Transport Committee on Oct. 25th, 2023

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here with us at this late meeting. You testimony is very important and it's a very interesting conversation.

Mr. Wilson, we heard some of the challenges and some of the areas where you think this bill can be strengthened or be better. However, I'd like to ask you what you think the most positive parts of the bill are. I'm pretty sure there are some positive parts of the bill that you could speak to.

[Duncan Wilson]

I think the amendment of the purpose clause to include indigenous peoples is really meaningful and significant. We applaud the government for putting that forward.

I'm pleased in general with the focus on the environment. I think some of the bill is maybe a little too prescriptive in how we do that, but the additional emphasis there is welcome.

Again, we're happy with the changes that will allow for better traffic management, subject to regulations.

There is a lot of good that's in the bill. Obviously, coming to committee today, I'm focusing on the things that are of concern, because those are the areas we would really like to see addressed.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Would any of the other witnesses like to chime in with your perspective on the same question? No. Okay.

My next question is for Mr. Lewis-Manning.

We heard quite a bit about the active vessel traffic today. Do you think the active vessel traffic management measures in this bill will help ports operate more effectively? If so, how?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, Ms. Koutrakis, Mr. Lewis-Manning had to leave. He left about five minutes ago.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Okay, then I will ask the question of Mr. Wilson.

Thank you.

Do you think that the active vessel traffic management measures in this bill will help ports operate more effectively, and how?

[Duncan Wilson]

Yes, but that's subject to regulation. The detail will be in the regulation. The legislation is necessarily at a higher level. That relates to not just that aspect but also to borrowing and everything else. A lot of the most meaningful changes will come forward in the form of regulation.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

My last question is for Ms. Morin.

One of the points raised is that unions must be represented on port authority boards of directors.

Do you agree that such representation is needed and what point of view could unions offer to port authorities if that were to happen?

My colleague Mr. Strahl already asked whether there would be a conflict of interest.

How could we manage that?

[Marie-Christine Morin]

To my mind, there is no risk of conflict of interest because the employer is represented, in any case. I think port workers want the port to operate and might even provide interesting insights regarding productivity, efficiency and shortcomings. Listening to workers is always helpful for productivity and a company's success.

I support my colleagues who are asking for a seat on the board of directors. For my part, I am concerned that the union will be left out of discussions relating to working conditions, among other issues.

Nonetheless, I think it is always a good idea to have a union representative at the table to get insights from the workers; otherwise, a piece of the puzzle is missing. I do not see any risk of conflict of interest.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

That's all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Wilson and pertains to the way Bill C‑33 was introduced.

The bill was introduced by the government at the end of the parliamentary session last year. So that is a year ago.

On November 18, 2022, an article about Bill C‑33 appeared in the newspaper, La Presse. Roughly translated, the headline was: A bill to strengthen cooperation among Quebec ports.

This article explains that, with this bill, the minister intended to improve the supply chain and provide for greater cooperation among ports. When I read the bill, however, that was not necessarily what I understood.

Can you tell us about the features of Bill C‑33 that would strengthen cooperation among ports or improve the supply chain? That might be helpful to the committee.

[Duncan Wilson]

The most significant changes in the legislation give ports additional powers with respect to traffic management.

In respect to collaboration between port authorities, there's nothing stopping that today. We do communicate and work with other port authorities. Earlier this evening, I was with the Quebec ports at an event. There is a lot of engagement between the port authorities through our association.

I think there is an opportunity, particularly on the west coast, for some greater collaboration between us and particularly some of the other ports, but there is really nothing preventing that.

Is that something that's required in the legislation? That's an excellent question. I think that's something that is worthy of consideration, but there's nothing right now that's a barrier to making that happen.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

We heard from port workers who told us more or less the opposite. They said they are forced to compete with one another, which can undermine cooperation. They said they would have liked to see changes in Bill C‑33 that would have allowed for such cooperation.

Would you agree?

