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 .

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

One of the other challenges facing ports and their infrastructure is the fact that international import-export is growing, so there is a need to grow the smaller ports because the larger ones are not going to be able to handle the growth capacity.

Places like Sarnia—Lambton, which is my riding, have a port. We have now an oversized load corridor to import and export large fabricated vessels, etc., and we have capacity to grow.

Is there anything in Bill C-33 that you feel would hurt or help the growth of smaller ports?

[Jacques Paquin]

I can add to Mr. Hamilton's answer.

Bill C‑33 introduces greater uncertainty about our borrowing capacity. In dealings with financial institutions and business partners, the last thing anyone wants is uncertainty, so this bill does not create conditions conducive to getting projects done.

[Ian Hamilton]

Thanks.

We don't believe there's anything inside Bill C-33 that improves our access to capital. There's a commitment around additional reporting, which suggests that there should be.... That additional reporting should make the process of changing borrowing limits and accessing that capital more streamlined and easier. However, the bill doesn't actually go that far. It gets to the reporting side of it.

As we talked about earlier, some of it is a financial burden or, I guess, a red-tape burden. The reality of it is that we're being asked in the bill to report as if we're a publicly traded company, but at the same time, we're not able to take advantage of any of those investment vehicles made available to publicly traded companies. I think that's the contradiction of the crossed threads.

I'll pass it over to Jacques. He has some real examples of where.... Nothing is going to help him get his projects completed.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for joining us even though it's so late.

We've heard quite a bit about a borrowing limit process. I'm wondering if I can ask the port authorities.... I'd like to learn more about the approach that is being used to balance between borrowing money for growth and financial responsibility. Do you think there are any measures in Bill C-33 that can help support that balance?

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

I want to talk to Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Paquin.

You both mentioned that the bill doesn't actually do enough to encourage or facilitate integration or co-operation between port authorities. Did the bill just fail to add sections that would allow that, or does the bill actually actively prevent that from happening?

Is it an error of omission or addition? What is stopping you from integrating as much as you would like to? Are there specific changes to Bill C-33 that could be made to address those concerns?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to talk a bit with Mr. Gooch.

I noted Ms. Murray indicated some concerns with the Port of Vancouver. I'm sure that when they appear—I hope they're coming—they might have a different perspective.

A lot of what has happened in this bill.... There are two new board positions. One goes to local government and one goes to provincial government. These ports are located in communities, obviously, but the port of Vancouver is the most important port for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It serves the national interest.

Can you talk about perhaps the tension there and whether you see Bill C-33 actually watering down the importance of recognizing that federal ports are supposed to operate in the national interests? They do serve more than just the community in which the port facility is located.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm sorry to cut you off. I have one final question.

Does Bill C-33 do anything to address the supply chain issues and the labour dispute issues that were of concern?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's great to be back here.

Thanks to the witnesses for joining.

It's been not quite a year since I was on transport. However, the last time I was here we talked about the state of the nation with respect to ports.

The port of Vancouver was ranked 368 out of 370 in the world. The port of Montreal was ranked 311 out of 348 in the world. It was clear that the ports needed assistance from the federal government. There were concerns about supply chain disruptions and labour disputes. Bill C-33 was supposed to be addressing the gaps the ports were facing.

Let's talk about some of those things. Clearly money is going to be key in order to modernize the ports. I've heard discussion about the borrowing limit.

Why do we even need a borrowing limit? If private investors and banks are willing to invest in the projects, do we even need one?

I'll start with Mr. Gooch.

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

That's significant.

When you had your annual meeting and community meeting back on May 10, unfortunately I was here in Ottawa, but I sent three members of our team.

You have great plans for the future. As part of this committee we toured the Hamilton port back in March.

I want to drill down on your comments in the opening. I recognize you had a short period of time, so you might want to elaborate on that.

You're doing great work. You've clearly explained how the current process for borrowing limits and financial flexibility and the proposed changes in Bill C-33 are insufficient. You've been waiting a year. What would be better—or nothing at all? I mean, why don't we unleash your potential?

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

Thank you. Yes, it's certainly a muddied answer from the Transport Canada officials and the intent is unclear.

