44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 21, 2023 10:00AM
- Sep/21/23 3:10:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, natural health products need to be safe, effective and properly labelled. Over 80% of Canadians rely on these products as an important part of their daily health regimen, yet people are worried about the new Health Canada changes. They are concerned that health products will be more expensive and less available, with serious impacts on small business.
Will the Liberals assure people that natural health products will be available, affordable and appropriately regulated?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:11:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, of course it is extraordinarily important that Canadians know the natural health products they take are safe. It is very disturbing that there were more than 700 cases last year where there was a serious adverse health impact, including hospitalization, as a result of taking a natural health product. Therefore, making sure the products are safe for Canadians, and at the same time ensuring that there is a fair program for small and medium-sized businesses to ensure they are not adversely affected, is what we are focused on.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:11:41 p.m.
- Watch
Following a discussion among representatives of all parties, I understand there is an agreement to observe a moment of silence in memory of the four wildfire firefighters who lost their lives near Walhachin, British Columbia.
I invite hon. members to rise.
[A moment of silence observed]
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While crime in Canada is up 40%, I would like to report a theft in the House of Commons. My private member's bill, Bill C-339, to eliminate the efficiencies defence in the Competition Act, has been stolen by the Liberal government and presented as its own piece of legislation. The entire bill—
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:13:44 p.m.
- Watch
I am going to rule that one out from the beginning.
I am getting a signal from a former Speaker that there might be something here. I am trusting his word, so I will let the member continue to see where he is going.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the management of Private Members' Business. My private member's bill finished first reading on June 8. It is scheduled to have its first hour at second reading on November 21.
When the government presents, as its own, legislation that was in front of the House as a private member's bill, it takes away from parliamentarians who have, oftentimes for the first time in their career, worked hard to bring a private member's bill before this House. It is bad precedent when a member who has already introduced a bill to the House has it taken by the government, as the member loses their spot in the queue to present private members' business.
For future parliamentarians and for this instance, the same-question rule or the rule of anticipation will come into effect should the Liberal government bill make quicker progress, which, given that most House debate time is controlled by the government, is likely to occur. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you for your assurance that I and future parliamentarians have recourse to the provisions of Standing Order 92.1(2), or, if necessary, that you will invoke your authority under Standing Order 94(1)(a) to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business” in the event that my bill enters replenishment yet winds up in one of those legislative dead ends if the government bill vaults ahead of mine.
To this end, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor on November 4, 2011, at page 2984 of the Debates, concerning the procedure of an irregular private member's bill. It states:
...I am reluctant to deny the member what is likely his only opportunity in this Parliament to have an item on the order of precedence....
In light of the unique nature of this particular situation, the member...will be permitted to substitute another item onto the order of precedence. The substitution shall be done pursuant to the spirit of Standing Order 92.1....
The procedure and House affairs committee subsequently recommended an amendment to Standing Order 92.1, which the House adopted in 2015 as Standing Order 92.1(2), facilitating the replacement of items in situations where a private member's bill is dropped “for having been ruled out of order by the Speaker”.
In the interests of fairness, to ensure that precedence is looked at to the fullest extent possible and for future parliamentarians, I would ask for the Chair's assurance that, if the progress of my bill, Bill C-339, becomes doomed because it was big-footed by the Liberals' sudden and new-found concern with attacking the skyrocketing cost of living and competition law, I have recourse to replace my bill with another item on the provisions of either of these Standing Orders.
485 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we certainly were not aware of this concern. If you would afford us the opportunity to come back to you before a ruling on this to provide some comments, we would greatly appreciate it.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:17:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, given that,
(i) according to a report by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, thousands of children have been forcibly deported by Russia from Ukraine to the Russian Federation,
(ii) the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova for the war crime of illegally deporting Ukrainian children to the territory of the Russian Federation,
(iii) the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe have strongly condemned the practice of forced transfers and deportation of civilians, including children, by the Russian Federation,
the House:
(a) condemn, with equal firmness, the Russian authorities for the war crimes and genocide constituted by the forced deportation of Ukrainian children to the territory of the Russian Federation, in particular through an abusive selection process known as “filtration” and “re-education camps”; and
(b) call for an immediate end to this practice, and for Ukrainian children to be returned safely to Ukraine by the Russian Federation.
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I want to thank the hon. member for Bay of Quinte, as well as the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for the advice. That was very good of him.
We will take that into consideration and come back to the House with something concrete.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:18:58 p.m.
- Watch
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:19:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, since this is the first Thursday sitting of the House of Commons with a new government House leader, I would like congratulate my counterpart on the appointment. I wish her all the best in this role on a personal level, but maybe not on a political level. I want to thank her for some of the fruitful conversations we have already had.
I thought I would ease into the flow of the Thursday question by keeping it rather simple and straightforward. Given the fact that the latest inflation numbers were much higher than expected and the fears of an interest rate hike are coming, and given the fact that so many Canadians cannot afford to make their mortgage payments at existing rates, will the government House leader not just inform the House as to the business for the rest of the week and next week, but inform us of whether the government has any plans to cancel its inflationary deficit spending so that interest rates can come down and Canadians can stay in their homes?
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 3:20:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his warm congratulations, and as this is my first time at providing the Thursday statement, I would also like to say that I look forward to working with him and the other House leaders to advance legislation.
This afternoon we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-33, which deals with strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada.
I actually have some good news for my hon. colleague. When it comes to affordable housing, debate on the the bill we introduced today on eliminating the GST for rental housing will begin at noon on Monday. I am sure he is very much looking forward to that. It was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. We will continue with this legislation on Tuesday as well, and I hope we can count on the support of all parties in this House to advance it for Canadians to bring down the cost of housing and the cost of groceries.
On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-49, amending the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.
Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday, September 28, shall be an allotted day, which I am sure the member will be pleased about.
230 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
