:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 83 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 its study on Bill , 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. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and are able to join us remotely using the Zoom application. Before we begin, I wish to inform all members of the committee that the witnesses appearing virtually have been sound-tested for today's meeting for the benefit of our interpreters and have passed the test.
Colleagues, appearing before us today by video conference are the BMI Group, Justus Veldman, managing partner; the Chamber of Shipping, Bonnie Gee, president; and GCT Global Container Terminals Inc., Marko Dekovic, vice-president, public affairs. From South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, we have Mr. Bruce McConchie, who is joining us in person.
Welcome, everyone.
We'll begin our opening remarks with you, Mr. Veldman. I'll turn the floor over to you. You have five minutes, please.
:
Thank you, dear Chair Schiefke and members of the committee.
My name is Justus Veldman. I am a managing partner with the BMI Group, a property development company specializing in the repurposing of industrial infrastructure. As the largest developer of end-of-use paper mills in Ontario, with significant rail and water infrastructure in place, it is an honour to be invited to address amendments to this bill.
In our Niagara ports properties alone, we have facilitated over $430 million of investment capital and have created well over 250 full-time permanent jobs. With our latest acquisition of 400 acres in Port Colborne, we own and operate in excess of 900 acres in total of port lands adjacent to the Welland Canal. With our existing partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, the Niagara ports trade corridor is among the top five in Canada.
Our development in northern Ontario, in the town of Red Rock, which is another former paper mill town and the northernmost port on Lake Superior, is inclusive of a full first nations partnership and is in the process of signing an MOU with a significant lithium producer, which is contingent on its development.
The modernization of port operations, their security and their efficiency is very much in our interest. We are heavily investing in the success of our projects and advocating for the modernization of the St. Lawrence Seaway, particularly the Welland Canal section, to unlock its full potential as an economic driver.
The legacy structure we're working with makes it difficult to realize the full development potential of the regions we work in and the new traffic it will generate. Our continued challenging experience with the ongoing issues with the seaway reinforces the need and the urgency of updating and upgrading the structure of the Welland Canal corridor and its management. This corridor is important, and it needs to be modernized to fully optimize this Transport Canada asset. Make no mistake: Bringing attention to the corridor will, in fact, strengthen supply chain fluidity and resilience.
The effort to strengthen relationships and reconciliation with indigenous peoples is recognized as a very positive step forward.
We also recognize the efficiencies in inspection, including remote and automated systems, but they could present their own unique challenges, which we are open to working through to enable the secure, efficient and free flow of goods.
We acknowledge the bill's request to extend ministerial powers, and the subsequent potential for challenges to the Charter of Rights. However, given the 's review, we trust that these powers will benefit all Canadians, will not be used in excess and will enhance the security of the supply chain sector.
While the sector is largely east-west focused, we see and would stimulate you to think about the significant opportunity for connecting the remote north to the south, and the necessity of connecting isolated, remote communities and of developing regional potential in these. Economic development and infrastructure mandates to this effect will significantly contribute to the prosperity and the security of the northern country.
On behalf of the BMI Group, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for your time and attention, and for the opportunity to contribute.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to appear before the committee once again.
The Chamber of Shipping represents ocean carriers, shippers and service providers that move Canada's trade to and from international markets.
Since the introduction of Bill in November 2022, there have been some developments that should be taken into consideration with respect to the initial intent of the bill. These include the passage of Bill , the budget implementation act, the introduction of Bill , and the establishment of the supply chain office that will facilitate the development of a national supply chain strategy as recommended by the national supply chain task force.
Bill amends the Canada Transportation Act, which enables the collection of information from any users of the national transportation system to ensure the efficiency and proper functioning of the national transportation system. Bill , introduced in June this year, seeks to further amend the Canada Transportation Act, as well as the Canada Marine Act, to enhance transparency and accountability in the setting of port fees. These bills, together with the national supply chain office, should take precedence and are foundational to strengthening ports in Canada by supporting a cohesive and transparent data strategy that will improve supply chain responsiveness and agility.
