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

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

The last opening remarks go to Mr. Xotta, please.

[Peter Xotta, President and Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee. It's my pleasure to join you today from the traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh nations. Thank you for your service and leadership for Canadians in these consequential times for Canada.

There's no doubt that Prime Minister Carney's commitment to double exports to non-U.S. markets in the next 10 years is the right commitment at the right time.

What else is clear? As it has been stated by my colleagues on the panel, ports across Canada are at the heart of making that outcome a reality. As Canada's largest and most cargo-diverse port, the Port of Vancouver is going to play an outsized role. Today, the value of goods moving through this gateway is over $1 billion per day. We trade with more than 170 economies, with 80% of those exports already destined for markets outside of the U.S. For context, we've just set three years of record cargo volumes, and in 2026, we're on track for a fourth consecutive year of record volumes.

With game-changing projects on the horizon, like the Roberts Bank terminal 2, and the federal government's Port of Vancouver gateway strategy now in motion, we are confident—I am confident—that we're up for the challenge the Prime Minister has set out.

Adding to this momentum is the building Canada strong act. We want to move forward. We want to move more of what Canadians make, mine, harvest and grow, and we believe this bill takes a significant step forward in that direction.

We welcome high-impact measures, including moving toward one project, one decision to streamline federal review processes, codifying supply chain efficiency as an objective in the Canada Transportation Act, changes to increase trade digitization and new measures to promote labour stability while preserving important existing collective bargaining rights.

Here are our recommendations. To maximize the bill delivering on its intent, we offer four suggestions.

One, ensure that fee-setting provisions are workable, maintain flexibility and aren't interpreted in a way that hinders the mandate of ports by interfering with the financing of new, important infrastructure projects. This includes but isn't limited to clarifying the requirement for a port authority to operate on a self-sustaining financial basis—including current and future capital, infrastructure, growth and trade capacity requirements—and not to restrict fee revenues to the direct cost of the service associated with the particular fee.

Two, regarding an indigenous advisory committee, we strongly support the principle of long-term dialogue and engagement with first nations. In our jurisdiction, we've already gone above and beyond the federal government's intentions with Bill C-39 by signing two historic relationship agreements with the Musqueam and Tsawwassen nations and reaching mutual benefit agreements with 27 first nations on the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project. We recommend, therefore, allowing port authorities that have robust vehicles and processes for meaningful engagement already in place to use these rather than be compelled to create new, duplicative structures. This flexibility would be formalized through the letters patent process.

Three, regarding the future creation of the national trade corridors and the national trade corridors council, we underscore the importance of identifying the right performance metrics and the need for a balanced group of representatives that each bring broad supply chain perspectives to the table, rather than a siloed or sectoral interest.

Lastly, four, regarding the transportation project office, we welcome a complementary tool to more quickly advance the range of projects that are necessary. To avoid the risk of duplicative efforts, however, we recommend clarification during implementation that defines the roles of the interplay between the transportation project office, the national trade corridors council, the Major Projects Office and Canadian port authorities' existing regulatory accountabilities and processes, so that we maximize efficiencies and outcomes for Canada.

In closing, we strongly value this government's leadership. With minor refinements, we believe this legislation can help deliver for Canada. Together, we'll be moving more of what Canadians make.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Albas, it's over to you for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak with all of you today.

Ms. Murray, we'll start with you.

Obviously, ports are an essential part...and we want to see that projects can go clearly and quickly. In Bill C-39, the government has proposed a transport project office that is discretionary and would offer a single window so that proponents could go to it, but it doesn't have any teeth. It's very similar to the Major Projects Office in that it can process paperwork and whatnot, but it can't actually approve a permit.

Do you think that needs to be rectified, so that the powers that are given by law in division 1 for other types of responsible authorities should also be vested in the transportation project office or whichever office ends up being used?

[Debbie Murray]

From our perspective, increased accountability and responsibility through the transport office is something we would support. If this is implemented through the bill, it would be imperative that there be some sort of mechanism to ensure that the office could keep all the different departments and all the permitting processes in line and accountable.

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

Yes, as I said in the last panel, the Deltaport expansion berth four.... Essentially, you have a disposal-at-sea permit, a Fisheries Act authorization and a Species at Risk Act permit, so it's not just a Transport Canada lead.

Would you also want to see authority given not just to conduct all these things but also to bring in and coordinate those agencies or departments that are outside—and to name and shame when they don't deliver in the much-touted 12-month timeline?

[Debbie Murray]

I think it's important to have some sort of authority for a systematic assessment that constantly engages...and that knows where things need to be and where things need to land.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Polo, on the Coasting Trade Act changes, you said before that you need longer timelines than simple three-day notices, etc.

Is that correct?

[Saul Polo]

Exactly.

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

Okay.

My understanding is that the government right now, though, will put out, for five days, a call for capacity to Canadian operators that can pick up whatever emergency under the Coasting Trade Act is required, and this mechanism works well. If no one applies for it after those five days, the government can proceed to allow a foreign national to come in and do those things.

