Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Ms. Murray is next.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you.

While I share the view of others that nobody wants to see raw sewage go into waters, my recollection of this decision that was made by former Minister McKenna is that it was based on the least of the evils. The port of Montreal had a crisis with respect to its sewage systems. It needed to clear this material in order to do the repairs and have a functioning sewage system.

The concern I have about this amendment is very simple. Are there potentially times when the prohibition of the deposit of raw sewage would actually lead to a worse environmental outcome than if that prohibition was not in place?

The officials may have some answers to that.

[Sonya Read]

I don't have information respecting the sewage outfalls for municipalities and whether they fall into port authority waters in all instances or most instances. They may; I'm not sure. It depends on where the port authorities or CPAs are located. In some instances, I think they do. In other instances, I'm not sure.

In terms of the impact of the regulation overall, we would not be able to speak to that without a lot of additional analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Murray.

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to make this point. I wasn't going to, but I'm going to make it anyway. Ms. Murray mentioned the possibilities of challenges other than what had to happen in Montreal. The bottom line is that you have a choice: Either it's going to end up in everyone's basement or it's going to end up in the water, as was the case. They had a choice to make, based on the repairs they had to do and the time the repairs took. It's either going into your basement or it's going out. It's the lesser of the two evils. They're both unfortunate, but you have to pick the lesser of the two evils.

I wasn't going to support this because the regulations are in place already through ECCC and the DFO. The role that Transport Canada would otherwise play would be very minimal, if any. Then I started thinking about it a bit more. One of the things that we've tried to do with this government is take more of a whole-of-government approach versus working in silos, as has been the case in the past.

Mr. Strahl put an amendment forward that states that “regulations made under paragraph 1(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.” I want to concentrate on “regulations made under paragraph 1(b)”. The question that comes to mind is this: Besides the regulations that we have in place with both the DFO and the Department of the Environment, what would those be? What regulations more than what are already present should be put in place?

The second point that I want to make—and the point that's relevant to how I'm going to vote on this—is the point that those regulations, if any, that are outstanding to make the legislation better, in discussion between Transport Canada and the DFO and the Department of the Environment, are a positive move forward. We're going on 2024. If those regulations are a bit archaic and/or have to be updated, then I think it is productive that the ministries get together under a whole-of-government approach and deal with some issues that may still exist.

I do appreciate what Mr. Strahl is bringing forward: to find what that is. It's not necessarily through Transport Canada. It could be through the Department of the Environment. It could be through the DFO. I think, at the very least, the discussion should be had. Therefore, we will be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There may be some things I haven't yet grasped from the discussions we've had so far. You'll excuse me if this has already been mentioned.

I would like to understand the amendment proposed by the Conservatives.

Would it apply only to port activities? Would it also cover all municipalities that might, at some point, discharge water into an area covered by a port authority?

I would like more details to better understand the effect of the proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

With respect to the regulation-making power, because it doesn't prescribe or doesn't provide for who it would apply to and under what circumstances, we would have to develop that through the process of developing the regulation.

I'm not sure that the regulation, the way it's currently drafted, actually enables us to have that conversation, because it says “must prohibit”. My understanding is that because the regulation says “must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority”, it constrains the flexibility of the regulation-making process in terms of our ability to nuance the regulations with respect to different impacts and understanding the scope of the regulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Does the answer suit you, Mr Barsalou-Duval?

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

What I understand is that counsel does not know. I'll tell you, I'm even more confused than I was when I asked the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

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

Given what the witnesses have said, I'm willing to use language similar to what Mr. Bachrach used in his subamendment to BQ-5, which talked about the “Governor in Council may”, or whatever that language needs to be to allow for these regulations to be developed in a way that allows Transport Canada to undertake those consultations and develop the regulations in the appropriate way.

The goal was to bring forward the issue of raw sewage deposits in areas of port authority jurisdiction, so if the if the issue is at the front end of the amendment, where it talks about "must" instead of "may", I'm happy to.... I don't know if we can suspend and get that language from the legislative clerk to ensure that it meets that goal.

I'm not going to get stuck on that "must" versus "may" language. I'm happy to have someone else amend it. I guess that is what would have to happen. I'm happy to have that discussion to make sure that the regulations that we're talking about here are productive and give the flexibility to allow for those regulations to be developed in the normal way.

I take what Ms. Read has said, and I am willing to have someone else amend that so that it's more amenable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

There's no one else on the speaking list, so we'll go to a vote on this.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

I'd like to propose an amendment.

In proposed subsection (1.1), it says that regulations made under paragraph (1)(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage. Here, I would add the words “from port activities.” We would therefore be talking about the discharge of raw sewage from port activities into waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

That would be clearer. At the moment, it's hard to understand who would be targeted by this amendment. By mentioning it clearly, I think it would be easier for everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could you send your amendment to the clerk, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, so that it can be translated and distributed to all committee members?

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

I'll do it as quickly as possible, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

We will suspend and wait for Mr. Barsalou-Duval to submit that to the clerks. We'll make sure that it is translated into both official languages and distributed to all members of the committee.

The meeting is now suspended, and I think this is a great opportunity, colleagues, to use this as a bathroom break.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

All members should now have a copy of the subamendment proposed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Are there any questions, comments or concerns about the subamendment proposed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval?

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

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

Further to Mr. Badawey's point earlier, in limiting it in this way—“regulations made under paragraph 1(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage from port activities in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority”—we then open up a whole can of worms as to what “port activities” are. Is port activity vessels? Is it the administration building? It certainly would limit the ability to have a more wide-ranging discussion about preventing the deposit of raw sewage.

I think it is already limited by saying it is dealing with waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority. We might have an idea of another amendment that would give the Governor in Council more flexibility in developing the regulations. To limit it just to port activities without defining what those are could make it completely.... It wouldn't have any impact, and that's not what we want.

I appreciate what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is trying to do, but I think we are already limiting it to waters in the jurisdiction of a port authority.

We should maybe try to give more flexibility with other wording, but we can't have two subamendments on the same motion. I think that this subamendment is too limiting and won't allow us to do what we are trying to do with this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl. We'll now go to a vote on this subamendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

I just want to say that, in the context of Bill C‑33, which deals with the activities of port authorities, we believe that an amendment should not be passed that will, for example, prevent cities from carrying out activities that may be essential. This is despite the fact that we don't like cities discharging their wastewater into waterways and we consider that this is not the right place to do so.

We don't see what this has to do with port activities. I thought that limiting the requirement to wastewater from port activities would be more reasonable in the context of the bill that is currently being studied.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

We will now proceed to the vote.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk.

We will now go to the CPC amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Muys.