Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

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

I am perfectly prepared to discuss this today, even if it takes time.

That said, I wonder about something. The minister would have the power to ask a vessel to leave the place where it is, for security reasons, and we have already voted on that. Essentially, what is proposed asks the minister to take into consideration the fact that certain areas might not be the best places to send a vessel. That said, the minister could still send them there if they believed it was necessary. However, if I understand correctly, that would not prevent anchoring in those areas, which are to be included in a schedule. It would simply be a recommendation to the minister not to send vessels into those areas when the minister uses an injunction. Have I understood correctly?

If a list of places were created where anchoring is not recommended, that might make sense, but I am wondering whether a list of places should be created where it would be recommended that the minister not send vessels, to recommend to the minister by way of injunction.

I am not opposed, but I want to be certain I know what we are talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there any other questions or comments?

We can respond to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's comment.

Maybe you want to do that, Mr. Bachrach, just to clarify the intent and the purpose here.

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

Sure. I was kind of half listening, because I was trying to type the subamendment that Mr. Badawey so generously moved.

The idea here is essentially that we're dealing with a situation in which there's a security threat or an environmental threat. Something is wrong with the vessel. The minister determines that they should direct the vessel to a certain place. The amendment is saying that you need to stay out of these sensitive areas, as the vessel is directed, unless the minister is of the opinion that no other safe option exists.

That would provide a discretionary override that would allow the minister to direct a burning vessel, a vessel with a security situation on board, a vessel where someone has had a cardiac arrest.... If there's no other safe option, then the vessel could be directed anywhere within the zone that is also sensitive. That's the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Right.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Is there any other discussion on the subamendment? If there is none, we will go to a vote on the subamendment.

Do we have the wording for it yet?

[A voice]

We have it only in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay, colleagues, we have two options here. I can suspend until we get the translation of that sentence, or we can read it into interpretation, but I would need a—

[An hon. member]

Option two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You want option two.

Does that work for you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval?

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

Yes, that's fine.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Do they not have to be submitted in writing? Is not one of the orders for legislation that it must be in writing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes. The clerks are telling me that. It needs to be submitted in writing.

We'll suspend until such time as we have a written version in both official languages.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, the subamendment has been distributed in both official languages by the legislative clerk. Please make sure you have the most recent copy, which includes the word “Minister” at the beginning.

I see that everybody has received it.

We'll now go to a vote on the subamendment as proposed by Mr. Badawey.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We will now go to amendment NDP-4.

I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment deals with the same geographic area and the same schedule that would define a number of anchorages. What we're trying to do here is to create some sort of a compromise between prohibiting vessels from anchoring and allowing industrial ship traffic to park in these sensitive areas for weeks and weeks at a time.

The proposed amended text would read:

If a vessel has been anchored in the area described in the schedule for more than 14 days, the Minister shall direct the vessel to proceed, in accordance with any instructions the Minister may give regarding the route and manner of proceeding, to a place specified by the Minister that is outside of the area and to remain outside of the area for a period specified by the Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We think that port authorities would be better positioned to handle marine traffic, including anchorages. It would be preferable that they would get jurisdiction over these areas in order to do so, including the southern Gulf Islands.

We also think it would be better placed in the Canada Shipping Act, which is the appropriate framework for navigation and shipping.

Nonetheless, we agree with the intent of the NDP motion here, to restrict anchorages to 14 days. For this reason, we will be supportive of this amendment.

I do want to note, Mr. Chair, that there are already provisions and measures in place regarding anchorages. Port authorities have the ability under paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Canada Marine Act, which allows them to administer anchorage usage within a jurisdiction. That also includes setting a time limit.

As well, Mr. Chair—and again, I want to reiterate—this includes authorities respecting regulating or prohibiting the navigation, anchoring, mooring or berthing of vessels for the purposes of promoting the safe and efficient navigation of vessels and protecting the public interest and the environment; therefore, it is a better avenue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I see Mr. Strahl's hand up.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

If there's a better avenue, why would we support an amendment that's not the best avenue?

When I asked about amendment NDP-3, we heard about the concerns around safety and removing discretion from the minister.

Does this amendment still relate only to vessels that have been directed by the minister because of a threat, or is this 14-day prohibition on all vessel traffic at all times?

I guess that question would go to the witnesses. What are we talking about here? Would this amendment apply just to traffic directed by the minister, or to all vessel traffic?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

As currently drafted, we would read it as applying to all traffic that has been anchored for 14 days.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

That's right, and we heard on numerous occasions that the anchorages are currently full because of issues at the port. We heard about loading grain in the rain, for instance. It can rain in this region that is my home for days and days, or weeks at a time, which would mean that a grain vessel, for instance, could not load because of a lack of infrastructure at the port.

In many cases, they use these anchorages only when.... This has been used recently only when other anchorages are occupied. Now what the alternative will be is to tell these vessels that are.... Perhaps sometimes they just want to sit there for weeks at a time, as has been alluded to, or perhaps there are other operational issues that have caused them to be at anchor. The alternative to anchor is not returning home empty or going to a different anchorage, because they're in the southern Gulf Islands only if the other anchorages are full. The alternative is cutting them loose and having them circle around in the ocean, burning much more fuel, creating much more greenhouse gas emissions and being much less safe for marine traffic safety.

I understand the political reasons for this happening, but in terms of port governance, in terms of the supply chain.... We were told when this bill was introduced that this was all about improving efficiencies to the supply chain. This will actually make it worse. If you want to get rid of the anchorages in the southern Gulf Islands, you had better be creating them somewhere else, and that has not even started. We've heard that there's no appetite for that either, but that we would need to dramatically increase our anchorages as we dramatically increase the size of the port of Vancouver. We have a whole new terminal coming on. RBT2 is coming on. It's been approved by this government. They have approved it, which will result, when it's done, in a massive increase in vessel traffic. That's what they want.

To suddenly say that we are going to kick out these vessels and let them circle around until they can get back in to get loaded or get on their way might be good politics, but it's not good for the economy, for the operation of the port or for the supply chain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll go to Ms. Koutrakis next.

[Annie Koutrakis, Liberal, Vimy, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm just wondering if we could suspend for five minutes, as we would like to go into this a little deeper. I'm asking for a five-minute suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Ms. Koutrakis is asking for a five-minute suspension. I will suspend for five minutes to allow for deliberation.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Badawey, you had something you wanted to....

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to respond to a comment that Mr. Strahl made with respect to a better avenue. I think for the most part that better avenue, although it would refer to the Canada Shipping Act.... Again, there's a bit of redundancy to this, as navigational constraints would be enforced by Transport Canada. We understand that.

I do want to emphasize something I talked about last meeting. That is, with all due respect to the members from British Columbia—we can look at Taylor's riding, Joyce's riding, Elizabeth's riding and to some extent Mr. Strahl's—we take into consideration that we all get phone calls from our residents, and I'm sure you get a lot of phone calls about this issue.

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the fact that we will be supporting this amendment being put forward by the NDP.