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

[Peter Xotta]

Clearly, the Roberts Bank terminal 2 project is poised, we believe, to move forward. We're also engaged very closely with the Major Projects Office on other nationally significant projects. A big part of that narrative is around ensuring that the port has the capacity going forward to support bulk commodity growth, which is really fundamental to meeting the Prime Minister's objectives.

Embedded in that Port of Vancouver gateway strategy is the need for improvements primarily to rail but also to road infrastructure to support the growth that's anticipated.

The greater visibility of the metrics associated with growth will also hold all of us, frankly, accountable for making sure the improvements are made.

If I may comment again on labour stability, it's very difficult, when we're making targeted investments in infrastructure, if we aren't taking steps to address what is expressed to me, as a CEO, when I talk to shippers: the concern they have about the reliability of Canada's supply chain. It's not, strictly speaking, only about labour reliability. It's also about the robustness of our broader supply chain.

However, we believe the measures embedded here will assist us.

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

I'm going to stick with you for one final question.

The port of Vancouver touches 16 different communities, including my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia. Could you share something about the previous engagement, consultation and work you've done with indigenous communities, and the environmental impact...you've done, leading into the growth of this port?

[Peter Xotta]

Understand that port authorities have an obligation, through the Canada Marine Act, to engage with communities, including first nations, on the impacts of their activity. The port of Vancouver, like many ports, is a major metropolitan area with competing interests on land. Our approach with both communities and first nations has been to engage with them on an ongoing basis to create a rapport such that, when opportunities arise for us to grow Canada's trade, those relationships are hopefully good, or at least established, so the conversation isn't viewed as transactional.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Xotta.

[Peter Xotta]

Those relationships are really helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to extend my greetings to all the witnesses and thank them for being here.

I would like to extend a special greeting to Mr. Polo, a colleague who served for many years in the National Assembly.

By the way, Mr. Polo, my questions will be for you and Mr. Duchesne. You're representing the St. Lawrence Shipoperators. These questions will focus on clause 289 of the bill. In a discussion with a colleague earlier, you said that an exemption already existed prior to Bill C‑39. When a Canadian vessel isn't available, it's possible to use the services of foreign ship operators.

What does clause 289 of Bill C‑39 change?

[Saul Polo]

Thank you for the question.

The current process requires consultation with Canadian ship operators. We must consider the domestic Canadian fleet before determining whether to grant an exemption to foreign ship operators. Our concern with clause 289 stems from the fact that it circumvents this provision to authorize foreign ship operators to respond to emergencies.

Perhaps my colleague, Mr. Duchesne, can elaborate on the response and describe the current situation.

[Etienne Duchesne, Vice-President of the board, St. Lawrence Shipoperators]

Our concern is that clause 289 undermines the fundamental principle of the current regime by letting foreign vessels engage in coasting trade in situations that fall outside the scope of the current regime. This will weaken the regime that we all know.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Over the long term, how would maintaining this clause affect investments by Quebec ship operators, the maritime expertise developed in Quebec and the capacity of the St. Lawrence to rely on a Canadian fleet during emergencies?

[Etienne Duchesne]

In our view, the main impact wouldn't be immediate. It would become apparent gradually as Quebec ship operators make their investment decisions. As I said, clause 289 undermines the fundamental principle of the current regime. Even though this exemption would be rarely used, it would set a precedent for potentially circumventing the requirement to verify the availability of Canadian vessels.

For Quebec and the rest of Canada, this is particularly important. A significant portion of the Canadian fleet operates on the St. Lawrence. Investments in vessels, crews, seafarer training, technical services, shipyards and the entire Quebec maritime ecosystem depend on stable demand for Canadian capacity. To that end, we're calling for the current regime to remain in place and for the removal of clause 289 from the bill.

[Saul Polo]

This is the complete contradiction in clause 289. This bill purports to promote the unity of the Canadian economy, yet it calls into question an aspect that strengthens the Canadian domestic fleet. Of course, this also affects the crews, the workers and everything. Regarding this point and our demand, both the unions and the management are firmly opposed to this clause of the bill.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you.

