IE10 and below are not supported.

Contact us for any help on browser support

What trends do you think will affect the future of port operations and supply chains?

about 1 year ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Consultation has concluded

  • MWright about 1 year ago
    The cost and accessibility of Ports operations compared to Ports in other areas. PMV located on Burrard Inlet adjacent to the City of Vancouver is not feasible without extensive mitigation and safety measures being implemented to ensure mitigation of noise, air, and soil (from air deposits) pollution, and mitigation of safety to other traffic and pedestrians, noise, and congestion from the every increasing truck and train traffic associated with increased port operations. The increased container deliveries via ships raises concerns for the safety of other marine traffic and the possibility of leakages and explosions and other contaminants from the cargo being shipped and the ships themselves. Environmental, health and safety concerns are paramount and will increase the expense of Ports operations, making them less viable in areas neighbouring cities/communities where these problems have the greatest and ever-increasing impact.
    Hide reply (1)
    • John Hawthorne about 1 year ago
      Very well written.As a VFPA neighbor I find that the Port pays little or no attention to any negative consequences resulting from their decisions upon the local communities. There is no real community planning beforehand and minimal mitigation amidst “for the national good “ paeans afterwards.They resist most quantitative studies which totally hampers any comparative results in future studies.Most of all, they don’t cooperate and consult with the local City, Regional and Provincial authorities who are charged with the well-being of local residents.The Port is arrogant in their Federal prerogatives and need to be humbled to actually care about the negative impacts of their operations upon Canadians.
  • cherylott about 1 year ago
    I am an active visitor to the west coast, I have friends and family who are fortunate enough to live there and I have been fortunate enough to be able to visit. I think our coastline and oceans/gulf should be protected as much as possible. I know that their beautiful space is under increasing pressure from pipelines wishing being extended and more fossil fuels (or bitumen like products) being shipped through the water-ways.One of my friends lives on a gulf island, a small piece of paradise and I was shocked to see three tankers parked off their island for days at a time. While I am sure that there are specific laws detailing how long they can be parked there and whether or not they can 'dump’ their refuse into the water-way, I am pretty confident that they don’t really care.
  • Laird about 1 year ago
    On the 20 minute ferry ride this morning from Gabriola where I live to Nanaimo, Vancouver Island were I work, there were 4 huge ocean freighters immobile as if in a parking lot.. How can this be beneficial to Canada? These international floating delivery warehouses hang out here where they don’t have to pay rent while waiting to enter ports like Vancouver. They run their engines and lights 24/7. Their sound alone is killing our sea life. Their anchours are destroying the sea bed. Why is this allowed?
  • tedfullerton about 1 year ago
    One more comment. Extra fuel burned every year by bulk carriers’ inefficiency costs money. Ultimately Canadians pay those costs while we trade. Tens of thousands of tons times $600 per ton just for main engine fuel. Probably add that much again for diesel burned while ships wait. Tens of millions of dollars per year, $100M or more would not surprise me. Governments don’t necessarily have to care but farmers and miners would love to have some of that wasted cash flow. It would be a piece of cake to report regularly on which ships and which ship owners make the most efficient visits and which ones arrive early and loiter. Then the market itself could apply pressure on inefficient operators. I’ll build you an automated reporting tool for free using the Pacific Pilotage Authority data. Lemme know.
  • Cowichan Bay Ship Watch Society about 1 year ago
    Please make public any analysis that has been done on the economic benefits to Canada of ships sitting in free anchorages for weeks out in the bays and channels of Vancouver Island and the Southern Gulf islands.In addition, please demonstrate any supportable, and beneficial risk analysis that has been done, of ships waiting and traversing for multiple trips in the above mentioned anchorages to the marine environment. Also, how are the negative impacts of these practices on coastal communities being considered and studied in your analysis? A change in legislation to prohibit early arrivals for ships to these anchorages will, in the short term, address and significantly reduce the impact on the marine environment and harm to local communities.Increased industry efficiencies and scheduling of bulk carrier ships will eliminate the need for outer anchorage use.
  • Mike Waites about 1 year ago
    The trends are already here and will continue - secular growth in intermodal traffic and growth to the West Coast Ports with grain and coal. And it is clear we are completely ill equipped to handle it. This is evidenced by the proliferation of anchorage activity in the Southern Gulf Islands (SGI’s) and extended dwell times - often for weeks and sometimes in excess of a month. We know for a fact that coal ships are arriving early - in some cases 3-4 weeks in advance of their scheduled lifting dates at Roberts Bank. There is a global over supply of bulk freighters. And these ships do not pay to anchor in the SGI (unlike the Ports). Every economist on earth knows that when the use of a public good becomes free, it will be over consumed - in this case to the detriment of our local communities and environment. We also know that Minister Garneau does not have the legislative authority to manage and designate anchorage activity outside of Ports. Why not? We also know now that coal ships arrive and anchor in the SGI’s, by passing PMV and fees and stage for loading at Robert’s Bank. We are seeing de facto ports and satellite ports being created without any input from communities and without any environmental impact assessment. Finally, we have what amounts to massive growth over many years and yet there is little if any in the way of capacity planning to coordinate and manage growth. This is an opportunity for Transport Canada to show leadership. The grain and coal supply chains remain Balkanized with no public knowledge or view as to how ships are scheduled and managed. A clear message must be sent to shipping companies and their agents (as well as others) - “if you want to trade, come into Canadian waters, lift your cargo and leave”. “And you will be subject to Canadian law” (Marathassa anyone? What Nonsense. The owner of the ship denies owning the ship and will not appear in Court)What originally began with CN capacity issues some years ago and led Port Metro Vancouver (PMV) to implement its “maximum 7 day stay” rule has transformed into everyday use of the SGI Anchorages. But here is the thing. These ships are up to 5 times the size, as measured by tonnage/capacity) of the ships in use at the time these Anchorages were designated - almost 50 years ago.The result is that we have ships in the SGI that are up to 10 stories high anchored within a few hundred meters of residences. People are unable to sleep with the result that their general health and well being is harmed. If we want to “consult local communities” this is a good place to start. People should not be harmed as a result of trade.