Switching gears, let me ask you this, Mr. Hamilton, because I'm a Hamilton MP and you're doing fantastic work. While we do claim ownership of the Hamilton port, of course we recognize it's in Oshawa and Niagara. Frankly, it's an economic driver for all of southern Ontario.

One of the questions I asked Transport Canada officials on Monday was whether they had done a cost analysis on all these different regulatory burdens, committees and changes that are being proposed in Bill C-33, and the answer was that no cost analysis had been done. Mr. Gooch mentioned that perhaps a larger port estimated that at $200,000 per year.

Do you find it surprising, or is it concerning? Have you done any analysis as to what the cost impact of this would be on HOPA?

[Amy Nugent]

What Bill C-33 proposes now is that port authorities individually go away to develop GHG targets. That doesn't make a lot of sense when every other economic sector or certainly the vast majority of economic industrial sectors in Canada are subject to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act that you reference. That act requires 40% to 45% reductions by 2030 of all industrial sectors, yet we're asking ports to go away to think about and develop within a year their own GHG targets. It doesn't make sense in terms of the capacity, and I think someone referenced that, maybe Mr. Gooch, in terms of the role of consultancies.

Let's use the targets that are backed by science, by a need to hold warming to below 1.5°C, and then embed those targets for ports, albeit it's not easy, and there's a need for very significant energy and infrastructure supports to get there.

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

Thank you, Ms. Nugent.

Following that, I'm interested in your observation that Bill C-33 should include explicit reference to the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and the targets and milestone years contained within. One of the interesting things, thinking about ports, is that this act, I believe, relies on the 2005 base year as a way of defining targets.

Could you provide your thoughts on how targets should be set for port authorities and what order of magnitude reductions we should look for from port authorities over the planning duration of the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act?

[Amy Nugent]

Thank you so much, Member.

I think I left off on agreeing with other witnesses on the importance of large-scale investment. I was going to say that the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States has invested $3 billion over four years to support their clean ports program.

We understand that Transport Canada has a $165-million program in development over seven years. That's a good start, and the scale needs to be much larger, in addition to the flexibility spoken to by the port authorities. The quantum of the investment by the Government of Canada at this time in terms of decarbonization simply needs to be much larger.

I wanted to say very much on what witnesses were talking about with members in these latter questions. We see the administrative burden also in the numerous reporting mechanisms and agree that those can and should be simplified. When we say that decarbonization needs to be a criterion, that's not a layer on; that's to say that all these plans such as financial reporting, business planning, borrowing plans, and climate mitigation and adaptation plans should be part of the same planning cycle, which in good business planning they are.

Finally, in terms of the investments, we know what's needed at ports. Port authorities are telling us, and other ports internationally are leading the way with shore power, electrification of ports—and of vessels themselves—near shore, alternative fuel for ocean-going vessels, and renewables. I've spoken a little bit about energy needs and needing to get into the queue.

We're seeing leadership internationally, and we're seeing ports in Canada making those efforts, including in the closed basin of the Great Lakes. We would like to support that. Bill C-33 is a good start. Of course, we think it could go much further, and that responsibility is on the shoulders of Transport Canada in the very immediate future.

Thanks very much for letting me complete those thoughts.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

As I said in my notes, our colleagues in labour who appeared the other day really heightened our concerns about the governance aspects of Bill C-33. In response to questions on Monday, Mr. Ashton made it clear that he's not looking for labour expertise and input on the boards or the view of individuals with experience in labour, because that's already built in the process today. Indeed, it happens, and if the minister wants that type of perspective on boards, all he has to do is go out and say that he wants this perspective on boards. He appoints the majority of the directors.

What Mr. Ashton said is that he's looking for active union representatives to be appointed to the board. I think that suggests there's a lot of confusion about what the role of directors is on boards. It's not to run the port. It's not to interfere with the running of the port. It's not to serve a personal or professional agenda. They owe a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation itself.

It's clear there's confusion around the role of a director on a board, which is the other reason we have a real concern about active provincial or municipal employees being appointed to boards as well. We're concerned that they would also have that confusion around what their role is.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gooch, from the standpoint of supply chain optimization, do you think the measures included in Bill C‑33 promote greater efficiency?