Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders and, therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I wish to inform all members of the committee that all witnesses appearing virtually have been tested for today's meeting and passed the sound test for the benefit of our interpreters.

Colleagues, appearing before us for the first hour of today's meeting is the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Transport.

Minister, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this evening. On behalf of the members of the committee, thank you for being with us.

We will begin with your opening statement. You have the floor for five minutes.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone. Greetings, colleagues.

First of all, I want to thank you for inviting me to speak about this important bill.

I am pleased to be joined by representatives of Transport Canada: Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister, as well as assistant deputy ministers Serge Bijimine and Lisa Setlakwe.

I am really pleased to be here. I think this is an important moment. I am delighted that we have this opportunity to discuss Bill C‑33 and especially how it will strengthen our transportation supply chain.

Listen, I know you don't need me to tell you this, but over the past three years Canada's supply chains have really been put to the test and it's been a very difficult time. It is still difficult. COVID-19, increasingly frequent and intense weather events and Russia's war against Ukraine have caused and worsened supply chain disruptions.

The vast majority of Canadians felt the economic impact of those disruptions, many of which are still felt today.

All of which confirms how important it is to have a strong, resilient and efficient supply chain. Which, as you'll no doubt remember, is why we established the supply chain task force last year. We asked the task force from the outset to study ways to make the supply chain more resilient and reliable.

They conducted extensive consultations with industry representatives, and the group released a report with key recommendations. I'm sure you guys read it. Among these are that a national supply chain strategy be developed.

And Bill C‑33 will lay the groundwork for that strategy.

However, it is important to note that, even before the war in Ukraine started and COVID‑19 hit, Transport Canada had undertaken two separate reviews: the Railway Safety Act review and the ports modernization review.

Those two studies are done. They clearly reflect everything we've been through during the past two years. They highlight the need to modernize Canada's ports and rail networks. We can't forget something that you guys all know, that the majority of our trade passes through our ports and our rail system, so we always have to be ahead of the curve to modernize them.

The ports modernization review clearly showed us that our ports needed to work for and with Canadians. We therefore listened to what ports representatives, ports users and ports communities had to say.

By way of a response, Bill C‑33 is designed to modernize the tools that the government, ports and railways use to support the entire transportation network. As we all know, the supply chain is profoundly interconnected. Our ports work together with our railways. They are inseparable from each other. We must therefore address all of that simultaneously.

That is why Bill C‑33 contains amendments that address both ports and the railway system.

The purpose of those amendments is, first, to enhance railway safety and security by means of an updated framework.

They are also designed to better equip the ports to meet today's complex needs. That includes taking steps to work with Indigenous communities and to support our climate change commitments.

Also, it will further improve the safety and security of the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada.

With Bill C-33, we will ensure that the safety and security framework for operations is appropriate and up to date. All of these measures would make the Canadian transportation network safer, more competitive, more secure, more efficient and more reliable.

This bill, I have to say, is essential to our economy. We've been saying this for three years now. Supply chain issues raise Canadians' cost of living, which is already too high. Consequently, passing this bill is a major, even fundamental, move for our economy and an enormous step in the right direction. Which is why I am pleased to be discussing it with you.

I am now ready to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Minister.

With your permission, I will also welcome Deputy Minister Thangaraj and assistant deputy ministers Bijimine and Setlakwe.

Welcome to all of you.

We'll begin our line of questioning this evening with Mr. Muys.

Mr. Muys, I'll give the floor over to you. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for taking time out of your busy schedule to be here as we conclude the witness testimony on Bill C-33.

Let me start with a fairly straightforward question. What, in your mind, is the number one thing that Bill C-33 is intended to accomplish?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I would say that it increases efficiency and accountability, to answer very quickly.

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

Efficiency and accountability.... Okay.

You talked about some of the chronology leading up to Bill C-33: the ports modernization review, which began in 2018; the rail safety review that started in 2017; and the national supply chain task force that was convened in January 2022—almost a couple of years ago.