  • dougblackley about 1 year ago
    Supply chain inefficiency problems. The container ships arrive when scheduled, load, depart, and never sit about for weeks on end roaring creating coastal community despair like a skyscraper that appeared in front of your face for weeks on end. This community impact is created because the freighter arrivals are totally disorganized: they arrive weeks early for free parking. This is a huge issue for Canadians who live by the anchorages, and a ship in free parking is a financial loss for all concerned. The container ship people should be given control of the whole freighter setup as well: I have seen one container ship in 6 years, and right now there are 4 freighters outside my window (5 last week). Get it together guys.
  • Normandipasquale almost 2 years ago
    Ports must integrate and become a part of ever encroaching communities around them, and stop working at cross purposes. We must stop forcing them to value profit over people.
    Hide Replies (3)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. Canadian ports link Canadian companies to global markets, support competitiveness, and contribute to the economic activity of our communities. Canadians rely on the port system for the products they use every day. In your opinion, how could Canada Port Authorities better integrate local perspectives while meeting their commercial mandate?
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roger Emsley over 1 year ago
        Yes Canadians do rely on imports but in the case of Vancouver only a small percentage of the imports are destined for the local market. To answer the question what is required is a complete restructure of the governance, because in the case of VFPA it is not working. The autocracy at VFPA has hindered ecological and ALR conservation. VFPA needs to start listening to government agencies - Environment and Climate Change Canada - rather than arguing with them. ECCC are the environmental experts, VFPA are not. VFPA needs to start listening to local and community concerns rather than claiming "supremacy" which they have done in the past. VFPA needs to start collaborating with other port authorities - Prince Rupert - rather than treating them as competitors which VFPA says today.All of this means a complete restructure of the governance, including, reporting lines, roles and responsibilities, board membership, project reviews and project decision-making, regulator (for other than port operations), community consultation, need for transparency and accountability.
    • John Peirce about 1 year ago
      Well said!
  • JDKameka almost 2 years ago
    Port operations and the development of the local communities should no longer be viewed in silos. It is important that the Ports support the image and economic growth of the communities and be used as an economic driver. Residents will increasingly be advocating that the economic viability of the Ports and community growth and development are intertwined.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. Canadian ports are an important part of the supply chain and a valuable link to global markets. As trade continues to grow, ports will need to maintain and create new community partnerships. In your opinion, how could our ports provide greater and inclusive economic benefits to their local communities?
      Hide Replies (4)
      • Roger Emsley over 1 year ago
        Two points. 1. Ports should start paying property taxes at rates that other industrial entities pay not at an arbitrary and generally lower rate. 2. Community liaison committees are a good vehicle, but they should not be controlled and dominated by port authorities. When port authorities run them they tend to become PR vehicles and they control meeting minutes or notes to suppress discussions that are critical.
        Hide Replies (2)
        • ChrisShelton about 1 year ago
          The VFPA land holdings do not comply with the Land Title Practices of the Province of BC. For example the Centerm Project has significant land that is land fill and not registered in the Land Title Office of BC. The port lands are not appraised by the BC Assessment Authority but are appraised by the PA. There is about 50 hectares of land at Centerm which is appraised at about $50million dollars which is equivalent to 50 single family lots in east Vancouver. The taxes for the last 10 years have been set extremely low due to the Provincial Gov't policy of Competitive Ports. This is to say the citizens of Vancouver are subsidizing the VFPA through their property taxes. I do not know what other PA's are doing.
        • John Peirce about 1 year ago
          Yes - Port authority folks are like foxes in charge of the hen house!
      • Mary about 1 year ago
        Let's start by not allowing free long term parking for freighters around the South Gulf Islands. If you really want ports to provide greater economic benefits to local communities then get these hulking rust buckets out of our fragile marine eco-tourism and fishing areas.
  • tedfullerton over 1 year ago
    My main concern is the carbon footprint of the shipping industry. Somewhere near 10% of the planet’s daily oil consumption goes up the ship exhaust stacks. Some of that is burned in and near ports. This is nothing new and will continue as long as the economics are favorable. Perhaps human and environmental health will force ports to move away from human habitation but don’t bet on it in your lifetime. In the mean time ships visiting Port Vancouver burn lots of fuel right in our faces. Again the shipping industry is going nowhere but up along with the global economy. My chief concern, based on an analysis of 10 years of ship traffic data supplied by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, is that bulk carriers burn way more fuel because they travel for almost double the hours that container ships do for each visit to Vancouver. Bulk carriers make more trips each visit and they use anchorage sites far in excess of container ships which almost never go to anchor sites. Almost 92% of all days at anchor are explained by bulk carriers. The difference in total cumulative fuel consumption between bulk carriers and container ships is huge. Container ships almost never anchor and almost always go directly to their berth, then directly out to sea when they are loaded. Grain and coal ships arrive early, sometimes several weeks in advance of their first berth date. If saving 800 tons of diesel fuel by providing shore power to cruise ships is a big deal, then consider that bulk carriers burn 40 to 50 times that much just in the excess travel alone. Double that for their total fuel consumption. The ports, the industry and the government together must address this heavily polluting and questionable practice of excess travel. Why do bulk carriers differ so extremely in their visit routine compared to container ships?My assumption is that there are too many ships and not enough work so many of them sit idle (day rates are near their all time lows). Add to that zero resistance from Canadian governments and ports against the practice. I would not be surprised if Canadian shippers and agents actively encourage ships to arrive early and enjoy pristine free and low risk anchorage sites. This practice is expensive for Canada. Unnecessary fuel is burned. Unnecessary pilot fees are paid. The costs are passed through to Canadians. How is this helping? Then there are whales being pressured, particularly inside the Southetn Gulf Islands. Totally unnecessary. Please establish strict rules on how long ships can loiter in Canadian waters. These giant floating factories must limit their time near humans. Oh yes, so far I’m talking only bunker C fuel for the main engines. Now consider diesel fuel for ship generators and recall the 800 tons per year saved by supplying shore power to cruise ships. Wonderful. Cruise ships are seasonal, low in frequency and spend almost no time in port. Nearly 200 bulk carriers visit the port each month. Many stay for weeks burning diesel. Tens of thousands of tons. No hope for shore power while they anchor, only limiting their stay time will help. Again, please implement strict visit limits for ships. If anchoring is good for Canada, as the industry claims, then it’s far beyond time for them to prove their case with numbers. I say it is overall harmful and it costs us more than it benefits us. Show me at least cost recovery on fuel and pilot fees that result from anchoring. I just don’t see it and the industry says nothing beyond “it’s good for Canada”. NO IT IS NOT. Email me, I have the data and the graphs.
