Evidence of meeting #59 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ports.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
We certainly have some concerns with the governance provisions. We feel the system has worked well. We don't understand why the minister has been given the ability to appoint the chair. It's quite important that the board have confidence in and be comfortable with the chair.
The minister has assured us that he would consult with the board and would in normal circumstances follow their recommendation, but of course that doesn't mean that future ministers will take the same course. That's a concern.
There's a significant part of the bill that is of particular interest to us, such as the deals in terms of the ability to gather data and putting in place a new vessel management system that we're currently working on.
The concern there is not the bill. The bill basically creates the shell in which to build. It's really all going to come down to the regulations and, potentially, changes to our letters patent in terms of whether they will give us the powers we need to enforce what they are asking us to do.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
I imagine my time's running down.
There was some commentary about U.S. ports. Obviously, they're a threat. We're going to bleed business to U.S. ports if we don't get this right and we have these kinds of constraints here in Canada.
Maybe you can give us an assessment of how much of a threat that is. As we look at our national supply chains—the comment was made that there isn't a coherent strategy—I note that none of the immediate recommendations of the task force have even been implemented.
What kind of threat are we facing from U.S. ports?
12:20 p.m.
Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
There's no question. The goods have to go somewhere, and if there isn't capacity in our ports, they will flow south of the border if there is capacity there. Generally speaking, particularly in terms of containers, they are significantly more expensive. I'm told it's about $500 per container on average. These are costs that will get passed on to Canadian consumers in imports.
It's also a question of access. There are very limited cross-border rail routes. There's no question that more traffic would have to move. A company in Saskatchewan, say, moving lentils and moving specialty crops for export would likely be in a position of having to ship to Vancouver and truck south, and that's a problem.
It's not as big a problem for the Walmarts and the Canadian Tires, because they inevitably hedge their bets. They use multiple ports. However, for a smaller shipper, it would prove a significant challenge.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Muys, and thank you once again, Mr. Miller.
Finally for today we have Mr. Badawey.
Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, fellas. It's great to see you again.
First off, I want to base my questions and comments on assumptions and expectations. What I mean by that is moving forward in an attempt to come forward with recommendations that will attach to the business of moving trade in 2023 and well into the future, getting away from the somewhat archaic system that we have in place today—mostly because of the fact that everyone's working in their own silos on different of methods of transportation, number one, and number two, because we need to work in an international versus a binational manner. We look at that, and we've heard about amending the letters patent, expanding financial capital leveraging and borrowing limits to enable you to satisfy your business and strategic plans, moving forward.
With that said, I guess my first question is this: Can I assume that you've established strategic plans, and with that, obviously individual, but more importantly integrated, supply chain multimodal strategic plans—again, it's 2023—and also with that, strengthening the ports' multimodal capacity, which includes water, rail, air and road, and therefore national and binational supply chain fluidity?
This is extremely important to me. This is an important study for this committee. It's one of the reasons I sit on this committee. It attaches to my riding, to Niagara. That's our niche. How do we better that? How do we strengthen that? It's southwestern Ontario, Hamilton included. How do we strengthen our supply chains domestically and therefore strengthen binational and international trade performance? These are discussions that I expect will be undertaken in the next few days, with the President's visit.
I'll go back to my question: One, have you established strategic plans that are integrated, multimodal and binational as importantly as national? Attached to that, have you established secondary plans, capital asset management plans, that strengthen your capacity and the sustainability of your strategic plans through strategic integrated multimodal and binational, and not just national, capital investments?
That's my first question.
12:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
A port authority is really a convenor of many different parts of the supply chain that come together. Locally, absolutely they take a very strategic view of how all those pieces fit together. Certainly, Hamilton, in your backyard, has been quite excellent at that.
What we would like to see, though, is the next step, which is going beyond the actual port itself and looking at the various corridors that are involved. That's where a national transportation supply chain strategy—we know that the department is working on something of that nature now—is really needed to put all the pieces into a national context.
I think my colleague might speak to the Vancouver context of that a bit more effectively than I could.
12:25 p.m.
Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
Sure.
We certainly have strategic plans in terms of our own operations, but we are limited in that, legally, our jurisdiction only goes so far. We certainly work with the supply chain partners, but in terms of binational, we work with Seattle, for example, on some environmental programs and things of that sort. I wouldn't say there's no dialogue, but frankly, we really don't have any jurisdiction to work in those areas.
We work closely with the railways. There's been a lot of strategic work done in terms of the prioritization of the various proposals for funding under the gateways program. Much of that reaches beyond our jurisdiction. I think we have done a good job of addressing some of the worst bottlenecks in the system, but every time you address one, the next one pops up. Sometimes, as that happens, it becomes less clear. You know, everybody knows the worst ones—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you for that. I have limited time.
I'll get to the crux of it and try to come out of this with some meat on the bone with respect to the takeaways, the next steps.
If I'm hearing you right, one is that the discussions can be moved forward with respect to ensuring that your individual strategic plans become more integrated and more multimodal in nature. That is point one.
Point two, as we move forward with those strategic plans—including your capital investment, which would support itself as a secondary plan—is to give them the capacity they need to then move forward with the...I'll use the word “infrastructure” that you're going to require.
The second part of that is to also have those integrated discussions with our American partners, to integrate the supply chain so that it has more fluidity. Further to that, to give it more fluidity, the infrastructure investments that must be made will be not only domestic but also binational. Whether it's a road, a rail line.... We have the Great Lakes; it's binational.
To integrate, whether it's digital data or the logistics and distribution systems, and to work with our American partners on the same piece of water would be prudent. That's my second takeaway. Going from your comments, that would have to happen as well, that binational relationship to discuss those capital integrated investments. The fluidity within the supply chain has to happen as well.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
There's no question about it.
To give you an example, availability of industrial land is something that we don't control. It's beyond our capacity, but without it, we can't make rational decisions. Things end up moving farther than they need to. We end up with environmental impacts, but it's not something that we control. It's the municipalities and the province.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I have a final comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to both.
Let's have that discussion. Let's ensure that we leave this meeting with that as the takeaway—that we in fact have those discussions with respect to the capacity and infrastructure that are needed, the integration of the multimodal network.
Lastly is the binational discussions we have to have so we can integrate not only the capital investments for the multimodal network but also the fluidity within the supply chain.
12:30 p.m.
Senior Advisor to the Executive, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
I would add that into that.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Miller, and thank you, Mr. Badawey.
On behalf of all committee members, I'd like to thank all the witnesses who joined us in person today or virtually online for your witness testimony and to contribute to this very important study.
With that, I'm going to suspend the meeting for five minutes as we go in camera.
Thank you very much, everyone.
[Proceedings continue in camera]