Transport Committee on Sept. 26th, 2018

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

Like my colleague, Mr. Liepert, I'd appreciate some short answers, although I know these are fairly complex issues.

Peter, generally speaking, what is your level of confidence that the complementary pieces of the trade corridor—i.e., roads and rail—can keep up with your growth projections?

[Peter Xotta]

I will try to be brief.

What I'm confident of is that the infrastructure programs we've put in place and received federal funding for are for the most critical and urgent pieces of the gateway, to facilitate the growth we're anticipating.

Obviously, we're hopeful for future funding applications being supported beyond the 2030 time frame. Our modelling was done to 2030, and the projects that are supported, we believe, will accommodate that level of growth, should it unfold as anticipated.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Your colleague at the Hamilton Port Authority, Ian Hamilton, suggested yesterday that container traffic will grow at about twice the rate of the GDP. Is that your understanding?

[Peter Xotta]

Of course the growth in the various trade corridors is different. In Vancouver, we're anticipating growth of about 4% to 5%, which is consistent with what we have done historically through the last decade. That appears to be unfolding. If not, we typically grow at slightly higher than the forecast number that I've articulated, but that's the trajectory.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Is the decision on which port to go to—Vancouver, Nanaimo, Prince Rupert, even perhaps Squamish—left to market forces, or do you sense that there's a master plan or somebody who's really looking over the whole piece to see where in fact growth potential might best be placed?

[Peter Xotta]

It is primarily left to the private sector. Obviously, the shipping lines, in the case of containers, are trying to access various competitive markets with a variety of alternatives. In the case of export cargo, it might be more dependent on where the producing region is, or the producing facility in the case of a mine. However, primarily, it's a private supply chain.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

When you look at the constraints in metro Vancouver—mountains, water, agricultural land, reserves, the American border—would you not think there's a point where the law of diminishing returns really kicks in? For instance, to get that kind of rail capacity to the downtown port will require capital investments that are huge, compared to considering more modest investments in some place that can start to accept that kind of pressure on the system.

[Peter Xotta]

From the port's perspective, we have done much of that calculus. I would say that, to the extent that there are opportunities that shippers or shipping lines in other ports could avail themselves of, they will exercise that. What we're hearing is that there's still considerable demand for this gateway because of the various attributes and opportunities that exist there, and that's why we're continuing to push for infrastructure.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have one final question.

In the Niagara region yesterday, we heard there is a lot of siloed thinking. We heard that the port or the Welland Canal wasn't speaking to the road system. They weren't speaking to the industrial sector. They weren't speaking to the regional planners, etc. Everybody was working in their own bubble.

To what degree does the port participate in collaborative planning for the trade corridor with the road system and the rail system here in metro Vancouver?

[Peter Xotta]

I'll try to be brief.

I would suggest that the reason we've been as successful as we have in securing federal funding is a demonstrable level of support from communities, regional transportation authorities such as TransLink and the B.C. Ministry of Transportation, and a broad cross-section of port users. They are all advocating on behalf of these infrastructure projects. We understand that the complexity in the Lower Mainland requires a high level of collaboration. We're seized with that, and we think the success we're having is a result of having embraced that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have one minute left.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Excellent.

I want to go back to an answer you gave about your level of confidence in the capacity or the ability of the railways and the road system to handle the growth that you see coming—larger ships, more containers, the handling of the those containers in and out, etc. Do you not think that within the foreseeable future you're going to hit a wall with the technical ability of those railways to get bulk and containers in and out of there, especially in the Burrard Inlet? You're just going to hit the limit, and it's going to cost a hideous amount of money for them to make the kinds of improvements to keep up with you.

[Peter Xotta]

Once again, I'll refer to the federal infrastructure investments. Those applications were submitted with both railway partners—depending on the project—with significant capital being committed by the various railways to support those projects.

We're seized with the issue. There is no doubt that Canada is successful internationally, with Vancouver, perhaps, disproportionately being used as the primary supply chain to seize that opportunity.

We have work to do. I am not concerned that what is in the foreseeable future cannot be accommodated. Beyond that, it requires further analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I will move on to Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome you to the Francophone portion of this discussion.

You are already very good at giving concise answers. I invite you to continue doing so.

I have a colleague, Sheila Malcolmson, who does absolutely incredible work on the issue of abandoned ships. This issue is not as widely known in Eastern Canada, where there is only one such ship, the Kathryn Spirit.

I clearly see all the environmental problems that this issue can raise. I would like to know if you, if this represents a problem economically for your work or for the port business.