    Hide Replies (5)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      We are very interested to see the data and graphs you are referring to. You can reach us by using this email address: TC.Portsreview-Examendesports.TC@tc.gc.ca . Under the Oceans Protection Plan, Transport Canada is developing a process to identify anchorage sports, as well as analyze and respond to environmental economic, cultural, safety and security concerns for now and over the long term. We will also draft a “best practices at anchor” manual and propose oversight and management options for anchorage spots outside a port authority’s boundaries. In the meantime, the government has taken action to implement an interim protocol for the use of southern British Columbia anchorages. The protocol includes a number of changes to anchorage practices, including a more balanced use of anchorage sites, and the introduction of noise and lighting restrictions for anchored vessels.
      Hide Replies (3)
      • pmthompson about 1 year ago
        It is impossible to effectively mitigate impact of an anchored freighter on a coastal community - particularly gulf island communities. City areas such as Vancouver and Victoria can absorb some of the noise and light pollution from anchored freighters as cities already experience certain levels of light and noise pollution but it is not possible to mitigate the noise, light and air pollution impact of huge freighters on small coastal communities. Freighters must be anchored within port waters or close to industrial/commercial areas only.
        Hide reply (1)
        • John Peirce about 1 year ago
          Yes. Also the ports need to take responsibility for planning the flow of tanker traffic so they do not have to be parked in the islands or in the open ocean off Gabriola, as is =being proposed.
      • tedfullerton about 1 year ago
        I'm willing to share, I sent you an email requesting a meeting. Three points on your response:- currently no one has any authority to force ships to comply to any behavior guidelines so their compliance is purely voluntary. The "restrictions" on noise and light are therefore toothless, this is yet another example of poor mitigation. Prohibition against anchoring in the Southern Gulf Islands is the answer.- this inability to control ship behavior at anchor extends to the inability to control when ships arrive and how long they stay. Anchor behavior would be a moot point if early arrivals were prohibited and controlled. - you make no mention in your response of studies needed to determine why ships arrive early. I now such studies have been promised but your response strongly suggests that all existing anchor sites will be grandfathered in, that their need will not be challenged, that whatever "demand" the ships place on anchoring will be met with more and more anchor sites and more and more anchoring. My point is that while you distract yourself and us with toothless behavior rules, the early arrival and loitering of ships is the problem that needs to be addressed. Canada is being taken advantage of by too many ships with not enough to do because of this loophole in our marine rules. Please get tough, we need to push back against this useless, damaging practice, particularly since it does nothing to improve Canada's trade. If the industry claims that this is necessary good will and that Canada's ports would be shunned if we prohibited early arrivals then I have three answers:- New Castle Australia already prohibits early arrivals and they are still operating- no other port in North America has the same parking problem with bulk cargo ships, only Vancouver has this problem. How do they operate without loitering and free parking while Vancouver claims they cannot do without?- there are too many ships and not enough work. Many bulk carriers already have clean, no-anchoring visits, those and many other ships would be happy to do business with Canada if some are offended by our entry restrictions.
    • lsut about 1 year ago
      Absolutely agree with this - the harmful effects are backed up by the science and there is not proof that there has been enough consideration of the environmental impacts that many residents and other folks are concerned with. I hope these worries will be taken seriously but I worry that that is not the case.
