Transport Committee on Oct. 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room, and remotely using the Zoom application.

I want to inform all members of the committee that our witnesses appearing virtually have been sound tested for today's meeting and have all passed the test.

Colleagues, appearing before us this evening in person from the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, we have Daniel-Robert Gooch, president and chief executive officer. Welcome.

From the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, we have by video conference Ian Hamilton, president and chief executive officer. Welcome.

From Oceans North, we have by video conference Amy Nugent, associate director, marine climate action. Welcome.

We also have with us today Mr. Jacques Paquin, executive vice-president of the Trois-Rivières Port Authority. Welcome, Mr. Paquin.

I will now turn it over to Mr. Gooch for five minutes for opening remarks.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Port Authorities]

Thank you, and good evening.

Committee members, port authority colleagues, good evening.

Thank you for this opportunity to share our views on Bill C‑33. Canada's port authorities have long awaited modernization of the legislative framework they operate within, as it represents the single most important means of addressing Canada's impending and tremendous infrastructure gap. As announced last year in the final report of the National Supply Chain Task Force, this gap is expected to reach an estimated $110 billion over the next 50 years.

From a supply chain resilience perspective, Canada's ports must maintain existing infrastructure, support trade growth and be leaders in decarbonization of marine—already the most energy efficient means of moving goods.

Bill C-33 includes measures to allow for the development of inland ports. It creates the opportunities for ports to play more active roles in traffic management, and it clarifies that terminals situated within a port are works for the general advantage of Canada. These are all positives.

Bill C-33 also sends clear signals that the federal government prioritizes better engagement with communities and indigenous groups, with users, and a more active role in decarbonization.

Canada's port authorities are fully aligned with these priorities, but it will require significant infrastructure investment. This is where we have some concerns not only with Bill C-33, but also with Bill C-52, but that's for another day.

The sum of $110 billion in infrastructure at seaports over 50 years is a lot of money. Canada's port authorities have sought greater financial flexibility so that ports themselves would have the capacity to be nimbler in working with private investors and lenders in major infrastructure projects.

Ports are held back by strict borrowing limits, which is much lower than what private companies or even airport authorities of similar size can borrow, so projects are not funded at the needed level in a timely manner. Amending borrowing limits must be simpler, quicker and dynamic to changing conditions.

Unfortunately, it is not clear if the borrowing limit review process envisioned by Bill C-33 will be an improvement over the process in place today, which is time-consuming and lengthy. We're still seeking clarity on how this borrowing limit review will work and how it would be an improvement.

As members of the federal family, port authorities should be able to work much more closely with officials in Transport, Finance and Treasury Board, as appropriate, on things like this. It is our sincere hope that we will be brought into the room to help them develop this framework with the added insight of experienced port authority leaders. Literally billions of dollars are at stake, and we must get this right the first time.

We ask that this committee consider a motion as part of this review that port authority reps should be an integral part of the design of how borrowing limits would be reviewed if this bill passes.

Switching gears to governance, one area of grave concern to Canada's port authorities is the potential politicization of port authority boards through two clauses in the bill, both of which we would recommend that this committee remove. Comments from transport and from labour leaders on Monday reinforced our concerns on these proposed reforms.

Clause 104 of Bill C-33 changes the eligibility of port board directors to allow for active provincial or municipal employees to serve as directors. While the text does speak to barring those whose employment would result in a conflict of interest, we believe such a conflict would exist for virtually any active employee because of where their paycheques come from. While the risk could, in theory, be mitigated by strong guidelines on what constitutes a conflict, such guidelines would not have the force of law and could be changed or ignored by a future government. The only rationale we've been given for this amendment is that it would open eligibility for more candidates. That has never been a problem for our port authorities. Their biggest governance issue is having the qualified, user-recommended director candidates they put forward appointed in a timely manner.

Our biggest concern is with the ministerial designation of the port authority board chair in clause 105. We worked with the Institute on Governance to analyze the bill, and they found that this would be “significantly disempowering to the board given the strategic role of the chair as interlocutor with the CEO and the government”.