[Ewan Moir]

In Nanaimo, we deal quite often with abandoned vessels, but it's more the pleasure craft that we get. For each one, it probably costs us somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 to go through the process to eventually get rid of the vessel.

As Sheila has been saying, part of the problem is the lack of transfer of registrations when people sell boats. They just get left. When they get left, there's an environmental concern, and there's a responsibility upon us to get rid of that environmental concern.

[Peter Xotta]

Without repeating Ewan's comment, I would say that we absolutely struggle with the legacy environment that was created, and we have the registration issue.

We work closely with several municipalities, often on what we refer to as “vessels of interest”—they may or may not be wrecks at that point—to identify vessels and owners, and take appropriate steps to hold those who operate these vessels accountable. It is a challenge for communities.

I would argue that having a port authority within the community is actually a benefit in that regard, because you have somebody who is on the water and working with the municipality. For those communities outside of port jurisdictions, it's a much more complicated challenge. We're working forward on that.

[Sonterra Ross]

In Victoria, the GVHA does not have authority over the water, but we are involved with the region around the abandoned vessels. Similarly to Nanaimo, we are dealing more with pleasure craft.

We work in close partnership with Transport Canada to see if there is a way for Victoria Harbour to have an increased opportunity for enforcement. We're also setting in place policies and regulations to ensure that when vessels come into Victoria they're already deemed to be in good condition, as well as trying to reduce the risk of vessels being abandoned either alongside or in the open water.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

I continue with you, Mr. Xotta. Correct me if I'm wrong. In your preliminary statements, you seem to express a fear regarding the difficulty reconciling economic development at the Port of Vancouver and environmental requirements that are increasingly stringent or difficult to respect.

I would like you to comment a bit more first about this.

[Peter Xotta]

The port of Vancouver has had a structure in place for our tenants for the better part of 30 years, to review projects. We have seen considerable increased concern and scrutiny placed on those projects, probably appropriately so, given the competing interests that come to bear.

We're particularly concerned, not about increasing standards or ensuring compliance by our tenants, but about the exceptionally long timelines to reach final investment decisions for them. Those investments, as I mentioned with regard to the container sector, are likely to result in a deficit in terms of container capacity in the coming decade, and we are concerned about that because it relates back to our core mandate of providing capacity for trade to develop the Canadian economy.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

This problem came up in Quebec during discussions regarding the Energy East pipeline. The terminal was to be in a beluga breeding ground. You may have a similar problem in the West with Orca.

I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Did the port authorities conduct a study to identify the problem regarding these species at risk? If so, what were the findings of the resulting report and what measures are to be put in place?

[Peter Xotta]

Absolutely. On all coasts of Canada, there's appropriate scrutiny of species and impacts on species, particularly those that are endangered.

In the case of the port, we are, as I mentioned previously, advancing the notion of a container terminal at Roberts Bank. There is the southern resident killer whale population out there. The port has been analyzing that ecosystem for the better part of a decade, and I would suggest it's probably the most studied ecosystem in Canada—at least that footprint where the terminal will be.

Additionally, we are performing noise-monitoring trials in partnership with industry, to look at the impact of vessel traffic on the resident killer whale population.

Ultimately, we believe that this particular project can proceed without any detrimental effect to that population. That's the suggestion in our submission to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

It's not to suggest, once again, that there aren't challenges with regard to maintaining Canada's position from a trade perspective. The timeline to work through these processes is our express concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

I'm sorry, Mr. Aubin. Your time is up.

We'll move on to Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello. I thank you for being here this morning.

My questions do not refer to just one port. On the contrary, I would invite the witnesses to give us a brief response so we can have a better understanding of the similarities and the differences between each port.

My colleagues on the Committee understand that I have a particular interest in the ports of the future or smart ports. I find it fascinating to see that the new technology integrated into means of transportation can facilitate our trade.

What is the current situation in your respective ports in terms of traditional infrastructure, as well as smart infrastructure?

[Sonterra Ross]

I can start.

The master plan we've embarked upon is a great opportunity for us to look at those opportunities. We're different from Vancouver and Nanaimo in that we are predominantly a cruise port of call. In 2019, we expect to welcome more than 700,000 passengers, plus crew. We're looking to move close to a million people off our terminal through an adjacent neighbourhood.

Part of our infrastructure challenge is in trying to move people. Through our master plan, we're looking at various technologies, whether green or information-based, to help move more efficiently the number of people we move.