  • tedfullerton about 1 year ago
    My final comment:Traffic in and out of Vancouver Harbor is showing a near record high anchoring pattern, nearing 1600 total days at anchor in individual months and nearing 12,000 days in Calendar 2018. The anchoring pace is accelerating upward. The past two years by contrast shows grain volumes below the record year of 2016. Anchoring is way up, grains are down somewhat. This level of anchoring has nothing to do with trade, it is a problem, it is not a legitimate "demand" by anyone, it helps nothing. There is no good will being traded for anchoring and waiting, no one anywhere has mentioned this as a benefit. The only benefits that have been produced so far are:- we are a trading nation (OK, and therefore what exactly?)- ships are allowed to park anywhere for any reason, therefore their "demand" for anchorages is legitimate and must be met (Canadian Pilots require specific mandated routes and specific chosen anchor sites so the "allowed to park anywhere any-when" is not truthful; the why of ship parking is still a mystery that must be studied; ask me for a list of null hypotheses )- somehow not controlling ship behavior and ship arrival time by the federal government is seen as attractive, no new legislation, no antagonizing the shipping industry, no fussy intervention in the market place; I agree with the general principle, intervene in moderation. This level of risk (navigating narrow waterways in the SGI, another topic requiring significant research) and pollution (see elsewhere for 40,000 tons of unnecessary fuel and bunches more diesel fuel per year from unnecessary travel) DEMANDS intervention. Please study and intervene. Early arrivals must be curtailed, the port and the industry must operate within there own boundaries, the port communities of concern must include those alongside the transportation corridors. See my governance suggestions elsewhere, don't let the port control the community side of anything or Robin Silvester will get all "supremacy" on us again.- anchoring is a shock absorber, a surge capacity supply chain thing -- my graphs show that the ship surges are way out of control, something is very wrong with this supposed benefit, container ships come and go, no anchoring, where are their surges? Bulk cargo ships arrive early and loiter for no benefit and a big pile of harm.Big pile of harm: see everywhere else, its easy to calculate, ask me for my lists and numbers (for extra points dig into the fuel thing, it's huge).Opportunity: grab some courage, write some good legislation, change the marine act and any others, take firmer control of ship arrivals, ship behavior and ship dwell times, a small squeeze would result in a massive anchoring reduction (50%), the easy elimination of every SGI anchor site, minimal administrative costs, minimal damage to ships, cost savings to farmers and other Canadian shippers for more efficient ship movement, less money for Canadian pilots (fewer trips), improved social license, election coming up, easy win, low hanging fruit, vulnerable west coast liberal ridings, please do something serious and forceful on this file, don't wimp out with a status quo and voluntary behavior code.OK, one last point. A personal one. This anchor situation sucks. We don't know who to yell at, the situation itself is absurd, it has had a high spiritual, emotional and health impact on me. The beauty of this place is simply being trashed for no apparent reason I can find. I am heartbroken, soul-destroyed, annoyed beyond words, mad as h, and after 3 long years all we have achieved is a voluntary behavior code, some spreading around of the growing yet harmful and unnecessary anchoring and your basic "there there now, chin up, it's not that bad and we need it besides...". Please notify me when you have indeed modernized our ports and brought them fully into the 21st century.
  • Angelamcd about 1 year ago
    Public support for such a thing, demand and Canadian public policy
  • SWalters about 1 year ago
    As demand for goods increase, it's paramount that we run a port efficiently. It is unacceptable that we allow vessels to anchor all around our BC waters for unlimited time. For example an airport does not allow aircraft to park all over the place for weeks waiting for business. They arrive and have a quick turnaround time. Vessel should only arrive into our waters a few days prior to loading or unloading. Freighters are anchored all around our beautiful islands polluting the environment for marine and human life in all aspects. It's absolutely unacceptable, torturous and stressful to have a freighters anchored for any length or time in and around the Southern Gulf Islands of BC. I would like to see Canada respect it's citizens wish for a healthy environment and sustained growth by making wise long term decisions that benefit present and future generations.Canada could adopt a similar plan as Norway. https://e360.yale.edu/features/europe-takes-first-steps-in-electrifying-worlds-shipping-fleets
  • Michel Lecour about 1 year ago
    Here are my comments: 1) One area that is over looked by Transport Canada (and GoC) in its quest to facilitate trade is how much we end up exporting our GHG impact by import goods from high GHG emitting countries. This policy seems inconsistent with our desire to contribute to a lower GHG world. I understand a key goal of the existing government is to expand trade...but at what cost? Free trade is portrayed has the answer to our economic ills but what it has resulted in hidden costs - production of goods by means that have seriously impacted our planet and our ability to survive. Procurement of goods from high GHG emitting countries should be taxed via a climate change import tax. 2) Transport Canada needs to look across all organizations involved in port activities as proper governance is seriously lacking. 3) Risk assessments for many activities that are permitted or contemplated are lacking or biased in many instances.
  • Charlotte Dawe about 1 year ago
    When the port makes decisions solely based on profit, at a cost to the environment and community concern, the social license of the port becomes an issue. Environmental and community concerns must be a leading factor is decision making. Exponential growth of supply from the port is not possible. There is a maximum capacity that the port can and should operate at. Surpassing this level of capacity will have detrimental environmental impacts and this will cost the port the trust of the public and the communities they have let down who are directly impacted by the degradation of the environment. The current trend of not taking the environmental risks seriously must change.
    Hide reply (1)
    • lsut about 1 year ago
      Strongly agree!
  • matt.poirier over 1 year ago
    As Canadian manufacturers seek to expand their presence on global markets the importance of critical trade infrastructures, such as ports, will be key. It enables Canadian made goods to be transported abroad and is a critical component in linking supply chains. As Canada signs more free trade deals (CETA, Mercosur, Pacific Alliance, etc), ports become increasingly strategic. Therefore, they must have both the physical capacity and the logistic capacity to meet this demand- especially considering the government's objective to increase trade output.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. One of the main goals of the Ports Modernization Review is to support the competitiveness of Canada’s economy by facilitating the movement of goods. In your opinion, do ports currently have the appropriate infrastructure and supply chain integration in place to support future demand for transportation services?
      Hide reply (1)
      • tedfullerton about 1 year ago
        Infrastructure seems to be rolling along enough to keep pace with growth with several exceptions. Rail car availability continues to be a problem according to some but I see big inventories at the dockside in the weekly Quorum reports so I'm doubting this suggested problem. Loading of grains during wet weather seems like a no brainer, get some umbrellas or something, how hard can that be? Ships waiting at anchor is the reverse of just in time anything, it's the antithesis of good frugal just enough planning. It's like having a football field full of nuts to build a car where you only need a few dozen nuts per hour. Too many ships, they do not improve the supply chain whatsoever, in fact their overcrowding presence itself causes loading delays. Stop ship early arrival, they are not helping anything.
