Evidence of meeting #83 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 c-33.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Unfortunately, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, your time's up.
Next we have Ms. Zarrillo.
Ms. Zarrillo, the floor is yours. You have two and a half minutes, please.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Thank you so much.
Mr. McConchie, I'm so intrigued by what is going on and why these increases have been so dramatic. I want to get to the bottom of that a little bit. I want to understand that.
Could you give me any hints of what data I should be looking for internally to get that answer? I also wonder if you wouldn't mind sharing some of the impacts that this kind of increase in traffic has had on coastal communities.
4:40 p.m.
Spokesperson, South Coast Ship Watch Alliance
There are absolutely huge impacts. As I mentioned, you have the above-water noise of the generators. The ships are sitting quite high out of the water, and with the generators and noise carrying across water—if you have ever been on a lake, you can hear someone talking on the other side—that constant level has increased as high as, at some places in Ladysmith, 66 decibels. This is in the middle of the night. People are being impacted that way.
The underwater noise is extensive too. The studies are coming out now that the marine life is being affected by the vibration of these diesel generators at anchor under water.
Then add in the transits. The federal government closed an area near my home to all vessel traffic for sports—everyone—right off Plumper Sound on North Pender. However, it allows all of these bulk carriers to transit right past that exact.... The reason they closed it was that it is the southern resident killer whales' foraging zone and it was impacting that. They shut it down to us and allowed the freighters to continue.
If you want lots of data, we have been asking the federal government to accept our data. We have some wonderful data, which is all backed up factually. We have been gathering it for many years now. I have been at this for a long time. I'm going grey over it. We would be pleased to provide any information in that regard to you.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Please, I'm making an open request here for that data to come to this committee.
I have one more question, if I have a minute. I want to ask you specifically about the ministerial authority over vessel direction that's been proposed here. Do you believe that this will reduce those anchorage times?
4:40 p.m.
Spokesperson, South Coast Ship Watch Alliance
I'm sorry. Do you mean the...?
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Bonita Zarrillo NDP Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
With regard to the amendment for a ministerial authority to direct vessels, do you think it will reduce...?
4:40 p.m.
Spokesperson, South Coast Ship Watch Alliance
If the ministerial authority gives the strength to the Minister of Transport to declare that area...and immediately start reducing and then eliminating the use of the anchorages there due to its environmental value and fragile ecosystems, that's what we would like to see.
Once again, economics cannot buy back our environment.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. McConchie, and thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.
Next we have Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Dekovic, I'll go back to you.
We heard from many port authorities about their desire to have the borrowing limit essentially eliminated, and for them to be able to borrow as much money as they would like.
In your opening statement, I think you mentioned taxpayer risk. How is the taxpayer put at risk by the borrowing of port authorities? Can you maybe explain that a little bit more?
4:40 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.
Thank you.
The borrowing limit and whatever money is borrowed by the port authority, as I mentioned, is ultimately paid by the tenants and the users. In situations where that borrowing far exceeds what ultimately can be borne by the tenants and the users, there is a risk—and it has never been stress-tested—that the port authority may basically default on its payments, especially if it has borrowed on low interest rates and interest rates keep rising.
An example would be a multi-billion dollar project, a $5-billion or $7-billion project like Roberts Bank terminal 2, that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is trying to borrow money for. That level of borrowing could potentially bankrupt the port if the project doesn't materialize and they are not able to find a private sector partner to pay for that project. That would ultimately put the taxpayers at risk. Somebody would have to pay. Government would have to step in and bail out a port authority, and that in turn would put taxpayer monies at risk.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
You mention Roberts Bank terminal 2 and the multi-billion dollar price tag.
Was that exemption to the borrowing limit built into that application and that approval, or were they able to borrow $5 billion to $7 billion based on the current system? Do the port authorities need an increased borrowing limit if they're already being approved for RBT2, that level of project?
October 23rd, 2023 / 4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.
That is a good question. That is probably a great question, but as far as I know, that is a separate decision that the government needs to make around borrowing limits, regardless of the environmental assessment decision for individual projects.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
One of the things we've heard about, as well, in witness testimony, is concern about the composition of the board of directors for port authorities. Obviously, the users have a nominating committee. They recommend people to be appointed to the board.
There's been some suggestion that perhaps ILWU should have a seat on the board, for instance, at the port of Vancouver. I know that users have indicated that maybe they should have active people from their organizations, that terminal operators or grain terminal operators should have someone on the board.
What are your views on that? We've certainly heard from some who have said it would present a clear conflict of interest to have active members of either labour or management, or the port users, on the board. Do you have an opinion on that?
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.
It goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make about where on the spectrum, if you will, the port authority lands. lf the port authority is going to become more of a regulatory body but some of the commercial aspects of it are going to be siphoned off, it is okay to have a representative board with such representation, because there is no direct impact or influence on profit-making.
If the port authority is going to be as it is now, where it ultimately is in the profit-making business, having a representative body would put those individuals in a conflict of interest. Right now, the representatives on the port authority board have a fiduciary duty ultimately to the port authority to do what is best for the port authority to generate revenue.
It becomes an issue of how the pendulum is going to swing, and what direction the lawmakers are going to give on where the port is going to exist.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
If Parliament decides it wants it to continue to generate revenue, the fiduciary duty to the port authority must be maintained and we couldn't see...or it would be irresponsible to have people who have other loyalties to sit on that board. Am I correct in that?
4:45 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.
That is a reasonable opinion, and that would also be my personal opinion too.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl. That was perfect timing.
Thank you, Mr. Dekovic.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Badawey for five minutes.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate all the witnesses for coming out today.
My question is for Mr. Veldman.
Mr. Veldman, you're very much involved in the economy of my area, the Niagara region, as well as many areas throughout the country from coast to coast to coast.
You mentioned in your presentation that the Welland Canal corridor is, in fact, a port, because of its partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, and with that is amongst the five biggest ports in the country. You also mentioned that it needs to modernize to fully optimize this Transport Canada asset. I want to emphasize this, because the Welland Canal is, in fact, a Transport Canada asset, currently managed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.
Do you feel that the Welland Canal corridor, being a port and this bill is attaching itself to modernizing ports, should be aligned with the intentions set out in Bill C-33?
4:45 p.m.
Managing Partner, BMI Group
My quick answer is yes, absolutely. Some of the infrastructure along the Welland Canal corridor needs fairly significant capital upgrades. By levering the private sector's investment and Transport Canada's ability to now invest into some of these assets through Bill C-33, it would allow the Welland Canal to flourish and, by that, the Niagara region would attract more industry.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
You just mentioned the attachment it has to the expansion of new industry in Niagara, quite frankly in terms of the multimodal network being a niche for the area. As this corridor is considered a port in partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, do you feel that a change in governance along the Welland Canal corridor can, in fact, help all partners define performance measurements?
4:50 p.m.
Managing Partner, BMI Group
It's a touchy subject. I will answer that as carefully as I can.
I think the opportunity to enhance the Welland Canal by way of having a change of management through the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is positive. We're happy to contribute, and I feel we are.
I guess the fact of the matter is that, over the last 50 years, Transport Canada has owned all kinds of lands along the Welland Canal and has had its port infrastructure basically.... The ability for vessels to stop along the Welland Canal has significantly decreased. Allowing investment into the Welland Canada through Bill C-33 and localizing some of the inland port investments I think will help not only the private companies along the Welland Canada but also the Transport Canada lands that the seaway corporation currently manages.
Yes, some change is required, because it hasn't worked for the last 50 years.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Veldman.
I have a third question. How does the Niagara ports trade corridor diversify as well as strengthen Niagara's economy and improve multimodal performance, resiliency and fluidity in global supply chains?
4:50 p.m.
Managing Partner, BMI Group
I'll give you a practical example. We purchased a building that had been abandoned for eight years—the Hayes Dana assembly plant—and completely refurbished it. Currently, one of our tenants in there is High Strength plate and steel. They import plate and steel from all over the world. By having our port open and the Welland Canal right at wharfs 7 and 8, we're able to berth a vessel and actually bring steel right into the Niagara region to add value to such commodities.
Very practically, having vessels being able to berth at our docks into the future obviously opens up the transportation corridor into Niagara in a big way.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
With the investments you've made, particularly in the city of Thorold, with refurbishing and bringing back the economy to the two empty pulp and paper mills and the work you're doing in partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority with respect to the McCleary docks, as well as what you mentioned about the Hayes Dana property, how do you see your interests actually creating that fluidity within the supply chain not only within Niagara and within Ontario but across the entire country?
4:50 p.m.
Managing Partner, BMI Group
It's like water. I always picture cargo like water. It has to be able to stop. If there is abandoned infrastructure that means a vessel cannot berth—and we have not invested in dock infrastructure in the Welland Canada area for way too long—then that vessel simply has to carry on. That means the cargo has to be trucked back to the Niagara region in order to reach its destination. Meanwhile, 50 years ago, the vessel could have stopped.
I think that with the good work the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is doing and possibly some realignment between Transport Canada and the seaway corporation, I will tell you that the private sector, just like us.... We're not the only ones in the private sector who will step up along the Niagara region, but so far we have done so, and we'll continue to bring industry to Niagara.