44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 21, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/21/23 3:21:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe if you seek it, at this time you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows:
Mr. Lauzon (Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation) for Mr. Turnbull (Whitby) and
Mr. Duguid (Winnipeg South) for Mr. Fergus (Hull-Aylmer).
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:21:56 p.m.
- Watch
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑33 comes at the end of a series of initiatives taken by the Canadian government over the past six years. Beyond the various committees that could have addressed the matter in previous Parliaments, let us consider the following initiatives.
In 2018, there was the ports modernization review. In 2022, there was the final report of the supply chain task force, which was tabled in the House in October of the same year.
The objectives of Bill C-33 are as follows: to eliminate systemic barriers in order to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; to expand the mandate of Canadian port authorities in relation to traffic management; to position Canada's ports as strategic transportation hubs; to improve the government's understanding of ports and port operations; and to modernize provisions relating to rail safety, security and the transportation of dangerous goods. I will focus mainly on that last point.
Bill C-33 contains a series of proposals affecting the following federal acts: the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Customs Act and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act.
First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be referred to committee, since a number of improvements could be proposed. We will have to be responsible and trustworthy enough to undertake the legislative and regulatory tightening required for the amendments that are to be debated.
A decade has passed since the unspeakable tragedy in Lac‑Mégantic that claimed the lives of 47 people and left an entire community forever scarred. For people in Quebec, this tragedy is an unavoidable part of any conversation about rail safety, which, as I said, is the subject of my remarks.
Certainly the supply chain element is interesting, and there is plenty to say about that. I want to focus on rail safety without necessarily tying it to the supply chain issue. There have been recommendations, round tables, consultations, reviews and audits. That all served to inform people, but none of it can replace what really matters, which is a regulatory and legislative framework.
In all honesty, we have to acknowledge that the work that was done in 2017-18, the many Transportation Safety Board reports that identified recurring safety issues and deficiencies, and the Office of the Auditor General of Canada's observations on the matter all sent a clear signal that we need to study Bill C‑33.
I have said it before and I say it all the time: Words matter. Using vocabulary that is clear, and prescriptive if necessary, is already a step in the right direction. There is so much data and benchmarking available that I will be the first to admit that guiding regulatory policy in this sector is a huge undertaking. Companies have a duty to help us help them.
In 2022, there were 225 main-track accidents in Canada, 18% more than the 10-year average for this type of track, which is the rail network's main artery. The country's largest rail union is speaking out about fatigue, working under pressure and understaffing in the sector. These problems are addressed in Bill C‑33.
Among our neighbours to the south, elected officials are pointing the finger at the role of precision scheduled railroading, known as PSR. It is a railway management system created by none other than Hunter Harrison. If members have read anything about Lac‑Mégantic, they will recognize Mr. Harrison's name. PSR was introduced at Canadian National in 1998 and at Canadian Pacific in 2012. It has been the favoured management system of most major rail companies here and in the U.S. for more than a decade.
The objectives of PSR, according to its infamous creator, are to provide frequent and reliable service, control costs, optimize assets and operate safely. He even added that there should be fewer employees, but they should be made to work harder.
In practical terms, it is a management approach designed with maximum profitability as its priority. This system aims to put longer, faster trains on the rails more quickly in order to keep operating costs as low as possible, all with fewer staff. The average length and weight of CN trains have tripled since 1990. This is directly linked to the implementation of this PSR system.
When unveiling financial results in 2018, CP emphasized the importance of PSR. It was important for profitability. When Le Devoir analyzed the company's annual reports in 2023, it discovered that CP's profit margins shot up almost 500% between 2012 and 2022. I just want to remind everyone that the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy took place in 2013. Furthermore, 2012 was no ordinary year in CP's history. That was the exact year Mr. Harrison, the creator of PSR, joined the company.
Why am I addressing rail safety from this angle? I am talking about it because the pursuit of profitability using PSR management is the fraternal twin of the culture of self-regulation that has prevailed in Canada for far too long. The power to change things involves the ability to exercise that power, which is regulatory. Of course, we need to protect the supply chain, workers and remote communities. However, we need to understand that it would be a mistake to continue with self-regulation or to encourage more self-regulation in the rail industry.