  • trwalker over 1 year ago
    Increasing global trends of environmental performance and sustainability initiatives (Note: my single submission addresses this 'trend' question - also see below). Canada Port Authorities have an obligation to comply with environmental regulatory agencies and socially to port communities to protect and ensure security of the natural environment where they operate. Most Canadian Canada Port Authorities currently recognized that Green Marine certification can effectively demonstrate environmental stewardship. Five Canada Port Authorities are already proactive at taking strategic initiatives to improve environmental performance (e.g., GHG emissions reduction, waste management, spill prevention, community engagement, and environmental leadership) compared to their Canadian peers. These Canada Port Authorities currently adopt measures which include mitigations and monitoring of environmental impacts (e.g., air, water, noise, sediment), wildlife protection, energy management, stakeholder participation, environmental reporting, and research and development. However, some Canada Port Authorities lag behind in taking initiatives to achieve sustainability. Canadian Port Authorities need to advance in environmental performance concurrently meeting the societal and economic demands. This federal reform along with provincial governments and organizations like Green Marine should assist Canada Port Authorities to move forward in achieving greater levels of sustainability.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • hommeliquide over 1 year ago
      Green Marine is an industry consortium. Regulation has to be independent. Regulation must include meaningful penalties for non-compliance. While there may be an obligation to comply in Canada, enforcement is lax and penalties for non-compliance are weak or entirely absent. No wonder some lag behind - it's cheaper that way!
    • Mary R Brooks over 1 year ago
      Tony Walker, I would have been interested in reading your submission, but apparently your submission is not publicly viewable. So submissions submitted need to be shared offline as they do not appear online. Thanks, Mary R. Brooks
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for bringing these perspectives to the discussion. The Ports Modernization Review is looking at the role of Canada Port Authorities in an environmentally responsible and low-carbon transportation system. It is also exploring how they can be more resilient in the face of climate risks. In your opinion, what would be the best approach to assist or motivate all ports to achieve greater levels of sustainability? How would the approach differ from one port to the other?
      Hide reply (1)
      • tedfullerton about 1 year ago
        Right, carbon footprint. Elsewhere I have enumerated the huge amount of main engine and diesel engine fuel being burned in Canadian waters. Briefly, container ships almost never anchor, two trips per visit on average, in, out, gone, 9 hours of travel on average per visit. Bulk carriers consume 92% of all anchoring, 75% of all anchoring is early, before a ship arrives at a berth for the first time in a visit, bulk carriers make nearly 4 trips per visit on average, travelling 16 hours per visit on average. This extra travel and many days at anchor, looks mostly unnecessary compared to container ships. 180 bulk carrier visits per month times 7 more hours of travel times 3 ish tons of main engine fuel burned per hour plus 24X7 diesel generators equals tens of thousands of tons of fuel being burned per year for no business reason, no extra jobs, no improved cash flow, nothing. Here is a giant low hanging fruit for you to pick. All it would take is some simple legislation saying no pilot is available unless the scheduled berth date is within one week of that first trip. No berth date equals no entry.
  • Roger Emsley about 1 year ago
    I submitted an email to tc.portsreview-examendesports.tc@tc.gc.ca on Nov. 30 prior to the deadline. It is nowhere to be seen on this website.Was it received, where can it and other submissions be viewed?The email is as follows:Attention Transport CanadaNovember 30 2018I am hereby submitting comments regarding the Ports Modernization Review which you have initiated and whose closing date is December 3 2018.Part of the focus of my submission is in respect of the proposal by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) to build a second container terminal on Roberts Bank in Delta, BC (RBT2). It is illustrative of why and where there are shortcomings in the manner in which port authorities - Vancouver Fraser Port Authority in particular - operate today.I make this my focus having followed very closely for the last ten years or more - as a resident of Delta - the manner in which VFPA conducts its operations, its governance, environmental reviews, project proposals and permitting, as well as the transparency and accountability - specifically the lack thereof - in the way VFPA goes about its business.Regarding the RBT2 project, this is what we have had to deal with since the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 proposal was resurrected:The repeated use of flawed and overblown forecasts of future growth, in its efforts to promote a project that in reality is not needed.Downplaying capacity increases in progress or planned at already existing container terminals and trying hard to ignore the port of Prince Rupert altogether (where there is huge potential for increases in capacity without risking the environment).Making false statements such that RBT2 is needed when existing port capacities versus forecast growth demonstrate very clearly that a new container terminal is not required to meet Canada’s trading needs in the foreseeable future.Successfully limiting the Review Panel terms of reference such that impacts beyond the port footprint (care and control of the proponent) are not to be considered.Having captive consultants carry out environmental reviews, totally void of independent verification.Failure to provide a proper business case despite being requested to do so on multiple occasions.Ignoring the precautionary principle which is enshrined in environmental legislation.Often times in discussions and presentations, VFPA fails to recognize that the Pacific Gateway comprises two major ports, Vancouver and Prince Rupert;This has been a frustrating process for many people, including stakeholders, and is illustrative as to where major change is required. In terms of port modernization here is what I believe needs to be addressed:1. Oversight by Transport Canada Despite what is already stated in the Canada Marine Act, Transport Canada maintains a hands-off attitude regarding VFPA. This ultimately means that VFPA can do as it pleases and answers to nobody except its captive board. VFPA ignores public concerns, those of local and regional government, port stakeholders, indigenous communities and goes about its business as though it were a privately held entity with no accountability.2. Accountability and transparency There is none. The VFPA produces an annual report and financial statements, but there is no oversight other than its own board. VFPA is not transparent in the manner in which it does business. For example because VFPA declined to provide details and rationale for land acquisitions, even refusing to respond to a Freedom of Information Request, it then took over a year and the intervention of the privacy commissioner to get details on the land acquisitions some of which even then were redacted.3. Lack of financial oversight. The port assets are Canada’s assets that the port is supposed to manage. As such the profits made from those assets should not be retained by the port. Rather they should be returned to the federal government to determine where best to use them for the interest of Canadians as a whole. (A recommendation that has been made previously by the CD Howe Institute).4. Property taxes Port authorities are not paying their fair share. They should pay property taxes just like any other entity. 