I find it really odd to see this provision in the bill. As you just said, we want to support the Canadian economy. Yet here, we're undermining it. The ordinary law already contains a provision to call on foreign ship operators after verifying that no Canadian vessels are available here. It seems that the government is responding to requests from large foreign corporations such as Maersk at the expense of local companies. In any case, in practice, this seems to benefit them.

I would like to ask for your comments on this. However, I also have a question. When a vessel flying a flag of convenience or registered in a tax haven engages in coasting trade—for example on the St. Lawrence River—it will be exempt from complying with the legislation, as set out in Bill C‑39. In your opinion, which legislation will apply to the vessel? Is it the Canada Labour Code, or the labour code of the country flying the flag of convenience, such as Liberia, for example? Do you have an answer to this question?

[Saul Polo]

Mr. Duchesne, would you like to respond?

[Etienne Duchesne]

Yes. The legislation that applies on board a foreign vessel is the legislation of the flag state. You should understand that we aren't opposed to foreign ship operators or to calling on them. This approach becomes necessary when the Canadian fleet has been consulted and no capacity is available.

To answer your question, this doesn't mean that a ship operator flying a foreign flag is necessarily bad. That isn't the case. We aren't opposed to this. We just want to ensure that research within the Canadian fleet continues. We also want to emphasize that—as mentioned by my colleague, Saul Polo—this runs counter to the goal of Bill C‑39 to build a strong economy. When emergencies arise, Canadian ship operators will be needed more than ever.

[Saul Polo]

Mr. Ste‑Marie, I would like to add something. Clearly, the current provisions of the Coasting Trade Act and the domestic fleet legislation certainly promote Canadian tax revenue here, through the jobs created here and the Canadian ship operators who file their tax returns here in Canada. Clearly, the current system—even in times of crisis—makes it possible to respond to these situations and also boosts Canadian tax revenue.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, thank you for asking questions about coasting trade.

Mr. Polo, this is really quite complicated. I don't understand the government's stance on keeping clause 289. Do you have any examples that would explain the government's strong desire to keep it, or are we just completely in the dark?

[Saul Polo]

I'll ask my colleague, Mr. Duchesne, to elaborate on my response.

I would say that, even in emergencies or in situations where information is circulating—publicly—that a Canadian ship operator or vessel can't respond to a certain request, the current operating procedure makes it possible to reach out to domestic ship operators to consult with them. If there's no need to respond to a particular request—even in a crisis—the current mechanism already covers this.

In our case, we aren't analyzing any unwritten information and we don't have any opinion on this. That said, we're committed to preserving the Canadian domestic fleet, the crews and the jobs in Canada. In our view, this provision undermines much of the progress made over the decades here in Canada.

[Etienne Duchesne]

To add to that, I would say that no evidence supports the need for this provision. To our knowledge, we have never encountered a situation where the regime failed to respond to a Canadian emergency.

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

I gather that, if we extrapolate, clause 289 could favour American ship operators or other flags. If so, do you have any specific consortium or companies in mind that might be interested in capturing a share of Canada's coasting trade traffic?

[Saul Polo]

Clearly, this provision “extrapolates”, to use your term. It certainly undermines the way that things work. Once a loophole is opened—and this has been our concern from the start, as mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Duchesne—it undermines this operating procedure, which already strikes a balance. We accept that, should no Canadian vessel be available, we already have a mechanism in place.

We're completely opposed to this provision. On the contrary, we want to strengthen the Canadian fleet. We want to enhance its value. This has been our association's mission for 90 years. We want to enhance the value of the Canadian fleet, advocate for it, promote it and demonstrate that it can meet all needs, even in emergencies.

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

I'll be more direct. Please name the biggest competitors of Canadian ship operators, or the three main companies. If you can't name them here, please send us that information in writing. Maybe that will make it easier for you.

Do foreign companies want to enter the Canadian market?

[Saul Polo]

As my colleague said, we aren't opposed to this. This isn't a competition. This isn't group A versus group B. We're mainly looking to stand our ground here and to show our ability to serve and support the Canadian economy. It's hard for me to even begin to oppose this. On the contrary, these foreign companies play a certain role. We all work together.

That said, when it comes to connecting two Canadian ports—two points of service in Canada—our interest clearly lies in supporting the Canadian fleet.