I want to quote an article from La Presse on this very subject. It states: “Ottawa sets guidelines for the companies, which develop their own security system and usually do their own inspections.” That means that the companies do everything. The article goes on to say, “According to experts, the problem is that, in recent years, Transport Canada has resolutely become a department with an economic mandate, and it is neglecting its safety mandate.”
The article quotes one source as saying, “There were even memos from the minister reminding us that we were an economic department...In short, we were there not to stop trains but to keep them running.” That quote is from 2013, the year the Auditor General of Canada published her audit on rail safety at Transport Canada, the year of the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy.
In 2022 and 2023, the supply chain got a lot of attention, proving that the railway is vitally important to the economy. To not engage in some thoughtful deliberation on the potential of the railway and the best safety practices in terms of monitoring, reporting and record-keeping would, in my opinion, be a missed opportunity and an irresponsible choice.
I believe that the long-awaited Bill C‑33 has some progressive aspects that could be improved upon in committee. Generally speaking, the creation of secure areas to reduce congestion in the ports, the creation of financial penalties for safety breaches, the strengthening of safety management systems, and the prohibitions on interfering with or damaging railway structures or operations are measures that the Bloc Québécois welcomes.
As elected members, we have a responsibility to ensure that members of the public know they are safe in areas where railway activity is present, not just for now or in a week, but for the long term.
1261 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of today's debate on the second reading stage of 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, all questions necessary to dispose of the said stage be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, September 26, 2023, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the concerns I have with this bill is that there seems to be a downloading of authority to Ottawa in various aspects of this bill. I would ask my colleague from the Bloc Québécois about this. Certainly we have seen how increased bureaucracy, increased red tape, has not actually led to a safer circumstance, whether that be on our rail system, in our ports or in negotiations with labour and whatnot. It has not actually increased the efficiency or safety of our ports and railroads.
Does this member share my concern about whether this downloading of more authority and more processes in offices in Ottawa is an effective solution to addressing some of the challenges this bill purports to address?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understand what downloading of responsibility my colleague is talking about. As I understand the bill before us, elected officials have the power to impose requirements on companies.
However, if my colleague's question is about giving companies greater freedom, I am totally against it. At present, the Government of Canada simply sets benchmarks and then the companies do as they please. This is what has happened. This is the reason Canada's rail safety regime is so lax.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her comments. This is extremely important.
Under the Harper government, rail safety regulations and inspections all became a thing of the past. They were replaced by a self-management system, which put company directors in charge of managing rail safety. Since that time, the number of deaths has grown, and several tragic, horrifying accidents have happened. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has done nothing to correct this irresponsible move by the Harper government.
I would like my colleague to tell us how important it is to reinstate rail safety inspections with federal government oversight to improve rail safety.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start by being positive. There have been some improvements, such as reducing train speeds, enhancing track inspection requirements, and making tank cars sturdier. However, according to Ian Naish, a former director at the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, the changes were marginal.
Yes, a lot more work needs to be done and only the government can do it.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we know, Canada was built on the railway and has since trended toward constant deregulation. That, of course, led to the Lac‑Mégantic disaster. The only thing that has increased since that tragedy is the transportation of oil by train, which has increased dramatically. That is the only thing that has changed since 2013.
This bill proposes increased regulation for goods. A few years ago, however, a group of people from Saint‑Hyacinthe launched an initiative in my riding called Convoi‑Citoyen. They ventured onto the tracks and discovered exposed wires and tracks sitting on wet soil instead of cement.
Should we not also be addressing inspections of the tracks themselves?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I too know people from Mégantic. They are inspecting the rail lines themselves. Some might say that they do not have the right to do so, but the work will not get done otherwise, and they do not want to go through that again. That is obvious. No one wants to go through that again.
Yes, we absolutely must be more prescriptive in what we ask of rail carriers.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to debate the important issues that Canadians face.
Before I jump into the subject matter of Bill C-33, I would note that yesterday represented the second anniversary of the 2021 election. In that regard, I would note my deep appreciation to the people of Battle River—Crowfoot for the opportunity to continue serving them in this place, to be their voice in Canada's Parliament. A big thanks goes to my wife, Danielle, my kids and my whole family for their support, as well as my staff, volunteers, campaign team and everybody it takes to make elections happen.