While we recognize the intent of Bill is to improve how the Government of Canada manages disruptions, we would caution that taking a piecemeal approach to legislative amendments, without a national supply chain strategy, may result in some unintended consequences and create even more of an administrative burden for our members.
My comments will focus on the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, Marine Transportation Security Act and the Canada Marine Act.
The Chamber of Shipping supports the proposed amendments to the Customs Act, as we understand the need to expedite the movement of containers identified for secondary exams to immediately address potential health, safety and security risks. We strongly urge the Canada Border Services Agency to move forward with the adoption of less intrusive technologies to expedite the examination process and reduce the costs of the exams. CBSA, as the lead agency for public safety, must be adequately resourced to support the expansion of container facilities across Canada in a timely manner.
A report recently released by the City of Delta last month associates increased container traffic to the proliferation of drugs and elements of crime in communities. The report highlights concerns with the Marine Transportation Security Act, MTSA, and the fragmented approach to port security responsibilities. Amendments to the MTSA in Bill fail to strengthen the security framework and rather focus on expanding the mandate of the act to include direct and indirect risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system and provide additional authorities to direct vessels.
Expanding the MTSA to regulate health risks that are already regulated under the maritime occupational health and safety regulations appears unnecessary. Furthermore, if there is a need to issue an emergency direction to a vessel of concern for health safety reasons, authorities exist within the Public Health Agency of Canada under the Quarantine Act. The intention and desired outcome of the expanded mandate of the MTSA require further explanation and clarification on how a health risk would be assessed and determined under the act.
We continue to raise concerns about the overlapping and duplicative regulations and authorities, particularly in the marine transportation sector. Canada takes a multi-agency approach that involves a network of departments, which often, from an industry perspective, results in confusion and inefficiencies in decision-making and direction. A country surrounded by three oceans requires a clear maritime authority that can eliminate gaps and confusion in marine safety, security and environmental protection, and strengthen Canada's global position as a trading nation.
The expanded purpose of the Canada Marine Act in the proposed amendments is supported. It will enable port authorities to maintain security and enhance the resiliency of supply chains in a manner that safeguards national security and promotes healthy competition dynamics.
With reference to the added purpose that enables port authorities to “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage, in order to promote the efficiency of supply chains”, this is only relevant to vessels with import cargoes. It should be clear that vessels typically seen at an anchorage are waiting for Canadian export cargoes to arrive and are a symptom of an inefficient supply chain. The direct management of export vessels has no direct influence on improving the efficiency of the supply chain, but they are often used to improve the fluidity of supply chains by taking partial loads.
Other amendments to the Canada Marine Act appear to address governance concerns that are only specific to Canada's largest port, and, therefore, proposed amendments in Bill may be rather onerous for smaller ports. The bill does not address the variability in the size, operations and resource capacity of port authorities, nor does it assess each authority's capability to meet their legislated mandate. These recommendations, together with the suggestion to consider the complementarities of regional ports, were also documented in the “what we heard” report during the ports modernization review and were not captured in Bill .
In western Canada, the 2022 revenues for the four port authorities range from $4.8 million to $305 million. The status of the existing 17 port authorities and possible new port authorities should be reviewed.
Thank you. That concludes my remarks. I look forward to the questions.
Thank you to the committee for inviting me to appear before you.
I'm the vice-president of public affairs at GCT Global Container Terminals, headquartered in Vancouver. We are the largest majority-Canadian owned container terminal in the country, and we are a tenant of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority.
Bill was born from a chorus of voices from the private sector, labour unions and indigenous communities, all calling on the government to address the functioning of our supply chain and, specifically, the network of Canada port authorities. Since then, Bill has also been introduced. In some ways, it better addresses some of the shortcomings of Bill .
Today, my comments will focus exclusively on the proposed changes to the Canada Marine Act within Bill .