The report of that national task force provided 13 immediate recommendations and eight, perhaps, longer-term recommendations. It had a fancy cover and a fancy logo. I should also add, by the way, that this very committee studied rail safety a year and a half ago. We had 33 recommendations, yet we only see one small provision regarding rail safety in Bill C-33.

After all that work, and over that length of time—going back six years—do you think Bill C-33 is the best you can come up with?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think Bill C-33 is a very good bill because of the two reasons I gave you.

First, on efficiency, it will allow our ports to better direct traffic and make decisions on how to be more efficient. It will also avoid anchorage, because the ports will have information they didn't have before, which will allow them to guide traffic and keep boats for the least possible amount of time for loading and reloading. That increases the efficiency.

On accountability, there are all kinds of measures—which you know—to make sure the ports understand they have not just a very important economic role but also a role within their communities.

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

Let me ask you this, then: We heard from a witness on Monday afternoon about the port of Vancouver. You talked about the importance of our supply chains to our economy. Obviously, the port of Vancouver—our largest port, our gateway to Asia, with a significant portion of our trade going through that port—is absolutely critical. Yet, this witness indicated the port of Vancouver is ranked 347th out of 348 ports in the world. That's the second-worst-performing port in the world.

What is your reaction to that? How does Bill C-33 improve this?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

That's exactly why we need the bill.

The other reason is that we hope we're able to—

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

That's not what witnesses told us.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

—work together to support this bill and make it a reality—to make the legislation. Again, it gives ports the capacity to make faster, better-informed decisions. It's the same thing for the railways. They will know how many boats are coming, or when the trains are there—or not. That will allow them to move everything more quickly and also to avoid, as much as possible, anchorage.

I think it's a big improvement.

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

Let me ask you this, then, Minister: At the first meeting studying this bill, we had some of your departmental officials here. Some of them are here again today. I asked whether a cost analysis had been done, because we're adding reporting requirements, new regulations, advisory committees and data-reporting requirements. The answer was no. There was no cost analysis done as to what impact—whether it's on a small or large port—all these new provisions were going to have. We asked some of the witnesses. We had varying answers, depending on the size of the port—from a cost of $200,000 to adding two additional employees when implementing the provisions of Bill C-33.

It seems to me as though you're adding all this cost. How do you justify the fact that no cost analysis was done up front and that you're just going to foist this upon the ports?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Well, what's the cost of doing nothing? What's the cost of being inefficient in the way we move the boats? What's the cost—monetary but also on the environment side—of anchorage? They're huge costs because of the huge loss of opportunities also, so again, this will allow ports to be way more efficient and trains to work in a more secure and efficient way also. Again, to avoid anchorage, avoid the impact on the environment, avoid the impact on whales—

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

Sure—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

—that's a big chunk of the benefits this will bring that you cannot necessarily calculate monetarily, but on the environment you can calculate—

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

Let me ask one more question, because my time is winding down.

You talk about the cost of doing nothing, yet I asked you at the front end what is the number one thing that you think the bill will accomplish. I would actually submit that the number one thing the bill would accomplish is nothing at all.

We heard from witnesses. You don't have to take my word for it. I can replay some of their comments. Just on Monday, we heard a witness say that it would have no material impact on the efficiency of supply chains.... Let me repeat that: no impact on the efficiency of supply chains at all. Also, there are “missed” opportunities: we heard that numerous times from witnesses. One witness went so far as to say that having nothing—no bill—would actually be preferable to this bill.

Given these indictments—and look, I know you were saddled with this bill by your predecessor, so in fairness—would you commit today to withdrawing Bill C-33 and actually doing a proper consultation with stakeholders on an urgent basis, and then reintroducing it, yes or no?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Well, I disagree with the premise of your question. I think it makes a huge positive impact. There's been lots of consultation. You guys are doing super important work. There has been debate in the House, there will be in the Senate, and I still hope that you'll support the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Ms. Murray, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you for being here, Minister.

