44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 21, 2023 10:00AM
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
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-33, legislation that would amend several acts and pertains to Canada's ports and railways. The legislation was initiated following reviews by the government, beginning in 2017 and 2018, respecting railways and ports, as well as the issuance of the final report of the government's national supply chain task force.
It is no secret that we have serious supply chain issues in Canada that have been exacerbated under the Liberals. After eight years of the Liberals, is it any surprise that our supply chains have worsened? Of course it is not, because after eight years of the completely incompetent Liberal government, everything in Canada is broken. Housing is no longer affordable. We have seen 40-year high inflation, an unprecedented spike in violent crime and a supply chain crisis. That is what we get after eight years of the Liberals. It is a total and utter disaster for Canada.
Consistent with that, what we have from these incompetent Liberals is the bill before us, which they have touted as the solution to modernizing Canada's transportation systems and strengthening Canada's supply chains. The best that can be said of the bill is that it is a missed opportunity.
Do not take my word for it. Take the words of key stakeholders. For example, CP Rail characterized Bill C-33 as a whole bunch of nothing. What a ringing endorsement from one of our largest national rail lines. This is in the face of what the government's own task force on supply chains characterized as a breaking point when it comes to the transportation supply chain system in Canada.
As bad as a whole bunch of nothing is, Bill C-33 is likely worse than a whole bunch of nothing because, in fact, the bill would likely exacerbate supply chain backlogs as a result of more red tape, more fees and more government. That is the position of the Chamber of Shipping and the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Indeed, the Association of Canadian Port Authorities said in respect of Bill C-33 that what we do not need is more government. However, that is precisely what we would get with Bill C-33: more government, in the way of more red tape, additional regulatory burdens and duplicative reporting requirements for our courts.
Last March, when the then minister of transport, the member for Mississauga Centre, spoke to the bill at second reading, he claimed that it would reduce cost pressures, thereby making life a little more affordable for everyday Canadians. How can the member for Mississauga Centre, the failed and now former minister, square that assertion with the reality that is Bill C-33? It means more red tape, more regulatory burdens and more reporting requirements, the combination of which is going to increase costs that will be passed down to everyday Canadians. They are new costs in the face of a cost of living crisis manufactured as a result of the disastrous policies of the government, from out-of-control inflationary deficit spending to carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, which are increasing the cost of everything, including essentials. Now we have this.
For this bill, the key objective of which is to purportedly address supply chain challenges, more can be said about what is not in the bill than about what is in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that provides for railway service reliability. There is nothing to address long-standing challenges between our railways and shippers. There is nothing in the bill that provides for port authorities to make decisions based on what is in the national economic interest and the best interest of supply chains. There is nothing in the bill that addresses issues of labour disputes and the impact that such disputes may have upon supply chains.
Last summer, in July, we saw the very significant cost of labour disruption with a weeks-long strike at federally regulated B.C. ports. It was a strike that was completely unavoidable. It was a strike that was entirely foreseeable for those with regard for a simmering labour dispute once before.
Where were these incompetent Liberals? They were asleep at the switch until it was too late, and there was a significant cost in major disruptions to workers and businesses. Each day the strike lasted, there was nearly $1 billion in trade that was tied up and impacted. It cost the Canadian economy half a trillion dollars. It was a half-a-trillion-dollar hit to our economy, not to mention the damage it did to Canada's reputation as a reliable trading partner. That is what we get with these incompetent Liberals. In the bill, predictably, there is nothing to address situations like this, and it is not just the strike that happened last summer. We saw other strikes. We saw other blockades. We have seen inaction and indifference from these Liberals.
While the bill would do nothing to address supply chain issues, despite the rhetoric of the government, it would provide for more Ottawa in the way it would centralize decision-making. It would add to port authority boards representatives from government entities, diluting representation from port tenants. That means that the suppliers and shippers, who know best about supply chain challenges, will have diluted control, all while increasing control for Liberal-appointed, Ottawa, know-nothing bureaucrats.
Then there are advisory boards that the bill would provide for that are poorly defined in their powers, but they could have the impact of impeding decisions of port authorities to grow, expand and modernize, which is exactly the opposite of what is needed to address real supply chain issues. Then we have the minister appointing chairs of port authorities, as the minister said, to align port authorities with decisions of the Liberal government instead of what their mandate ought to be, which is to advance the national economic interests of Canada.
This is a badly thought-out bill, a badly drafted bill. The Liberals ignored much of the feedback they received during the consultation process. The appropriate thing for them to do would be to scrap the bill, go back to the drawing board and get it right.
1046 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is my first speech since the resumption of Parliament. I wish everyone a good session.
I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard. We met this summer.
People say that this bill lacks substance and does not go far enough. Given our experience and that in committee, and considering what I heard from my colleague, I think some suggestions should be made in committee before we reject the bill's intent out of hand, particularly as it relates to safety. That is a critical part of this. What happened in Quebec must never happen again.
Does he agree with me that we should give ourselves the opportunity to do a thorough job in committee, and then he can say no?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Laurentides—Labelle, who I have a lot of respect for. I have enjoyed working closely with her on the procedure and House affairs committee.
I agree with the hon. member that rail safety is of utmost importance. One of the shortcomings of this bill is that it does not go far enough to enhance rail safety. The transport committee did a rail safety report, which has been sitting on the shelf for several years. It contains a number of good recommendations, but none of those recommendations have been incorporated into the bill.
The problem with this bill is that there are too many problems with it. If it were a matter of fixing a few things here and there with some amendments, then we could support it going to committee. However, the problem is that there are too many issues, particularly on the port authority side. It is on that basis that we cannot support the bill. It is on that basis that we are calling on the government to go back to the drawing board.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Lori Desrochers and Pamela Fraser are two people have family members who perished in separate instances as workers for CN Rail. These deaths were not investigated by an impartial government or police investigation, but were investigated by CN Rail's own private rail police and corporate risk management. Since then, unfortunately, the families have received no justice and CN Rail has faced no consequences.
Does the member believe that railway corporations should be able to avoid being held accountable for the death and injury of their workers by investigating themselves?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let me express my condolences to the families. I am not familiar with the facts of each of those incidents.
However, rail safety must come first. We need to have appropriate legislation in place and an appropriate regulatory regime to ensure accountability across the board and to ensure that the safety of rail workers comes first.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