It is of utmost importance for all members of the committee to understand the current workings of our port system. Private sector companies operate port terminals handling various goods, including bulk, breakbulk, containers and autos, to name some. They assume all of the risks associated with investing in terminal infrastructure, acquiring and retaining customers, and navigating economic fluctuations. These private companies are tenants of port authorities, and port authorities impose rents—and collect rents—escalating fees and regulations upon those private sector operators, all while assuming little to no risk themselves.
As you review and potentially shape Bill , I implore the committee to consider a fundamental question. Do you wish for port authorities to function as governance and regulatory bodies overseeing the supply chain with transparency, or would you prefer for them to remain as they are now, operating opaquely as monopolistic quasi-market players generating revenue for themselves without any real accountability?
This decision is crucial, as it will shape how you approach every aspect of Bill .
For instance, consider the recommendation to modify the borrowing limits for port authorities. Increasing the borrowing limits for port authorities does not necessarily stimulate private investment; rather, it can deter it. This happens because port authorities must repay what they borrow with interest, and this cost ultimately falls on the shoulders of terminal operators, which in turn pass it to their customers, leading to potential inflation.
Port authorities should rarely need to borrow if they're fulfilling their mandate correctly, which is to facilitate trade and grow their private sector tenants. When the private sector is assured of its growth potential, it will invest. Port authorities can also use their lease agreements with tenants to encourage them to take on greater investment risk, thereby reducing the need for port authorities to borrow.
Consider the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority as an example. Over the past 20 years, its borrowing limit has increased three times faster than the volume growth, growing by 385% while volumes grew by 98%. Given this incredible borrowing, one would assume that the port functions incredibly well, but as many of us will have seen, recent global rankings have shown that's not the case. Therefore, it is evident that increasing borrowing by port authorities is unlikely to improve supply chain outcomes. Instead, we should focus on facilitating the private sector's desire to grow and expand. Port authorities should be asking, “How can we assist growth?”, rather than dictating what must be done and, at times, directly competing with private money.
Along the entire west coast of Canada, private sector terminal investment projects are waiting to proceed. The primary obstacle is most often government regulation and often port authorities' individual interests.
I commend the recent announcement by the port of Prince Rupert, which seems to have found a balanced approach. It's unlocked over $750 million in investment by collaborating with private terminals and rail operators and listening to customers.
Not to use a cliché, but the customer's always right. This is because, ultimately, the customer ends up paying. If we take that approach with our supply chain at a national level, we will succeed and potentially save a lot of taxpayer dollars.
In summary, it is crucial to get Bill right. To achieve this, you must decide whether you want port authorities to determine what is best for Canada or you want the government to have more input and provide guardrails. You must choose whether to unleash private investment or send a message that it will become more expensive to be a customer or a tenant of a Canada port authority due to increased regulatory burdens.
You must decide whether you want to potentially risk more taxpayer dollars by giving port authorities more borrowing powers, or you want to push increased collaboration and the identification of the right investment opportunities with the private sector.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today.
:
Mr. Chair and members of the committee, good day. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you about the Canada Marine Act.
I am representing the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, which is the collective voice of eight coastal communities within the southern Gulf Islands and adjacent Vancouver Island coastlines.
This is important work you are doing. Your dedication to the goal of preserving our environment, despite being from different political parties, is very much appreciated. I am here to encourage you on behalf of my fellow islanders, our children and grandchildren, and the indigenous peoples of the west coast to further your work and preserve a very special part of Canada with over 300 species at risk.
The narrow waterways surrounding our islands are being used as an unnecessary overflow parking lot for the port of Vancouver. Currently, there are 33 anchorages for large cargo ships designated for vessels waiting for a berth in the port of Vancouver. Almost all ships using these anchorages are bulk carriers arriving empty to load coal and grain. They often arrive too early for their berthing times in the port, staying for weeks and occasionally months at a time. The increase in use has been staggering—from only 19 ships in 2009 to 476 ships last year, staying for 5,900 anchoring days.
