Transport Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, An act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform members of the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have been sound tested for today's meeting and have passed the test for the benefit of our interpreters.

Joining us today, colleagues, we have, from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority, Robert Lewis-Manning, chief executive officer, joining by video conference. Welcome.

From Vancouver Fraser Port Authority we have Duncan Wilson, vice-president, environmental and external affairs.

From the Syndicat des débardeurs, local 1375, of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, we welcome Marie‑Christine Morin, union adviser, who is joining us by video conference.

Welcome.

From Unifor, we have Joel Kennedy, director, rail sector, by video conference; as well as Mr. Graham Cox, national representative.

We begin with opening remarks.

For that, I will turn the floor over to Mr. Lewis-Manning.

The floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Robert Lewis-Manning, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Victoria Harbour Authority]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, I am the CEO at the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. I've just recently joined it in the last seven months. I've assumed the role with a background of about 30 years in shipping and logistics. I hope to provide with a somewhat unique perspective on Bill C-33.

Today I'm speaking to you from the territory of the Lekwungen people, the Songhees Nation and the Esquimalt Nation, whose historical relationship with the land and the harbour continue to this day.

Why is the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority unique? Really it's unique because it's not a Canadian port authority, despite the name. In reality, Transport Canada remains the regulatory authority under the Canada Marine Act in the city of Victoria, which is an important nuance when considering the legislative amendments.

When the federal government divested these port assets over 20 years ago, there was an intent for GVHA to become a Canadian port authority, but a number of challenges persisted. Notwithstanding that, we now steward the majority of harbour infrastructure, including a number of marinas, facilities, water lots and a strategically located deepwater industrial terminal with four vessel berths, a warehouse and a large lay-down area. If you were to compare us with the existing 17 Canadian port authorities, we would be a mid-sized port in Canada according to revenue, vessel movements and physical infrastructure.

We are the number one destination port for cruise ships in Canada, with over 330 large cruise ships and about one million passengers visiting annually, over 100 commercial cargo ships every year, and we have several unique services, including wet docking, underwater cable storage and deployment and support for a large-scale ocean clean-up effort. We also steward several iconic assets, such as the lower causeway in front of the Fairmont Empress Hotel, Ship Point and the Breakwater.

The Greater Victoria Harbour Authority has a unique governance structure, including six member agencies representing local businesses and governments that are essentially shareholders and, most importantly, two rights-holders, the Songhees and Esquimalt first nations.

Much of the intent of Bill C-33 is supported, including the need to meaningfully engage indigenous peoples and local communities.

The GVHA has adopted these principles since its inception and it has facilitated a high degree of trust and the ability to pivot quickly for unexpected challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Having indigenous leaders as part of the GVHA's board of directors has led to several opportunities that may not have been possible previously. We also have advisory committees and a high level of interest and involvement with local community stakeholders.

Likewise, the proposed requirement to have climate change and climate adaptation plans and reporting makes eminent sense considering the vulnerability of ocean infrastructure and the supply chain and its importance to the well-being of the Canadian economy and Canadians. The Greater Victor Harbour Authority is in the process of developing both of these plans, including a resiliency strategy tied to sustainable finance and low-carbon trading opportunities to help reinvest in physical infrastructure to mitigate climate impacts. Our electrification strategy is now under way and includes both cruise and cargo shipping. We will be making an application for federal funding in the coming months and GVHA is a partner in the Pacific northwest green shipping corridor project.

The GVHA is actually strategically located to support a more efficient supply chain, reduce overall impacts on the environment and local communities, and support preparedness and responses to incidents involving commercial shipping.

With respect to the cumulative impacts from marine shipping, we are aware of the significant dialogue between the federal government, ports in British Columbia and local communities regarding the impacts from supply chain disruption. In this respect, the proposed amendments do not appear to be sufficiently robust to directly encourage regional port and waterway coordination and the efficient use of regional infrastructure. The management of vessel traffic should not be made in isolation and should leverage regional capabilities. For example, our four deepwater berths could support awaiting cargo exports from other ports, reducing carbon intensity and impacts on local communities.

Regardless of this weakness in the bill, we are working with partners to make this a competitive option and an advantage for exporters in the future. We would encourage the federal government to adopt this type of approach in its developing of the supply chain strategy.

