Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks for clarifying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

I don't see any further discussion on this. We do not have a subamendment on the table. Therefore, we can go to a vote on NDP-6.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We will now turn it over for PV-1. For that, I'll turn it over to our esteemed colleague, Ms. May.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll speak briefly to this amendment.

I want to thank the committee for what I see as extraordinarily collaborative and collegial work, with positive changes to this bill this evening. I am deeply gratified.

This is in the same section. As Taylor has already explained, we're looking at the purpose of the Canada Marine Act.

The amendment that is proposed here in PV-1 is in the same section. Go to line 13 on page 67—you probably already have it open, because we were just amending it. In proposed paragraph (f.2), which starts with, “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage”, and is followed by “in order to”, my amendment proposes to change it to:

in order to protect the marine environment, to respect the rights of Indigenous peoples and to promote the efficiency of supply chains

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. May.

Are there any questions, comments or thoughts, colleagues?

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

I certainly welcome the language. I just wonder if our legislative clerks could advise us as to whether this conflicts with the amendment we just passed, and whether it can be integrated somehow. Am I lost, or is it the next one?

We just passed NDP-6, which I believe amended that same section of, “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage, in order to promote the efficiency...as well as the protection of the environment and the well-being of the...”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll confirm with the clerk and get back to you.

Apparently we're good. I believe the conflict you were referring to, Mr. Badawey, is NDP-7, which might actually have more of a conflict than NDP-6, so we're good.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Before we go ahead, I'm asking Mr. Bachrach if, in fact, it can actually be tailored into NDP-7.

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

Pardon me?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm asking if it can actually be tailored—no pun intended—into NDP-7.

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but proposed paragraph 4(f.2), starting with “manage traffic, including mooring and anchorage”, was just amended by NDP-6. Are we now talking about amending it again? Would we be erasing our amendment, and then would Ms. May's amendment supersede it, or am I lost and actually in a different section? You're being very generous by the way you're trying to give me a hint that I'm actually on the wrong one.

I see it now. One is line 6 and line 14, and the other one is line 13 on page 67. That was my mistake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are there any other questions on PV-1?

Seeing none, we can go to a vote on PV-1.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We will now make our way to NDP-7.

For that, I will turn it over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

NDP-7 adds, after line 14 on page 67, the following:

(f.3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the operation of ports;

(f.4) protect the marine environment;

This, again, is under the “Purpose” section of the Canada Marine Act.

If folks are interested, this relates to testimony we heard from Oceans North and the South Coast Ship Watch Alliance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any comments or questions, colleagues, on NDP-7?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 100 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We will now move on to new section 100.1.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The situation is somewhat unique. Amendment BQ‑3.1, whose purpose is to create a new section 100.1, is consequential to other amendments that I will talk about later. I do not know what the best way of handling that is. I will therefore explain a few things to the committee.

Amendment BQ‑3.1 is connected with amendment BQ‑4.1, which is also connected with amendment BQ‑3.2. If the committee agrees, I will explain the purpose of amendment BQ‑4.1, since there is no point in adopting amendment BQ‑3.1 if amendment BQ‑4.1 is not also adopted. Otherwise, it would make the act internally inconsistent.

The purpose of amendment BQ‑4.1 is essentially to allow port authorities to form associations or joint ventures, for example, to carry on common activities or common projects. This is what would allow the kind of collaboration between ports that the representatives of the St. Lawrence ports had so much to say about when they appeared before the committee.

In fact, amendment 3.1 simply adds the term “an entity”, which would be created by amendment BQ‑4.1, to the sections that deal with port authorities.

Then the purpose of amendment BQ‑3.2 is to allow the government to authorize port authorities, in their letters patent, to form joint ventures or associations for common projects.

Although amendment BQ‑4.1 could allow ports and port authorities, for example, to work jointly, it would not automatically give them the power to do it unilaterally. First and foremost, by amendment BA‑3.2, the government would have to authorize it by amending the letters patent. Accordingly, before doing it, there would still have to be government authorization to go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I would like to let you know the decision of the chair regarding amendment BQ‑3.1.

The amendment proposes to amend section 7 of the Canada Marine Act, which deals with agents of His Majesty. The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 771:

… an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Since section 7 of the Canada Marine Act is not amended by Bill C-33, the chair is of the opinion that the amendment is out of order.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, these are consequential items. I think the other amendments can stand on their own without consequential amendments, but it may create problems in future that I may not have assessed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You can always appeal a decision of the chair.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

I am going to appeal it for the principle. Because we do not know the consequences of not adopting these consequential items and we have not done a precise analysis of this, I think we would do better not to take an unnecessary risk and adopt the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That is your right.

I will give our clerk the floor.

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

Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

(On clause 101)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Next, colleagues, we'll move to clause 101. For that I will turn the floor over to Mr. Strahl on amendment CPC-2.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Bill C-33 seeks to expand the number of municipal appointments to the board of directors of a port authority, the municipalities listed in the letters patent. This would delete that clause and return to municipalities having one seat at the port. We believe that ports have a national scope, and focusing on the needs and increasing municipalities' influence necessarily dilutes the national scope of a port board. This amendment simply seeks to return to the status quo in terms of municipal seats on a board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any questions or comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This one is sort of near and dear to my heart, since, during my 25 years of public service I have had to deal with the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. I have had very little to actually act upon, because we had no representation on that board and we were, therefore, at their mercy with regard to a lot of the decisions that were being made, which weren't always in the best interests of the jurisdiction of which it was part. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would delete the current provision enabling greater municipal representation on the boards. I would advocate for the opposite—that in areas or jurisdictions that do have boards, they would in fact have more.

That goes to my earlier comment and I guess to the theme of a lot of what we're discussing today and a lot of amendments the NDP and Mr. Bachrach have brought forward, because, let's face it, a lot of what he has brought forward was with respect to the best interests of the area he represents. The same could be said for Ms. Murray once again, and the same could be said for Ms. May once again, because they have those best interests in mind, and of course municipal representation on these boards would have the same.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this bill is to make ports work for Canadians and to better integrate them into the communities they represent and are here to serve. I don't think we should try to remove local representation or to discourage that within the ports. I think we should encourage more local representation, because at the end of the day there are interests within ports, and I understand that. I buy into the business interests that they have and that they're going to make decisions based on, but doing that can't be with collateral damage. It can't be working at cross-purposes with the jurisdictions they belong to and are a part of. That being said, there are also residual benefits, when it comes to the development of the economy, that the municipalities may have to add to and/or strengthen.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we will be voting against this. We would only encourage more municipal representation on these boards of the ports within the jurisdictions that municipalities are a part of and therefore greater returns with respect to the expectations of those great municipalities.