Bill C-33

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

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

This enactment amends several Acts in order to strengthen the port system and railway safety in Canada.
The enactment amends the Customs Act to require that, on request, any person in possession or control of imported goods make those goods available for examination in accordance with regulations and deliver those goods, or cause them to be delivered, to a secure area that meets the requirements set out in regulation.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) add a definition of “safety” that includes the concept of security;
(b) prohibit interference with any railway work, railway equipment or railway operation, or damage or destruction of any railway work or railway equipment, without lawful excuse, in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations;
(c) prohibit behaviour that endangers or risks endangering the safety of a station, railway equipment or individuals who are at the station or on board the railway equipment and unruly behaviour toward employees, agents or mandataries of a company;
(d) authorize the Minister to order a company to take necessary corrective measures if the Minister believes that
(i) a measure taken by the company in relation to a requirement of a regulation made under subsection 18(2.1) has deficiencies that risk compromising the security of railway transportation,
(ii) the security management system developed by the company has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security, or
(iii) the implementation of the company’s security management system has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security;
(e) authorize the Minister to grant, refuse to grant, suspend or cancel a transportation security clearance;
(f) strengthen the administrative monetary penalty regime; and
(g) require a review of the operation of the Act every five years.
The enactment also amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 to, among other things,
(a) require persons who import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods to register with the Minister;
(b) provide to the Minister powers relating to the management of safety risks; and
(c) establish an administrative monetary penalty regime.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to, among other things,
(a) set out the Act’s purpose and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with organizations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act;
(b) set out regulation-making powers that include powers respecting threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system, the sharing of information and the establishment of vessel exclusion zones;
(c) authorize the Minister to make interim orders and give emergency directions and modify the Minister’s power to give directions to vessels; and
(d) create new offences, increase certain penalties and extend the application of certain offences and the administrative monetary penalty regime to vessels.
The enactment also amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that the Minister may use electronic systems in making decisions or determinations under an Act of Parliament that the Minister administers or enforces and provide that a power of entry into a place under such an Act may be exercised remotely by means of telecommunications; and
(b) reduce the threshold above which the Minister and the Commissioner of Competition must receive notice of proposed transactions relating to a port.
The enactment also amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) set out that port authorities are responsible for management of traffic and create regulatory authorities respecting fees and information and data sharing in respect of that management;
(b) provide the minister with the power to require, by order, the taking of measures to prevent imminent harm to national security, national economic security, or competition; and
(c) require port authorities to establish advisory committees, which must include representatives from local Indigenous communities, require periodic assessments of port authorities’ governance practices and set out new requirements respecting plans and reports relating to climate change.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act .

[Wade Sobkowich, Executive Director, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

The Western Grain Elevator Association is a national association of grain companies. We handle in excess of 90% of Canada's bulk grain shipments. Today, I'll highlight our views and observations on Bill C-33 in the context of the grain supply chain.

Alongside the lead-up to Bill C-33, as was pointed out in the earlier session, the supply chain task force report was tabled in October of 2022.

The task force report refers extensively to Canada's competitiveness and prosperity, the need to create a competitive transportation system and the need to address the power imbalance between transportation service providers and shippers. It rightly positions shippers and exporters as drivers of the national economy and places the needs of those who produce and sell Canada's resources as paramount.

It's the WGEA's observation that the spirit of Bill C-33 is in stark contrast to that of the task force report. We have some examples.

The first area of inconsistency is port governance. The federal government has the objective of increasing the volume of Canadian agricultural exports and is investing in infrastructure projects that help increase the flow of goods. At the same time, in the last 11 years, grain farmers in western Canada have grown nine of the largest crops on record, mostly through innovation. This is a good news story for Canada.

We have, however, seen past decisions by port authorities that were not in the grain sector's best interest. This led to our organization's advocating for changes to port governance to provide more representation for tenants and the provincial economies where the product has originated.