The negative environmental impacts of this anchoring are significant and increasing.
Our air is being polluted by the constant spewing of diesel exhaust from large on-board generators—up to 10 tonnes of greenhouse gas per ship per day. This is in a region declared by our provincial government as a high smoke sensitivity zone.
Excessive noise both above and under the water is created by these cargo ships at anchor and during transit to these anchorages. Underwater noise disrupts the feeding, breeding, navigation and communication of marine species, especially the threatened southern resident killer whales. Above water, the very health of coastal residents is being affected.
The seabed ecosystems of our Salish Sea are constantly being scoured by large anchor chains. We are living with the constant fear of a major incident as a result of ships dragging their anchors during winter storms. The resulting oil spill would be catastrophic.
We are concerned that the consequence of the word “anchorage” in proposed paragraph (f.2) of Bill would be to allow the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, an industrial entity, to implement its plan to expand its jurisdictional boundaries to include cargo ship anchorages within the southern Gulf Islands and the adjacent Vancouver Island waters. This should not happen.
These anchorages are unnecessary. If the port of Vancouver implemented a modern vessel arrival system and restricted early arrivals, as is done in ports elsewhere; if the would demand the port require all-weather grain loading—currently, grain cannot be loaded in the rain in Vancouver; if the federal government would suspend shipping of thermal coal, a major contributor to climate change; and if the supply chain to the port was optimized and the many inefficiencies addressed, we would see an end to this attack on the fragile ecosystems of our Salish Sea.
For years now, the indigenous peoples and coastal residents of the Salish Sea have been sounding the alarm about the ever-increasing attack on our marine environment, air and health. Bill has raised our hopes that our government will finally strengthen that important clause of the act under “Purpose”, paragraph 4(d): “provide for a high level of safety and environmental protection”. We support the marine transportation industry and its contribution to the Canadian economy as stated in the purpose of the act, but no economic gains can buy back our environment.
It was five years ago this month when my fellow coastal resident Chris Straw passionately addressed this committee on this same topic. Unfortunately, he passed away without realizing the dream of eliminating these anchorages. On his behalf and that of all islanders in the southern Gulf Islands and the adjacent Vancouver Island, we need your help now to protect the Salish Sea.
Thank you for your time.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony and your passion for the industry and for the environment. It's been interesting to hear all these perspectives on this bill.
I want to start with the Chamber of Shipping. Initially, this bill was marketed as being a response to the national supply chain task force. One of the specific, more controversial issues about that was what we do to ensure that we are able to maintain the supply chain when there are labour disruptions, and it was identified as a major concern.
I'm wondering if you can speak to whether you believe the bill should have addressed that issue and maybe specifically address the issue of the impact that the closure of the St. Lawrence Seaway will have on your member companies and your membership in the immediate and medium-term future.
:
Member, container ships don't anchor. They are scheduled wonderfully to be in the port, because it's a very economic penalty for them to be hovering on anchor.
The main ships are coal and, if you can believe it, Canada is still allowing the export of thermal coal. A lot of it is being mined in the United States. Washington, Oregon and California prohibit it due to environmental concerns, yet we're still bringing it up on trains and shipping it out. There are a lot of ships arriving very early to pick up thermal coal, which we all know is a huge contributor to climate change.
The grain can't be loaded in the rain in Vancouver yet. That makes vessels sit idle at anchorages, and the prairie grain farmers don't get paid. They can't ship their product. Improve that and get rid of thermal coal, and you're a long way on your way towards elimination.
:
Thank you for that question.
It goes back to what I mentioned earlier. Ultimately, Bill 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 sector market players with some government oversight?