It must be remembered that the federal government created the Canada Marine Act and the Canadian port authorities back in the late 1990s for very good reasons: to make ports nimbler, financially self-sufficient and more responsive to user and community. These were worthy goals that the federal government at the time recognized it could not achieve when it was running the airports. Why would we want to undo that now?

We understand from the Minister of Transport's office that the government is willing to make two changes to the bill that we had requested: softening the prescriptiveness of advisory committee language so that it no longer requires three specific committees, and extending the deadline for quarterly reporting from 60 days to 90 days.

We appreciate the minister's willingness to make those changes, but we also recommend that clauses 104 and 105 of the bill be removed. They risk politicizing port authorities and undoing the gains government and ports achieved together since the Canada Marine Act was first put in place in 1998.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gooch.

Next, we will go to the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, and we'll turn the floor over to Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. Hamilton, you have five minutes.

[Ian Hamilton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority]

Thank you very much.

Good evening to the members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here both as the president and CEO of the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and as the incoming chair of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities. Many of my messages will be reconfirming the information you just heard from Daniel.

Canadian port authorities are unique entities within the federal family. Known as government business enterprises, we are self-sustaining for-profits with a mandate to reinvest our earnings and to operate in the public interest by enabling industry and trade.

On behalf of HOPA's team of 65 staff and on behalf of my colleagues across the country, we are very proud of the work the Canadian port authorities do and the positive impact we have on our communities, Canadian trade and the economy.

The ports modernization review was an effort to build on that success and to position ports for the future. We believe the policy intent was very well-intentioned, with goals that included optimizing supply chain and assets, fostering collaboration between supply chain actors, and enhancing governance and financial management.

We have Bill C-33 before us. Upon review, it does contain some improvements, but in many ways, Bill C-33 doesn't quite deliver on the laudable original intent.

First, here are the good things.

Bill C-33 includes measures to allow for the development of inland ports. This is important so that many ports whose supply chains are multimodal can extend into the industrial zones.

It also provides for ports to play a more active role in vessel traffic management. Our harbourmasters are experts at managing the safety, security and efficiency of harbour operations. These changes are very positive.

The bill does have some room for improvement.

We understand from our interactions with Transport Canada that there was an intent to enable ports to collaborate more closely in order to develop streamlined and efficient supply chains. This would be especially valuable in the Great Lakes context, where ports serve in a highly integrated economic region.

For example, HOPA is building an integrated port network on the Great Lakes. HOPA itself is only four years old, following the amalgamation of Hamilton and Oshawa, but we are already seeing the importance of an integrated approach as we can make smarter decisions about infrastructure investment within southern Ontario.

We don't believe that Bill C-33 actually offers any additional tools for collaborating with our port colleagues. That's a shame, because we think there are abundant reasons for us to do so.

We understand that there was a policy intent to ensure that ports were responsive to community and stakeholder interests, but the way that intent was interpreted in the bill was to establish a plethora of one-size-fits-all committees, diverting energy away from the myriad creative ways ports engage with their communities today.

We understand from Transport Canada that the government is looking at modifying the prescriptiveness of the advisory committees as well as quarterly financial reporting requirements, and we very much appreciate those initiatives.

However, our greatest concern is the bill's failure to modernize ports' financial framework. We understand that the intent of the ports modernization review was to ensure that the ports would have the optimal financial capacity to support the Canadian economy and facilitate trade.

Yet again, Bill C-33 does not actually address the fact that Canadian ports today are held back by strict borrowing limits, much lower than those of private companies or even airport authorities of a similar size. As a result, we are not able to realize the national critical infrastructure projects outlined in our business plans.

At this moment, HOPA itself has a proposal before Transport Canada to increase our borrowing limit to align with our capital plan. We are almost a year in, and at this point it is not clear when we'll ever get a reply or when the study will be completed.

Bill C-33 proposes to change the process, to initiate borrowing limit reviews on a three-year cycle, but there's no prescriptiveness around how long that process will take or what criteria it will use to determine those borrowing limits.

It should be easier as well to establish joint ventures and to enter into public-private partnerships and equity partnerships with investors, indigenous groups and others.

