Mr. Speaker, I move that the 11th report of the the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities presented to the House on Tuesday, April 25, 2023, be concurred in.

I am rising in the House today because I want us to debate the report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities on the impact of commercial shipping on shoreline erosion. I am rising today to talk about this issue because this report was tabled in the House about a year and a half ago, on April 25, 2023, and nothing has happened since. It has been radio silence. It is as though the committee never even wrote a report. Yes, there was a response from the government, and I will come back to that. However, people are still dealing with the same problem. Our shorelines are continuing to erode, and the government has not acknowledged that nor has it taken any further action.

The committee tabled a report in the House, but the response that it got was unsatisfactory, because nothing has been done. I figured that, if the House were to concur in this report, then we would be sending an even stronger message to the government that it is time to take action and consider the reality that people are facing on the ground.

I will therefore provide a brief history of events because, despite the government's failure to follow up on this report, the people on the ground continue to deal with erosion.

Why is reference made more specifically to erosion caused by commercial shipping? In the 1950s, the St. Lawrence Seaway was built to enable larger vessels to reach the Port of Montreal. As we know, ships have only gotten larger and they carry even more containers, petroleum and cargo. This is the way international shipping achieves economies of scale. Because the seaway was built to allow larger ships to pass through, the St. Lawrence River is no longer in its natural state. It is not the same river as it was 100 years ago.

Needless to say, bigger ships cause bigger waves, and the wake from passing vessels causes erosion, which little by little eats up people's land each year, so people started to protest a little. Although people could agree that increased river freight traffic creating economies of scale would boost the economy and be in the interest of regular folks who purchase these goods, there were negative consequences for some. Having recognized this in the 1960s and 1970s, the government set about building structures to protect against shoreline erosion caused by commercial shipping.

In the 1990s, as we know, the Liberals began making cuts everywhere. Wherever they could, they made cuts, cuts and more cuts. Among these cuts, the Liberal government of the day officially did away with the shoreline protection program in 1997, which means that for over 25 years now, the St. Lawrence shoreline has been completely neglected. Most of the structures built in the 1960s and 1970s are now over 50 years old. They have fallen into disrepair and are no longer effective.

In unprotected areas, erosion continues. In areas that have some protection, the structures are crumbling and are increasingly ineffective, if they even remain at all. In the 1990s and even before that, the government wrote a letter to shoreline residents, abdicating its responsibility. It told these residents that the protection structures it had built no longer came under its responsibility, and that henceforth it would be up to them to maintain their land, because the government would no longer be doing so.

That is a bit odd given that it is the federal government that manages the waterway. It was the federal government that expanded the St. Lawrence River to allow boats to pass through. It is the federal government that regulates the St. Lawrence River and waterways in general. However, citizens are the ones who have to foot the bill. That is a bit of a problem. There are huge economic benefits to transporting goods on the St. Lawrence River. Between these efforts and this report being produced, no one, not even the citizens affected by this situation, are asking that boats no longer be allowed on the river. That is not the idea. The idea is that there are people who suffer the consequences, and they should be protected and compensated. They should not have to face the repercussions this transport has on their private property all by themselves.

The government acknowledged responsibility for changing the river, which is no longer in its natural state. The ships using the waterway are getting bigger and bigger, and they are affecting the shoreline. Even so, the government avoided taking responsibility and told the public that it wanted to save money by making them pay. The thing is, government scientists did not necessarily agree with the government.

Two scientists who worked at Environment and Climate Change Canada—federal government scientists—conducted a study in the 2000s. They studied 1,600 kilometres of shoreline from Cornwall, Ontario, to Montmagny, in the Lower St. Lawrence. They studied 1,600 kilometres of shoreline, which is a lot. They found that 70% of all the erosion between Cornwall and Montmagny occurred between Montreal and Sorel-Tracy. Worse still, 86% of erosion attributable to commercial ships occurred there as well. In other words, controlling for other factors, such as tides and winds, scientists found that 86% of all erosion caused by commercial shipping occurred between Montreal and Lake Saint-Pierre. That is serious. That is a big deal.