I was really pleased to hear you talk about the environment being an important objective of this bill. As I know you're aware, local stakeholders in Vancouver, such as the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, have been very concerned about the environmental impacts of anchorage: light, noise and air pollution that affect local citizens and sound and other water pollution that affect the marine mammals. There are hundreds of species at risk in the Salish Sea that are affected.

Their view is that anchorage has a negative impact and that if ships arrived on time and on schedule thousands of anchor days per year could be prevented from being necessary. I'm very interested, given this, how the bill would improve the situation of anchorage. One last fact that they've put out is that anchorage growth has quadrupled while port tonnage grew by only one-quarter, so it's growing 16 times as fast as actual delivery of goods through the port. How does the bill help with that?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I think that's a crucial question here, because it talks about the importance of the bill not only on the economic side but also on the environment side.

If you look strictly at the environment, there are a few things that are very straightforward. For example, Bill C-33 requires the ports to develop climate plans to reduce emissions, and not only do they have to develop those plans, but they have to make them public and the ports have to report on the progress, on what they're doing in terms of emissions, in terms of the environment. That is there. That's an obligation and will be monitored and will be public.

The other one you're talking about is related to anchorage. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and working on this, because I've seen some of those ships. I'm sure that Mr. Bachrach is interested in this. I know that a lot of friends around Vancouver are also. By giving the capacity to the ports to better manage traffic by making sure that ships arrive on time, spend less time there and leave faster, then you don't have all those ships waiting at anchor.

Anchorage has many impacts. One of them is that—and you said it—is that they have to keep their engines going, at least one, to keep the electricity and minimal functions on board. By doing that, they're polluting, and also, the noise of the engines has huge negative impacts on the whales. By being more efficient in the managing of the ships, you don't need that type of anchorage. I think it's a big step forward.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

Recent digital acoustical research is showing that the sound in the water impacts more than the whales. It impacts basically every animal in the ecosystem of the water, as well as some of the plants they feed on. I will be bringing more about this forward to you as the minister, because I think the impact of sound on vulnerable species in the water has to be closely understood and mitigated.

I would like to ask another question about engagement with the community.

As a member of Parliament adjacent to the port of Vancouver, I know there are communities in the metro Vancouver area that are not of the view that the port is sufficiently connecting with and respecting the needs and views of the community.

In fact, there's a lot of opportunity for having port tourism. If you think of Cape Town and some of the other ports, they are very integrated with tourism and other recreational activities. I think Vancouver has some opportunities there.

You claimed that the bill will be addressing some of the issues of communities around the ports. Could you give us more detail about how this will be more responsive and respectful of not just the needs, but also the opportunities of the port communities?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Absolutely.

I said during my speech that ports not only play an economic role, but also, as part of their communities, they have an impact on those communities, which is sometimes positive and sometimes not that positive. They have to listen to what the communities have to say.

Through Bill C-33, we're asking the ports to put in place three different types of committees: one would engage with local stakeholders, the second with local governments/politicians, and the third with indigenous communities. They have to strike those committees to be able to hear concerns and suggestions, to be better connected with the communities they're in.

That's lacking, and I'm even surprised that it's not there. But with Bill C-33, we're making sure that we put that in there. They will have to create those three committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister, and thank you, Ms. Murray.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

We've been studying Bill C‑33 in committee for nearly three weeks now. We've had time to hear from many witnesses, notably from labour, management, railway companies, port authorities, shipping companies, logistics companies and environmental groups. I was surprised to see that virtually none of those witnesses were enthusiastic about Bill C‑33. Your Liberal colleagues around the table even had trouble telling them anything positive about the bill. I'm not saying there's nothing positive in it, but, as a general observation, people either opposed it or were utterly indifferent.

Do you think it's normal that there isn't any more support for your bill?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I didn't have a chance to be here during the testimony. I want to thank committee members once again for their work, which is essential.

I've had several meetings with people who support the bill. There are no absolutes; things aren't necessarily black or white. People may like certain parts of the bill and other parts less so. Whatever the case may be, the bill ultimately would grant more authority to the ports to make decisions concerning traffic, which they currently can't do. When I took up this file, I thought it wasn't normal for the ports not to have—