Transport Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I will turn it over to Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

In respect of the coordinates on the schedule, I would note that when we were looking at the coordinates as proposed there was some concern about whether or not some of the coordinates were completely correct.

I don't have details in front of me right now in respect of the actual coordinates, but I would say that one concern was whether or not they were actually reflective of the geographic area of concern, which is the southern Gulf Islands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

I will turn it over to Mr. Bachrach perhaps, if he wants to comment. If he doesn't, that's okay as well.

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

I do believe that a map has been drawn up to confirm the boundaries. That was confirmed with the legislative clerks and the drafters who worked on the amendment at a couple of stages.

Maybe “legislative clerk” is the wrong word. The drafters insisted that we map out the coordinates as part of the exercise so that we could confirm that the areas do indeed reflect the areas of concern. We can provide that map if it's of interest to the committee.

With regard to Mr. Strahl's comments, what we also heard over the course of the debate on this bill was that one goal of Bill C-33—the government has assured us of this—is to make the supply chain more efficient. It's going to reduce congestion at ports and reduce the need for anchorages because of all of the many things that they've jammed in here to give the government additional powers to reduce blockages and direct traffic. Ports are moving towards active traffic management systems that are going to make them more like airports in regard to directing marine traffic.

I think all of those things are going to dramatically reduce the likelihood that we'll find ourselves in a situation similar to the one we found ourselves in during the pandemic, which saw an extraordinary amount of traffic backed up and anchored in areas, which had real negative impacts on people and on the environment.

Maybe we'll agree to disagree on this one. I know that this matter has a tremendous amount of support from the residents of those communities. They feel very strongly about this. We are talking about a very unique and precious part of the British Columbian coast that's home to all sorts of important species, including southern resident killer whales, chinook salmon and other species of concern.

I'll leave it at that and hopefully we can move on to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I have another question for Mr. Bachrach.

With respect to the areas of concern that you outline in this amendment, you mentioned that the residents would support this. I'm assuming that you've had some dialogue with the residents of the areas.

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

Yes, we have had dialogue with residents of the areas, as have my MP colleagues who represent those areas. It's an issue of grave concern for them.

We heard from some of those stakeholders at committee during debate on this bill. We heard testimony from the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, as I believe it's called, which is an alliance of concerned citizens. They would like something even stronger. They don't want ships parking there at all. I think that's clear.

I believe that what's been presented is a reasonable compromise that prevents the really long stays that are unreasonable, as I think is fair to say of a ship that would be anchored for more than two weeks immediately adjacent to a rural community in an area that's ecologically sensitive.

We're looking for some middle ground here. I think they're willing to accept what's contained in the bill. Hopefully, this will improve the situation.

As I said before, we've received assurance from the government that the other aspects of this bill that will improve the supply chain and the flow of goods through our ports are going to reduce the need for extended anchorages in locations like this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Strahl, followed by Mr. Badawey.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you.

I will note that we've now had two different sets of.... Originally, when we were talking about anchorages and the emergency powers of the minister, government officials—independent bureaucrats—made their views known, which were that this would have major impacts and unintended consequences on the shipping sector.

We've heard just now from officials that they have concerns with some of the coordinates being proposed.

The idea that we would rubber-stamp this with concerns not from partisan players in this game but from independent officials from the departments who have concerns about this—that we would somehow just say, “Well, they might have concerns, but it's written out here and we want to get this done”—would be irresponsible. I think it's another reason for us to oppose this specific schedule.

Specific concerns have been raised now on multiple occasions by departmental officials, so we'll be voting against this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I have Mr. Badawey up first, and then we'll go over to Mr. Bachrach.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I thank Mr. Bachrach for his comments.

There's no question that at this committee, going back to 2015, we established two interim reports with respect to transportation logistic strategies. Both interim reports led to the same recommendations for different parts of the country.

We do recognize that now we have a St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation review and a ports modernization review, as well as recommendations attached to both of those. Of course, the supply chain task force has come back with its recommendations as well.

Mr. Bachrach is correct in stating that we are trying to ensure that we not only recognize those strategic regional hubs within our supply chain—those out in the western area of the country being very strategic—but also recognize how important it is to integrate our supply chains with our neighbours across the border in the United States.

Of course, with that comes two things. One is the integrated capital investments that are going to be made to handle the capacities expected within those regional hubs and the supply chains. The second is to involve ourselves in a full dialogue with the communities they impact. Whether it be positive or negative, the bottom line is that dialogue has to continue.

I want to thank and congratulate Mr. Bachrach and his colleagues for doing that and of course for coming back with this amendment, which articulates some of the concerns of the residents of that area of the country. Yes, we have to balance that out with respect to ensuring that, while this activity is advantageous within these strategic trade corridors in terms of promoting our economy nationally and binationally, we also have to be mindful of some of the impacts it has on the residents in those areas.

I want to thank Mr. Bachrach for that and state that we will be supporting the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, perhaps I could just say that I hear Mr. Strahl's concerns. I think what we're tasked with as a committee is striking that balance between the larger national economic needs of the supply chain and the local needs of the people and the environment through which the supply chain passes.

This is an issue whether we're talking about ports, anchorages or the rail corridor. In the region where I live, there's great concern about the transport of dangerous goods through communities. It's important that we transport dangerous goods, and transporting them by rail often makes the most sense, but that doesn't mean that the needs of communities and the safety of communities can be overlooked. We need to find a way to achieve both, and I think this amendment tries to strike that balance by limiting the time that ships are able to anchor in sensitive areas.

I appreciate that the shipping companies and the port would like maximum flexibility and do not want to have their options limited in any way whatsoever. That's understandable. What we're tasked with is also representing the people who live in the area and managing the impact on what is a unique and sensitive marine environment. I think this amendment achieves that.

If I can try to reflect back on Ms. Read's comments, what I heard from her was that she isn't able to confirm that this long list of coordinates in front of us reflects a particular area of concern. That's a fair comment, because it's just a long list of numbers. The idea here was to reflect a geographic area that residents have expressed concern about, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada has indicated is a sensitive marine area and that Parks Canada has identified as an ecologically significant region.

Hopefully, that's going to be enough for us to push to a vote. I understand that we're not all of one accord on this, and I can respect that. I think this strikes the right balance and I hope it passes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I don't see any other hands up, so we'll go to a vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, I have five more questions for you and then we can present this back to the House.

Shall the short title carry? It's “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act”.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-33 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Before I ask the last question, I just want to take a moment to thank our wonderful witnesses, the department officials, who have joined us for several months on this and given us their expertise as well as, most importantly, their time.

Thank you very much.

Thank you also to our legislative clerks, who also gave us their time on this.

The last question I have is this: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Fine work has been done. Thank you all very much, colleagues.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'll move a motion to adjourn.