What is the explanation for this? It is fairly straightforward. In the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the river is wide. There is plenty of room. Ships can navigate without any problems or impact. However, approaching Montreal, the river gets narrower and shallower. Even though the river is narrower and there is less room to navigate, the ship does not get any smaller. It stays the same size. The ship's impact is far greater in places where the corridor is narrow than in places where it is wide and waves have time to subside before reaching the shoreline. In certain areas, the effect of the waves could even be said to be marginal, since there are so many other factors that have a far greater impact than vessel traffic. For the area between Montreal and Lake Saint‑Pierre, however, the scientists' research and data are clear. The main erosion factor between Montreal and Sorel‑Tracy is commercial shipping. That is significant.

This is the exact area where my riding is. The people of Verchères, Varennes and Contrecœur suffer the consequences of this problem on a daily basis. They live with this all the time, and it is stressful for them. We conducted a survey, which some members of the public worked on as well, and it found that half of shoreline property owners in and around Verchères, Varennes and Contrecœur are seeing serious erosion problems. This issue is affecting hundreds of people and causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. For these people, the stress is not only psychological but financial as well. As the protective infrastructure crumbles, it is taking land with it. Sometimes bits of land fall into the water, so people are afraid to walk along the edge of their property because the river might swallow it up. Holes are appearing all over their land. Some people even worry that their house will fall into the river. That is how bad the erosion is. Despite all of that, they are the ones who would have to pay for a fix. That does not sit well with me.

I was elected in 2015, but we really got down to work on this issue in 2017. Seven municipalities sent us resolutions calling on the federal government to acknowledge the situation and reinstate a shoreline protection program. We received support from the cities of Varennes, Verchères, Contrecœur, Sorel-Tracy, Lavaltrie, Lanoraie, and Repentigny. All of these cities took a stand and insisted that the issue was important and urgent, that a problem existed locally, and that the program had to be reinstated. The letter was sent to Mr. Garneau, but despite media coverage, he simply never answered it. My constituents were pleased to see their MP taking charge of the issue, and these events whetted their appetite, leading them to wonder whether he could help them even more, so a short time later, in 2018, I wanted to find out where things stood. I decided to hold a town hall meeting.

We rented a hall in Verchères and it was filled to capacity, with no seats to spare. Over 150 people showed up and there were no empty chairs in sight. It was standing room only. Everyone agreed that this problem had to be solved. It is not a problem that I made up. When rooms are full to overflowing and people come together to support a cause, it is because they have problems that they want solved.

We therefore presented a petition to the House of Commons and formed a citizens' group that exists to this day. The group is working hard to raise public awareness of this issue. Our petition netted 2,300 signatures. When it was tabled in the House, we held a press conference. We were accompanied by elected officials, mayors and various groups.

The then transport minister, Marc Garneau, did not even respond to the petition. The House's rules state that the government has 45 days from the tabling of the petition to respond, but the minister never responded. I wrote to the Speaker of the House, but Mr. Garneau got off scot-free. The Speaker did not reprimand him because an election had been called, meaning that the minister was no longer required to respond to the petition. It was dead and buried.

The election took place. Unfortunately for the Liberals, I was re-elected. The same minister was re-elected as well. This forced us to table another petition in February 2020. We also filed a notice of a motion in 2020 at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, calling for a study to be conducted on shoreline erosion, for the committee to hear witnesses and for people to be allowed to come talk about what they were experiencing. This time, we did hear back from the transport minister. It certainly took some time. Basically, he said that erosion was caused by several natural factors and that he was aware of the problem and was working hard on it. He never really saw the light, so to speak. We were told that they were aware of the problem but that they would not be doing anything more about it, that it was not caused solely by ships but by other factors as well. That is what they said, despite the scientific data I spoke of earlier.

By 2021, residents had had enough. They were really unhappy. They launched a $50‑million class action suit against the government, authorized by the Quebec Superior Court. When citizens take their government to court, things must be really serious. In February 2022, my motion for a proposed study was adopted by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. In the fall of 2022, we heard from witnesses, and they were unanimous. The experts, scientists, residents, cities and the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative all agreed. It was not just experts from Quebec, by the way. The consensus included experts from Ontario as well.

Everyone agreed that it was Ottawa's responsibility to take care of this and to compensate people and protect them from damage, especially in areas where the erosion is mainly caused by shipping due to the channel being narrow.

In the spring of 2023, the committee's report was tabled in the House. Not only did all the witnesses who appeared before the committee agree unanimously, but all the parties seated around the table also agreed unanimously. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities produced a unanimous report. I was pleased. I was really excited. I thought we had reached the goal and that Ottawa would finally get it. I thought the unanimous committee report would make something happen. Everyone was in agreement. This is not about partisan politics. These are facts, and it is about being sensitive to what people are going through.

