Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 90 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, the committee is meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of 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. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome back our witnesses, beginning with our legislative clerks, Messieurs Jean-François Pagé and Philippe Méla. Welcome to you both.

Of course, from the Canada Border Services Agency we have Cathy Toxopeus, director general of transformation, planning and projects—welcome. Shawn Zinck, manager of the traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, is with us by video conference.

From the Department of Transport we have Ms. Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Aiden Ryan, director, marine security operations; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

I believe, colleagues, we left off at clause 61 and NDP-2, following a very lengthy discussion on that. I will now open the floor to any continued discussion.

(On clause 61)

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

What are we on, Mr. Chairman? Are we on clause 61, NDP-2?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, sir.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Is Taylor not going to speak to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There was a subamendment from Ms. Murray that we have to vote on first, which was to add “marine ecosystem” to replace “environment”.

If there's no further discussion, we will go to a vote on the subamendment proposed by Ms. Murray.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now move to NDP-3.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would simply indicate that when the minister directs a vessel, it shall remain outside of the area described in the schedule, which relates to a separate amendment. It is:

to remain outside of the area described in the schedule or outside of any other area specified by the

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there comments or questions, colleagues?

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

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

We've plotted said map, but I'm wondering if the witnesses there could describe to us what would happen if the anchorages outside of this area were full, and the minister needed to direct vessel traffic. What would the result be of, essentially, banning vessels from being directed into a certain area? What would they do, and what would the impact be on safety, on marine vessel traffic, etc.?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Ryan.

[Aiden Ryan, Director, Marine Security Operations, Department of Transport]

Thank you.

I'll start by giving a preface here. The purpose of the MTSA is to address risks and threats to the marine transportation system and the health of persons in it.

In addition to the concerns identified, establishing a blanket prohibition against anchorages in this area without any exceptions could lead to situations of increased environmental safety and navigational risks. Vessels regularly use anchorages as part of their day-to-day activities. While the average time for a ship at anchor is less than 14 days in this area, there are many circumstances in which it may be necessary for ships to anchor for a longer period of time.

As the act is currently drafted, if a storm or other weather event posed a risk to the operational or navigational safety of vessels anchored in the areas, the minister would be unable to exempt a vessel from this prohibition. This could cause catastrophic impacts on the local marine ecosystem. Likewise, a ship might be required to stay at anchor to effect repairs or address deficiencies identified by Transport Canada in order to ensure the safety and security of the ship and its crew.

Adoption of this amendment as is would interfere with the Government of Canada's ability to manage emergency situations and conduct follow-up investigations activity.

In the case of the Zim Kingston, for example, that was a container ship that caught fire off the coast of B.C. in 2021. It needed to be held at anchor while the fire was put out and then for repairs and the resulting investigation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Strahl, we'll go back over to you.

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

That dealt with, I would guess, amendment NDP-4, about the 14 days. I was going to ask about that as well, but I will go back to the same witness.

Would those same concerns arise if other anchorages were occupied, or—the proximity concern—if the nearest anchorage was in this area and was suddenly off-limits?

Do you have the same concern you just expressed—that there's no flexibility and no exemptions—with simply ruling a number of anchorages that are currently in use essentially as being out of service or unavailable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll go back over to you, Mr. Ryan.

[Aiden Ryan]

If I understand the question correctly, any banning of anchorages would be problematic. We need to retain the ability to anchor vessels when necessary, whether it's through detention or to deal with other issues.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Ryan, and thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead.

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

This specific amendment deals with a situation in which the minister exercises their discretion to direct a vessel in a fairly extreme case, because it's a vessel that's posing a direct or indirect risk to the environment, the well-being of marine ecosystems or the security of marine transportation, including any person, goods, vessel or marine facility. This is a situation in which a vessel needs to come under the direction of the minister and be directed somewhere.

My read of this amendment is simply that in directing the vessel, the minister is to avoid directing it through or into any of the specified anchorages in the southern Gulf Islands. That's not a good place to park a ship that is a risk.

Our witness, Mr. Ryan, has raised the question of a ship with an on-board risk to human health or some other situation. I wonder if there are other clauses that provide for emergency situations in which the risk isn't to the environment or to marine life but is simply that there's something happening on board that has put the crew in a situation in which they need to anchor to deal with it. I think any coastal community in any one of those areas would understand that such a thing would be a legitimate reason to anchor the vessel there while the emergency was dealt with.

Is there either a clause elsewhere in the act that would account for that or some way to subamend this amendment to provide for those specific kinds of situations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it back over to Mr. Ryan and then Mr. Strahl.

[Aiden Ryan]

The purpose of the Marine Transportation Security Act is to address security risks and threats to the transportation system and the health of persons involved in it. The Canada Shipping Act already provides the legal framework for regulating marine navigation and safety for the purposes of the public interest and the environment. That would be the act to turn to in those events.

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

That's right, but arguably, we've just expanded this act slightly by including risks to marine ecosystems and risks to coastal communities. I appreciate that your position is that limiting any anchorages is going to limit the ability to deal with these kinds of situations. I think what we as a committee are trying to do is to strike a balance between protecting coastal communities and the coastal environment and allowing the shipping industry to deal with extraordinary emergency situations.

A limited number of anchorages would be affected and a limited number of scenarios would be affected. It would be only when the minister was directing a ship. Here's another example. If the ship were leaking some sort of deleterious substance and the minister needed to direct it, what we're indicating is that the minister shouldn't direct it to go anchor next to one of these communities or in one of these sensitive marine ecosystems, because that would not be appropriate. Is there some way to define a smaller set of circumstances that would deal with emergencies in which it would be appropriate to park in those areas?

[Aiden Ryan]

I think I'd have to come back on that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Mr. Strahl, I'll turn it over to you.

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

In clause 61, which has already been amended, we're already dealing with extreme circumstances. We're dealing with situations in which, essentially, the minister has taken control of what a marine vessel will do, so if that is happening, it is already an extreme situation. We should avoid limiting the ability of the minister to direct a vessel to what may be the closest anchorage or to provide safety to those on board, to get it out of bad weather or an unsafe situation. As Mr. Bachrach said, the minister should avoid simply putting a blanket ban on that, but that's not what the amendment says. This is a blanket prohibition on a huge geographical area, in which a minister is already taking control of a vessel. This is already an extreme case.

We can't support anything that, I think, would put marine safety at risk by limiting the geographic area in which the minister could direct a vessel to safety.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any other comments or questions on this?

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

From the perspective of the coastal communities that are most concerned about this, they don't want vessels parking in these anchorages at all, period, ever. Given what they've been through, I think that is a pretty reasonable concern. I think this is a very narrow set of circumstances. We're going to deal with another amendment that talks about long-term anchoring in those spots, but it would seem that....

We're talking about directing a vessel to get to somewhere that is a good place for that vessel to park to deal with whatever situation is happening on board. This amendment says that when doing that, the minister should avoid these specific geographic areas. I appreciate that some people feel that's limiting the options too much, but maybe that's as far as we get with the debate on whether or not that's appropriate.