I feel like we're losing focus and sight on the fact that ports are there for the national economy, first and foremost.

Instead, Bill C-33 does the exact opposite. It increases representation from local municipalities and the provinces in which the ports are located. It raises a real concern for us that port operations are going to be governed by local issues rather than the national interest.

The second suite of concerns has to do with vessel management. With a growing crop, we face the challenge of evolving the supply chain to move more product each year. This is not a situation of trying to find ways to do more with less. In practical terms, we need to find a way to have more vessels ready to load in the port of Vancouver, not less. It's Canada's largest working port designed for commerce, and it has to be—first and foremost—viewed through that lens.

Bill C-33 will enable the creation of a regulated system to restrict the presence of vessels in Canada's ports. A natural consequence of increasing trade is an increase in vessel activity. As a country, it doesn't work to have conflicting objectives of growing exports but reducing the presence of vessels to move exported product.

A major contributor to increased days at anchor is the ongoing challenge for the railways to deliver enough trains on time and in the appropriate sequence. Some of those things are outside the railway's control and some of them are within, but Bill C-33 only addresses the symptoms of vessel numbers and vessel wait times while ignoring the root cause of inadequate, unpredictable and often poorly executed rail service.

I heard the minister speak earlier and say that the bill addresses end-to-end supply chain issues and needs to be looked at in the fullness of the supply chain, but we don't see that in the bill. If the government intends on passing legislation to help supply chains, it really has to look primarily at railcar supply from the railways versus railcar demand from exporters, on a week-to-week basis, and introduce legislation that provides discipline that matches railcar supply with demand. Vessels wait for railcars to arrive. That's why they're waiting in Vancouver. It's not because of poor management by grain exporters.

Demand for Canada's exports must be set by customers, not by the railways. Bill C-33 not only ignores this root cause but will regulate vessel activity to match limitations already in place due to the rail environment. Instead of liberating supply chains to operate commercially, we see this as restricting vessel activity to match the restrictions already in place in the rail sector.

The third suite of areas has to do with appeals and dispute resolution.

Bill C-33 falls short in establishing dispute resolution processes that are typical of legislation where a similar imbalance of power exists, as we find between ports and their tenants. It should include a straightforward means for tenants to appeal unfair or unreasonable decisions of a port authority. There are mechanisms in other sectors where the same scenario exists, but they're not there for the marine sector.

In addition, Bill C-33 should address the obvious conflicts of interest that arise in a port's dual role as a developer and a regulator. This is a topic on which the bill is silent.

I just have a few more comments. The fourth area—

[Christopher Hall, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shipping Federation of Canada]

Thank you. It's a real pleasure to be here this evening.

The Shipping Federation of Canada is a national association that represents the owners, operators and agents of the ocean ships that carry Canada's imports and exports to and from world markets.

We support the government's efforts to modernize Canada's marine transportation system, not only through Bill C-33, but also through several other legislative initiatives, including the marine sections of Bill C-52, and the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act and the Marine Liability Act, which came into effect this June.

When viewed in conjunction with the recommendations of the national supply chain task force, these initiatives represent the most extensive transformation of Canada's marine transportation system in the last 25 years, and one that is long overdue, given the shocks, disruptions and challenges the system has experienced since then.

As it relates to the Canada Marine Act, we note that Bill C-33 provides updated language regarding the act's purpose, which now extends to managing marine infrastructure and services in a manner that maintains resiliency and safeguards national security, and for managing traffic, including moorings and anchorages, in order to promote supply chain efficiency.

We view the references to “resiliency” and “national security” as important additions that reflect the increasingly unpredictable nature of the environment in which our supply chains operate and the need for greater flexibility in responding to those challenges.

Although we also support giving ports explicit authority to manage marine traffic, we would caution that this represents a very small piece in a much larger puzzle of solving efficiency challenges at ports such as Vancouver. Indeed, these challenges cannot be resolved without considering the broader context in which ships operate, and where factors such as rail and road infrastructure deficits, labour availability, labour stability, productivity challenges and rail performance issues, to name a few, all play a major role.