[Duncan Wilson]

I can only speak for the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority's perspective on this. We see our responsibility to facilitate Canada's trade policy priorities. So, what is in the interests of Canadian trade? If it makes more sense for something to go through Prince Rupert, it makes more sense for it to go through there. If it makes more sense for something to go through Vancouver or Nanaimo.... It's about facilitating the most Canadian trade.

I don't feel competitive with those port authorities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Wilson. These rounds go really quickly, unfortunately.

Mr. Bachrach, I'll turn the floor over to you next for two and a half minutes, please.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have another question for Mr. Kennedy.

I noted at the top that there are many things that were left out of this bill when it comes to rail safety. If the minister asked you to go back to the drawing board with him and redraft the bill, what is one thing that isn't in the current bill that you would like to see in legislation specific to rail safety?

[Joel Kennedy]

I think I touched on it in my report. Specific to rail safety is to see the augmentation of technology to enhance rail safety in Canada and to promote the best, safest rail infrastructure that we absolutely can in Canada to protect our environment, communities and systems in our urban and rural areas.

Right now there's nothing in there. There is no regulatory oversight with the employers. It seems that these exemptions are granted, and there is no oversight. We're essentially taken out of the house in this regard.

We talk about the expedited exemption process and the granting of that. I think we need more involvement. We need to be let in the house. We need to be able to consult, and we need more public engagement and regulatory oversight with some of the technologies and exemptions that are actually granted.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Along those lines, one of the issues that have been raised by the families of rail workers, who have been killed in rail accidents, is the use of corporate rail police.

Is it appropriate that the big rail companies have their own police forces and investigate themselves?

[Joel Kennedy]

No, albeit at one time, it possibly was. However, I think those times have changed. I think the RCMP is the body that should be investigating any kind of rail infrastructure or accidents that are happening.

I think that historically the police were involved with the rails when we used to transport loads of money through rail, and people on horses were coming and robbing trains, to tell you the truth. I don't agree with that.

That was one of the biggest issues with the CP-KCS merger that you saw in the States. There was a lot of kickback and misunderstanding from our counterparts south of the border about why our Canadian rail companies would actually need their own police forces. I'm still confused by that myself, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

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

Next we have Mr. Muys.

Mr. Muys, I'll turn the floor over to you for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses who have stayed with us this long. It is a late hour, and I get the honour of coming in at the end of the discussion.

Mr. Wilson, one thing that struck me from your opening statement was the fact that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority deals with 16 local governments—and I missed the number of first nations, but it was a large number.

Maybe you can elaborate a bit. We have a bill that proposes that the minister appoint the chair—so that's Ottawa. I think there are lots of provisions in this bill where it's an Ottawa-knows-best approach to stuff that you're already doing, so what is the point of Bill C-33?

[Duncan Wilson]

I think from where we sit there is not, as I said in my remarks, really a large impact, other than some of the very specific things like traffic management and reporting requirements. But most of those things are just a slight tweak to what we're doing right now.

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

Obviously you have local knowledge and an understanding of what's going on on the ground, and that's the point we're making. Does it make sense to have the minister appoint the chair, who would maybe not be aware of what's going on on the ground? It seems to be a step backwards.

[Duncan Wilson]

We feel that the Canada Marine Act was created to depoliticize ports and put us in a position where we can be nimble in decision-making, and frankly, sometimes make difficult decisions that are in Canada's interest without interference from politics. It is a concern to us.

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

You talked as well about why the market can't dictate the borrowing limit. We heard something similar from other port authorities—obviously, though, they are not as large as the Port of Vancouver. Obviously if there is not a business case, you're not going to get the funds from those who are lending. Maybe you can talk a bit more about that.

We heard from others that this is hampering the potential of Canadian ports. The Port of Vancouver obviously is a gateway to Asia. It's critically important and needs to grow. It's important to our supply chains. We've heard that, and that's supposed to be the intent of this bill, yet you still have these handcuffs.