Following on Mr. Gooch's remarks, we disagree with the proposal in clause 105 to allow the minister to designate an authority's board chair. We believe there is no benefit to politicizing the chair selection process. Currently, the board chair is elected by the board members themselves, consistent with good governance practices.

Members of the committee, I've outlined some of the reactions to the bill, and you have received detailed submissions from ACPA and others about specific sections, so I'll close with some final, general comments.

As you are reviewing the bill, I would encourage you to remember that as self-funded government business enterprises and the stewards of working waterfronts in the communities where we live and work, port authorities are delivering great outcomes.

I would ask you to consider, for each of the bill's provisions, whether this helps port authorities do what they do best, facilitate trade and support Canadian industry while protecting the environment and the public good, or are we attempting to micromanage these highly diverse, locally grounded organizations?

If you want to help port authorities do more of what matters, I recommend focusing on the following: consider financial flexibility so port authorities can enter into new business relationships and make the necessary investments in national critical infrastructure; enable a market-driven borrowing framework; maintain our flexibility to operate with a business mindset and be responsive to our stakeholders—and please don't politicize our boards.

These are the things that will enable port authorities to continue delivering great results for Canada and Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton.

Next we'll turn it over to Ms. Nugent.

Ms. Nugent, the floor is yours. You have five minutes for your opening remarks.

[Amy Nugent, Associate Director, Marine Climate Action, Oceans North]

Thank you.

Good evening, members, and thanks for this opportunity.

My name is Amy Nugent. I'm the associate director for marine climate action with Oceans North.

Oceans North is a Canadian charitable organization and world-leading ENGO that supports marine conservation and climate action in partnership with indigenous communities and coastal communities.

I want to focus my comments today on those sections of Bill C-33 that amend the Canada Marine Act.

We would urge members to pass Bill C-33 this year. We recognize and agree with other comments that the amendments are not perfect but that they are important. With respect to climate change, we can't afford to delay.

We urge three further steps to support Bill C-33 during the course of this presentation.

One is to include the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act explicitly in subsection 43(1) of the Canada Marine Act.

The second is that the Government of Canada should enable ports to play a role up and and down the supply chain by including decarbonization as a key criterion of land use and capital planning.

Three is that the Government of Canada should develop competitiveness incentives for the maritime sector, those that are competitive with the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States and competitive with other Canadian sectors like the automotive sector and oil and gas.

This past summer, while many Canadian cities were blanketed in smoke, the International Maritime Organization, IMO, set new targets: a 10% clean-fuel standard and a 30% GHG reduction target by 2030. These are important signals that our industry will need to fully decarbonize by 2050. Canada's formal submission to the IMO in fact advocated for even more ambitious targets, but we do not see, and we need to see, this ambition reflected in domestic policies and supports.

We echo the comments this evening and otherwise made that ports cannot be expected to be policy or greenhouse gas emissions experts, but they do have a critical role to play. Ports across the country support some of the communities most exposed to climate risk, of course, and as a linchpin in our energy and economic supply chains, ports can also support the uptake of zero-emission fuels and new technologies.

In the “Green Shipping Corridors” report that Oceans North completed with several partners, including the Vancouver Maritime Centre for Climate, we found that each port—and this is no news to people here—has a very distinct energy context and market demands. It is not only worthwhile but it is a requirement of a zero-emission future that we provide flexible pathways on how ports get there.

In terms of Bill C-33's specific requirements for climate plans, both mitigation and adaptation, we are, as I have said, supportive. GHG reduction targets, climate adaptation plans and progress reporting on actions are all necessary. Under Bill C-33, these are stronger than existing green marine voluntary measures, but it is impractical and unnecessary to ask each of Canada's 17 port authorities to establish unique GHG targets and complementary actions. Targets are already established under Canadian law. We need to use these targets.

Transport Canada should create guidance materials and what it has committed to in terms of a marine climate action plan and do so quickly. Ports can both be required and supported to comply.

We also recommend that, under subsection 28(2) of the act, a third section be added to enable ports to engage in energy planning. Our previous two speakers have talked about the role of ports in decarbonization. Let's enable that energy planning with municipalities to ensure that these ports can meet the energy demand of and at ports as a priority.