5. The role of a port authority, should be focused solely on port operations. VFPA maintains vast land holdings and is ever adding to its real estate empire. It is not necessary for a port authority to hold real estate. This drives up real estate prices, keeps others out and where VFPA makes a move on agricultural land it violates the BC Agricultural Land Reserve.6. Governance The manner in which a port authority board is established needs a complete makeover. How are board members chosen and whom do they represent? The Federal Government appoints the VFPA board, following a review process by port insiders. Most are chosen from stakeholders and those with vested interests. There is minimal representation from local and regional government - one member to represent the 15 host municipalities in Metro Vancouver.. All this needs to change. There needs to be an open process for selecting board members and there needs to be much more representation from host municipalities, as well as representatives for the environment and First Nations. 7. Project and environmental assessment reviews In many cases the port authority is both project proponent, permitting and approval authority and regulator. This needs to change. All projects must be assessed and approved by an independent body. Environmental reviews should be carried out by entities chosen by a regulator and totally independent of the port authority.8. Lack of cooperation with the other major port authority on the West Coast Prince Rupert is the second port and major container terminal on Canada’s west coast. A process needs to be put in place that mandates VFPA to hold regular discussions and cooperate with Prince Rupert.
  • ShipFan7 almost 2 years ago
    Ports in extremely close proximity such as the 3 CPA's on Lake Ontario should be amalgamated and then privatized ie auctioned off to a professional terminal management company where operations could be rationalized and governance streamlined. As it stands right now there are 3 boards of directors (23 persons enjoying patronage appointments) and a significant number of staff managing 3 ports that only handle approx 15 million tonnes of cargo between them. The Toronto Island airport should be administered by the Greater Toronto Airport Authority. Government would gain far more in revenue from leasing the port facilities than they gain from the current Gross Revenue Charge and oversight would be performed by citizens at large representing the communities adjoining the respective ports. More democratic and more efficient all around than the current system.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      That’s an interesting observation. The 2016 Canada Transportation Act Review recommended taking a more in-depth look at regional amalgamation and strategic alliances of Canada Port Authorities. Building on this recommendation, the Ports Modernization Review is examining opportunities to strengthen the governance framework of Canada Port Authorities. It is also looking at improving the tools and approaches that support smarter planning and growth at ports across the system.
    • ChrisShelton about 1 year ago
      Greater Vancouver had 3 PA's, Port of Vancouver, Port of the Fraser River and the Port of the North Fraser Arm. They were merge and achieved greater economies of scale and better 'value for money' results.
  • tedfullerton over 1 year ago
    The governance structure of ports is failing. The arms length crown corporation approach has created an air of entitlement in ports. Robin Silvester said that Port Vancouver has “supremacy” in its dealings with Richmond over land use. Interesting word. The shrinking of affordable industrial space in Vancouver is putting pressure on the port. There is no way that industrial use can prevail when there are strong urban and residential pressures. It’s just basic economics. Nevertheless, the ports continue to rule with almost no public input. A perfect example is the attempt by the port and the industry to establish 5 new anchorage sites north of Gabriola Island. Planning occurred in secret for 5 years before the plan was leaked in 2015. Since then efforts to engage the public on this proposal have been a sad joke. Embedded in an annual report for the BC Chamber of Shipping is a request to members that they resist efforts to establish a marine park that would negate the proposed anchorage sites. Is this really Canada?I propose a different governance structure with more representation from the community, less from industry, less or no arms length structure, an independent dispute resolution mechanism (Eg ombudsman) and a much much stronger health and environmental mandate for port operations. Trade is important yes. Our trade with the US is around 75% of all our international trade. The Asia Pacific Gateway is important yes but it is not important enough to trash the west coast. Tourism, real estate and basic consumption are more powerful contributors to our economy than the shipping industry. It’s beyond time to put a tighter leash on this ancient and secretive industry. Many lives are at stake.
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. We have taken note of your ideas to strengthen the governance framework of Canada Port Authorities and suggested approaches for optimizing responsiveness to local communities.
    • ChrisShelton about 1 year ago
      Mr Silvester was read the Lefarge ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada and changed his mind.
  • Roger Emsley over 1 year ago
    Port Authorities must no longer be permitted to be infrastructure project proponents as well as project approval authorities. The role of project proponent and approval authority and regulator needs to be separate. Cannot have the fox in charge of the henhouse as it exists today. Have project and environmental assessments. conducted by bodies that are totally independent of port authorities.
    Hide Replies (4)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. The Ports Modernization Review is looking at ways to modernize the governance framework for Canada Port Authorities. It is also examining models that will enhance the delivery of regulatory functions while providing accountability and transparency.