It is interesting that the Liberal Prime Minister, in the course of the last election, promised that if he were elected with a minority, he would call an election after two years. That is another broken promise by a Liberal who cares more about power than he does anything else. He also promised, I would note, after which I look forward to jumping into the substance of Bill C-33, that he would not join a coalition with the NDP, despite Conservatives suggesting that this would be an inevitable result. They laughed at us then. We turned out to be the ones who were telling the truth, and the Liberals were exposed for once again misleading us and holding on to power at any cost.
As we get into the debate on Bill C-33, once again we have before us a bill where, if we read the preamble, there is very little to disagree with. I have said this often when it comes to Liberal bills. The Liberals are great at making announcements, proposing things and saying they are doing things, but when we dig into the substance of what we have before us, it certainly falls short.
We have a bill that touches on a whole host of different things when it comes to our rail sector and our ports, including some of our deep sea ports. There are seven acts that would be affected. In Canada, as a country, both the rail and sea transport sectors are absolutely fundamental to the success of our nation. We have to be able to transport our goods and resources, whether the raw resources that come from the ground or the value-added resources in every segment of the economy that are produced everywhere across our nation. We need to have a transport sector that we can trust and that is reliable, safe and secure and that not only Canadians can trust, but also, when it comes to investment, our customers around the world can look at our system and know and trust that it is doing the right thing.
Concerns have been highlighted. Transport ministers seem to fall at an astonishing rate. In 2017, a few transport ministers ago, the now-retired Marc Garneau, who was then transport minister, launched the statutory review of the Railway Safety Act. Over the course of the last number of years, we have seen different steps in that process. It was in October of last year that the previous transport minister received the final report from the national supply chain task force; now we have this bill before us. However, when it comes to whether this bill deals with the concerns that have been highlighted, we are increasingly hearing that it does not, pure and simple.
I would note that one of the first issues that I dealt with, as did many of my colleagues after we were elected in 2019, was the rail strike just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. There were blockades and protests that had virtually ground our economy to a halt. In fact, it would have been very interesting to see what the impact on the economy of the Liberals' mismanagement of that situation would have been. We did not have the opportunity to see direct impacts of that. Of course, we know that in the aftermath, we immediately went into the COVID pandemic, and our focus for the last number of years obviously changed dramatically.
The bill we have before us would change aspects of railway safety, including security. There are prohibitions and some changes to the way that things would be classified. We need to ensure that railway companies are able to address security and, when it comes to ensuring that appropriate clearances for the staff of rail companies are provided, as well as that there are continual reviews.
I would just note that when it comes to the review portion, it is great to ask for statutory reviews but I am sure I am not alone, like many in this place, who would note that statutory reviews rarely happen when they are scheduled to. I will be asking the Library of Parliament to go through and look at all of the statutory reviews that are currently missing.
It is great to talk about a statutory review, but it is nothing more than boilerplate language. It does not do much good if one does not actually plan to review it.
I believe that some of these things are laudable in their intent but when it comes to the substance of whether they accomplish it, many Canadians do not realize that railway companies actually have their own police forces because of some of the history associated with the importance of that as a sector of our economy and the growth of our country. Some of the dynamics of that and, in some cases, legislation that is almost as old as the country itself needs to be reflective of present-day reality. These are important questions that have to be asked when it comes to committee.
This is the sort of bill that truly takes a huge amount of time to get into some of the substance so I will go very high-level here.
One of the challenges that has been brought to my attention is that there are two things that take place. One is that Ottawa gets a whole lot more authority which, interestingly enough, the Bloc supports, which is an irony, I would suggest.
At the same time, they are downloading a whole bunch of the work to port authorities that do not necessarily have the resources to accomplish the objectives that will be brought forward if this bill is passed unamended.
What I fear will be the case is that we will have more red tape and more bureaucracy slowing down the decision-making process when it comes to our ports. We know how essential that is. It was only months ago that we had a strike at the Port of Vancouver where it, certainly in western Canada, ground our economy virtually to a halt. I believe it was half a billion dollars a day in economic impact and it will take months to clear the backlog.
When it comes to products, whether it is dried commodities like agriculture, whether it is oil or the carbon-based products that are essential for so many economies around the world, which Canada has a strong record of being able to provide, we have to make sure we do this right.
I think that it is not the answer to increase bureaucracy and download responsibility without understanding the impacts that this will bring about on the people who are actually responsible for making sure that our economy is moving. I say “moving” very specifically.
I would bring up an example that emphasizes my point.