In terms of capital investment, we also, like we've heard tonight, heard from port authorities that access to capital is a barrier to decarbonizing, and we support increased financial flexibility as well as other borrowing measures that port authorities like Hamilton-Oshawa have suggested here tonight.

Bill C-33 recognizes a role for the Canada Infrastructure Bank in terms of public financing and equity, but that could be, in practice, strengthened. Oceans North recommends, analogous to other sectors, that the Canada Infrastructure Bank establish a decarbonizing ports investment and infrastructure advisory group within the bank, which would have a mandate to assist with commercial contracts for major clean energy and infrastructure projects. As you know, the Canada Infrastructure Bank also leverages private capital.

Oceans North also recommends that the Government of Canada act aggressively—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Nugent, I apologize for cutting you off. I'm going to have to end it there to ensure we're able to get through all lines of questioning this evening. I believe we have a copy of your opening remarks on record. We'll make sure they're provided to all members.

[Amy Nugent]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

Finally this evening, we have Mr. Jacques Paquin, who has five minutes for his opening remarks.

[Jacques Paquin, Executive Vice-President, Trois-Rivières Port Authority]

Good evening everyone, and thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the Trois-Rivières Port Authority.

The Port of Trois-Rivières specializes in solid and liquid bulk and general cargo. Strategically located midway between Montreal and Quebec City on the St. Lawrence River, it serves the needs of many key sectors of the Canadian economy, including manufacturing, agri-food, mining and energy.

We were eager to learn about Bill C-33 when it was tabled. Although the Canada Marine Act, 1998, has created a solid network of Canadian port authorities, improvements are needed to ensure that they can keep pace with new economic, social and environmental realities. In this sense, we applaud this step taken by the government.

However, we must respectfully draw your attention to the fact that the proposed overhaul would not make it possible to achieve this objective. It would also not create the conditions necessary to better equip the Port of Trois-Rivières for current and future challenges. On the contrary, Bill C-33 and its extension, Bill C‑52, restrict the Trois-Rivières Port Authority's ability to fulfil the mission entrusted to it by the Canada Marine Act.

These bills increase the burden of accountability, resulting in substantial costs, particularly for medium-sized ports. Bill C‑33 imposes a model for consultation, but each port must have the latitude to adopt consultation mechanisms adapted to its unique environment and organization. The bill introduces changes to the appointment of board members that will weaken the governance of the Port of Trois-Rivières. The Canada Marine Act is based on the user pay principle, yet these bills will erode our ability to apply this principle. The presentations by my colleagues Ian Hamilton and Daniel-Robert Gooch speak volumes about the shortcomings of these bills.

For my part, I will be focusing on how important it is for the ports to work more closely together. Although this is a clearly stated government objective, there are absolutely no measures in Bill C‑33 to encourage these closer ties. And yet, increasing Canada's competitiveness does require greater co‑operation between ports, particularly for the St. Lawrence ports that depend on the river to reach overseas markets. None of the St. Lawrence ports alone can ensure the competitiveness of this crucial transportation axis for the Canadian economy. They are interdependent.

For Canada, the adoption of a new governance model based on collaboration would make it possible to improve administrative and operational efficiency for the benefit of all port customers. Concerted strategic planning would enhance what the port network could offer, optimize infrastructure, and expand the range of services, resulting in better positioning in both markets and supply chains. It would also make investment projects more attractive and less risky for lenders. This co‑operation could even extend to infrastructure operation and joint business development. Such an approach is fully aligned with the federal concept of trade corridors. The Government of Canada must create the right conditions for such a rapprochement, by providing clear mechanisms in the law.

Dear committee members, the Port of Trois-Rivières has been firmly rooted in its community for 141 years. The port authority's mission is to ensure that the objectives of the Canada Marine Act are met through sound management of the public infrastructure under its responsibility, while promoting commercial activity and regional and national development. If there's one thing we agree on, it's that the Canada Marine Act is in need of significant updating. Unfortunately, we feel that the proposed changes do not provide the leverage we need to accomplish our mission in line with the new reality in which we are evolving.

