44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 8, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/8/23 2:52:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Liberal deficits and spending have caused inflation to reach a 40-year high, which caused interest rates to reach a 22-year high. These rates will cause mortgage defaults.
We have made-in-Canada inflation, and people cannot afford the government. We need to stop fuelling the inflationary fire, stop interest rates from going up and stop people from losing their homes.
When will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary deficit spending?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 2:53:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member just does not get it. The government refuses to take any responsibility for what it has done to affect the cost of living of Canadians.
For example, a local food bank in my community told me that they registered 294 new households in March alone, with the fastest-growing demographic needing help being two-parent, working households. Inflationary deficits are crushing families' finances.
When will the Prime Minister give people hope and end the inflationary deficit spending so that Canadians can afford to stay in their homes?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 8:31:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of my community of Kelowna—Lake Country.
Before I begin this evening, I would like to thank all the firefighters and first responders who are keeping my community safe, as well as all firefighters across Canada. Firefighters run toward and into danger and put their own safety at risk every day. As a daughter of a firefighter, I also know how hard it is for families with the worries they have. I want to thank them for commitment and for keeping people safe.
I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Calgary Shepard.
Today I rise to speak on Bill C-33, a substantive piece of legislation that I am sad to say is missing the mark on a significant opportunity to strengthen our ports and rail lines with regard to supply chain functionality and security issues. I have had several shadow ministry roles that have involved supply chains within Canada and trade, which means that I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of organizations, both big and small, that either rely on a functioning rail and port system or are involved in keeping our supply chains moving.
I have spoken with a wide variety of industries, from winemaking to RV rentals, all of which have been financially challenged by the sluggishness of the Liberal government in looking at ways within the authority of the federal government to ensure our supply chains are moving.
Canada's economic security and food security should be a priority. When supply chains break down or are not functioning at full capacity, all Canadians are affected. Costs go up, and Canada loses credibility with our trading partners.
Small businesses ultimately pay the biggest price when supply chains break down, as they have fewer resources. When it comes to strengthening our supply chains, this legislation has missed the mark. The Chamber of Shipping said that the legislation misses out on addressing the root causes of supply chain congestion and that the additional powers only address symptoms of congestion and could aggravate managing cargo efficiency.
This legislation also does not address the relationship between shippers and rail companies, and there is nothing about rail service reliability.
The legislation before us is more interested in increasing the powers of the Minister of Transport inside the boardrooms of our port authorities than actually strengthening the ability to move goods around and in and out of our economy or in addressing safety. It burdens our Canadian ports, particularly the smaller ports, with inefficient and anti-competitive red tape and increases in cost, which will always be passed on to consumers. It undermines the arm's-length independence with which ports are supposed to operate, with the federal government inserting Ottawa-knows-best politicians in board level decision-making.
I would like to go into more detail on my point regarding the issues this bill raises in complicating the governance of port authority boards.
The Minister of Transport, when he first spoke about this bill, said:
These measures involve providing the Minister of Transport with the ability to designate the chairperson of the board from among the board members and in consultation with the board. This measure would ensure Canadian port authorities and our government are aligned on how we deal with the increasing complex economic, social and environmental issues facing our ports.
He said, “aligned with the government”. What does that mean? Does it mean aligned with government ideologies, aligned by designating? As the minister said, “designating” is a word that basically means appointing. Is that Liberal friends? We have seen these kinds of actions before, with the Liberal government appointing Liberal friends, have we not?
Anyone who is on one of these boards should be offended that the transport minister and the Liberal government do not think that they are smart enough or capable enough to choose their own board chair out of the group of people sitting around the table. These are independent boards, and the Liberals are bringing politics to these board tables. It is basic board of director governance that members of a board should choose who the board chair is.
The minister also said about the legislation that it is:
...a requirement for Canada port authorities to undertake a review of governance practices every three years. These reviews would evaluate the effectiveness of board governance practices, such as assessments of conflicts of interest and record-keeping practices. The results of these assessments would be shared with Transport Canada and would inform future policy measures as needed.
As such, a Liberal minister would judge a non-government organization on corporate governance. The Liberal transport minister would be mandating receiving assessments of conflict of interest from these organizations. The Liberal ministers are not exactly known for good conflict of interest judgment. I do not know if the minister has ever been involved in a governance review. I have been involved in more than one, so I can say that it can easily take up to a year to do a proper review, analysis, report, potential restructure and implementation. The government wants the port authorities to do these every three years.
The minister is presuming to be an expert on fulfilling board of director and executive fiduciary duties and would analyze board governance every three years. Though looking at governance should be a practice of any board, mandating through law that port authorities need to do this every few years is burdensome. I ask, to what end?
The Liberal Minister of Transport in Ottawa thinks he knows best how to run a port, so I would like to note that the member for Chilliwack—Hope, when he spoke on Bill C-33, pointed out in his original rebuttal to the minister that it was that minister who chose to ignore the recommendations of port users when they have put forth board nominees. That minister ignored the recommendations of western provinces when they put forth nominees, yet the minister insists on sticking his hands into the board he knows little about.
Port authorities are supposed to be at arm's length from the government, and the red tape of reporting requirements, advisory committees and ministerial selections of executive management would cut against the efficient operation of our ports. It would reverse the arm's length aims of the Liberal government of the 1990s when it wrote the Canada Marine Act, but that is not surprising, as many Canadians have become aware that the Liberal Party of today is no longer the one they once knew.
As I said earlier, I am disappointed this opportunity to act to better the functioning of our ports and railways has been sidelined by red tape and backseat driving. What good there is in updating safety and security protocols is overshadowed by regulatory burdens that consumers will ultimately feel.
The focus of any update to law should be on safety and on economic prosperity, in particular with this piece of legislation. I should also point out that the government's updating of interference or tampering rules means nothing if it does not enforce them. A lack of accountability and an insistence on control have been defining hallmarks of the current Liberal government, leaving Canadians with less money in their pockets and poorer public services. The Ottawa-knows-best approach is how the current Liberal government governs, so on Bill C-33 the Association of Canadian Port Authorities simply said that more government is not the answer.
I fully support improving the security of Canada's transportation system, including ports and marine facilities. I support increasing safety and strengthening our supply systems. However, the legislation before us would do little for these and would create a real Ottawa-knows-best top-down approach by adding burdensome red tape and costs that would ultimately be passed on to Canadians.
1324 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say in reference to the individuals who lost their lives that my heart certainly goes out to their families. I cannot imagine what the families have been through.
What we are talking about here today is this piece of legislation and there are a lot of misses by this legislation. We are talking about Bill C-33. Certainly, in my intervention I mentioned a few times that this legislation should have been about safety and economic stability. Instead, this legislation is about corporate governance and control by the government to insert itself at the board table of port authorities. That is really one of the biggest focuses of this piece of legislation.
There is a real miss here with where this legislation could have gone and that is really unfortunate.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:17:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are some good pieces in this legislation. Some in there deal with safety, but there is a lot more that could have been done. That is where the real miss is with this piece of legislation. There are some parts that do help in some way.
There have been years and years of consultation, as well as eight years of the Liberal government. To come with this piece of legislation that really has so many gaps is really a miss and it is really unfortunate.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 11:19:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really do not know how this legislation ties into tackling inflation at all. I mean, we saw inflation go up again a month ago. We also saw interest rates rise just yesterday. What the government is doing is not working.
I do not know what is in this legislation that has anything to do with bringing down costs or bringing down inflation. If anything, it will add to costs because it is adding more of a burden to companies with all of these new committees. They are going to have to do governance reviews every three years as well, so I am not sure how that is going to bring costs down.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
