadian Rangers, who are extremely proud to serve and keep the Arctic secure for Arctic sovereignty. Canadian Rangers wear their uniforms with pride when they do their operations. They outlined some issues with being Canadian Rangers. When I asked my original question back in March, my question related to one of those issues, which included how long it takes for their reimbursements after they have completed operations. That was three months ago. Some have waited as long as six months to be reimbursed for their time and for repairs. One of the images shared during these visits showed that the Canadian Armed Forces must be using horse carriages to get from Yellowknife to Ottawa to submit the paperwork to Ottawa, with Ottawa using that same mode of transportation to send the cheques back to the communities. Part of the response to my question was, “The CAF has recently streamlined the compensation process. This will expedite the process for Rangers to receive their reimbursements.” Can the government please describe exactly in what way the process has been streamlined and by how much time the process has been cut so that Canadian Rangers do not have to wait months for their reimbursements?

267 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 209