Today in question period, the Minister of Health brought up natural health products. I know all of us in this place have heard a lot about natural health products over the course of the summer.
The unfortunate trend is that this government is desperate to make changes on things that do not actually help, especially when one sees the irony that the government is making a whole bunch of regulatory and bureaucratic changes to natural health products that nobody asked for and certainly very few people I have spoken to, whether in the sector or outside it, support, yet it is pushing this down the throats of small business owners, of Canadians and one of Canada's most trusted sectors.
That same health minister supports the selling of hard drugs on our streets.
I bring this up because it highlights the irony that one has a government that seems to be quick to propose things, to look for ways that it can increase the size of government, the inefficiencies associated with that and the red tape that impacts the ability for the economy to function, but when it comes to actually delivering, it fails and its priorities always seem to be in the wrong place.
The questions I have asked certainly need to be addressed at committee. I hope that serious amendments can be made so that we do not allow that same trend to slow down a sector that is already being slowed down by a Liberal government that is simply out of touch.
1511 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I welcome my colleague back to the House, as we are all back to do work for the people.
One thing he did not mention in his speech was what the Harper regime did in devastating railway safety. Members may recall that what the Harper regime did was it simply eliminated the kind of inspection regime that is so important to guarantee railway safety by replacing it with self-servicing safety management systems that are run by corporate CEOs themselves.
That resulted in, which we are all aware of, some of the most disastrous accidents. The most tragic losses of life over the last few years have come as a result, in part, by moving away from inspections and the shift to self-managed safety with the safety management systems. We see, in this bill, no real reflection of what is needed to ensure that we rebuild those safety systems and federal inspections.
Does my colleague agree with me that the Harper regime made a mistake in self-managed safety? Does he agree with me and the transport committee that we need to re-enhance railway safety, which is something the bill does not do?
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I opened my speech acknowledging that it has been two years since the last election. It was not long after that the NDP members broke their word to the people of this country, along with the Liberals. They suggested during the election that they would never form a coalition and they would never form a government with the Liberals.
We now have NDP members who seem to be regretting the fact that they have their own government, in actual fact and operational fact, in this place when it comes to being able to accomplish anything. They are now frustrated that their partners in crime, so to speak, are not doing what they want.
My suggestion is simply this: If the member is so concerned about the government they support not accomplishing what they want to bring forward, maybe they should have thought twice about entering an agreement they were not honest about in the first place, as they are not actually able to get anything out of it.
That is certainly a question I hear often. What does the NDP get out of it? Certainly—
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:51:25 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that the member opposite has a tremendous beard, and I mean that with all sincerity. He has been growing it over the summer and it looks “Tom Mulcair-esque”, but I know he will not appreciate that comment as much.
The government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation this week that are non-cost in nature; they are legislative reforms. One was Bill C-33, but there was also Bill C-49, which is about enabling tremendous economic opportunities in the energy sector in Atlantic Canada.
Has my hon. colleague opposite had the opportunity to talk to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester or the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame about whether they are in support of this bill? This is what the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for, as is the premier of Nova Scotia. Has he had a conversation with them?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will let the comment about my facial hair stand in the record now forever, but I thank him.
I would like to correct the member because the member asked a question in question period that I found really interesting. It was about how there is support for the bill that he referred to. However, he is quick to point to when premiers and stakeholders will support a bill, while failing to acknowledge when they oppose bills.
What is interesting is the bill he refers to, Bill C-49, specifically references provisions that were implemented through Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament. The very premiers who have said they want energy development, which we all do, whether it is new tech or something associated with traditional energy, also asked the government to repeal Bill C-69. They are now talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government—
157 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:53:19 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Repentigny.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Quebeckers experienced the tragedy first-hand. It has been studied. We know that the regulations and inspections were insufficient.
We also know that in the business model I mentioned in my speech, precision scheduled railroading, or PSR, the company leaders' compensation is based on whether they have been efficient with PSR. However, PSR involves cutting down on inspections and staff and does not take human fatigue into account.
I do not understand why some people keep saying that we actually need less regulation. It seems to me that this tragedy shows we should be non-partisan on this issue.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that a member of a sovereigntist party would suggest that bureaucrats in the nation's capital are better at managing this sector of the economy. One would think it is better understood that increasing bureaucracy is not necessarily the solution. We need to make sure we have strong, effective regulations, not simply more red tape that would not accomplish the objective.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