Similarly, the Canada Marine Act should better leverage existing infrastructure to support contingency operations. In 2021 the GVHA played a pivotal role in the response to the Zim Kingstonfire, providing a base of operations for salvage operations.

In closing, I think the preamble of the Canada Marine Act identifies the need for a systems approach. This legislation could be strengthened in order to provide that systems approach.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis-Manning.

Next we have Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, sir.

[Duncan Wilson, Vice-President, Environment and External Affairs, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening. On behalf of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear this evening.

There's no question that a review of the workings and structure of Canadian port authorities was overdue. We commend the government for recognizing that updating the act was necessary. There are, however, parts of the bill that concern us, and some amendments that we fear represent a step backwards and reflect a lack of confidence on the part of government in a system that continues to provide significant benefits to Canadian trade and the Canadian economy.

It is our view that the time was right for the government to take a further step back and allow port authorities more flexibility in their operations by reducing regulation. Instead, this seems to be a move toward a more prescriptive approach to the operation of ports and an attempt to impose a “one size fits all” model on all ports, when ports have very different business models and local contexts and very different levels of financial capacity.

The Port of Vancouver operates in one of the most challenging environments of any port in the world. We are one of the most diverse ports in North America, handling a wide range of cargo, including intermodal containers; bulk products, including grain, potash, coal and sulphur; automobiles; and break bulk. We also host a very successful cruise ship industry business.

We do this in a region where we interact with 16 local governments and a large number of first nations. Most ports around the world deal with only one local jurisdiction. Few would deal with more than two or three. On our terminal 2 container project, for example, we signed mutual benefit agreements with 26 first nations. We meet regularly with all of the municipalities that border the port. It includes annual meetings with our senior executives and board of directors.

I cite this complexity to illustrate the challenges with regard to government assuming a greater role in port operations. We welcome the provisions of the bill that provide ports with more authority for vessel traffic management. The increase in vessel traffic in some sectors has made it clear to us that to make the most efficient and environmentally responsible use of the port, reduce the need for ships to sit at anchor, and ensure safety, we require additional authority. Whether the bill will meet these needs will depend on the regulations that come.

The port authority also has in place the sort of committees mandated by the bill related to indigenous peoples and municipal governments. Whether having those committees mandated by legislation will enhance their effectiveness or limit flexibility remains to be seen. I can emphasize that we give this local engagement a very high priority and constant attention. At the same time, we recognize that a model that works for us is not necessarily appropriate for smaller ports with much more limited means and who deal with a fraction of the governments and first nations we engage with.

We share the concerns of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities regarding the level of port borrowing limits and the extremely long process required to increase them. The current process involves several departments, is measured in years, and bears little relationship to a port's financial capacity. While we're hopeful that the new process may offer a slight improvement, we were hoping for a more nimble, market-based approach.

I would also echo the association's concerns regarding the appointment of board chairs by the minister. We believe that the current system has worked well and that it is extremely important to have a chair who enjoys the confidence of the board. Port authority boards of directors follow a written code of conduct that establishes clear rules regarding conflicts of interest, inside information, and more. They collectively bring an extensive and diverse mix of expertise and skills to enable good governance and oversight of port operations and set strategic direction.

We also share ACPA's view regarding the need for increased and more predictable infrastructure spending. We are hoping that the newly created supply chain office within Transport Canada will signal the government taking a more active role in coordinating projects outside of port jurisdiction.

In some of the early rounds of infrastructure investment in the 1990s, major projects were completed that dramatically enhanced the efficiency and safety of the supply chain. These projects involved a large number of players, including railways, numerous municipal governments, the Province of B.C. and terminal operators. It is unlikely that they could have been completed without Transport Canada playing a significant coordinating and convening role to bring the parties together. Unfortunately, in recent years this role has largely been abandoned. It is left to the port authority to try to play this role despite a lack of jurisdiction and capacity.

We believe the current model for operating Canada's ports has been a great success story for the government of the day. The government of the day showed great foresight in creating a system that maintained a role for government while allowing ports to operate at arm's length, overseen by boards that include representatives from all levels of government.

We encourage the government to continue moving forward with this model, tweaking it where necessary, but recognizing the value of allowing ports to manage their businesses within the framework of the act.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear this evening. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

I will now give the floor to Ms. Morin.

