Transport Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[Duncan Wilson]

As I said, we measure the time it takes to get a borrowing limit changed in years, and we've never been turned down in the 20 years I've been with the port on a borrowing limit request. It just takes a long time. To go to a more market-based approach would really speed that up.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Let me ask you, Mr. Kennedy, because you bring the perspective from the rail sector. I know that my colleague, Mr. Bachrach, asked about rail safety, but this is a bill that amends seven acts of Parliament, and as I think we've heard, it's kind of underwhelming in so many ways.

In terms of rail overall, what more could have been done in this bill? We've waited, how many years, for a bill that hasn't accomplish much.

[Joel Kennedy]

I was very disappointed with how loosely this bill was written. When we talk about oversight and expediting the exemption processes, it's very frustrating because I think the major rail employers that we see in Canada have a different agenda. They're not mainly owned by Canadians. They're Americans, so when we have an exemption given, it scares the crap out of me, especially when we talk about an expedited process for an exemption process, which I think this bill alludes to.

We've seen employers make an exemption under safety, and they've removed our people from the process and relied on technology. Even in terms of the Railway Safety Act and the freight car inspection rules, you know, legislation is not supposed to be changed unless it's “safer than”.

We're removed from the process, and these things aren't happening. The employers are saying that they're relying on these exemptions for certain things and that it's going to enhance rail safety, but the fact is that's not what's happening in Canada. When we talk about an “expedited process”, it's removing us from that process.

We have a lot of good things to bring in and consult on, from the workers' perspective and other perspectives, that these large, mainly American, players don't bring to the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys, and Mr. Kennedy.

Next we'll go to Mr. Badawey.

The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to get into the bill itself. I have to say that I'm hoping that most members of the committee read the bill and really dug deep into it. We had a chance to meet Mr. Wilson about some of the concerns that were brought forward about the bill.

I want to get into clause 114, which seeks to amend section 39 of the Canadian Marine Act with respect to the business planning process. As part of this process, there's an opportunity for port authorities to submit a five-year business plan. I would only assume that part of that five-year business plan is going to be the financing part, one part of what you have, which is your asset management plan. The second part is your capital plan with respect to where you want to be as you move on in that five-year plan with business growth.

I want to drill down for your thoughts on the financial flexibility, both in terms of borrowing as well as leveraging, that exists on site but also sometimes off site, as you partner with additional organizations.

Can you speak about the benefit of that and whether in fact the amendments you speak of would include that as part of the overall bill.

[Duncan Wilson]

I think additional tools and flexibility would be terrific. I'm not sure how much of it is required in the legislation versus.... If we move to a market-based borrowing regime, that's obviously going to speed things up in terms of getting borrowing limits approved and being able to be nimble.

I would say that a port authority's ability to partner with the private sector on development, which is becoming more and more important, is something that needs to be given attention. I think there could be more flexibility in doing that.

Frankly, that can be done again through changes to our letters patent, which is a regulatory process.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

What would some of those changes to your letters patent be?

[Duncan Wilson]

We could bring equity partners into developments—that kind of thing, just with more flexibility.

When we made our submission on the port modernization review, it was almost entirely about regulatory change, not the act itself. We basically supported the act as it stood as an excellent, well-thought-out, forward-thinking piece of legislation with very few changes needed. Most of the changes are on the regulatory front.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

You find that this bill brings into play the port modernization review, aligning supply chains, strengthening inter and multi-modal networks, capital investments, asset management—speaking to that—port competitiveness, managing traffic, developing inland waterways, implementing strategic business plans, reducing the threshold for investment notification review, governance, expanding membership, working with advisory groups, working with stakeholders, working with indigenous groups, things of that nature. I'm going through a list here from when I read the bill.

There's also environmental sustainability, regulatory changes, updates; in the railway area, transparency, rules, exemptions, alignment, and the list goes on. There's safety, transparency, consultation, efficiency, exemptions, collaboration, adaptability, security, and the list goes on.

Do you find that this hits those areas, number one? And number two, with respect to amendments, is your organization—and I'm going to ask the same question of the members online—prepared to actually present amendments that it feels should be presented to actually make this bill better?

[Duncan Wilson]

Yes, absolutely. I'd be pleased to present amendments to try to improve the bill. And I do think that in some cases it's adding layers of process in places where frankly.... Even when it comes to liaison committees, we made the decision on our own because it was the right thing to do for our business at the time to put those committees together, and having them in the act seems a bit of an overkill.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'll ask the members online if they could give their thoughts to what I had just alluded to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Kennedy? Mr. Cox? Madame Morin?

[Joel Kennedy]

Certainly there are elements of this bill that are okay, but there are a lot of different elements that we're concerned about, and we would certainly be prepared to draft some amendments to strengthen our position and to address our concerns.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Cox, can you hear the members of the committee?

[Graham Cox]

No, I can't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cox.

Next we'll go back to Mr. Muys.

Mr. Muys, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes for a last round of questioning.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

All right.

I'll go to Mr. Wilson again.

We heard from one port authority that in his opinion nothing at all might be preferable to the proposed changes in Bill C‑33.. Do you share that opinion?

[Duncan Wilson]

As I said, I think that the vast majority of changes that we think are needed to port governance do not stem from the legislation itself. They are things that can be done in consultation with Transport Canada through changes to regulation and letters patent.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Right. Would you agree that we've had some questioning tonight from witnesses to identify positive aspects of the legislation, and it's like crickets is the answer or it's okay. It's a very mediocre or lukewarm response.

[Duncan Wilson]

The legislation doesn't respond to our submission on the port modernization review. But our submission, as I said, was not primarily about the need to change the legislation. It was about the need to change a lot of the regulations that relate to our operations.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I think the Association of Canadian Port Authorities—I think you've read some of their materials, as you're obviously part of the association—had written to the previous minister early on when the legislation was tabled and asked for clarification on some things, and then when we had the witness here, they talked about additional requests for information or elaboration on these details. We asked that question. And the answer seemed to be that they hadn't gotten an answer back and there were no details around it. I think that's pretty much what you're saying as well, that we're looking for that.

[Duncan Wilson]

Yes, the devil is in the detail, which in this case is regulation.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You talked as well about the $200,000 figure that was for your port, and we had asked the Transport Canada officials in the first meeting whether a cost analysis had been done. The answer was no. Would you— and I know you don't speak for other ports—imagine this as being an onerous burden for some of the smaller ports?

[Duncan Wilson]

I know, from what we've heard from smaller ports—MP Strahl spoke to this—that the legislation looks like it was designed on a lot of the things that we're doing. I know that we've heard directly from many of our colleague ports about how concerned they are about its being an onerous piece of legislation for them, and we support the association's position on that and their perspective.