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.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
My final question is for Mr. Gooch.
Locations with the highest density often experience environmental problems, whether in terms of population, endangered species or shoreline erosion.
How do we reconcile marine traffic development with environmental protection?
11:50 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
Well, we have an impact assessment process that's in place now, and that's how we reconcile those challenges. It's certainly beyond my expertise to comment on how well we're doing that.
What I will say is that on the project my colleague has been referring to, the Roberts Bank Terminal 2, it has been 10 years that this has been under review, so I would say that seems to be evidence of a fairly robust environmental assessment process, perhaps a little more robust than is required.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Next we have Mr. Bachrach.
Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.
March 23rd, 2023 / 11:50 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all our witnesses.
I'd like to begin with some questions for Mr. Ashton.
Mr. Ashton, in your opening comments you talked about a desire to see working people—the people who load and unload ships at our ports across Canada and ensure our ports are efficient and operate well—reflected on the boards of port authorities. We're currently considering legislation that looks at board governance.
Can you speak to what you see as the benefits of having working people reflected in the membership of the boards of directors and perhaps give some examples of where that's been successful?
11:50 a.m.
President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada
You bet. Currently, in four ports on the west coast of the United States, there are some, including our international president and our international vice-president, who currently sit on their authority boards—or port commissions, I think they're called down there. They are able to make decisions together. The union would be able to bring any issues we know of to the table. It's the same with indigenous groups, if they have seats on the port authority boards, elected by the indigenous groups in that area. It's the same with environmental groups.
The union in particular can bring stories, such as what happened in Auckland, in New Zealand, for example. The Port of Auckland completely got rid of all its plans to automate because of the cost, and because it knew that automation was a failure. We could bring that to the table, but currently that can't happen because we don't have a seat at the table.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Ashton.
I understand the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority made an offer to the ILWU of maintaining 800 jobs at the proposed Roberts Bank Terminal 2 expansion project.
How did your union receive that offer? Would you say that it was in line with normal operating procedure for relating to organized labour?
11:50 a.m.
President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada
We were actually quite surprised.
The ILWU is split into two different divisions. There's the longshore division and then ILWU Canada. The longshore division was quite shocked by that letter, especially on the very next Monday.
No matter what Mr. Miller says in his testimony, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority has always said that it will be an automated terminal and that all horizontal traffic will be automated. At the end of the day, the terminal operator that eventually wins the place will have the final say on the levels of automation. There's no way that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority can guarantee any number of jobs. When they call 1,598 hours full-time work, that's only 39 weeks out of the year, and that's not full-time work. My members will have to come to you guys and ask for more money for employment insurance.
The second part of that letter was basically what I took as a threat against Local 517, which is the local that represents the workers inside the port authority. They're currently in bargaining, and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority was.... I took it as a threat that this would affect their jobs. They can't do that in collective bargaining. That whole letter they sent to us was way out of the norm and, quite frankly, offside.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Ashton, I understand that in that letter there was a statute of limitations on your response to the offer of 800 jobs. How long did the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority give the union to consider the offer?
11:55 a.m.
President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada
According to the letter, we had around 24 hours to respond. They gave it to us on a Sunday, and we had to respond by the Monday. We responded on Tuesday, because they have no right to....
11:55 a.m.
President, International Longshore and Warehouse Union Canada
It's too little, too late.
We're not going to accept a promise of 800 jobs—a promise that they make—that will destroy anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000 jobs, approximately.
We can't put that many working people's jobs on the chopping block. There's no way.
The environmental impacts of this program are horrific. It would be devastating to the community there: crab fisheries, the salmon spawning ground, you name it.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Ashton.
I'll turn now to Mr. Gooch.
Mr. Gooch, we were just in Prince Rupert as part of our port tour. I was having a conversation about this idea that the federal government, perhaps, should play some role in prioritizing approvals in investments, so that public money is put to the most efficient use.
The response from the representative was interesting, I thought. He indicated that the private sector does a good job of prioritizing where investment should go, because it has a lot riding on it, so that public money could follow private investment, and that would result in efficient outcomes.
Do you share that view, that public approvals and public investment of taxpayer dollars should look to the private sector as to where the priorities lie?
11:55 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities
As my colleague, Mr. Miller, indicated, traffic flows to a certain port for a reason. If there's private investment interest in a certain area, there's a reason for that. I would also say that certainly when we're looking at the national trade corridors fund, it's not a guaranteed process, and there are federal officials who are evaluating these applications. We understand they're actually working with other parts of government for a whole-of-government view on this, which is certainly a positive development. They are considering the various options when they are evaluating what gets funded and what doesn't get funded.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much. Unfortunately we're out of time, Mr. Bachrach.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
11:55 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach. Rest assured that you have two and a half minutes coming up very soon.
Next, we have Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for Ms. Gee.
Ms. Gee, are you concerned at all about Bill C-33, the removal of the west coast anchorages, and what the impact will be on infrastructure?
11:55 a.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
Certainly, if that is the intent of Bill C-33—to remove anchorages—which I do not believe is the case....
There is a lot of work under way currently with the Port of Vancouver and Transport Canada to look at how we better utilize those anchorages, particularly outside the port's jurisdiction.
The anchorages and the vessels in those anchorages are often a symptom of a supply chain that's broken. They are waiting there only because the cargo has not arrived yet at the facility where the vessels need to load. The perception that vessels are there for no reason other than to park the vessels is not correct.
The consequences of not having those anchorages would be having vessels drifting offshore.
Noon
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
I'm not sure why you concluded that there's a perception. Is there some background information that would lead you to the conclusion that there's a perception that that's why they're there?
Noon
President, Chamber of Shipping
I think many people don't understand why the vessels are sitting in the anchorages, and that they are integral to the supply chain and the movement of exports from Canada. Particularly, grain commodities often bounce in and out of anchorages due to partial loads, or if there's a weather situation that prevents them from completing their cargo load. They'll bounce out and to an anchorage.
Noon
Conservative
Leslyn Lewis Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
You also spoke about the lack of coordination among the ports. I would like you to elaborate on that, specifically with respect to how you see technology could improve this coordination. This is something that we also witnessed in visiting the various ports. We were surprised to see the lack of harmony, integration and coordination among the various ports.