Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Where would we have received it, Mr. Chair?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Carine Grand-Jean]

I sent it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Did you also send it to Mr. Savard‑Tremblay?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

I'll give everyone time to—

[The Clerk]

Can you make sure that Ms. Bennett has received it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Bennett, can you confirm that you received it as well?

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

I didn't have a chance to review it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl. That's very important.

I just want to make sure that all members who are replacing sitting members of the committee have received it. Okay, that's great. Now that we've all received the amendment of Mr. Badawey, seeing no questions or comments, we will go to a vote on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 113 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Colleagues, we can group clauses 114 to 119 if there's unanimous consent.

(Clauses 114 to 119 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 120)

Now we are on clause 120 and amendment CPC-9. For that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at several amendments for this clause, from many parties. I'll just give our explanation for this amendment.

Bill C-33's language on the management of marine traffic presupposes that a centrally controlled government system is required to address anchorage and mooring issues. Not only is it highly unlikely that a regulated traffic management system will be required or the best approach in every marine port across the country, but we believe that it's an obligation of the government to consider the least trade-restrictive or commercially restrictive approach that still achieves the desired social or environmental outcome. This requirement recognizes that the government will consider alternative approaches.

Regarding the strikeout on fees, port-related fees are already applied and within the mandate of the port authorities. The addition of user fees in this section is duplicative with existing authorities and would inevitably cause confusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is quite frankly completely against the spirit of this bill and what I think we're trying to accomplish on anchorages at port. We've heard that lengthy anchorages are posing challenges to the supply chain and challenges for communities. I think it's in everyone's best interest for vessels to move as quickly as possible in and out of ports. I want to make that very clear. That does require management, and we want to be clear on our expectations of the ports to some extent even managing those expectations.

We know that management will take a combination of measures to accomplish. That means we need to have the tools in the tool box. This amendment is trying to get rid of an important one, which is the ability to impose fees. For example, this removes the notion of fees, which means fees couldn't be imposed through regulation. I think we can see how this would be an extremely important tool when it comes to making traffic at ports more efficient. Fees can provide an incentive for all port users to move more efficiently.

Also, Mr. Chair, if we are requiring ports to do more to better manage traffic, it's reasonable that they be able to charge fees to do so. Ultimately, this amendment goes against the intent of better supply chain efficiency within this bill, and that's why we will be voting against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we will go to a vote on CPC-9. I just want to confirm with colleagues that if CPC-9 is adopted, PV-2 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict.

I will turn it over to you, Madam Clerk.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We will now go to PV-2, and for that I will turn the floor over to Ms. May.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very grateful to have the floor. Thank you, colleagues. I'll be efficient with time.

As you've heard, the Port of Vancouver has massive inefficiencies, particularly in relation to the loading of bulk goods. This of course leads to the anchorages backing up. We heard from witnesses such as my constituent Bruce McConchie, from the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance, on how little information is actually collected and available to the port to make decisions. This amendment is to ensure that there is information collected by the Port of Vancouver and provided to the minister on such things as how long ships are waiting to come into the Port of Vancouver or other ports, or how long they wait adjacent to a port until they can come back in. This is essential information to efficient running and to improving supply chains, which is something that I think we all want to see.

I hope this amendment meets with the approval of the majority of committee members—even unanimity would be lovely.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

We have Mr. Badawey, followed by Mr. Bachrach.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, this information is already available through multiple channels. It's adding another reporting channel. It would be somewhat burdensome for all if this passes. I'll just go a bit deeper to give more information to the members. When I say it's already readily available through various means, I mean the automatic identification system—the AIS—the coastal vessel traffic management information system, the Pacific Pilotage Authority.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, requiring the vessels to provide it through additional reporting would be unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase the regulatory burden. Once again, it would just be burdensome for all of those having to abide by this, as well as somewhat redundant, because, again, it's already available within those channels.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just note that this does support the spirit of the amendment that we brought forward and the committee carried previously. That would limit the anchorage of vessels in certain locations to 14 days, of course, after which time the minister would direct them out of those areas. In my view, to do that you would need information on how long the vessel had been there—when it parked there and how many days it had been anchored. I support the spirit of this.

I can see only the amendment in front of me right now. Is this requiring the port authorities to report that information, or does it require the vessels to report that information?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. May, I'll turn the floor over to you.

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

Thank you.

It would be for port authorities to collect the information and turn it over to the minister.

To the parliamentary secretary's point, currently the way that information is available is under a voluntary interim protocol. In law, as soon as the interim protocol is no longer in effect, there isn't a requirement for this information to be collected, and certainly it isn't that easy to collect.

We have very good management, just to clarify, on container ships. We know where they are, and we know what they're carrying. They move in and out, and they're tracked with bar codes on the side of the vessel. The bulk carriers are in a different category, and the extent to which we know what they're doing and how long they're hanging around for is based on the voluntary interim protocol.

I know I've overstepped my bounds to speak for this long.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we will go to a vote on amendment PV-2.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll now go to amendment PV-3, and I'll once again turn the floor over to Ms. May.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is, again, to strengthen the act in relation to the regulations made by the minister that relate to the management of anchorages by port authorities, to ensure that the regulations made by the minister emphasize the protection of the marine environment.

As you heard in testimony before the committee, the ships are literally dropping anchor and scraping the ocean floor as they move in and out of areas that are otherwise not industrial zones; they're pristine marine environmental areas within the Gulf Islands in the case of the Port of Vancouver. My riding and the ridings of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and Nanaimo—Ladysmith are absolutely blanketed with anchorages that, by their very definition, are not respectful of the marine environment. This is to emphasize that aspect of decisions around anchorages.

Thank you. I hope you can support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Are there questions or comments?

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead, followed by Mr. Badawey.