      Hide Replies (2)
      • Susan Jones about 1 year ago
        The response does not address the point. It skirts the important issue of lack of accountability by Canadian ports as demonstrated by the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority. The port has the power to undertake environmental assessments of projects and approve projects from which it will profit in terms of leases and port fees. It is in blatant conflict of interest. Lip service is paid to environmental impacts. The port has the power to approve projects that involve increased shipping yet the port has no accountability beyond a project footprint. In other words, there is no accountability for transport ships and their cargo including dangerous fuels and hazardous materials. There is no accountability for accidents, spills, anchoring or any wrongdoing of shippers. Transport Canada is at fault as it takes no responsibility for the port business in Vancouver. The Minister of Transportation responds to concerns with a form letter that states, "Canada Port Authorities are federally incorporated, autonomous, non-share corporations that operate at arm’s length from the federal government. They are governed by boards of directors nominated by port user groups and various levels of government. They operate according to business principles and have the authority and flexibility to determine strategic direction and make commercial decisions. In this context, the federal government has no power to direct or influence the actions of Canada Port Authorities."This is a tragic violation of federal responsibility. Our federal laws do not allow a Minister to abdicate responsibilities and accountability. How can the public offer constructive or useful input to a Ministry that operates outside Canadian laws of federal accountability?We don't need Transport Canada to examine models and respond with empty statements. We need Transport Canada to manage our ports and put an end to the current unacceptable process whereby Transport Canada collaborates with the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority on Port Projects, interferes with environmental assessments, appoints biased Directors, ignores public input, and yet claims no accountability. Transport Canada facilitates the "fox in the hen house" instead of appropriately addressing responsible shipping practices which are vital to Canadian trade.
      • ChrisShelton about 1 year ago
        how can you have transparency when the Act and history has the PA claiming privilege over a contract with one party. The NHB entered into an agreement Dec 31, 1967 and kept it secret even from Library and Archives Canada. When I found the document and shared it with LAC, the VFPA finally made the final request for the CPR to transfer some land. What or who is the watch dog of a PA?
    • ChrisShelton about 1 year ago
      How can a Port Authority propose a dock expansion, produce the design concepts and proposed project and then go to the public and say this is what you will get, then hold starr chamber hearings that ignores the public and the CMA sec. 4(e) 'be responsive to local needs and priorities.' Which is what happened at the Centerm Project and the Delta Coal Dock, the latter is before the Federal Appeal Court.
  • Micar about 1 year ago
    Rising levels and global warming associated with climate change. Increasing conflict with urban development as cities get larger and denser. Increasing urban activism from interest groups and local governments. Increasing conflict between urban/suburban development needs and non-mainline feeder routes for railways. Increasing opposition to land removed from an ever shrinking agricultural base by land-banking for industrial and port purposes.Examples (symptoms?) of this include : opposition to increased tanker traffic resulting from the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project; opposition to placing a transshipment coal facility at Fraser Surrey Docks (the geographic centre of Metro Vancouver); opposition to the large additional cost and footprint of a bridge to replace the Massey Tunnel, etc.
  • NickPapayiannakis about 1 year ago
    From a technology standpoint, the major trend that will impact port operations is Big Data, specifically:1. Monitoring and analytics to streamline operations (eg. prescriptive maintenance, energy management and enhanced sustainability, etc.)2. Supply chain automation with artificial intelligence.3. Digital twins to perform modelling and discover more efficient ways of operating.Our European counterparts have vastly out-paced us in innovation in this key area. For example, just this year the Port Authority, the City of Antwerp, Antwerp University and IMEC signed an agreement to implement the Capital of Things, and the first Smart Harbour projects have been set up. Smart port infrastructure is already leading to more efficient and smoother shipping operations.Along with the on-going federal smart city challenge, we need a way drive innovation for our ports. Ultimately a significant injection of capital supported by strong policy will be required.
  • Dwalton over 1 year ago
    Having failed to file a submission, we are including it here. Ports Toronto is not a port in the traditional sense of shipping..mainly an airport with very minimal shipping. They have been a very uncooperative neighbour to waterfront residents. Have spent many hundreds of thousands of (our)dollars on City Centre Aitport with an intent to expand its capacity. We have no object to Porter and Air Canada’s current level of use but any expansion would be extremely detrimental both to residents and visitors,in air and noise pollution, safety and traffic issues...they must live within their exclusion area. The federal government would be very unwise to sanction any form of expansion. Ports Toronto sold its magnificent heritage building, with no public input, for condo development..what is the money to be used for? All Ports Toronto meetings, especially board meetings must be open to the public.
    Hide reply (1)
  • Roger Emsley almost 2 years ago
    Warehouse and logistics centres located inland rather than adjacent or close to port terminals
    Hide Replies (2)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. Some suggest that inland ports (including warehouse and logistics centres) have a great potential to optimize supply chains and reduce pressure on infrastructure and communities in urban areas. In your opinion, what could be the role for Canada Port Authorities in the development of inland ports?
      Hide reply (1)
      • Roger Emsley over 1 year ago
        First and foremost port authorities need to abandon the idea that logistics and warehouse operations need to be adjacent to container terminals. Since the west coast container terminals are all located in urban areas this outdated notion leads to the VFPA repeatedly claiming that they need to gobble up land, including our scarce agricultural lands. This is outdated and backward thinking. Inland intermodal terminals are a key part of making terminals more efficient and their footprints more productive. Likewise inland intermodal terminals get container trucks off congested highways. VFPA needs to abandon its land acquisition and focus on efficient operation of its terminals. We do not need VFPA being a landlord over vast tracts of land with a voracious appetite for more. Second port authorities - VFPA in particular - should embrace inland terminals rather than being hostile to them and putting up roadblocks as some have been in the past. Third port authorities need to embrace short haul rail and short sea shipping (barges in the case of VFPA). That means having strategies to implement them which in VFPAs case means implementing projects - such as barge ramps - and working with operators (short haul railroads, tug and barge companies) to actually implement these networks which will in turn lead to more use of inland intermodal terminals and less need for warehouses and logistics centres close to container terminals in urban areas and fewer container trucks on congested roads.
