Transport Committee on March 23rd, 2023

[David Miller]

First, I want to say that there is no reason, particularly, to believe that this will be an automated terminal. We don't even know who the operator will be at this point. The business seems to be going to partially automated terminals, where there are still a significant number of jobs. We indicated to the union that we in fact were prepared to guarantee a certain minimum number of jobs that would be present. I think it's far too early. This terminal, if it goes forward—which, obviously, we hope it will—won't be completed for seven or eight years, so it's a terminal that will be operated by an unknown operator a long way down the road. It's very hard to say what will be happening in the business at that point or which way they will go. It's really speculation.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

I'll come back to you, Mr. Ashton. Do you believe the port authority can guarantee the offer of 800 jobs, when they say the proposed terminal operator has the final say over the level of automation?

[Robert Ashton]

Not at all. My friend just said that they don't even know the level of automation. The VFPA themselves have told us that all horizontal traffic on the terminal will be automated. That's all the tractor trailers, all the rubber-tired gantries. Those will be all automated. That's hundreds and hundreds of jobs gone.

Mr. Miller already stated that there's no guarantee that it'll be automated. Well, that's not what the port authority has been telling our union and everybody else. It's been telling us that all horizontal traffic will be automated. At the end of the day, the 800 jobs.... The Vancouver Fraser Port Authority can't guarantee a number, because they've stated to everybody that it'll be the terminal operator, whoever that may be in this Field of Dreams scenario, who will have the final say in the level of automation. It could be 800 jobs. It could be five jobs. It could be 10,000, but it will be below the 800 number.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Lewis.

To respond to the point of order posed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.... If the sound and the video work well, then typically the committee will move forward with that approach. If the sound quality is not good, then the committee can decide by unanimous consent to adopt a motion that basically says that we can move forward with the video off in order to better protect our interpreters and ensure that we can better hear the witnesses.

Does that work for the committee? Are there no objections?

Thank you.

Thank you for having raised that issue, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next we'll go to Mr. Iacono.

You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to welcome the guests and thank them for being here.

My first question is for Mr. Gooch.

How can the federal government help to identify gaps in the links between transportation infrastructures?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Thank you for the question. I'm going to answer in English.

One of the things that we'd like to do at the Association of Canadian Port Authorities is update a study that we did well before I got there in 2011. It was funded, I believe, in part by Transport Canada, and it looked at both the planned infrastructure investments for the coming years as well as what was needed. The supply chain task force report identified $110 billion over 50 years that is needed in infrastructure investments at Canada's seaports alone.

What we would like to do is dig a bit deeper on that, get our ports together and take a look at what that looks like. How much of that is maintaining existing infrastructure? How much of that is associated with decarbonization, which is a top priority for Canada's port authorities? How much of it is expansion? We know there are significant investments needed, and we do want to better understand what that looks like for the coming years. We've had some conversations with a federal agency that might be able to fund that, and we would like to work on that over the next couple of years.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Ms. Gee and Mr. Ashton

How do you think Canada compares to other countries in terms of the global trend towards automation?

What can we do to support workers during the transition?

[Robert Ashton]

Do you want to take this first, Bonnie, or do you want me to?

[Bonnie Gee]

I was going to defer to you, Robert.

[Robert Ashton]

All right.

How do we compare with other nations? We're actually doing very well. We have some levels of automation at our current container terminals. These were negotiated between the terminal operator and the union. What that did is create more space at the terminals. There hasn't been a steamroller effect of automation at our terminals. It was negotiated and dealt with appropriately, in order to protect workers' jobs as best we can.

If you look at what's happening elsewhere in the world—south of the border or in Australia; pick a country—you see corporations and employers coming in and blanket-automating an entire site. It's like what the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is talking about with RBT2. What that does is wipe out the jobs. It wipes out the workforce. Our Prism report states that a greenfield terminal could wipe out approximately 90% of a conventional terminal's workers. A brownfield being converted to automation is...about 50%.

That doesn't work for workers in Canada. We're doing a fine job, in Canada, moving the boxes. We have a broken system. We don't need to spend $3.5 billion to create a terminal that's going to wipe out Canadian jobs. The port authority has already spent half a billion to a billion dollars, and it hasn't yet put a shovel in the ground. The money.... It has to stop. The feds have to put a plug in the sinking ship that is RBT2.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Gooch or Mr. Miller, would you like to comment on this question, as well?

