Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

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

Thank you.

Mr. Hall, I have about a minute left. I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate. You raised data sharing concerns as well as concern about the ministerial powers in Bill C-33. Maybe in the remaining minute, you can talk a bit about that.

[Christopher Hall]

On data sharing, we were very pleased to see that mentioned in the bill. That is something that we, as a country, have been lacking momentum with to really turn the page on digitization in the transportation sector, so to see it brought into the bill was very positive.

There's now some serious work to be done to create the platforms and tie the platforms together. I think the biggest challenge will be getting different government departments to collaborate, communicate and share that data. That's probably the bigger block than industry, frankly, so we're pleased to see that in the bill.

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

On ministerial powers, is there too much power?

[Christopher Hall]

On ministerial powers, yes, we're seeing in several pieces of legislation the expansion of powers to the ministers without enough definition of what that power is really meant to deal with, and just not enough detail around the situation when those powers would be brought into play.

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

Right. The ability of the minister to appoint the board chair, for example, is a cause for concern, from your point of view.

[Christopher Hall]

Those were interesting points I was listening to. We were refraining from speaking to the governance aspects and leaving that to the port authorities and others to very strongly articulate, but we certainly wouldn't want to see that process politicized any more than it already is.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

Ms. Koutrakis, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony this evening.

Mr. Hall, it's really nice to see you once again. Thank you for your important work.

I was looking at the 2022 annual report of the Shipping Federation of Canada. Your objective is “to work towards a safe, efficient, competitive, environmentally sustainable and quality-oriented marine transportation system.”

From a supply chain optimization perspective, do you see the measures of this legislation supporting increased efficiency? If so, how?

[Christopher Hall]

We see some, absolutely. Particularly on the data side, that is definitely an improvement.

I think the amendments really call out the need for the system to be more resilient and more flexible to deal with the problems we have had with supply chains in the last couple of years. Although there may not be a lot of concrete changes, just the fact that the various acts now reference resiliency and security as being key components will have knock-on effects in the follow-up regulations that I assume will follow.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Do you think the measures, the changes and the updates could have been written up in a different way to make it even more efficient and effective, or do you think what is in there right now is sufficient?

[Christopher Hall]

You can always do more. That's for sure. It's a very large bill covering five or six different acts, so it's a very complex piece of writing.

Some of the points that Wade just made we can certainly support. It's not perfect. That's for sure. There are certainly some gaps, but on balance, we view it as at least being a step in the right direction. Will it make us the leanest trading partner in the world? No. There are still a lot of problems, with labour being one, as well as some overall port efficiency problems and capacity constraints, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Sobkowich.

In a news release issued on July 20, 2022, entitled “Canadian Agriculture Groups Ready for the Most Important Harvest in a Generation”, a campaign was launched called Canada's Ready.

You were quoted as saying:

We are working in a port oversight system that simply lacks proper checks and balances, in contrast to what we have in rail or air transportation where there are tools available to hold people accountable for decisions

In your opinion, do you believe that Bill C-33 addresses those concerns that you have spoken about?

[Wade Sobkowich]

Bill C-33 doesn't include dispute resolution with the port authority, so it doesn't. It's a bit of a stretch for us to say that there is proper dispute resolution in the rail sector, because if there was, we wouldn't have the rail problems we have today.

We are definitely pursuing additional amendments to the Canada Transportation Act through the rail review that's going on right now, but, no. We believe there should be a better, proper dispute resolution with a port authority for decisions they may make, because they are in a conflict of interest position. They are potentially in a conflict of interest position both as a developer and as a regulator. We saw some of that manifest itself in some of the decisions made by the Port of Vancouver in recent years.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Would you be able to elaborate a little bit more on the conflict of interest piece? I'd really like to dig down a little bit deeper and see how you see that being a conflict of interest and how it manifests itself.