There were six recommendations in the report. They were all very good, but I want to focus on one recommendation in particular. It is the most important one and reads as follows:

That the Government of Canada re-establish a shoreline protection program in areas of the St. Lawrence River where erosion is due in large part to shipping, in particular where the channel is narrow and more exposed to wake, in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments, Indigenous groups, industry and scientific experts.

It was the government that wanted to add that last part, after “wake”, but we can live with that. We have no problem working with other groups. What is important is that the federal government take the lead, since it has a responsibility to do so. That is what the motion said.

The report contains five other recommendations that are all very interesting. I will read them quickly.

The second and third recommendations state, “That the Government of Canada continue to invest in research that focusses on providing technical guidance to help assess best solutions to shoreline erosion” and “That the Government of Canada draw up an inventory of the areas affected by erosion along the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Waterway”.

The fourth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada support research aimed at finding the most appropriate way to protect the banks and to protect their ecosystems from damage caused by vessel traffic.”

The fifth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada evaluate the effectiveness of current voluntary speed reduction measures for commercial vessels and consider applying them on a larger scale through formal regulations.”

The sixth recommendation says, “That the Government of Canada explore the possibility of setting up a fund for the restoration and enhancement of riparian environments affected by erosion that would be financed by the commercial users of the river corridor.”

Those are the committee's six recommendations and, as I said, the report was adopted unanimously.

What was the government's response? The government basically said that it was taking the six recommendations under advisement and would be getting back to us about what it was already doing. Which means it was thanking us for our work, it would not be listening to us and it was already taking action. What is it doing? There are some research projects here and there, and there has been a voluntary reduction in ship speed. Meanwhile, the people on the ground still have to contend with the problem.

The sad part is that things never change. People have been fighting this since the program was abolished, of course, but as far as I am concerned, I started in 2017, which means we have been fighting this battle for nearly eight or nine years and telling the government to listen to these people who have been living with a problem that the government itself recognized at the time. Why is it no longer able to recognize it now? Its reasons are shortsighted. It wants to save some money and pinch pennies at a time when people are in financial distress because it would cost them a fortune to repair their land. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars per landowner. It is unconscionable to expect a handful of people to bear the brunt of this entire problem.

They tell us the same thing all the time: The erosion is caused by multiple factors, they are working hard, it is a shared responsibility and so on. I am fine with the part about shared responsibility, but most of the problem is due to shipping, which is causing most of the erosion in this section of the river.

It is not normal for citizens to have to drag their government to court in order to be heard. It is not normal that petitions must be tabled, citizens mobilized and resolutions adopted by municipalities and sent to the minister, nor is it normal that the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities issue a unanimous report only to see the government drag its feet. This is not normal. It is not normal for the government to dismiss reports prepared by its own scientists who are telling it that the problem is in its own backyard. It is not normal for Ottawa to wash its hands of its constitutional responsibilities. Commercial shipping and navigation in general comes under federal jurisdiction.

The government, however, says that it is not its job to take care of it. There is a problem. If it is not the government's job to take care of it, let it offload the responsibility to another government, or let us declare independence. Perhaps the Quebec government will take care of it, because as we can see, Ottawa is not interested in doing its job.

In conclusion, I expect the federal government to respect the people in my riding. I expect the study tabled by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, which was carried out in a serious way, with witnesses, and whose findings were unanimously accepted, to be acknowledged by the government and taken seriously. I expect the House of Commons to confirm the work done in committee so that it has more weight, so that the government really listens to what the people want and solves the problems happening on the ground. Most of all, I expect the government to implement the recommendations set out in the report. In my opinion, that is the starting point. I am totally baffled that this short-sighted government is trying to avoid taking the problem seriously.

However, I am still pleased, because there were Liberals on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities who heard the witnesses and what they had to say. They saw the facts, and they voted with the rest of the committee members. They understood that there was a problem that needed a solution. They agreed with the solutions that were proposed. If these Liberals agreed with the proposed solutions when they were in committee, I think they will be able to convince the government. If the government is really serious about the problem, it has no choice but to agree with the facts I have stated. It can only act responsibly, right?

The whole purpose of the House is to hold the government accountable for its actions and to highlight the everyday problems faced by our constituents.

We are doing our job. I can say that I am doing my job. Now it is up to the government across the aisle to do its job.

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

$503,105.00