Transport Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Badawey is next.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I as well have seen this and am seeing it as a challenge. I think that for the most part, as Mr. Strahl and others have mentioned, the minister does in fact appoint the board with good people, appropriate people. With that, there's no reason they can't pick amongst each other in terms of a chairperson. We will be supporting Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on BQ-4.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

BQ-4 carries, which makes CPC-5 moot.

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

I think we can now discuss the amended motion. Is that how this works?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes. It's over to you, Mr. Strahl.

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

I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was moved and has just been passed. Having heard what we heard today, I still think we should defeat the amended proposed section, because now the minister is inserted into the process if there is an acting.... That is, “without the Minister's approval” is removed. I just think it's unnecessary now. If we've taken out proposed section 17 and we've taken out.... Am I correct that the Bloc motion also took out “without the Minister's approval”? Yes, so 17 is gone and “without the Minister's approval” is gone.

It kind of preserves the status quo now, does it not? What does proposed section 17.1 as amended do that is different from what is in current legislation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to our witnesses to respond to that.

Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

As I understand it, it would probably provide more clarification for the process.

It would still provide clarification for our process. However, my understanding, based on conversation, is that it is not necessary for the board to appoint a new chair in the event that there was a vacancy under the current process.

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

Now that the minister is no longer appointing the board chair, though, which we just voted in favour of, why are we limiting the board's ability to appoint a chairperson for.... Why are we saying “90 days” now? Why have we now limited what a board can do to a 90-day period? It will simply go back to the board to...what?

This would seem to be a 90-day recurring cycle. How could the board appoint a permanent replacement? It would be 90-day terms one after the other, if proposed section 17.1 remains.

I stand to be corrected, but that's my reading of it. If the board is back to selecting its own chair, does the 90-day limit not make these short-term, three-month appointments in perpetuity?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Read or Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft, Manager and Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services, Department of Transport]

If there is an absence or incapacity of both the chairperson and the vice-chair, which could be on a temporary basis, this would allow for a temporary replacement until there is a resignation or the chair or vice-chair are removed for incapacity.

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

If there is a vacancy in the office, it says, “In the event of the absence or incapacity of the chairperson, or a vacancy in that office”. I'm not trying to be difficult here. If something happens to the board chair, does this allow the board to impose a permanent solution? Now that section 17 is gone, they don't need the minister's authority anymore.

That's my only question. That 90-day provision seems to me to prevent a board of directors from permanently replacing a board chair or permanently having a vice-chair. I stand to be corrected. I can leave it, but it seems to me that it causes more confusion than the clause is worth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn it back to Ms. Heft or Ms. Read, and then I'll turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Mr. Bachrach.

Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

Under the current system, they can continue to appoint if there is a full vacancy. If it's a temporary incapacity, they could use this clause for a simple, temporary, double-incapacity 90-day window, should that event ever occur.

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

I've said what I can say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Heft.

I will now turn over the floor to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think myConservative colleague doesn't understand that section 17 of the Canada Marine Act still exists. Since this section still exists, the board of directors isn't forced to appoint a new interim chairperson every 90 days in perpetuity.

Section 17.1 of the bill allows the board of directors to appoint an interim chairperson for 90 days. Section 17 of the Canada Marine Act clearly states that:

The board of directors shall elect a chairperson from among their number for a term not exceeding two years, the term being renewable.

Section 17.1 simply puts in place a possible process for appointing an interim chairperson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

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

I think I'm on the same page as Mr. Strahl. Under the current process, I am unclear on the gap that exists under the current law. Members of the board choose a chair from among their ranks. I would assume that if someone is temporarily incapacitated, the board could pass a resolution temporarily appointing someone else as the chair or vice-chair or third vice-president, or whatever the position may be. Is there anything to preclude that?

It seems that under current law, the board is the master of its destiny when it comes to its chair, and there should be nothing to prevent it from either temporarily or permanently appointing a new chair when it needs to. I guess the question is, where does the gap exist under current law, and why are we entertaining the proposal?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead, Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

As unusual as the situation is, we believe the boards are currently resolving it themselves if it does come up. Through their resolutions, they must have some form of process, but we don't regulate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Heft.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on clause 105 as amended.

(Clause 105 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 106 agreed to on division)

(On clause 107)

We'll now go to clause 107, and I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Strahl, to address CPC-6.

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

This is an attempt to recognize the capacity. I know that some other amendments have been proposed that I think are trying to do the same thing, but we heard again and again about the different capacities that exist in the port authorities in this country, based on their size, the number of employees, their revenues, etc.

What this amendment attempts to do is to leave a kind of general direction, which states that:

For the purposes of this Part, the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the impact of the operation of a port by a port authority on the environment, including climate change, and the impact of climate change on the operation of a port.

It stops there and doesn't go into the prescriptive six individual things a port authority needs to do. It's less prescriptive and more general in nature. It allows for some flexibility on the part of the cabinet to direct ports on what they must do and what they must report when it comes to the environment and climate change.

It takes away the prescriptive nature and leaves it as more general, which I think will be more palatable for the smaller ports that don't have the capacity or are dealing with four or five employees. I think that trying to do all of this reporting would be very onerous for some of the smaller ports. Obviously, for the bigger ports, they're already doing this, in large part.

That was the attempt of the amendment: to make it less prescriptive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I just have a quick note, colleagues. If CPC-6 is adopted, NDP-10 cannot be moved, due to a line conflict. I want to help guide our discussions on that.

I have Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I'd like to hear from our witnesses on their thoughts on this clause.