In creating the Canadian port authorities, the government gave itself autonomous management structures to administer its strategic ports. The Canadian port authorities are expected to operate these facilities for the benefit of the Canadian economy, to the highest environmental standards, and to be financially self-sufficient. This is what the board and management of the Port of Trois-Rivières strive to achieve every day. The last thing we need is a framework that will hinder our efforts rather than support them.

In closing, I want you to know that we share the government's objectives for modernizing the Canada Marine Act, and remain openly willing to collaborate on improving Bill C‑33.

Thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Paquin.

We will begin tonight's line of questioning with Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, I'll turn the floor over to you. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses, many of whom are finding out about our late committee slot here. It's good to see you participating late into the evening. We appreciate it.

Certainly, my takeaway from the testimony that we've heard so far this evening is that the government actually did a pretty poor job of consulting with the most affected individuals and organizations when they were developing this legislation. It was billed as a great panacea to supply chain problems. It was going to revolutionize the way the ports operated. What we're hearing, and what we've heard from every witness so far, is that this misses the mark. We heard that, in fact, this will make things more difficult and more politicized instead of streamlining and making our ports more effective and efficient.

I want to start with Mr. Gooch.

I was interested to hear both you and Mr. Hamilton indicate that the Minister of Transport and his office have already indicated to you.... He has yet to appear to talk to parliamentarians about Bill C-33, but we are hearing from witness testimony here today that they're already willing to make amendments to the bill. I assume they're responding to port authority concerns about the prescriptive nature of.... I think you mentioned it. Can you go a little further into that?

This is the first I'm hearing about it, that the Minister of Transport and his officials.... We had officials. They didn't make this known to our committee at the last meeting either.

Could you further enlighten us on what these changes are that the minister's office has indicated they're willing to make? Quite frankly, it's news to me and members of this committee.

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I hope I didn't get anybody in trouble. I actually think that I heard Serge Bijimine allude to one of the changes the other day.

There were some issues that we had identified. We drafted a letter to Minister Alghabra back in the fall and followed up with a memo in June with some additional info.

On the requirement that there be three specific advisory committees, we indicated that we're in agreement with the spirit of what you're trying to accomplish there, but in some communities there may be one indigenous group, for example. Does it make sense to have a committee of one person, when maybe a blended committee might make sense in that community? We understand that the intent was never to be that prescriptive. There is a willingness to ensure that the language fits with the spirit of what was intended.

The other one was on the quarterly financial reporting requirements. It was originally saying 60 days after the end of the quarter. We provided a timeline that showed how ports would have to go about publishing quarterly financial reports if they were to be made public, as this bill contemplates. It would be unrealistic within 60 days. There was a willingness expressed to put that at 90 days instead of 60 days.

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

Thank you.

I note there are 17 CPAs across the country. It appears to me that this legislation was designed with the port of Vancouver in mind, for instance. It's for large ports with perhaps a large amount of capital and resources and huge staffs.

Can you talk about the feedback you received from your member port authorities? Was there a concern that this was a one-size-fits-all approach, as opposed to taking into account the individual characteristics and nature of the different port authorities, the different sizes and capacities?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Certainly, that was one of the things we definitely heard from different ports, particularly the smaller ports, when it came to some of the reporting requirements. There is a concern there that it is a heavy burden.

I have to add on that official language requirements, which have also been tightened, add to everything. All of the reporting that has to be done now will have to be done in both official languages, which can be time consuming and expensive.

We do understand that, for example, the reporting requirements are meant to inform a streamlined borrowing process. That's what we've been told. We don't really understand exactly how that will work. That's why we want to understand that a bit better, to see if it might help in terms of the streamlined financial reporting. One thing we've said, for example, is a lot of data is already being reported by a lot of ports. We want to make sure that if something's already being provided, then we're not having to do things twice.

I think those are things that we're really looking to be able to work out with Transport behind closed doors in a collaborative session, when we actually get to design how the borrowing process will work, the financial reporting requirements, etc.

