Transport committee  Sure. I would agree with Ms. Gee that, ultimately, if there are some parts in the middle that would make how ports react to disruptions in the supply chain more predictable, that is a good piece of the bill. Other parts are not necessarily nimble because they add a variety of

Transport committee  That is a good question. That is probably a great question, but as far as I know, that is a separate decision that the government needs to make around borrowing limits, regardless of the environmental assessment decision for individual projects.

Transport committee  It goes back to an earlier point I was trying to make about where on the spectrum, if you will, the port authority lands. lf the port authority is going to become more of a regulatory body but some of the commercial aspects of it are going to be siphoned off, it is okay to have a

Transport committee  That is a reasonable opinion, and that would also be my personal opinion too.

Transport committee  Thank you. The borrowing limit and whatever money is borrowed by the port authority, as I mentioned, is ultimately paid by the tenants and the users. In situations where that borrowing far exceeds what ultimately can be borne by the tenants and the users, there is a risk—and it

Transport committee  I can speak only to the one port authority where we operate, the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. We did operate terminals in the ports of New York and New Jersey, but there is a very different approach there. There isn't much in Bill C-33 other than perhaps that there will be a

Transport committee  Bill C-52 is definitely a step in the right direction. It will, for the first time, give tenants and users of the port authorities the ability to at least ask and question the increases to the fees, the sizes of the fees or what is being done. I'm sure that there will be some lit

Transport committee  In Bill C-33, it is not clear where it actually makes the operating environment for the private sector more cost-effective, more nimble or more predictable. Those are things that attract private sector investment, and it appears that it adds more regulatory advisory bodies, more

Transport committee  No, I don't think that correlation could be drawn directly. Ultimately, if the port grows it is expected that the number of anchorages will grow. Think of it as a shopping mall. If the mall expands, you will need more parking spots for the cars outside the mall to service that fa

Transport committee  I think it is not clear. There are some things that are moving more towards a government-centric authority, like with assessing fees, and Bill C-52, for example, is going to provide some greater transparency and oversight. There are other things that are basically allowing them t

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  Yes, the right balance is to be struck. I think that a cost analysis of these additional advisory bodies' oversights should be done. At the same time, additional powers that would be granted to port authorities to assess fees also need to be balanced with the kinds of powers they

Transport committee  Thank you for that question. It goes back to what I mentioned earlier. Ultimately, Bill C-33 has to decide which way we want to go. Do we want to create port authorities that are more government-like and more government agency-like, or create them or push them to be more private

Transport committee  Thank you for that question. Port authorities are supposed to be financially self-sufficient, meaning they generate revenue from assessing fees and rents onto the users, the tenants. Any additional cost that's assigned to port authorities ultimately is collected from tenants and

Transport committee  Thank you for the question. To me, it is not clear which parts of Bill C-33 will ultimately improve efficiency. If we want to create a more efficient and resilient system, we ultimately need to invest in some spare infrastructure leading to and from our ports. I don't see how Bi