Ms. Morin, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Marie-Christine Morin, Union Adviser, Syndicat des débardeurs, section locale 1375 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique]

Hello, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting me.

You will notice that my vocabulary is quite different from that used by the people who spoke before me. I am here to represent the members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, or CUPE, who work at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivières and Bécancour, that is, dockworkers of Trois-Rivières and Bécancour, local 1375, grain sector workers, local 5317, and rail workers, local 5598, of the Port of Montreal.

My main concern today is of course maintaining and improving working conditions for our employees in the shipping and rail sectors.

On October 16, 2023, you heard the concerns of my colleagues Robert Ashton and Michel Murray regarding the potential impact of Bill C‑33 on labour relations and labour law.

I noted the assurance provided on October 16 by the assistant deputy minister, policy, at Transport Canada, Serge Bijimine, who stated that Bill C‑33 is not expected to apply to labour relations.

Mr. Bijimine also agreed to obtain a legal opinion on the matter, if that had not already been done.

In any case, the best way to ensure that the bill does not interfere with labour relations or labour law is to add a clause to that effect right in the bill.

Consider for example the new clause 17.4 of Bill C‑33 which gives the minister full power to intervene if he is of the opinion that something has to be done to respond to a threat to the security of transportation, including the security of goods, which is very broad.

Similarly, the new subclause 31(2) provides for the issuance of an emergency certificate.

There appears to be some confusion in Bill C‑33 as to the concepts of “security” and “safety”. This confusion was also mentioned for other reasons in the Railway Association of Canada brief.

Moreover, clause 107.1(1) of the bill provides that, if the minister is of the opinion that there is a risk of imminent harm, specifically to national economic security or competition that constitutes a significant threat to the security of goods or the supply chain, the minister may order a port authority to take any measure that the minister considers necessary to prevent that harm.

At CUPE local 5598, the Montreal Port Authority is my direct employer and that of the rail workers. You can appreciate our concern, especially since this clause gives the minister full discretion in certain situations.

In short, without basic parameters in Bill C‑33, we are afraid that the minister's new powers could be used to undermine fundamental rights, including labour rights. I am of course referring to the freedom of association in paragraph 2d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, in paragraphs 2b) and 2c).

Such parameters are present in Canadian legislation and jurisprudence, such as the Canada Labour Code. They are also present in international treaties and international jurisprudence, including those of the International Labour Organization and its International Labour Office, in convention 87, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

These are basic treaties linking us with the United Nations and other countries around the world. They serve to safeguard social justice and uphold fundamental rights, including the right to association, which includes the right to bargain and to strike.

That is why we are appearing today to appeal for the addition of an interpretation clause in Bill C‑33, along the following lines: “The interpretation and application of this act must not in any case interfere with labour relations and must respect: a) fundamental rights, including the right to association; b) the Canada Labour Code; c) international labour law and Canada's commitments in that regard.

If Bill C‑33 prohibits interference with labour relations, I think that should be spelled out to prevent any confusion. There you have it.

Thank you for your attention and your assistance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Morin.

Finally for opening remarks, we have Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Cox. I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Joel Kennedy, Director, Rail Sector, Unifor]

Thank you.

Good evening, I'm Joel Kennedy, Unifor's rail sector director, and I am here with my colleague, Mr. Graham Cox. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-33.

Unifor is Canada's largest union in the private sector, and represents 315,000 workers in every major area of the economy. Unifor represents 32 bargaining units and close to 10,000 members in the rail sector. This includes engineers, conductors, freight car and locomotive mechanics, electricians, crane operators, and a contingent of semi-skilled support workers, such as labourers and production workers who manufacture freight car, locomotive and track components. Unifor also represents 2,300 workers in the marine sector.

In the rail sector, Unifor members perform safety inspections on freight cars physically, visually, audibly, and sometimes even by smell. Our members perform brake tests and inspect the trains' mechanical components to ensure that they are working properly and are free of defects.

Current legislation requires these trains to be inspected and tested at the train's origin and destination points. However, regulatory exemptions have already been granted that allow rail companies to remove safety inspections and tests conducted by a qualified mechanic and to replace those with technology that is limited and largely untested and unregulated. We believe digital inspection creates some conflicts when the interests of the company's profits and that the inspection results do not align.

