Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening. On behalf of the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear this evening.

There's no question that a review of the workings and structure of Canadian port authorities was overdue. We commend the government for recognizing that updating the act was necessary. There are, however, parts of the bill that concern us, and some amendments that we fear represent a step backwards and reflect a lack of confidence on the part of government in a system that continues to provide significant benefits to Canadian trade and the Canadian economy.

It is our view that the time was right for the government to take a further step back and allow port authorities more flexibility in their operations by reducing regulation. Instead, this seems to be a move toward a more prescriptive approach to the operation of ports and an attempt to impose a “one size fits all” model on all ports, when ports have very different business models and local contexts and very different levels of financial capacity.

The Port of Vancouver operates in one of the most challenging environments of any port in the world. We are one of the most diverse ports in North America, handling a wide range of cargo, including intermodal containers; bulk products, including grain, potash, coal and sulphur; automobiles; and break bulk. We also host a very successful cruise ship industry business.

We do this in a region where we interact with 16 local governments and a large number of first nations. Most ports around the world deal with only one local jurisdiction. Few would deal with more than two or three. On our terminal 2 container project, for example, we signed mutual benefit agreements with 26 first nations. We meet regularly with all of the municipalities that border the port. It includes annual meetings with our senior executives and board of directors.

I cite this complexity to illustrate the challenges with regard to government assuming a greater role in port operations. We welcome the provisions of the bill that provide ports with more authority for vessel traffic management. The increase in vessel traffic in some sectors has made it clear to us that to make the most efficient and environmentally responsible use of the port, reduce the need for ships to sit at anchor, and ensure safety, we require additional authority. Whether the bill will meet these needs will depend on the regulations that come.

The port authority also has in place the sort of committees mandated by the bill related to indigenous peoples and municipal governments. Whether having those committees mandated by legislation will enhance their effectiveness or limit flexibility remains to be seen. I can emphasize that we give this local engagement a very high priority and constant attention. At the same time, we recognize that a model that works for us is not necessarily appropriate for smaller ports with much more limited means and who deal with a fraction of the governments and first nations we engage with.

We share the concerns of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities regarding the level of port borrowing limits and the extremely long process required to increase them. The current process involves several departments, is measured in years, and bears little relationship to a port's financial capacity. While we're hopeful that the new process may offer a slight improvement, we were hoping for a more nimble, market-based approach.

I would also echo the association's concerns regarding the appointment of board chairs by the minister. We believe that the current system has worked well and that it is extremely important to have a chair who enjoys the confidence of the board. Port authority boards of directors follow a written code of conduct that establishes clear rules regarding conflicts of interest, inside information, and more. They collectively bring an extensive and diverse mix of expertise and skills to enable good governance and oversight of port operations and set strategic direction.

We also share ACPA's view regarding the need for increased and more predictable infrastructure spending. We are hoping that the newly created supply chain office within Transport Canada will signal the government taking a more active role in coordinating projects outside of port jurisdiction.

In some of the early rounds of infrastructure investment in the 1990s, major projects were completed that dramatically enhanced the efficiency and safety of the supply chain. These projects involved a large number of players, including railways, numerous municipal governments, the Province of B.C. and terminal operators. It is unlikely that they could have been completed without Transport Canada playing a significant coordinating and convening role to bring the parties together. Unfortunately, in recent years this role has largely been abandoned. It is left to the port authority to try to play this role despite a lack of jurisdiction and capacity.

We believe the current model for operating Canada's ports has been a great success story for the government of the day. The government of the day showed great foresight in creating a system that maintained a role for government while allowing ports to operate at arm's length, overseen by boards that include representatives from all levels of government.

We encourage the government to continue moving forward with this model, tweaking it where necessary, but recognizing the value of allowing ports to manage their businesses within the framework of the act.

Thank you again for the invitation to appear this evening. We look forward to your questions.

Transcript

Discussions (0)