Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to Ms. May's comments, I do note that this is very much consistent with the wording of amendment NDP-6, which modified the purpose of the Marine Act to add language around managing traffic, including mooring and anchorage, in order to promote the efficiency of supply chains, the protection of the environment and the well-being of communities in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored.

I think this speaks specifically to regulations that the government creates, but it is consistent with one of the amendments that we've already passed as a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Not to belabour the point, but I agree with Mr. Bachrach.

We already provided for increased protection under amendment NDP-6, so, once again, this would be redundant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, colleagues.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on amendment PV-3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go back to you once again, Ms. May, for amendment PV-4.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a rather shocking situation in terms of indigenous governance in the areas that are used in anchorages by the Port of Vancouver. There has been—and we heard this in evidence—a lack of consultation and certainly a lack of free, prior and informed consent in relation to indigenous governments.

This amendment is to ensure that the minister, in directing ships to anchorages in these waters, ensures that where the waters are under the governance of an indigenous government, any decisions or regulations are made only in ways that are consistent with respect for that indigenous governance through consultation and engagement of indigenous governments in the vicinity of the anchorages.

It's an amendment that is really critical and important for the environment, but also, of course, in terms of respecting UNDRIP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one really concerns me. The committee passed a number of amendments that would limit anchorages in this area to a reasonable time period. I know that we will soon be debating an amendment that, as Mr. Bachrach alluded to earlier, is very deliberate in terms of the longitude and latitude of areas that are going to be identified as anchorage areas. It is going to set clear, as I've just mentioned, geographic parameters. The NDP do that in a schedule, which makes sense to me. However, what we heard during that debate and from witnesses is that anchorages are an important and normal part of shipping. We all understand that—we get that—especially as it relates to fluidity, and of course, supply chain vessels need to have the ability to anchor when it's appropriate.

I think the language of this amendment goes too far in limiting a ship's ability to anchor, and this could come with safety consequences.

Now, I would like the witnesses to comment on what some of those consequences could very well be when it comes to safety. While I appreciate, Mr. Chair, what this amendment is trying to do—I understand what Ms. May is trying to do, and I can appreciate that—we're comfortable with where we have landed on anchorages thus far, and we see no need to make things more difficult or, once again, more burdensome.

I want to go back to my latter point when I speak about the language of the amendment going too far and limiting a ship's ability to anchor, and about how this may come with safety consequences. I would like to ask our witness whether it would. That's number one.

Number two is this: What would some of those safety consequences, in fact, be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I will turn it over to our witnesses.

[Sonya Read]

With respect to ensuring that ships have just generally safe anchorage spots, it's important for ships to be able to have those in the event that they have issues on board: navigation issues or equipment issues, or if there is bad or extreme weather that would prevent them from being able to conduct safe navigation. In the context of an amendment where we're restricted from passing regulations in the context of ships' anchoring in certain areas.... In this case, the intent of the broader regulatory authority is to provide provisions that would support ports in the management of anchorages in ways that are supportive of community environmental well-being, as well as broader supply chain efficiency. If ports aren't able to.... If the VFPA, for example, is not able to allow ships those anchorages or to direct ships to those anchorages, it would actually have very limited control over the activities of the ships while they are at anchor. The potential effect of having the limit under the MTSA say that ships can anchor here for only 14 days, without the effective control over their activities while at anchor through the VFPA, could lead to other negative consequences, in that their activities while they are at anchor would not have the same level of oversight and control.

There are a couple of considerations that come to bear in the context of the joint impact of the provisions, the amendments that have been made thus far with respect to the southern Gulf Islands anchorages.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I will turn it over to Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to appreciate MP May's comments here. I think what's important to understand is that the discussion around the business case and whether this makes it more difficult for the vessels is an important one.

I think another important discussion is to what degree we are respecting the emerging norm, which is that first nations who are marine nations and have historically been out on the water on their craft have a sense of custodianship or ownership of territories that are marine territories and not just land. A railway or a pipeline in British Columbia would not willy-nilly start constructing through the traditional territory of a nation without consulting them at a minimum and seeking to reach agreement with them.

In British Columbia—perhaps it's not the same in the Great Lakes or on the east coast—I think it is considered the norm that respect be shown to the nations with respect to the marine terrain that they have historically been the key governors of. Sometimes there are several overlapping. There was a whole pattern of who's in charge of harvesting but also conservation in a defined territory.