Unfortunately, technology and digitization is referred to in this bill in only the context of facilitating efficient supply chains and rule-making. Unifor believes this bill continues to and entrenches the “fox watching the henhouse” type of regulatory environment for the rail sector. We believe the large rail employers have taken advantage of this deregulated environment and are hiding behind safety to increase their bottom lines.

In an unregulated automation system there will be a lot of pressure for systems to be tweaked, not only for safety but also for convenience. Unifor believes that technology should be invested in and implemented to increase the safety and security of our supply chains. However, as it stands now, the focus has been on replacing workers while attempting to reach the same level of safety. There is even a current arbitration before the board about whether this digital safety inspection work is covered by Unifor's contract.

The U.S. Department of Transportation's Volpe Center, based on its research on rail technology, has said that "Replacing workers should not be the focus of technology implementation. Instead technology should be used to augment work, not replace it, to increase the safety of the rail system." It is our understanding that this is also the position taken by the U.S. White House. We submit that any change to Canadian rail legislation that oversees safety should include the principle of augmentation in the pursuit of increased safety, not simply the replacement of workers in search of increased profits.

Unifor is also concerned that the proposed amendments by Bill C-33 to the ability to consult with third parties is just language to support the outsourcing responsibility to a third party on regulations and exemptions. If the minister's office feels it does not have in-house capacity to make good decisions on rules and exemptions, it should invest in a publicly financed, independent research arm to look at the impacts of rules and exemptions granted in the implementation of technology, not a private third party.

Unifor is concerned that private third party recommendations will be based on private proprietary data. Safety management systems and security management systems are already black boxes because they use software as if software development is some alien process and cannot be regulated. Unifor maintains that rule-making and the exemption process should be made public: Therefore, data collected on the impact of rules and exemptions should also be made public.

Finally, we'd also like to echo concerns brought up by our comrades at CUPE and ILWU about the implications of new powers of the minister when it comes to sustaining supply chains. While we recognize that the language was written to deal with pandemic-like emergencies, we feel that the language is too broad and, although it's not the intention of the language, could be used to interfere with the right to strike.

We believe the best model for expanded powers for emergency should be done, though, through a list of issues and types of disruption that can constitute emergencies and actions impacting supply chains. We submit that such a list can be clear to the public while also being sufficiently broad to deal with security against external actors, without undermining charter rights and legitimate actions.

I would like to also say that our friends at Teamsters adopt our positions as well, and they couldn't make it here today for certain reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.

We'll begin our line of questioning this evening with Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes, please.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and to all the witnesses for appearing here at this late time slot.

I'm once again quite shocked to hear from another panel of witnesses, most of whom had significant concerns about the bill—albeit some had faint praise for it. To me, it shows that the Liberal government did not do its homework before bringing this bill forward and did not meaningfully consult with the people who will be most affected by it. That is certainly what we are hearing panel after panel, meeting after meeting. It will be interesting to hear the minister explain that in a couple of meetings from now.

I want to go to the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. Mr. Wilson, I think this bill, quite frankly, was drafted with the port that you represent in mind. I think we've certainly heard that some of the provisions in the bill will be extremely onerous for smaller ports that do not have your financial capacity, the number of employees, or the ability to set up some of the mandatory requirements that have been included in the bill.

You did mention your concerns with the one-size-fits-all approach, but could you maybe quantify for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority what your estimate is of the number of employees you would have to hire or the amount of money you would have to spend to come into compliance with the new requirements in the bill, including reporting and setting up of mandatory committees and that sort of thing. We've heard some ports were looking at its$200,000 and requiring multiple new employees. I'm wondering if you have a number.

[Duncan Wilson]

Thank you for the question.

I would start by saying that most of the things that are required under the bill are things we're already doing, so there isn't any incremental cost. There are a couple of exceptions to that. One is the financial reporting requirements that will add cost. We estimate that will cost about, I believe, $200,000 a year. An area where there will probably be increasing cost for us into the future, but an area we're very active in anyway and intend to continue stepping up in, is with respect to the environment.