Bill C-33 also gives the minister new regulatory authority to compel users and port authorities to share information and data in support of marine traffic management. This represents an important first step in developing a national supply chain data and digitization strategy, as per the recommendations of the national supply chain task force.

However, if this strategy is to be successful, it will be important to ensure that data-sharing commitments by stakeholders are based on incentives rather than penalties and that the strategy's primary focus is on connecting existing digital platforms rather than building new ones.

In addition, government departments and agencies, particularly CBSA, must also be prepared to join the digitization effort, ideally by migrating to a maritime, single-window reporting model for collecting data from supply chain stakeholders.

Finally, although we will not be making specific comments on the amendments that pertain to the governance and reporting requirements of the CPAs, we believe that these amendments will require additional scrutiny and consultation if they are to gain the level of buy-in from stakeholders that will be necessary for their successful implementation.

Turning now to the proposed amendments to the Marine Transportation Security Act, we were pleased to see the addition of the new “Purpose” section, which articulates the act's overall objectives. However, we have concerns regarding the very broad criteria under which the minister may impose security-related measures, which essentially extends to any circumstance that creates the need to “deal with threats and reduce direct and indirect risks”.

Although we support the minister's enhanced ability to act quickly in response to threats or risks to the marine transportation system, the lack of specificity and details as to what qualifies as a threat or a risk makes it difficult to ascertain what constitutes a legitimate need for immediate action. This is important, because these broadly construed criteria serve as the trigger for the minister's ability to exercise the continuum of powers at his or her disposal under the act, which include not only the ability to make regulations, but also to issue interim orders, directions to vessels and emergency directions, which are outside of the normal regulatory process and the normal checks and balances that are accorded to it.

Finally, as it relates to the Customs Act, we note that Bill C-33 proposes amendments regarding the time and manner in which goods are to be made available for examination and the need for goods to be examined in a secure area, etc.

This raises serious concerns as to whether CBSA has the necessary facilities, infrastructure and personnel for conducting cargo examinations, and whether it has the necessary funding to address the significant deficits that currently exist in these areas.

This is a major and ongoing issue of concern in the marine mode, as it has been our experience that CBSA's current lack of resources not only impedes the efficient examination and movement of cargo but also hinders the development of new shipping services and market opportunities at ports across Canada.

This concludes my comments. Thank you very much. I'll take your questions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes. I think the vision behind this bill, and you said it, Mr. Badawey, is that we have to think of this as one system—one system that is integrated, one system that shares data, shares information and understands that it depends on the other. If one part is weak, the whole system is weak.

You're absolutely right in the sense that we have to see what we do with those lessons, not only on Bill C-33 but on Bill C-52 and others—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to try to be a lot more productive after the hour that we've just heard.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here, first of all.

I'm looking at Bill C‑33. As I mentioned to a lot of the witnesses....

By the way, a lot of the witnesses support a lot of the bill. I'm not going to buy the fact that no one supported it. A lot of them gave support to many parts of the bill. At the same time, they were giving opinions on other parts they thought could be changed.

We've noticed and recognized throughout the years in the ports modernization review, the rail safety review and the supply chain task force report... I'll even throw in the St. Lawrence Seaway review, because I consider that somewhat of a port, in terms of its trade corridor. We're working on Bill C‑33 and we have Bill C‑52 coming up. As you said, Mr. Minister, it's to update and modernize.

The whole concept behind reports coming to the committee.... I value the committee a lot. I've been on this committee since 2015. I've worked with and learned a lot from the partners we're dealing with today. With that said, and upon listening and learning.... Here's a bill that gives opportunity for the door to be wide open for people to walk in, to take all of those reports—bills included—and create the first part of a transportation strategy, integrating transportation logistics not just in Canada but also binationally. We heard from CP Rail-CP Kansas City the other day.