I would respectfully suggest that we consider if there's something that would reflect that UNDRIP-based emerging norm in British Columbia at least, but perhaps not go as far as giving the nation 100% say. I suggest that we discuss some subamendment that would have something to do with being notified, consulted or invited—I guess the word would be “consulted”—in terms of anchorages in the waters that have historically been under the governance of that nation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

I'll turn it over to the officials to see if they have any thoughts on this.

[Sonya Read]

With respect to indigenous consultation and involvement in terms of the process around anchorages, I think there are a few considerations.

The first is that we have, through Bill C-33, amended the CMA in a couple of ways to ensure that there's a recognition of the nature of indigenous groups. They're not just a stakeholder; they have a special status within the context of the CMA, and that's recognized through changes in the purpose of the act.

In addition, some of the changes involve adding indigenous groups as an advisory committee to broader port activities. That is another mechanism whereby indigenous groups can feed into the processes and the decision-making by the ports over time.

I would note that in the context of the southern Gulf Islands anchorages, we have begun a process respecting indigenous consultation that began in February of this year. In terms of the governance of anchorages and the potential management of those anchorages by the VFPA, that process is still ongoing. It is meant to be a very robust process that reflects the nature and the traditional activities of indigenous groups in those waters. It includes discussions in terms of their involvement and how those anchorages are to be managed into the future.

We are very cognizant of our obligations under UNDA and of the respective indigenous groups in the southern Gulf Islands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm going to turn it over to Ms. May, who's been very patient. Then I'll turn it back over to you, Ms. Murray.

Go ahead, Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I just want to thank Joyce Murray so much for her comments.

I remember clearly being so shocked to discover that there had been no consultation. There are four first nations within my riding and numerous first nations throughout this territory, and none of them had ever been consulted by Vancouver Fraser Port Authority about the use of the waters in a way that interrupted the traditional activities of these indigenous nations, which are generally in a group called the Coast Salish nations.

I want to take the floor only to say that we would be very grateful if anyone wants to amend it in the direction that Ms. Murray has suggested, if not saying what my amendment does—that anchorages can't occur without the consent of a first nation—that at least there be a verification that they have been properly consulted prior to the anchorages being established.

It's a very significant issue and one that generates, as you can imagine, a lot of anger in local first nations that they haven't been consulted ever and that....

I am grateful for the change in the purpose of the act—that's true—but this would give it some more efficacy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Is it okay with you, Ms. Murray, if I turn it over to Mr. Strahl, just to make sure that everybody has a chance?

Mr. Strahl.

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

I think talking about indigenous consultation or even talking about indigenous agreement for the use of an anchorage is much different from talking about the establishment of new anchorages.

Ms. May just said “establishment”, but her amendment notes “the use of”.

I would like to know from the witnesses, specifically in the southern Gulf Islands, for how many years the anchorages that are there now have been in place. You can even give me a ballpark.... These have not just been created in the last number of years. Am I correct in that assumption?

[Sonya Read]

I would say that most of the anchorages were not officially created. Under the common law right of navigation, basically, ships can anchor in safe places.

The anchorages, as I understand, have been established through common law practice and rights over many years, in some cases probably since the 1600s or 1700s—basically, since ships have been coming to the southern Gulf Islands. Some of those anchorages have been in use for a very prolonged period of time, in my understanding.

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

As a British Columbian, I understand the importance of working with indigenous nations to find a way to work together, and consultation is very important. There is a duty to consult, and we all agree with that. However, I think this has the potential to be very confusing and cause uncertainty in the marine environment.

The entire area is now referred to as the Salish Sea. It is unclear to me what it means when this amendment says, “in waters under the governance of an Indigenous government”. There would be, in many cases, claims or overlapping claims, or perhaps.... This would, I think, cause more uncertainty than anything else that has been contemplated regarding anchorages, and that would not bring about supply chain reliability and efficiency.

I think everyone on this committee has a commitment to indigenous reconciliation and consultation, but this, I think, is too broad and would cause too much uncertainty in the way it is written.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Ms. Murray.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I think this is a great conversation that we're having here. I heard Ms. Read talk about the things that are already being done. This is about making it explicit that those things need to be done.

I am wondering whether there is a way to have a subamendment that does not create a whole new set of potential barriers to the effective and efficient use of the port and the supply chain, and that explicitly lays out the obligation to do what we're doing and be consistent with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn it over to any one of our witnesses who wants to take a stab at that.

[Sonya Read]

I think we would have to look at the proposed amendment and give it some consideration. I couldn't speak to that right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

Colleagues, are we ready to go to a vote on PV-4?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll go to PV-5.