[David Miller]

Certainly. The suggestion that a decision has been made, somewhere, that this will be an automated port is just not true. That is not a message we have been sending. It's not something we know, at this point. It's just not accurate. We are in a position to put out a tender for an operator. Going forward, we will be able to put conditions on that tender. In that way, we will be able to guarantee jobs. It is misleading.

I would also object to the suggestion that the system is broken. There are major issues. A lot of them are relatively recent. There are issues of warehouse capacity in eastern Canada. A lot of that is linked to people over-ordering during and after COVID, then not picking up their loads. Warehouses get backed up. The railways don't have any place to put the loads, and they don't want to move them until they have someplace to put them.

There is no question there are problems. There was also a delay in terms of building a new terminal in the Milton area, which has not helped matters any. Realistically, this is not a long-term problem. To suggest the system is broken because of this problem is just not accurate.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

If I may add to that, the only comment I would make—and this is very general—is this: We don't build infrastructure for today. We build it to ensure Canada has the capacity it needs 10 years from now, in the future.

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

Thank you, Mr. Gooch.

Have your members been helped by the national trade corridors fund? If so, can you give us a few examples?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Is that a reference to the national trade corridors fund?

[A voice]

Yes.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Okay.

Port authorities have received nearly a billion dollars in funding through the national trade corridors fund. It is a great program. We would like to see it made permanent and capitalized on continuously.

We would recommend some tweaks. In particular, the way the fund works right now, applicants are told when the project has been approved. However, until a public announcement is made, they can't spend any money. That can end up being months of delay. We're in an environment in which construction and material costs, and inflation, are quite extensive. That's a concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Iacono.

I am now giving the floor to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here today.

I'd like to respond to Mr. Miller's earlier comment to the effect that the committee had not visited the port of Vancouver. I believe that most of us were very sorry to hear that the committee had eventually come to this disappointing decision, on grounds that the committee had visited the port of Vancouver in the past. I nevertheless believe that I and everyone else would have liked to visit that port.

My first questions will be for Mr. Gooch.

During our visits last week to various ports, I occasionally heard people comment or wonder whether it's appropriate to keep investing in certain ports, like those that are most congested, when other ports could serve the same markets.

Do you think it would be appropriate to withhold investment in congested ports and to shift traffic to underused ports instead?

I'm also wondering whether this could have an impact on us from the competitive standpoint, given that we would often be competing with some ports in the United States. You, no doubt, are more familiar with the market than I am, and might be able to answer this question.

Why are some ports congested while others have more capacity? Is this also related to market considerations?

Over to you.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Well, I've been in this role a year, so I don't consider myself an expert yet.

The traffic flows in different directions. For example, the port of Prince Rupert receives very different traffic, destined for the U.S., compared with the port of Vancouver, for example.

One thing we've identified as an opportunity that could make the system work more efficiently is if Canadian ports could collaborate more closely together in certain areas. For example, there are three ports in Quebec—Trois-Rivières, Québec and Montreal—that have a working group to explore collaboration and if there could be some specialization in terms of one port versus another.

There are some provisions in the Canada Marine Act, as well as in competition law, that limit how far they can go. Those three ports have put forward a proposal to the Government of Canada to explore how ports might be able to collaborate more effectively than they can right now, with the limitations of the laws that are in place.

We understand that the Government of Canada has launched an RFP for a study on the complementarity of ports, which seems to be a response to that. We look forward to seeing the outcome of that work.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

My question may have been too broad. I'll try to be more specific.

Do you think it would be a good idea to prevent congested ports from increasing their capacity, given that there are other ports operating below capacity?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I would say that one thing we've been calling for since before I joined ACPA—and it echoes a call that Ms. Gee spoke to earlier—is a national transportation supply chain strategy that is well thought-out and involves all the stakeholders—the shippers, the ports, the railways and everybody in the supply chain—because there may be some specialization that might be appropriate in the system.

I understand from our port CEO in Halifax, who is from Australia, that they have a system like that. At least in that particular case, it guards against any investment that is perhaps not the most appropriate.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Miller, do you have anything to add?

[David Miller]

We obviously have an extremely diverse port. There aren't many ports in the world that handle as wide a variety of commodities and products as we do.

There could be instances in which that could make a difference, but generally speaking cargo flows to a port for a reason, whether it's a particular railroad in their network, or whether for some reason it has proximity issues, if something is moving out by truck.

Generally speaking, in the majority of cases there is a reason traffic flows to the port it does, so there could be places on the margins where traffic could move, because of capacity issues. Overall, I'm not sure this would be a terribly successful strategy.