My question for you is this: As we move forward.... We heard a lot of the comments made tonight. We heard, more importantly, the comments from the partners. Do you feel this is just the start of the conversation?

In fact, in listening to those partners and witnesses, we expect this committee to simply do its damn job and come back with amendments, instead of bitching about everything they think they heard. We come back with amendments and present them to you and your team. Of course, with that, if there's an expectation of what this bill is going to be and accomplish, that will be done through the work of the witnesses, the testimony received and committee amendments. Then it's back to you. Of course, with that said, it's a bill that can hopefully make most or all more productive in the jobs they're doing within their port authorities, the rail sector and other...that this bill is attached to.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Yes, I understand, but, generally speaking, the committee hasn't seen any enthusiasm for Bill C‑33. No one told us they absolutely wanted this bill to be passed.

Now I'd like to discuss another important point: the right to strike.

Some labour people told us that they thought their right to strike might be threatened by certain provisions in the bill that seem to give the minister significant power and broad authority over port management, including the making of interim orders.

Mr. Bijimine said in previous testimony before the committee that he would be open to requesting a legal opinion on the matter. Has that been done? Can we assure people that the bill presents no potential threat to the right to strike?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

When it comes to data, digitization and investing in technology, it's all with the same objective: efficiency and accountability.

From the marine side, after hearing from many ports across the country and from witnesses here at the committee, who shared their concerns about the powers the bill would give you, many of the concerns are with regard to safety, such as not only anchorage, blockage, and those kinds of things, but also the right to protest. Specifically, Minister, Bill C-33 gives you some additional powers when it comes to emergencies.

Can you give us some context as to why those would be necessary?

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, to our committee this evening.

You said, at the beginning of your comments, that the goal of the bill, of course, is efficiency and accountability. We've heard from many witnesses at these committee meetings, from marine ports, railways and so on, about Bill C-33. Many of them have made some good suggestions on how to improve the bill. Hopefully, at the end of the day, this will happen at this committee: recommendations that will lead to efficiency and accountability.

I want to ask you a question around data sharing because, again, a lot of them talked about that.

Minister, data sharing is a common element of Bill C-33. Can you please share with this committee why that's important to effective port operations, and how do you envision data sharing between ports, port users and the federal government to maximize results?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

There's a need for this bill. It's an important bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it a bill that everyone goes crazy over and says, “Yoo-hoo, we're supporting Bill C-33”? Not necessarily.

However, is it making structural changes? It is—for ports, for trains, and also for the environment. With regard to the link between the ports and the communities, the importance of striking those communities—those communities with community leaders, with indigenous people, with local governments—is fundamental.

Are you against that?

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us this evening.

I'll start fairly generally.

It does seem as though this bill is mostly based on the economic needs of the supply chain and on the need to address some of the challenges we saw during the pandemic. It's certainly understandable that it speaks to some of the recommendations from the fairly prescribed legislative reviews that took place many years ago. However, there have also been very strong concerns from communities and people who are affected by the supply chain as they look to your government for more protection and more accountability.

Part of that work was this committee's study on rail safety, in which we heard from communities, unions and rail workers about their concerns. The picture they painted, as well as the picture the Auditor General has painted and the chair of the Transportation Safety Board painted, is a pretty bleak one. It leaves us with a lot of concern about the state of rail safety the tenth anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Yet of the 33 recommendations in this committee's report, Bill C-33 addresses none.

Maybe my question for you is this: How can this committee understand this as anything other than an insult to the work we've done? The recommendations in the committee's study came from the people who've been deeply impacted by the supply chain. They want changes. They want your government to have their backs. Yet the bill we see in front of us doesn't have any of that. Why is that?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

We've been studying Bill C‑33 in committee for nearly three weeks now. We've had time to hear from many witnesses, notably from labour, management, railway companies, port authorities, shipping companies, logistics companies and environmental groups. I was surprised to see that virtually none of those witnesses were enthusiastic about Bill C‑33. Your Liberal colleagues around the table even had trouble telling them anything positive about the bill. I'm not saying there's nothing positive in it, but, as a general observation, people either opposed it or were utterly indifferent.

