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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Veldman, and again, thank you for participating in Niagara's economy.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Veldman.
Thank you, Mr. Badawey.
Mr. Muys, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Thank you.
Let me pick up on some of the discussion we've heard already.
Ms. Gee, what is preventing additional anchorages from being created in different areas?
4:50 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, vessels can actually anchor whenever necessary, but we know our carriers don't want to do that because of the potential unknown risks. We understand that there really is no process for establishing new anchorages. When the harbours board—I think that's what it's called—dissolved, the anchorages outside of port jurisdiction were left in an unmanaged sphere, I guess you would say. Ultimately, anchorages are the responsibility of Transport Canada. The minister can identify when anchorages that are being used are not in the appropriate location.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Currently, do your member companies have any issues with—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I'm sorry, Mr. Muys. I have a point of order from Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Ms. Gee's screen has frozen. The same thing happened earlier with Mr. Veldman. I wonder whether the problem is on our side or theirs. I'd like to see the feed, if possible.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
We'll check.
Ms. Gee, can you hear us?
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
If it's okay with members, we will proceed.
If you don't mind, Ms. Gee, we'll proceed without being able to see you.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Does that work for everyone?
Please proceed, Mr. Muys. I'll make sure that you have the time that you had remaining.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Currently, do your member companies have any issues complying with the government directives on how they operate and where they are anchored?
4:55 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
No. Because some of the anchorages of concern that have been raised today are outside the port authority's jurisdiction, our members have agreed to follow an interim protocol that was established with Transport Canada and the port authority.
We're actually doing a nighttime planning pilot right now where vessels will not arrive between the hours of 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., I believe. There's a pilot in place right now to reduce disturbances to the communities that are surrounding those anchorages.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Mr. Dekovic quantified three things: nimble, predictable and cost-effective. Bill C-33 is none of those.
What is your reaction to that?
4:55 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
What Bill C-33 does do is try to manage how ports handle disruptions. When we talk about the increased use of vessels at anchorages, we've had a significant number of disruptions in the last five years. We've mentioned that anchorages are a symptom of a supply chain that isn't working.
Other than that, I don't see a lot of other benefits in the bill's amendments.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
You talked about the administrative burden for your members.
Do you feel that Bill C-33 actually adds to that rather than remedies it?
4:55 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
Yes, it potentially would, under the Marine Transportation Security Act.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
President, Chamber of Shipping
For instance, I think every marine facility has a security plan in place. If they have to incorporate how they manage human health risks within those marine security plans, that will create a lot of work for the marine facility itself. There will be some interaction with the ship base requirements as well.
That's one example.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
In discussion with some of your members, have you been able to quantify what the cost impact of that would be?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Okay.
I'm switching back to Mr. Dekovic.
I liked your analysis of the three words, so I've borrowed that now: nimble, predictable and cost-effective. Can you expand on that a bit more?
October 23rd, 2023 / 4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Affairs, GCT Global Container Terminals Inc.
Sure.
I would agree with Ms. Gee that, ultimately, if there are some parts in the middle that would make how ports react to disruptions in the supply chain more predictable, that is a good piece of the bill.
Other parts are not necessarily nimble because they add a variety of administrative burdens. It is not necessarily cost-effective, ultimately, as there doesn't appear to have been a cost analysis done for the additional measures introduced in the bill, so I'm not sure how that would be cost-effective.
Predictability is key to attracting private investment. Adding layers of regulation and adding advisory bodies that would have inputs into the decision-making of government entities can further potentially delay decision-making by government bodies—in this case the port authorities. That, of course, is less predictable and can scare private investment.