What we have right now, though, which we have experienced in Vancouver, is that ultimately there is no direct link or accountability for when port authority leadership is not necessarily in line with what the priorities may or may not be of the government or the tenants. Many tenants had some challenges in Vancouver, and ultimately there was no mechanism to directly address that. By having the chair of the port ultimately accountable to somebody in government, that will increase that accountability or chain of command to the minister, so that at least the tenants, the private sector and users of the port can approach the minister and expect some answer or action. Currently, when that is done, the answer is that ports are at arm's length and nothing can be done. Of course, that's an example of where it's also a negative, where the government can potentially more politically influence the operations of the port and the leadership of the port. There are some challenges with that.
There is no perfect answer. The question is more this: Which way does the government want to push the port authorities, to be more government or more private sector?
Earlier, you spoke about the potential impact of these new measures on small ports. I'm really interested in this aspect. I have no doubts about the ability of major ports like Montreal and Vancouver to implement what is being asked of them, in other words, to ensure greater consultation of groups and communities, as well as the First Nations, and to produce quarterly financial statements. However, I have serious doubts about the impact that this could have on smaller ports, which already have limited staff and resources.
If these new measures were only applicable to larger ports, at what point would a port be considered a major port?
It certainly seems that it's time for some modernizing of how we're managing or not managing the ports.
I'm going to focus on something relatively narrow, though. It's for Mr. McConchie. This is in relation to the frustration of islanders and how long this anchorage problem has been going on.
You mentioned that there was a visit here five years ago. I'm sure it was going on long before that. It's certainly one reason why my colleague, , has a private member's bill around this. It's Bill , an act to amend the shipping act.
This is really in regard to modernization. Considerations around protecting biodiversity and around the environment didn't seem to play into the initial planning. As my colleague, , has said many times, it's to stop using the precious waterways as an overflow parking lot.
I did want to get some more insight and understanding on how we got from 19 to 476 vessels hanging out in the overflow parking lot.
:
Since I was a teenager, I've been going into the Gulf Islands. I bought property there in 1978 and have lived there permanently for 23 years. I know those waterways wonderfully, and they're precious. With extreme winds in the winter time, strong currents and those kinds of things, we rarely saw a cargo ship anchoring in those waters before 2009. It was rare. All of a sudden, there was a change and then it kept increasing. There was no stoppage.
In 2018, when the federal government came out with the interim protocols, suddenly the anchoring increased again. In fact, Ladysmith and Saltair, which never saw ships before 2018, suddenly were inundated with ships. Now they're anchoring constantly just offshore from very small communities and creating huge underwater and above-water noise there.
The port wanted to expand, but it didn't provide the infrastructure and it didn't address the supply chain. Then it accepted American thermal coal to ship, on top of that. You can see how it compounds. A lot of the vessels that are arriving early are getting there because it's free anchorage. There's no jurisdiction and no monitoring—nothing. As a result, we've been seeing the anchor drag groundings and collisions in our local waters.
:
It's not the case currently, and that's why we're hoping that the amendments come through.
I worked in the aviation industry for 39 years, and I'm very familiar with efficient arrival systems and especially non-efficient arrival systems. I can't understand, in this day and age, how the port of Vancouver cannot communicate with vessels that are across the ocean and schedule them in properly like an airport would do. Airports that didn't schedule properly paid the price. The ones that got their scheduling improved and expanded.... A good example is Chicago; it has excellent arrival systems. Other areas have poor arrival systems, with aircraft circling overhead burning excess amounts of fuel.
In essence, we have sort of the same thing. Unfortunately, I take a little exception to Ms. Gee's comments about ships needing to come and be checked and that taking time. Does it take weeks and months? We have to look at that kind of thing.
Bill needs to strengthen the ability of the port and demand that it improve its infrastructure, as I mentioned, with all-weather grain loading and those kinds of things.
:
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 other than perhaps that there will be a mechanism for the minister to appoint the chair, which, as I mentioned earlier, would then at least give some powers for tenants and users of the port to at least go to a political master of the port authority to ask for some remedies or at least to review our input. That is not provided right now, so that is potentially the only way that it can improve a situation where tenants, port authorities and users are maybe not collaborating or seeing eye to eye.