Do you think it's normal that there isn't any more support for your bill?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Absolutely.

I said during my speech that ports not only play an economic role, but also, as part of their communities, they have an impact on those communities, which is sometimes positive and sometimes not that positive. They have to listen to what the communities have to say.

Through Bill C-33, we're asking the ports to put in place three different types of committees: one would engage with local stakeholders, the second with local governments/politicians, and the third with indigenous communities. They have to strike those committees to be able to hear concerns and suggestions, to be better connected with the communities they're in.

That's lacking, and I'm even surprised that it's not there. But with Bill C-33, we're making sure that we put that in there. They will have to create those three committees.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think that's a crucial question here, because it talks about the importance of the bill not only on the economic side but also on the environment side.

If you look strictly at the environment, there are a few things that are very straightforward. For example, Bill C-33 requires the ports to develop climate plans to reduce emissions, and not only do they have to develop those plans, but they have to make them public and the ports have to report on the progress, on what they're doing in terms of emissions, in terms of the environment. That is there. That's an obligation and will be monitored and will be public.

The other one you're talking about is related to anchorage. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and working on this, because I've seen some of those ships. I'm sure that Mr. Bachrach is interested in this. I know that a lot of friends around Vancouver are also. By giving the capacity to the ports to better manage traffic by making sure that ships arrive on time, spend less time there and leave faster, then you don't have all those ships waiting at anchor.

Anchorage has many impacts. One of them is that—and you said it—is that they have to keep their engines going, at least one, to keep the electricity and minimal functions on board. By doing that, they're polluting, and also, the noise of the engines has huge negative impacts on the whales. By being more efficient in the managing of the ships, you don't need that type of anchorage. I think it's a big step forward.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask one more question, because my time is winding down.

You talk about the cost of doing nothing, yet I asked you at the front end what is the number one thing that you think the bill will accomplish. I would actually submit that the number one thing the bill would accomplish is nothing at all.

We heard from witnesses. You don't have to take my word for it. I can replay some of their comments. Just on Monday, we heard a witness say that it would have no material impact on the efficiency of supply chains.... Let me repeat that: no impact on the efficiency of supply chains at all. Also, there are “missed” opportunities: we heard that numerous times from witnesses. One witness went so far as to say that having nothing—no bill—would actually be preferable to this bill.

Given these indictments—and look, I know you were saddled with this bill by your predecessor, so in fairness—would you commit today to withdrawing Bill C-33 and actually doing a proper consultation with stakeholders on an urgent basis, and then reintroducing it, yes or no?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask you this, then, Minister: At the first meeting studying this bill, we had some of your departmental officials here. Some of them are here again today. I asked whether a cost analysis had been done, because we're adding reporting requirements, new regulations, advisory committees and data-reporting requirements. The answer was no. There was no cost analysis done as to what impact—whether it's on a small or large port—all these new provisions were going to have. We asked some of the witnesses. We had varying answers, depending on the size of the port—from a cost of $200,000 to adding two additional employees when implementing the provisions of Bill C-33.

It seems to me as though you're adding all this cost. How do you justify the fact that no cost analysis was done up front and that you're just going to foist this upon the ports?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask you this, then: We heard from a witness on Monday afternoon about the port of Vancouver. You talked about the importance of our supply chains to our economy. Obviously, the port of Vancouver—our largest port, our gateway to Asia, with a significant portion of our trade going through that port—is absolutely critical. Yet, this witness indicated the port of Vancouver is ranked 347th out of 348 ports in the world. That's the second-worst-performing port in the world.

What is your reaction to that? How does Bill C-33 improve this?