Evidence of meeting #86 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 c-33.
A video is available from Parliament.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Again, they are there, but they don't work in silos. Again, they collaborate, and other police forces are allowed and investigate quite often, too, but I hear what you're saying.
8 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'll ask my last question, and then perhaps you can answer in the next round.
The ports have said to us that they don't understand why this bill contains these three-year reviews of their borrowing limits. They've come to you with concerns about the time it takes to get their borrowing limits approved, and they don't see how what you've proposed in this bill does anything to improve that situation.
When it comes back around, I would love it if you took a few minutes to explain—because I know we have folks from the ports in the room—how what you've proposed speaks to the concern that they have about borrowing limits.
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Unfortunately not, Minister. There are three seconds left, so we'll wait until the next round.
Thank you, Minister, and Mr. Bachrach.
Next we have Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, please.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Usually a minister comes to the first meeting to present their bill and talk about its many benefits.
Minister, you've had the benefit, or you should have had the benefit, of reviewing the testimony from over 10 hours of witnesses who have been before this committee before you arrived today. Whether they've been rail companies, marine groups, port users, port authorities, port terminal operators, unions or environmental groups, they've all said this bill is either bad for their sector or does nothing to improve the situation with supply chains.
Your opening statement could have been given by Omar Alghabra. I heard that speech in the spring.
Why haven't you listened to the industry groups, to the unions, to the environmentalists, to everyone who has been before this committee up until today's meeting and then come to this committee with what you're proposing to change, as opposed to telling us it's a very good bill and that many people are telling you how great it is, when your Liberal counterparts at this committee couldn't find anyone to come to defend it?
8 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You won't be surprised if I disagree with the premise of the question and most of your comments, Mr. Strahl.
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
There's a need for this bill. It's an important bill. Is it a perfect bill? No. Is it a bill that everyone goes crazy over and says, “Yoo-hoo, we're supporting Bill C-33”? Not necessarily.
However, is it making structural changes? It is—for ports, for trains, and also for the environment. With regard to the link between the ports and the communities, the importance of striking those communities—those communities with community leaders, with indigenous people, with local governments—is fundamental.
Are you against that?
8 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Are you against the fact that we want to eliminate [Technical Difficulty—Editor] because it's necessary for the environment and necessary to improve the supply chain? Are you against that, Mr. Strahl?
8 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
What I am against, Mr. Minister, is this “Ottawa knows best”, top-down approach when it comes to our supply chains. We've heard that time and time again, especially when it comes to you, as the minister, sitting in an office in Ottawa and telling the ports across the country—no matter how big they are, no matter how unique their situation is—that you know best, that you know who should be the chair, that that should come from on high in Ottawa.
I was shocked to hear you say that, right now, port boards are doing whatever they want. That is simply not the case. What they are doing is trying to efficiently move goods throughout the supply chain, and this bill will actually make that more difficult by inserting you and your political ideology into the boards of directors.
Why are you not allowing ports, which are supposed to be at arm's length from government, to operate at arm's length from government? Why is there this “Ottawa knows best” approach to port governance?
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Again, I have to disagree with the premise of your question and, again, most of your comments, Mr. Strahl.
With all respect.... You know, I respect very much what you do. We worked together as whips for a long time. It's not necessarily an easy job.
This bill makes a lot of changes in terms of supply chain efficiencies. It helps to improve relationships between the ports and local communities. It helps improve the safety and security at the ports. It's also asking the ports to work in the public interest because they have a role. Yes, the role on the economic level is very important, but they also have a role to play in terms of being members of those communities.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
If I have time for one more question....
Why are you treating the port of Vancouver like the port of Saguenay or the port of Trois-Rivières? Why take this one-size-fits-all approach instead of taking into account the unique nature of each of the 17 port authorities across the country?
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I'm absolutely ready to look at that, and I understand that the challenges are different between the 17 ports and other smaller ports.
At the end of the day, what we want to do is increase the efficiency in terms of the supply chain. We want to make sure that ports do their job, that trains do their job, that governments and everyone do their jobs. We're going to look at the differences between big and small. Sometimes their capacities or needs are different, so I'm open to looking at that.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I'll ask the same question that Dan Muys asked.
Will you withdraw the bill, talk to industry, talk to the players, and come back with something that can actually be supported by port users and supply chain users across the country?
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Quite the opposite. I would love to get your support for the bill, Mr. Strahl.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Minister.
Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.
Next, we'll go to Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, sir.
November 1st, 2023 / 8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister, to our committee this evening.
You said, at the beginning of your comments, that the goal of the bill, of course, is efficiency and accountability. We've heard from many witnesses at these committee meetings, from marine ports, railways and so on, about Bill C-33. Many of them have made some good suggestions on how to improve the bill. Hopefully, at the end of the day, this will happen at this committee: recommendations that will lead to efficiency and accountability.
I want to ask you a question around data sharing because, again, a lot of them talked about that.
Minister, data sharing is a common element of Bill C-33. Can you please share with this committee why that's important to effective port operations, and how do you envision data sharing between ports, port users and the federal government to maximize results?
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I would say it's absolutely fundamental. I was even surprised—I've not been in this job for a long time, maybe three months or something—at the lack of sharing of information. Information is everything. Ports should know exactly when boats are arriving, the number of boats that are arriving, where the trains are, and this and that, so they can better work together.
With this bill, it's like we're thinking about the entire transportation system as being one. By sharing that type of data, you improve the flow. You improve the circulation. You increase the speed of goods arriving from A to B. You limit the impacts on the supply chain, and that does have an impact, at the end of the day, on prices for consumers because when you have problems with the supply chain, you know what the consequences are on the cost of living.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
When it comes to data, digitization and investing in technology, it's all with the same objective: efficiency and accountability.
From the marine side, after hearing from many ports across the country and from witnesses here at the committee, who shared their concerns about the powers the bill would give you, many of the concerns are with regard to safety, such as not only anchorage, blockage, and those kinds of things, but also the right to protest. Specifically, Minister, Bill C-33 gives you some additional powers when it comes to emergencies.
Can you give us some context as to why those would be necessary?
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
You've said it all. It's emergencies. It's just in case of emergencies. For example, and you've probably heard this, during the pandemic, a ship came in with a new variant of COVID-19. We could not stop it. It could come to the port; it was allowed to come here. This would give you power in emergencies. We could have said to the boat's crew to stay there for a while and to make sure everything is okay, but “No, we couldn't have a boat with a new variant of a very dangerous disease on it”. We're a G7 country, and we don't have the power to tell that boat, “Whoa, hold on for a second; you can spend a few days there until we control the situation”.
That is exactly what this is for.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL
From that perspective, when we talked about board governance, a couple of witnesses asked us, if we had to make up our minds, as a committee, do we want a board governance from a political side or a private sector side?
I just want to ask your thoughts on that.
8:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
I think you need a board of directors that's there for the port and for the community. What happens if the chair does whatever they want? We have to understand that when we say ports play a super important role, it's not only in terms of the economic level but also in terms of their own community. Their impact is huge. That's why we're striking those three committees and asking them to speak with indigenous people, to speak with local leaders and to speak with local governments and politicians, and to listen, not only speak but also listen. Sometimes the recommendations that come from there are amazing, and they're going to help you.
I think it strikes the right balance. I think it's necessary and required. Maybe not everyone falls in love with the bill, but it's definitely a step in the right direction.