Transport Committee on Nov. 1st, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, many people noted that there didn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm for the bill that your predecessor tabled in Parliament.

Could you name a witness who was heard in committee and who supported the bill?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I wasn't here during your proceedings, but I can say that many people like some parts of the bill and don't like others. The other evening, I spoke with people from the Association maritime du Québec—

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

Yes, I understand, but, generally speaking, the committee hasn't seen any enthusiasm for Bill C‑33. No one told us they absolutely wanted this bill to be passed.

Now I'd like to discuss another important point: the right to strike.

Some labour people told us that they thought their right to strike might be threatened by certain provisions in the bill that seem to give the minister significant power and broad authority over port management, including the making of interim orders.

Mr. Bijimine said in previous testimony before the committee that he would be open to requesting a legal opinion on the matter. Has that been done? Can we assure people that the bill presents no potential threat to the right to strike?

[Serge Bijimine, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Department of Transport]

It has been done, and there's no threat.

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

Thank you, that's much appreciated. A very effective answer too.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Yes, it's an excellent answer. I agree with him, but, on that subject, I'd just like to say—

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

Actually I had another question. I'll ask it and then let you answer both questions.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I can answer a question as you ask it, you know.

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

Oh, oh! That's harder if we both speak at the same time.

My next question concerns the distinction between small and large ports. Under this bill, ports would have to submit quarterly financial statements and establish advisory committees to discuss municipalities, citizens and Indigenous groups. I have to say that, in many respects, people felt there wasn't enough dialogue with the ports, so those provisions of the bill would perhaps promote discussion, in addition to improving transparency.

However, the Port of Montreal and the Port of Vancouver don't have the same resources as the Port of Saguenay, which has approximately 14 employees. Some witnesses came and told the committee that implementing what's required in the bill would force them to hire two persons and would cost them $200,000.

Wouldn't it be smarter to draw a distinction between the large ports, which have the necessary funding and resources to make the required changes regarding organization and the sharing of information, and the smallest ports, which have fewer resources? Wouldn't it make more sense to lower requirements for the smallest ports, or perhaps to exempt them, wholly or partially, from those new provisions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Minister, unfortunately, no time is left for an answer. That's too bad.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, I will turn the floor over to you for two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Very briefly, Minister, how does the three-year rolling review of port borrowing address the concerns that ports have brought forward with regard to borrowing limits?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I have been following that, because that's a very important discussion and I know it has been raised a few times. I understand also that ports can sometimes be frustrated by the current process. Sometimes it takes time, and speed is very important. They say, “I need this, and I need this, and I have to invest” and then getting a loan takes a while. But the fact that you have those meetings every three years—so 17 ports every three years means five or six ports a year—and have to gather that information and report every three months—and they're not audited, by the way—allows us and the banks to have more information more regularly, so that accelerates subsequent decisions when a loan is required.

By the way, there can be loans in successive years too. You don't have to wait to go to the—

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

Fair enough, Minister.

I asked because I'm legitimately curious. The ports came and all of them told us that they don't understand how this makes things any better, so either you're not talking to each other or they communicated to you what they wanted, and you went and did something different, and now they are not happy about it.

I will leave it at that.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Well, that's your opinion.

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

Fair enough. It's just what I observe at the committee table. We have witnesses come. They tell us things. You tell us things. We compare the two and try to make sense of them.

I want to bring up anchorages, which Ms. Murray brought up earlier. If I understand your response, you said, well, this addresses that because it's going to make the flow of traffic smoother at the ports.

When I talk to communities, when I talk to concerned residents, that's not good enough for them. What they are looking for are legislated protections that will protect sensitive marine areas and protect the quality of life in their rural communities.

Would you be open to those kinds of amendments? I guess what I'm trying to say here is that we're looking for a reason to support this bill, and right now we don't see very many, because all the people coming to committee say that it's not worth the paper it's written on.

Are you willing to consider amendments that would strengthen legislative protections for communities affected by anchorages?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could we have a 15-second response, please?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm always open. Hey, those who know me—and I have been a minister for a while—know I'm always open to amendments if they make sense and we're able to put them in and do them.

We have the same objective. I think what we're putting in place will help us with this anchorage and help us in terms of the environment also, which is super important, so we have the same objective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Next we will go to Mr. Strahl once again.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, can you give us a single concrete example of where the chair of a port board authority did what you have said now multiple times—just whatever they wanted?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Well, it could happen, Mr. Strahl.

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

It could happen, but you are proposing a solution in search of a problem, Mr. Minister, if you can't give me a single example of how a port chair being appointed by the government but then elected by its membership is a problem.

Again, I have to come back to this, because we heard again and again from all sectors that are impacted that this would bring about the politicization of the port authority board, which is supposed to operate at arm's length from government.

Are you really telling this committee that you're prepared to upend that neutrality and insert yourself into that based on something that has not happened but that one day could?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

No. Our government would never do that, Mr. Strahl, and you know that very well. Maybe you have different intentions, but we would never do that.

With that being said, ports have to work in the public interest. That's fundamental. I've been trying to say this since the beginning, because we always see ports as only an economic driver, but they're also members of our community. They have obligations. They have to respect what's going on around them. It's important that there's this kind of accountability.

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

What you're creating, though, is an obligation to the government—not to the port community, not to the economy, not to port users and not to the supply chain. You're saying, “You report to me and I will tell you how to run your board.” I think it's absolutely incredible that you cannot point to a single example of why you would completely upend the way that port boards operate.

I want to turn to another—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Well, the chair doesn't work in a silo, but works with his own board. They have their obligations—