[Wade Sobkowich]

The primary example of that we have is Roberts Bank T2 and the fact that it was developed without a proponent. It was the port authority itself that made the decision that it needed to develop T2 Roberts Bank and to incur costs associated with that. Infrastructure is required to serve the new development. We're not necessarily saying that was a bad idea or that it shouldn't have been done, but the costs from that are being borne in large part by the existing tenants. The port authority has the ability to charge rents, according to its letters patent, and the ability to charge infrastructure fees on infrastructure to and from these new developments. We think that's a perfect example of an area in which the port was acting as both a developer and a regulator, and that put grain terminals in an awkward situation.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

I would actually like to take this opportunity to say that when the minister was here in the previous panel, I thought his openness and flexibility were quite telling. I think the committee welcomes your testimony and recommendations and feedback. We and the minister welcome these submissions, and if we can strengthen this bill to be what it should be—because we're changing the bill not just for today but for a longer term—I think there's a willingness and an openness on the part of all of us here, including the minister, to do that.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I say please do so, and we'd be very interested in hearing more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

I now turn the floor over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Sobkowich and Mr. Hall, welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I'll go to Mr. Hall first.

Earlier you seemed to say that the minister would acquire a lot of power under this bill. We noticed that too. We felt the minister would disregard the rules and take a lot of latitude, considering everything the minister would be able to do, with few restrictions or guidelines. In some places, for example, the bill states that the minister may act if the minister believes there is an issue. I think the verb "believe" is weak. In other words, the minister wouldn't have to prove anything.

Do you think those powers should be subject to guidelines? What kind of guidelines should there be? Earlier you talked about definitions, but should the minister have to prove there's a genuine issue in certain situations, either immediately or subsequently?

[Christopher Hall]

Thank you for your question.

We are fundamentally opposed to interim orders and ministerial orders and directions to vessels as normal forms of governance. We see those types of instruments having the potential to be abused and to be used more frequently than they should be and to be used as a method to essentially circumvent the normal regulatory process for which there are extensive consultations and inputs from industry in order to get to the right place.

Yes, the minister needs the ability to act quickly if there is an emergency, but we haven't seen any situations in recent times in which there has been that great an emergency that an interim order or a ministerial order would have been appropriate, and yet that wording is being introduced in every piece of marine legislation. It was just brought into a piece of the Canada Shipping Act 2001 recently, and we were quite vocal about that section. Without that definition of exactly what it can be used for in what circumstances, it's just very broad and open to interpretation and has the potential to be—I won't say misused, but in situations where the other processes—

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

I'd like to hear from you again on this.

Apart from definitions, do you have any methods or measures to suggest to ensure the minister is subject to a certain degree of accountability when the minister acts under those provisions? For example, if the minister has to demonstrate, based on supporting documents, the need to act under those provisions, the minister may act in a moderate and non-abusive manner. I'm suggesting some potential solutions to you. I'd like to know if you have any ideas about this.

[Christopher Hall]

Thank you.

Not enough detail that would help with any drafting of new wording...but certainly any way to circumscribe those powers a little bit better would be helpful, or just remove them altogether and let the normal regulatory process take its course if a change is needed.

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

That leads me to another topic I wanted to address with you, which is the distinction between large and small ports. I believe you were here earlier when I discussed the issue with the minister. He couldn't respond because my time had unfortunately elapsed. I hope we'll have enough time this time.

If I'm not mistaken, you've previously worked at the Port of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. It's a very beautiful port, which I've had a chance to visit, but it's also very small.

Do you you think it would be acceptable for the new operating rules provided for under Bill C‑33 to be different for smaller ports?

[Christopher Hall]

The new reporting requirements are certainly going to be a burden for the small ports—there is no question.

The problem with that, from a shipping industry perspective, is that the cost will be put back onto the users of the port, whether they be the port tenants or the shipping lines calling the port. At the end of the day, the users will bear that cost. That would be our primary comment about the additional reporting measures for the small ports.

In terms of larger ports, yes, they have adequate resources.

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

Above approximately what revenue level would you say that a port is no longer a small port, but a large port? Is it $5 million, $10 million, $20 million, $40 million or $100 million? I have no idea. You no doubt know the industry better than we do.