  • PSimons over 1 year ago
    Port Authority modeling and planning will affect the future of port operations and supply chains. The assumptions that go into the models are not transparent and thus public input and comment are limited; however, the planning and actions testing from this impact human communities and the environment. The trend toward professional reliance and random - periodic inspections are not a replacement for direct line of sight oversight nor are self assessments and self permitting by the port authorities of their own activities. This is giving an appointed government body unfettered permission to achieve their objectives unquestioned: move goods- make profit.Other values are not given enough importance ORC consideration unless required by law.The trend of increased public scrutiny and withdrawal of support and social licence will have disruptive consequences for the PAs over the next 25 - 50 years.
  • EAM -TO almost 2 years ago
    Trends in how to move goods and people will affect port operations. Ports Toronto moving to more inclusive considerations in Toronto. Respect for waterfront populations is needed because these are the city tax base vs ports; use of the Island Airport must remain restricted with no jets or alterations to runways. Container ships need a place to unload close to market, but the needs seem to ebb and flow. Some air and lake capacity must remain for use in emergency situations.......... on the mind of someone who is influenced by the war years. The whole transportation system needs to be a continuous link and open for use. Rail problems need solutions!
    Hide reply (1)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. Canadian ports are an important part of the supply chain and are gateways to the world. As trade continues to grow, ports will need to maintain and create new community partnerships. In your opinion, how could Canada Port Authorities better integrate local perspectives while meeting their commercial mandate?
  • Recreation not commerce almost 2 years ago
    Obsolete ports like Toronto should be turned over to local authorities and run through democratic processes in order to increase utilization of that precious resource.
    Hide reply (1)
    • Guillaume Vincent, Transport Canada over 1 year ago
      Thank you for your comment. The Ports Modernization Review is looking at how Canada Port Authorities can contribute to building healthy communities and better integrate local perspectives while meeting their commercial mandate.
  • Mary R Brooks over 1 year ago
    The Internet of Things and the digitalization of the supply chain will greatly alter Canadian port operational decisions. Also we can expect blockchain technology to alter the way that trade contracting and vessel–port operations are conducted. Opportunities to adopt greater automation of cargo handling will also arise. All of these, however, are not relevant to Canada’s port policy unless the Government of Canada decides to assist ports financially in adapting to this changing technology. Whether the funds are better spent elsewhere in infrastructure is a key question beyond the scope of port policy modernization. Ports are part of an end-to-end global supply chain.
  • garnetm almost 2 years ago
    Ultra-large vessels are being accommodated by competing portsRobotic loading/unloading, pilotage and crewing could reduce marine costsNeglect of railway infrastructure in the absence of public investment, could jeopardize rail lines and some ports (e.g., Churchill, Sydney NS)Self-driving trucks and truck platoons could take advantage of public-funded freeways, congesting roads/streets and driving railways out of businessMore people want to live downtown, but must understand that ports were there first and are an important economic driver.Continued strong cruise-ship trafficMore interest in short-sea shipping, truck/container ferries and passenger ferries.More interest in rail container/trailer flatcar shuttles between docksides and inland transload facilities. This is needed in Halifax, between the South End and Burnside Business Park. The tracks are already there, and are underutilized.
    Hide reply (1)
    • tedfullerton over 1 year ago
      First in does not preclude changes. If too many people start to live near heavy industry then one or the other side must move. Heavy industry belongs by itself away from people. If one economic land use is more profitable than another then guess which one wins over he long term. Ports must compete for land just like everyone else. The historic position of the port should not overpower basic economics and basic population health.
  • hommeliquide over 1 year ago
    Ports will have to address their outsized emissions problem. The days of treating the environment like an open sewer are gone. Residents around ports and consumers will not stand for the dirty fuels, primitive engines, and lax emission monitoring and control which are now a routine part of Canadian port operations. There will have to be serious investments in better technologies. Canada could be a leader here or we could just eventually end up buying the technology from elsewhere if we fail to insist on environmental respect.
    Hide reply (1)
    • tedfullerton over 1 year ago
      Yes, I agree that ports must strongly protect the environment. My comment above about tens of thousands of tons of bunker c fuel being burned unnecessarily each year is the best example I can think of. Someone needs to control excess ship travel and excess ship dwell times at anchor. Both are contributing to local pollution and, as we are discovering recently, that pollution is affectIng our cognitive functions in the near term too. No one currently possesses the official mandate to control ship arrival or dwell time or ship behavior at increasingly busy satellite anchorage sites. The port and the industry are allowed to trash our very fragile pristine coastal areas, particularly those inside the Southern Gulf Islands. This is not good for Canada, no extra goods are moved in spite of the extra miles travelled by bulk carriers and in spite of the increasing days they spend at anchor running generators and doing industrial activities. The port modernization must address this extreme environmental negative. I don’t think the ports can be trusted to police ship arrivals. Similarly I don’t think they can be trusted to determine what is or isn’t in the national interest. The arrogant and “supremacy” attitude of ports must be reigned in.
  • BManners almost 2 years ago
    The use of roll on and roll off ferries along with rail to Vancouver Island will promote the Nanaimo Port as part of the future of goods being transported to and from Vancouver Island. Building of the Nanaimo downtown port into a tourism focal point as a transportation hub will promote cruise ship traffic to the largest city on Vancouver Island. I look forward to more seacans arriving and departing from Duke Point Terminals (which was designed as a shipping facility/industrial park) freeing up the current downtown base.
  • Nadia Lapointe almost 2 years ago
    Just on time and Oversize ship (ex: Chinamax)