Historically, when terminal operators grow, port authorities grow, and there's a symbiotic, must-have relationship there. We've had some challenges and bumps along the way. I can report that, even with the recent leadership changes at the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, we're starting to see some change in how the Canada Marine Act is interpreted by the port authority and approached with the tenants.
There's some improvement and light on the horizon.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McConchie, I'm rather surprised to see the increased number of vessels at anchor, and I think that others have made that point previously. As you said, there were few prior to 2009 and, since 2018, that number has exploded. I'm having trouble understanding your explanation of the situation, which is the result of a lack of planning or coordination with the vessels coming into port, the handling of goods and port management. There seems to be a lack of coordination among the stakeholders involved in the process.
I wonder about efficiency. The crew is being paid, and vessels are burning fuel. A vessel that isn't moving, whether intentional or not, is unproductive. It's a vessel that isn't making money for the company. Why is this still happening? Can you answer me that?
:
We search for the answer. To give you an example, in 2009—we have some great data, even though we're all volunteers—there were 262 total days at anchor for ships. When the interim protocols came out in 2018, there were 3,082 anchorage days. In 2022, that increased to 5,900, so the ships are arriving earlier. It supports that, because that translates into weeks for some of them, and months occasionally.
We have been pointing out and providing solutions that we think from our perspective would help. I go back to the thermal coal exports, the infrastructure improvements and supply chain improvements. As I mentioned, five years ago this month, my friend, Chris Straw, brought up those same economic issues.
When a ship is sitting at anchor, it does nothing for the Canadian economy. It's empty. People complain about the fact that they're not getting their goods and that, but, no, these are not container ships. These are empty ships arriving.
:
There are absolutely huge impacts. As I mentioned, you have the above-water noise of the generators. The ships are sitting quite high out of the water, and with the generators and noise carrying across water—if you have ever been on a lake, you can hear someone talking on the other side—that constant level has increased as high as, at some places in Ladysmith, 66 decibels. This is in the middle of the night. People are being impacted that way.
The underwater noise is extensive too. The studies are coming out now that the marine life is being affected by the vibration of these diesel generators at anchor under water.
Then add in the transits. The federal government closed an area near my home to all vessel traffic for sports—everyone—right off Plumper Sound on North Pender. However, it allows all of these bulk carriers to transit right past that exact.... The reason they closed it was that it is the southern resident killer whales' foraging zone and it was impacting that. They shut it down to us and allowed the freighters to continue.
If you want lots of data, we have been asking the federal government to accept our data. We have some wonderful data, which is all backed up factually. We have been gathering it for many years now. I have been at this for a long time. I'm going grey over it. We would be pleased to provide any information in that regard to 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 has never been stress-tested—that the port authority may basically default on its payments, especially if it has borrowed on low interest rates and interest rates keep rising.
An example would be a multi-billion dollar project, a $5-billion or $7-billion project like Roberts Bank terminal 2, that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority is trying to borrow money for. That level of borrowing could potentially bankrupt the port if the project doesn't materialize and they are not able to find a private sector partner to pay for that project. That would ultimately put the taxpayers at risk. Somebody would have to pay. Government would have to step in and bail out a port authority, and that in turn would put taxpayer monies at risk.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate all the witnesses for coming out today.
My question is for Mr. Veldman.
Mr. Veldman, you're very much involved in the economy of my area, the Niagara region, as well as many areas throughout the country from coast to coast to coast.
You mentioned in your presentation that the Welland Canal corridor is, in fact, a port, because of its partnership with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, and with that is amongst the five biggest ports in the country. You also mentioned that it needs to modernize to fully optimize this Transport Canada asset. I want to emphasize this, because the Welland Canal is, in fact, a Transport Canada asset, currently managed by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.