The requirement to publish annual climate plans and climate adaptation plans and to report on those will create some extra work, but we're already doing a lot of that stuff. Those are areas where we're already active, and we already have large initiatives under way to advance those. So, for us, again, it's a less onerous change to what we're doing on a day-to-day basis than it would be for many of the smaller CPAs.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

In a previous meeting a Liberal member of Parliament stated that, “I can tell in metro Vancouver there are lots of conflicts and there is disgruntlement that the port seems to trump the community's environmental or other priorities. I think we can do better.” I said at the time that I was looking forward to your response to that.

Do you accept that you trump the community's concerns and are not responsive to them?

[Duncan Wilson]

We invest heavily in our local community engagement and our local government engagement. We have 16 municipalities that touch the port. There is a lot to do. If you think about the Port of Vancouver, it's the country's largest industrial port operation, immediately adjacent to communities on all sides. There are about 640 kilometres of coastline around which we have jurisdiction. That touches a lot of people. Those interfaces are necessarily going to create conflicts from time to time.

I would say, with the overwhelming majority of municipalities, we have a very strong working relationship. We meet regularly with the mayors, we have staff liaison committees, and we have, as I said, executive meetings with the mayors. We have an annual board meeting with the mayors. We work very hard to address local community concerns. For example, if we go back to the purpose clause of the Canada Marine Act, it's very much about facilitating Canada's trade policy priorities while at the same protecting the environment and considering the input of community. We're required by legislation to do that, and it's an area we take very seriously. Often we can do what they would like.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 50 seconds, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

We heard from a witness who said that increasing port borrowing limits puts taxpayers at risk. Can you address that concern from your perspective? If you are given an unlimited borrowing limit, for instance, do you feel that taxpayers are put at risk if, for some reason, you had the inability to pay?

[Duncan Wilson]

Again, under the Canada Marine Act, we're required to be financially self-sustaining, so we don't receive tax dollars for operations. In fact, we pay an annual stipend to the Government of Canada; so, from our perspective, the dollars we are using are the dollars that are paid to us by port users. That's the source of revenue, and I don't see any place where taxpayers dollars would be at risk. I would point out that, if we move to a more market-based borrowing regime, that would take care of itself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Next we go to Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thanks, Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses this evening. It's great to see the folks here today, and we're counting on trying to produce a good piece of legislation, Bill C‑33, and are certainly counting on the knowledge, expertise and experience of people who are around this table this evening to give us some good guidance and to produce legislation that is going to effectively improve and enhance our supply chain.

My first question is for Mr. Lewis-Manning. Then, Mr. Wilson, I'll come to you with the same question.

Should Bill C‑33 pass, the federal government will have authority to make regulations with respect to how anchorages are managed at ports. What kinds of things would you like to see in these potential regulations?

I'll go to Mr. Lewis-Manning and then Mr. Wilson.

[Robert Lewis-Manning]

At the moment, the Port of Victoria doesn't have any anchorages within its harbour, so the question is not applicable. I think the question is probably best suited for Mr. Wilson.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Go ahead, Mr. Wilson.

[Duncan Wilson]

We're very happy with the direction of the legislation with respect to management of traffic and anchorages. We have, in addition to the anchorages inside the port's jurisdiction, a temporary protocol in place with Transport Canada for the Gulf Islands anchorages. We are trying to find ways to reduce the impacts of those anchorages by finding ways to have more vessels tied up within port jurisdiction. That's an area of a lot of work right now for us and something that we're taking very seriously, but we're comfortable with the legislation the way it is.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilson, how do you see data sharing helping ports to become more efficient and more competitive? Do you think that Bill C‑33 will help end-to-end digitalization of our supply chain?

[Duncan Wilson]

Bill C‑33 is maybe less about that specifically—but that digitalization is a huge focus for us. We have a program in place that we call Connect+, which is a combination of active vessel traffic management and a supply chain visibility initiative that are intended to work together to provide enhanced visibility of cargo movements across all sectors in and out of the gateway—again so that we can be more efficient, move cargo faster, reduce the impact on communities of things like anchorages and also reduce the impact of shipping on, for example, seven resident killer whales at risk.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cox, or your counterpart there, how would you describe the relationship between ports and labour generally? Would you say that there's a need to create forums for ports to engage with labour such as the advisory committee that is being proposed in Bill C‑33?