Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

With the reduction of sound and noise from shipping, how do you see this bill potentially helping to reduce that impact on our threatened orca and salmon and the whole marine ecosystem?

[Christopher Hall]

I suppose you could make the argument that, if the movement of ships is more efficient, you'll thereby decrease the volume of ships and therefore improve the sound levels.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Great, because that's a key objective of this bill.

[Christopher Hall]

That's a key objective. Will the traffic flows be diminished enough to make a marked difference in that degree for underwater noise and some of the other factors? I think that only time will tell.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, and if I have time for....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, there is no time left, Ms. Murray.

I'll now turn the floor over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval 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. Sobkowich.

Some witnesses came to the committee to talk about issues related to anchorages. This is a major source of irritation for residents, not to mention that it can also have an impact on the natural environment.

As I understand it, the grain industry is frustrated. Grain producers would like to get their grain to market. There seemed to be problems in shipping their goods.

I also discovered that the export of coal from Canada is permitted, whereas it's a prohibited practice on the west coast of the United States. I find that peculiar. We are ultimately serving as a transit point for pollution caused by American coal that can't be shipped from the United States.

I don't know if you have this kind of expertise, but I'd like to know if the bulk terminals used to export coal could be converted to other types of terminals, such as grain terminals.

[Wade Sobkowich]

I'm with the grain industry, so I'm not very familiar with coal terminals. I've not heard of coal terminals being converted to be used for grain.

I'm really out of my element. I don't think I can answer that question right here on the spot without doing some research.

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

All right. It was worth a try. If you had had the answer, it would've been interesting to get that information.

I also have a question for Mr. Paul, if I have any time left.

Representatives of the ports of Montreal, Quebec City and Trois-Rivières came and testified in committee and mentioned that they would like to have more opportunities for port authorities to operate in a collaborative manner. They felt that the bill didn't contain the necessary elements to promote greater collaboration.

Are you aware of that situation? If so, would you please tell us a little about it?

[Christopher Hall]

When the three ports in the St. Lawrence announced that collaboration initiative, we were extremely supportive. I won't say it was the first time for them, but it was a big step for especially three ports to come together and decide to co-operate both operationally and potentially commercially. That was a big change.

Is that something you could legislate? I'm not sure whether that would be effective. I think the collaboration, when it happens, has to be organic. It has to be driven by a business need. That's what's will cause increased efficiency and collaboration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.

Finally, we have Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Mr. Hall, I'm keen for your thoughts on this issue of anchorages. It seems like both the shipping industry and the port authorities want maximum flexibility. Obviously, they saw some challenging times when it came to congestion over the past couple of years, but the impact on communities has been severe.

Communities who are seeing this industrial traffic parking on their doorstep, emitting all sorts of air pollution and noise pollution, and threatening really sensitive marine ecosystems don't see it as being a good thing or even necessary. They want the minister to step in and put in really strong legislative controls that prevent companies from using not all anchorages but certain anchorages in certain areas for the reasons that I've outlined.

Does that not seem like a reasonable thing? Given the number of anchorages out there and given the validity of these concerns that communities have expressed, taking some anchorages off the table through legislation—maybe not entirely, but at least not allowing companies to park there for 14 or more days—seems like a pretty reasonable thing.

[Christopher Hall]

Protecting communities and the environment is certainly reasonable—no argument there—but make no mistake: Anchorages are as important to the port as are the various terminals and docks and piers within the port confines itself. In fact, anchorages should really be considered part of the critical infrastructure of a port.

Reducing anchorages reduces the ability for a port to be flexible. It reduces the ability for the terminals to operate in the normal course of trading. I think Mr. Sobkowich spoke to it. Grain in particular is traded in a very specific way. That is an internationally accepted and internationally used program. If you eliminate anchorages or reduce them significantly, that trading will no longer be able to exist. That's how the grain is bought and sold. The vessels are contracted to carry that grain. They need anchorages. They need to arrive at a certain time.

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

We heard from the minister earlier that by increasing the fluidity and efficiency of the supply chain, we're not going to have those impacts on anchorages. If we don't have those impacts on anchorages, that means we don't need them, right?

[Christopher Hall]

In theory, I suppose, yes, if—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hall, and thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

On behalf of all committee members, I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing with us on this late Wednesday evening.

I will now ask all the witnesses to please leave the room or log off.

Yes, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a quick question. This is the last meeting for this study.

Through you to the clerk, what is the expectation for the next meeting to actually deal with what we've heard and the direction this committee wants to take? What's the process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I'll turn it over to the clerk for a response to that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Carine Grand-Jean]

The next step is that the amendments are to be submitted to me, as the clerk of the committee, by Friday, November 10, at noon. That's the last moment. Then you will have clause-by-clause on Monday, November 20.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Is that including the amendments that have been [Inaudible—Editor]?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I couldn't hear the clerk at all. I don't know why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry about that.

We will ask the clerk to repeat the response to Mr. Badawey's question.

[The Clerk]

I hope you can hear me well.

I was explaining that the amendments are to be submitted on Friday, November 10, at noon. That's the last date. We will then move to clause-by-clause on November 20 during the meeting.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Will that include the amendments when we go clause by clause?

[The Clerk]

Yes.