Finance Committee on May 27th, 2019

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Once again, I think it is unfortunate that the fine recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security—which was given the mandate to conduct this study—are being rejected by colleagues on the government side.

This fourth amendment is once again following up on recommendations we received. It is about adding the obligation that, in his recommendation, the minister take into consideration “the importance of representation on the Management Advisory Board of persons who reflect the diversity of Canadian society, including women, Indigenous persons, persons with disabilities, members of visible minorities and persons who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or two-spirit.”

This is simply about ensuring that the Advisory Board reflects the diversity of Canadian society, which was a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. I hope once again to have my colleagues' support to honour the work done by our colleagues from the other committee who took the time to study this part of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Ms. Bendayan.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We completely agree with the intent of the proposed amendment. However, in amendment LIB-7 we will propose, we maintain that objective of reflecting the diversity of Canadian society, without, however, specifying what groups should be represented. We actually believe that adding that list may lead to groups that are not specifically mentioned feeling excluded and the impression being given that their point of view is not considered important. We think it is preferable to keep to the most broad objective of diversity, without naming specific groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on amendment NDP-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment LIB-7.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would encourage all members to review the language of this amendment and to support it. It reflects, as my colleague mentioned, a recommendation that was made to this committee to encourage diversity of representation on future iterations of the management advisory board, and it introduces as well the principle of merit into the selection of board members.

If we remain broad on the reference to diversity of Canadian society without an illustrative list, the changing nature of the country may also be considered in the selection and composition for future board members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion on that?

What you're saying is that this amendment accommodates some of the recommendations that came from the public safety committee.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right. Are there any questions to the officials?

Is there any further discussion on amendment LIB-7?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 222 as amended carry?

(Clause 222 as amended agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 223 to 225. Are we in agreement to carry clauses 223 to 225 on division?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

(Clauses 223 to 225 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 226)

We are on clause 226, in division 11. This is the Pilotage Act.

I think we have some new officials to come forward, but we thank you, Mr. Koops and Mr. Talbot, for being here.

The new officials are Mr. Stacey, Acting Director General for Pilotage Act review with Transport Canada, and Ms. Bédard, Director of Marine Pilotage Programs with Transport Canada.

Turning to clause 226, we have amendment CPC-6.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair, this one obviously came from one of my colleagues, and I'll share her rationale on it. She believes that it's in keeping with the spirit of the clause but strengthens it a bit and provides a little greater clarity in terms of the purposes and principles.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On CPC-6, there are a few concerns here. The proposed purpose and principles section in the bill has been drafted to provide a framework for the provision of pilotage services in a way that is balanced and allows for flexibility. The proposed text adds additional specificity that may have significant implications in general and particularly for the various provisions of the act that refer to the principles.

Most importantly, there's no analysis, or there doesn't seem to be an analysis that has been carried out here as to what these implications might be and what value they would have, if any at all. There's also been no consultation with other stakeholders about the implications of the proposed changes. Contrary to that, there has been plenty of consultation carried out by the government on such issues, and it's reflected in the BIA.

With respect to proposed section 2 of the Pilotage Act, the proposed wording removes reference to the role of the act in establishing a framework for the provision of pilotage services. As a result, it would remove the flexibility required to support the broader intent of the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Is there any further discussion on CPC-6? Keep in mind that officials are here if you have any points of clarification or questions about implications.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 226 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 227 to 237.

(Clauses 227 to 237 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 238).

Next we have CPC-7.

Go ahead, Blake.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

This rationale will also apply for CPC-8 and CPC-9 as well, so I'll share that with the committee now, and if there's any further discussion, I'll possibly contribute to it.

In terms of introducing the three amendments, all relate to these clauses that would see the full cost of administering the legislation transferred to the private sector, and a number of witnesses expressed concern that this would be inconsistent with the current policy and practice of the government. Obviously those amendments were designed to resolve those issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think my response would apply to CPC-7, CPC-8 and CPC-9, because the concern is that the situation would result in the taxpayer being responsible for subsidizing important aspects of provision for pilotage services that are currently being provided by users.

Under Canada's current system for the provision of pilotage services, the tariffs are set by pilotage authorities to recover expenses, provided they are related to pilotage services, including operational expenses for delivery of service as well as regulation-making and oversight.

Deleting lines 13 to 16 in clause 255 would provide Transport Canada—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're dealing with clause 238, though. Did you say clause 255?

Oh, you're dealing with CPC-9 at the same time. We've only got CPC-7 on the floor as yet, Michael.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

My response applies to CPC-8 and CPC-9.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead with the whole thing, then.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

The last point I was making was that deleting lines 13 to 16 in clause 255 would prevent Transport Canada from recovering any costs borne by the department for service it provides to the private sector under the Pilotage Act, such as costs for reviewing applications and issuing pilot licences and pilot certificates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll still have to vote on them one at a time, although both speakers went to amendment CPC-7—

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

You have a very puzzled look on your face, Mr. Stacey. Was that in response to what was being discussed right now? Is there anything you wanted to chime in on?

[Colin Stacey, Acting Director General, Pilotage Act Review, Department of Transport]

That was absolutely not the intention. I apologize if I gave that impression.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Fair enough, thanks.