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

I thought it was interesting, regarding clause 105, when you mentioned that the report you had done said that the minister appointing the chair would be “significantly disempowering to the board”. That's certainly what we've heard and what we've been raising the alarm on.

Are you aware of a single case where the chair of the board of any of the port authorities has impeded the strategic capability or direction of the government?

We've been told that this is a requirement because the board must be in line with the strategic direction of the government. Are you aware of any cases when a chair has been intransigent and should be, essentially, replaced by the minister?

Why is the minister looking for this power? Is this a solution in search of a problem?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, Mr. Strahl, we will have to wait for a response in the next round that you or one of your colleagues has.

Next, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Gooch, from the standpoint of supply chain optimization, do you think the measures included in Bill C‑33 promote greater efficiency?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

Serge Bijimine used an expression the other day that this is a bit of a “down payment” on future measures. I'd say the answer to that is that depends.

From a ports perspective, one of the biggest priorities, because it's infrastructure, is whether or not ports have the means to make the investments needed on the infrastructure side going forward to be able to play that role in the efficient transport of goods.

There's a lot in there, as we mentioned earlier, that is positive. The vessel traffic management is something that several of our ports are really looking to get so they can make the movement of vessels in their region a little more efficient.

I'd say there's some good stuff in there, but in terms of the financial flexibility for ports to make the investments they need, that's the one where we have major question marks.

Then, of course, with the governance changes that are proposed, when we take a look at the collective impact, we do wonder how that will effect the actual efficiency of board discussions and what the dynamic of the board and management would be in a future scenario.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You noted that smaller ports need flexibility in the legislation. What flexibility do you think these ports could benefit from most?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

The concern for the smaller ports really was in the heavy reporting that's associated with the bill. It'll be a question mark on whether this will be a lot of new work that's required or if it's a repackaging of material that's already being provided.

One of our larger ports actually said they'd have to hire a couple of full-time people. This was going to cost them a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. It's not necessarily a big deal for this particular port, but some of our ports have five, six or seven employees. They are that small. Others have maybe 10 or 15. That's the level of concern they have in terms of the unknown around workload.

Again, that's why we want to be part of that discussion when Transport Canada works with other officials within government, in Finance, Treasury Board and elsewhere, to finalize this through regulation, policies and guidelines. Ports are part of the federal family, but we often find our members are down at the kids' table down the hall when some of the more important discussions that they should be at are being held.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

What are the current issues with the borrowing limit process? How long does it typically take for a port to access a borrowing limit?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

I'll make a general comment, and then I would like our members to weigh in on this, because they have more practical experience.

My understanding is that in some cases it takes years. It's a process that's informed by an accounting firm that is doing an analysis of what the borrowing limits should be, yet it still goes through Transport Canada. It's a very cumbersome approach. The case is looked at in terms of existing revenues and not necessarily revenues that might be provided by the project.

The way it works now is quite a cumbersome process. My understanding is that they sometimes lose private partners because it takes months or years for the limit to be reviewed and there are other opportunities in other parts of the world where investors can go.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

We've heard in the past about the importance of labour representation at ports.

What do you think of this? Do you think this is something we should explore further? Why or why not?

[Daniel-Robert Gooch]

As I said in my notes, our colleagues in labour who appeared the other day really heightened our concerns about the governance aspects of Bill C-33. In response to questions on Monday, Mr. Ashton made it clear that he's not looking for labour expertise and input on the boards or the view of individuals with experience in labour, because that's already built in the process today. Indeed, it happens, and if the minister wants that type of perspective on boards, all he has to do is go out and say that he wants this perspective on boards. He appoints the majority of the directors.

What Mr. Ashton said is that he's looking for active union representatives to be appointed to the board. I think that suggests there's a lot of confusion about what the role of directors is on boards. It's not to run the port. It's not to interfere with the running of the port. It's not to serve a personal or professional agenda. They owe a fiduciary responsibility to the corporation itself.

It's clear there's confusion around the role of a director on a board, which is the other reason we have a real concern about active provincial or municipal employees being appointed to boards as well. We're concerned that they would also have that confusion around what their role is.