Why is that provision in the Coasting Trade Act changes important in Bill C-39, when the mechanism is already there and works quite well, according to [Technical difficulty—Editor]?

[Saul Polo]

I'll ask my colleague Etienne to complement my answer in a minute.

That is the main reason the focus of our comments today is on mentioning that this particular disposition needs to be removed. In the current Coasting Trade Act, there's already a disposition for emergency situations that is used, serves well and respects not just the domestic fleet but also the Canadian workers' presence and our way of doing business. What we're saying is that the current disposition already works well. It allows for a fast turnaround to consult with the existing operators and see who can supply...to any emergency situation.

If that's not the case, we could—

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

What you're saying, then, is that the current provisions work well and that this is a solution without a problem.

[Saul Polo]

Exactly.

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

Okay. Thank you very much.

I'll go to the Vancouver port authority.

Sir, thank you for your presentation today.

My understanding is that the port has been relatively good as the agent operating on behalf of any government department consultation to run those processes and then to coordinate them.

Does Bill C-39 complement that, or does it displace it?

[Peter Xotta]

As one might imagine, due to the complexity of the west coast from both a community perspective and a first nations one, the port authority has developed very robust processes for aiding proponents in the port in their consultations and in the case of projects where we are the proponent for direct engagement.

That has been successful, and we feel it has put us in a very strong position. Not every port has a requirement for that frequency and depth of engagement, so we think some flexibility in Bill C-39 is appropriate.

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

Again, though, the criticism might be that it took you 10 years to go through Roberts Bank 2 and do all that before you could come to a decision.

Do you think that track record is what's causing this, or do you think there are other reasons the government is keen to give this to a different authority?

[Peter Xotta]

The track record of permitting in Canada for major projects is not one that is positioning us well. Thus, Bill C-39 is welcome.

Port authorities have the ability to permit projects on their lands, up to a certain level. We would argue that the systems we have in place are robust and should be supported and amplified. It's major projects of national significance like RBT2 and others that require assistance and modification, as is proposed in Bill C-39.

Not all of this is perfectly defined. We get that. We support the ambition of Bill C-39 and are prepared to be active participants.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bains.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us today.

I'll first go to Mr. Xotta.

You are leading Canada's largest port network.

My first question for you is this: How will Bill C-39 provide certainty to supply chains, and how does that certainty translate to growing businesses and investment in the Port of Vancouver, from both Canadian businesses and international investors?

[Peter Xotta]

The challenge that I think is before us as a country is that, from the perspective of permitting timelines and stability in our supply chains, those are two things that are preconditions for existing investment in Canada from those that are currently here but also from anyone considering direct foreign investment into our country. Those are two things that we need to set about changing the brand of Canada on, and we believe that Bill C-39 will assist with that.

At the port, this is an enabling piece of infrastructure for Canada. We need to make sure that, to the extent that someone wants to invest in a mine in Saskatchewan or a plant in Alberta to ship their products, we are reaffirming those investments by timely support both from a regulatory perspective and in infrastructure in Canada's supply chains. I think the measures that are proposed in Bill C-39 get us down that path.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

One of those measures is that the bill will enable our government to track key performance measurements for entire trade corridors. As a multimodal port that is serviced by three class I railroads, can you tell us how this bill's trade corridor framework will help streamline the operations at the port, and what kind of performance measurement would help carry that out?

[Peter Xotta]

We think, as has been discussed with digitization, it creates greater visibility. It also focuses conversations on where there are actual problems as opposed to perceived ones. That visibility allows us to move forward with improvements in the supply chain to support delivering, as I said previously, confidence in shippers in Canada—and in those that might choose to engage in trade with Canada—that the supply chain is not in any way, shape or form the impediment to investments and business growth.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you.

For my next question, I'll go to you, Ms. Murray.

I met with the BC Coast Pilots last week. They described their system of final offer arbitration as an effective model that has allowed them to avoid job action. It adds stability and keeps costs down. While their system is one of many, how do clearer and more regimented systems of labour negotiations, as found in Bill C-39, support a better workplace and efficient, predictable operations?

[Debbie Murray]

We don't represent the B.C. marine pilots—just to make that clear—but I understand that you're using that as an example.

I think we have, in Bill C-39 now, proposed refinements and clarifications to the Labour Code that will help to enhance the collective bargaining process. Specifically, the geographic certification will provide greater stability and predictability in terms of the bargaining and the contract cycles.

In the instance where we potentially have a work stoppage that a special mediator has deemed to be imminent and that would have national impacts, we think that the provisions that are put forward in the bill will help strengthen and provide that predictability and stability that we need as a country to compete.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to go back to Mr. Xotta again.

Can you just expand a bit on how the bill will make Canadian port authorities more competitive?

What kind of infrastructure will it enable to fit our government's trade diversification agenda?