Do you feel that the Welland Canal corridor, being a port and this bill is attaching itself to modernizing ports, should be aligned with the intentions set out in Bill ?
:
It's a touchy subject. I will answer that as carefully as I can.
I think the opportunity to enhance the Welland Canal by way of having a change of management through the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority is positive. We're happy to contribute, and I feel we are.
I guess the fact of the matter is that, over the last 50 years, Transport Canada has owned all kinds of lands along the Welland Canal and has had its port infrastructure basically.... The ability for vessels to stop along the Welland Canal has significantly decreased. Allowing investment into the Welland Canada through Bill and localizing some of the inland port investments I think will help not only the private companies along the Welland Canada but also the Transport Canada lands that the seaway corporation currently manages.
Yes, some change is required, because it hasn't worked for the last 50 years.
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 administrative burdens. It is not necessarily cost-effective, ultimately, as there doesn't appear to have been a cost analysis done for the additional measures introduced in the bill, so I'm not sure how that would be cost-effective.
Predictability is key to attracting private investment. Adding layers of regulation and adding advisory bodies that would have inputs into the decision-making of government entities can further potentially delay decision-making by government bodies—in this case the port authorities. That, of course, is less predictable and can scare private investment.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to join this committee.
I want to thank the witnesses for coming today.
[English]
I would like to share my time with Ms. Elizabeth May.
[Translation]
Mr. McConchie, you spoke a lot about environmental challenges, and we are very concerned about this, particularly in light of the increased number of vessels at anchor.
Do you keep records of emissions produced by vessels at anchor? Twenty years ago, there was little concern for such emissions, but that is no longer the case today.
At present, do you conduct an environmental assessment for each vessel at anchor?
:
That's the problem. The waters are very narrow. Winter storms race up through these waters, and there is no ability for the port of Vancouver or anybody to have continuous monitoring of them. The Coast Guard has told me that, if it swings on an anchor drag outside of its swing radius, which has been mapped, some bells will go off and they will call the ship's agent. Don't you think that's a little late?
What happened right next to me in Plumper Sound, right in front of me.... I was home that day. We looked out to see two vessels that had collided. Those were the vessels in 2020. As a result of that, the marine transportation safety investigation report stated that there were, “Between January 2015 and March 2020, a total of 102 dragging...occurrences along the BC coastline”.
We were lucky. We dodged a bullet. Back in 2009, the Hebei Lion grounded on a reef in the Navy Channel, just up the water from where I live. The only reason that did not create a spill at the time was that there was a rising tide, and they were able to float it off beforehand.
Since then, there have been more and more incidents. If you check the Pacific Pilotage Authority, they have to send a pilot out to reposition a vessel when it goes outside of its swing radius. That's happened numerous times, and it's ever-increasing. That is our huge worry.
Mr. McConchie, I must say that I'm quite sensitive to the picture you are painting for us. I live in a riding that borders the St. Lawrence River, and sometimes my constituents call me to tell me about a problem with vessels anchoring in front of their home. They tell me how unbearably loud it is at night and how they can't sleep. They see people walking on the boat deck across from them and doing all their daily activities. Sometimes, the vessels are anchored there for a long time.
You're here to talk about Bill , but I wonder whether the government doesn't already have the means, if the political will exists, to limit the anchorage of vessels in proximity to homes or in environmentally sensitive areas, or to require vessels to relocate outside those areas. If you have any good amendments to suggest, I'll support them, but I still wonder whether the government doesn't already have the means to resolve these issues.
:
Thank you very much, Ms. Zarrillo.
Thank you, Ms. Gee.
On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank all of our witnesses who have joined us and provided us their testimony this evening, either virtually or in person.
With that, colleagues, we're going to go into committee business. I will suspend for five minutes to allow the team to make the necessary changes. I invite all the witnesses to log off.
Thank you, all, very much. We are now suspended.
[Proceedings continue in camera]