Bill C-39 Committee on Oct. 27th, 2026

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Do Canadian ship operators have access to American ports from time to time?

[Saul Polo]

Canadian ship operators maintain a significant presence in American ports. As soon as we transport Canadian goods to American ports, a number of our ship operators—including the ship operator that employs my colleague, Mr. Duchesne—provide cargo transportation services to American ports, and vice versa as well.

The Coasting Trade Act advocates for connecting two Canadian ports, which we're advocating for here today.

[Etienne Duchesne]

I would like to add a quick comment.

We find it difficult to speculate on what lies behind all this. We don't understand the purpose of this provision. We don't understand where it comes from. The Canadian Transportation Agency oversees the coasting trade regime, after all. Hence our request for the removal of this provision. What's its purpose? Is that purpose harmful? It's hypothetical and we don't know. For our part, we see that we have a program that works. We have a regime—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Duchesne. I have one last question.

Could the American government have pushed for a share of the market, given all the negotiations currently taking place with the Americans, and could the bill include clause 289 to make it easier for certain American ship operators to gain access?

[Saul Polo]

We don't operate on the basis of assumptions.

That said, if you're referring to the current business environment, we've been advocating for the Canadian fleet and for our ability to serve not only Canadian companies but also American markets for a number of months now. As far as we're concerned, we'll continue to advocate for Canada's Coasting Trade Act.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Kelloway is next.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.

We've heard at this committee, and in fact we've heard today, that when it comes to major projects and major infrastructure, indigenous involvement is critical to these long-term projects to ensure long-term success. You did speak to this to some degree, but I think it's important to expand on it.

Can you please speak to the involvement of indigenous communities in Vancouver Fraser Port Authority operations?

I have a couple more questions, if you don't mind.

What does your organization engagement with indigenous communities look like? The third question would be this: How would this bill's measures ensure indigenous representation? How would that work in practice for organizations such as yours?

[Peter Xotta]

Thanks for the question. I'll try to be brief and not repeat myself.

The port authority has been engaged for many years. There are many nations on the coast that we consult with through the process of engagement on a particular project. However, we have established relationship agreements, essentially protocol agreements, with some of the more prominent and frequently engaged nations that are in the vicinity of our major terminals. Those agreements are producing ongoing engagement of a variety of types, certainly with respect to projects but also employment, procurement and other types of benefits.

We have 27 mutual benefit agreements with nations associated with the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project. Those define the accommodation and other aspects of receiving, essentially, what we view as support for the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project. In other words, to the extent that the port.... It's always our intention to fulfill the obligations that are embedded in our permits and other agreements with the nations, and on the basis of those, we have received these mutual benefit agreements. That process is one that is evergreen in terms of there always being new projects and bases for engagement with those communities.

My comments with respect to Bill C-39 are not to usurp that process in Vancouver, because it is complex, and we're having success. We're hoping that the provisions in Bill C-39 support ongoing work in our port, and maybe in others, without creating duplicative structures.

Thank you.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thank you for that. I'm going to stick with you.

The bill will allow ports flexibility to engage in a broader range of activities, including engaging in joint liability partnerships and creating entities other than wholly-owned subsidiaries. I'm wondering if you could speak to the flexibility of what is being proposed in that bill. It's an important piece of the bill in terms of how it helps the Port of Vancouver better fulfill its mandates not just for British Columbians but for all Canadians, being the largest port that we have and given its importance to Canada writ large.

[Peter Xotta]

The intent of the legislation is to give appropriate flexibility to port authorities to engage in activities that support shippers and our trade agenda, and not necessarily the port per se. As I listen to my colleagues in the St. Lawrence, I realize, first off, that if you've seen one port, you've seen one port. Even within Canada, the dynamic on the St. Lawrence or on the east coast is dramatically different from the environment that we have on the west coast.

We have engaged in joint ventures through the existing provisions of the Canada Marine Act. We are also actively involved in delivering physical infrastructure in municipalities through the various funding support programs that have existed.

My intention would be to explore through Bill C-39 how we can continue to be proactive in advancing the trade agenda through the west coast, which is very different, I believe, from what is contemplated on the St. Lawrence or at the east coast ports with respect to these provisions.

All I will say is that additional flexibility is something we want to explore through these provisions.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Okay, I have the time to ask one more question.

Another important piece of this bill is our ability to track key performance measurements for entire trade corridors. Do you agree with that? What kind of performance measurement would help you carry out things that would be of benefit, obviously, to your port?

[Peter Xotta]

On the principle of the performance metrics, frankly, if we don't have data to inform the conversations of the trade corridor councils, we'll end up with a lot of anecdotes, which don't really move us forward. It's really important to do those two things in concert.

From the perspective of our digitization efforts, our focus has been on the Port of Vancouver, but bringing a national lens, given that what we're talking about is a national agenda, is critically important. We're key supporters and can provide input into that process. We're very supportive.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Kelloway.

We have about five minutes left, so I'll go to Mr. Lawrence next for about two minutes and then to Mr. Louis for two minutes.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Okay. I have one question for you, Mr. Xotta, and then I will pass it over to my colleague Mr. Albas.

You talked in your earlier testimony about the national projects office. Overall, I, as well as many experts, have been disappointed in the fact that only one project has been approved.

Have you had any consultations, on which projects have you had them, and what impact have they had?

Thank you.

[Peter Xotta]

I mentioned previously the announcement of the Port of Vancouver gateway strategy. That is unfolding with respect to engagement with the Major Projects Office. We are also engaged with the Major Projects Office in the consideration under way today of the listing of the RBT2 project by Canada, as well as the Pacific link project that was recently announced. We're obviously not the proponent, but we will be engaged with the Major Projects Office and the proponent in terms of the impacts at tidewater.

Frankly, our having the ability to energize the discussions among federal ministries that are involved in providing permits for major projects is what I see as the value proposition of the Major Projects Office. I won't speak to the number of projects that are listed.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, sir.

I'd like to quickly ask Ms. Murray a question.

Ms. Murray, in your opening statement, you talked about the national transportation council that's being set up. Obviously, there are powers that are given to the minister under the Canada Transportation Act that allow the minister to get information and then share it with a member of the national trade corridors council. This is a lot of proprietary information. There could be conflicts of interest that are not contemplated in Bill C-39.

Could you please supply the committee with some detailed analysis as to what you think should happen if amendments were made to deal with your concerns?

I'm sorry we don't have much more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

We have no more time, to be accurate, but thank you.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Could she say yes or no?

[Debbie Murray]

Yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you. Bless your heart.

[Debbie Murray]

Thank you.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Which question was she answering?

[An hon. member]

Just that she can say it.