Evidence of meeting #84 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 ports.
A video is available from Parliament.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Yes, because you've talked about some of the things that you have done proactively over the course of time that are encapsulated in Bill C-33, but that it's taken time, effort and money, and now it's going to be imposed upon others.
I guess what you're saying is that it is a burden that other smaller ports or even medium-sized ports would face.
9 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and External Affairs, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
We would be spending millions. We are spending millions on those kinds of things to do them at the scale that we need in a port the size of Vancouver, and I don't have a sense of how it would be for smaller ports. They're best to speak to that themselves.
9 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Muys Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON
Right. Well, I'd observe that millions is a big number considering that, when we were on tour at the Port of St. John's in Newfoundland, we heard that their borrowing limit is $8 million, which will buy you maybe one house or half a house in the greater Vancouver area, so millions is a big cost.
I have 30 seconds. What can I do in 30 seconds?
Do you have anything further to add, Mr. Kennedy, from a rail perspective?
9:05 p.m.
Director, Rail Sector, Unifor
I would just like to add that we've made our points in our brief here, and what we need in Canada is more regulation, and this bill, in our view, is more deregulation. It comes at a time in Canadian history when we've really got to be conscious of the environment and the lands that we are running through, and we have to be respectful of those communities as well.
I think we've made it very clear in our brief what's missing and what we need to see in there, and I thank you guys for that opportunity.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy.
Thank you, Mr. Muys.
Next we have Mr. Iacono.
Mr. Iacono, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I welcome the witnesses and thank them for being here this evening to share their comments and views on our study.
To begin, I have a question for the representative from the Greater Victoria Port Authority.
What do you think of the environmental measures in the bill?
Is he no longer there?
I have a question for Mr. Wilson then.
As a port located in a major urban centre, anchorages can be a major issue with nearby communities. How does the port currently manage its anchorage? Will the measures in Bill C-33 help the port to do this more effectively?
9:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and External Affairs, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
Yes, the measures in Bill C-33 will help us do that more effectively. Obviously, the regulation will spell out exactly how that is. We manage the anchorages on an interim protocol basis in the Gulf Islands and directly in terms of our jurisdiction, and the changes that are required are mostly in the areas where we don't have jurisdiction.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you.
You mentioned at the beginning that you were quite happy with this legislation. Can you elaborate on what exactly you're quite happy about? Let's go two ways: what are you really happy about, and what are you not happy about? That will help us get better orientation as to what should stay and what should go, because we're getting mixed responses from different witnesses.
You were really convincing when you said that you were really happy about a lot of it, so please share with us what you're happy about.
9:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and External Affairs, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
I think that, when the legislation was first tabled, we were relieved, because we were concerned where it might go, and it didn't go in a different direction than we were already going, for the most part, with the exception of some of the governance things. I think that's what we're happiest about. It's a reaffirmation of a lot of the work we're already doing in the port, so we saw that as a positive reflection on decisions that we'd taken over the years to do those things.
Again, we're a very different animal from some of the smaller port authorities, so our reaction to the legislation was much different from their reaction.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
I don't want to put you on the spot, but let's say I asked you for the three things you really liked about it and three things you don't like about it.
9:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Environment and External Affairs, Vancouver Fraser Port Authority
I'd say I like the inclusion of the indigenous peoples in the purpose clause. I like the provision for us to be able to direct traffic, and I like the intention of giving us a better process around borrowing limits. Hopefully it will help.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you very much.
Ms. Morin, how would you describe the relationship between the port authorities and the workers in general?
9:05 p.m.
Union Adviser, Syndicat des débardeurs, section locale 1375 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique
I did not hear that the question was for me, but I am pleased to answer.
Can you repeat the question?
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Ms. Morin, how would you describe the relationship between the port authorities and the workers in general?
October 25th, 2023 / 9:05 p.m.
Union Adviser, Syndicat des débardeurs, section locale 1375 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique
I would say it is not very good.
I have to say that I am pleased you asked the question. I think it was Mr. Strahl who mentioned consultation committees earlier as a way of improving staff relations. In my opinion, it will take more than a consultation committee to improve staff relations in ports. Employees in the marine sector are in fact in a very difficult position because, under section 34 of the Canada Labour Code, the workers often bargain with a port authority rather than their direct employers. That makes for difficult labour relations, among other things. There you have it.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
You are on the front lines, you represent the employees and your role is to bargain. Tell us exactly what you suggest to the government or to those responsible for bargaining. What would your strategy be?
9:10 p.m.
Union Adviser, Syndicat des débardeurs, section locale 1375 du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique
It depends in what respect, but it would certainly make things easier if the real decision-makers were at the bargaining table rather than a port authority, which ultimately manages human resources, enforces discipline, and so forth.
The problem is that the real decision-makers, the boards of directors and the companies, are not at the bargaining table, which complicates matters. In addition, a change in culture in staff relations is needed, and I think the port authorities know that.
A consultation committee could be a first step, but a much stronger commitment will be needed.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. Morin and Mr. Iacono.
Mr. Barsalou-Duval has the floor for two and a half minutes.
9:10 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My comments are for Mr. Kennedy.
I was quite surprised to hear earlier that there are safety exemptions. Such exemptions that are sometimes granted to rail companies are not public. So they are secret and no one is aware of them. That concerns me.
So you are proposing that those exemptions would automatically be made public. In your opinion, what impact would that have on accountability, first of all, but also on the use of those exemptions? Do you think they would be used more sparingly or that there would be reluctance to abuse them?
9:10 p.m.
Director, Rail Sector, Unifor
I would have to agree that they would be reluctant to abuse those exemptions, yes.
When we bring in the proper stakeholders, we get a holistic view of impacts. For example, we've talked about bringing indigenous representation onto boards. We run trains through their lands—period. It's unceded territory and treaty land. We're not consulting with everybody we need to. It's great that they're consulting with unions, but that's whom they're only consulting with: Transport Canada and the unions.
The fact of the matter is that these trains go through different communities, sacred lands, national parks and UNESCO sites. When we talk about true stakeholder engagement and consultation, they are only engaging with labour stakeholders. That's it. We're not engaging with all the stakeholders who actually have, and would be directly impacted by, any safety concerns from these regulatory exemptions.
I 100% agree with your comments that the public needs to be consulted on this, because these trains are running through their communities. The people they're consulting right now are in the unions. We bring the labour perspective, but we don't bring the voice of the communities these trains run through. I think that's a very important component. They have some ownership and voice. They need to be able to raise their concerns, as well.