Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn it over to the clerk for the vote on whether or not to sustain the ruling of the chair.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)

We will now vote on clause 23, colleagues.

(Clause 23 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We now have clauses 24 to 54 and no submitted amendments. I'll ask for unanimous consent to group them all into one. Do we have unanimous consent?

I see no objection. We'll go to a recorded vote on clauses 24 to 54 inclusive.

(Clauses 24 to 54 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 55)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We're now moving on to clause 55 and amendment BQ‑2.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The original article that is the subject of this amendment reads as follows:

The Minister may make an interim order that contains any provision that may be contained in a regulation made under this Act, if the Minister believes that immediate action is required to deal with a threat or to reduce a direct or indirect risk to the security of marine transportation or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system.

The amendment's purpose is essentially to remove the word “believes”.

We therefore move that Bill C‑33, in clause 55, be amended (a) by replacing line 4 on page 38 with the following:

tion made under this Act, if im-

We think that the fact that the minister only needs to believe there is a threat or risk gives him significant power. He could therefore act simply on a belief, which he would not necessarily be required to prove.

We'd like to further circumscribe that power. There will be other similar amendments a little later today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess the only comments I can make are that this bill was in fact created on the basis that the reasonableness standard will be used in all these determinations.

The second point is that the reasonableness standard is what has generally been used in Canada's judicial system.

My last point is that correctness would mean the minister would essentially have no jurisdiction to exercise the power, given that the threshold would be too high, making it in fact, Mr. Chairman, unusable. Therefore, I can't support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

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

I presume there are officials present who could perhaps tell us more. We could get into a partisan debate as to our own interpretation versus the interpretation that members across the aisle may have.

If we had more clarity from officials on the impact this amendment might have, it might inform the vote of other committee members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Perhaps I'll turn it over to you, Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

The minister's power is set out here for the minister to believe that the “immediate action is required”. It's standard language for an order power found in several different pieces of legislation in which the Minister of Transport has powers to take action.

With respect to the standard of reasonableness or correctness, it's correct to say that these are generally reviewed by judiciary on the standard of reasonableness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Heft.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That is the clarification I really want to emphasize: It's the reasonableness versus the correctness. I think that was just clarified by the member of the team, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

I'm just wondering whether our officials could expand on the difference between “reasonableness” and “correctness” for those of us who are less familiar with the concepts in a legal sense.

Does one imply a higher standard?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Heft, I'll turn it back over to you.

[Rachel Heft]

Upon judicial review in which the standard of correctness is used, the reviewing court must be of the opinion that it was absolutely the correct decision and that there were no other potentially reasonable decisions that could have been made. It is the exact same decision that a court would have made in the same situation.

Generally, the standard of reasonableness, in a situation in which a decision is made based on all of the facts, is whether the information available to the minister would have allowed for this decision to be considered reasonable in the given situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Are there any other questions or comments before we go to a vote on BQ-2, colleagues?

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

(Clause 55 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Colleagues, there are no amendments submitted for clauses 56 to 60, so I'll ask for unanimous consent to group them all into one vote. Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

(Clauses 56 to 60 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 61)

I will now turn it over to Mr. Bachrach for NDP-2 on clause 61.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This section relates to circumstances in which the minister may direct vessels if the minister feels those vessels pose a risk. It expands the definition of what risks may be considered.

The amended text would read:

If the Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that a vessel is a threat, or poses a direct or indirect risk to the environment, the well-being of coastal communities, the security of marine transportation, including to any person, goods, vessel or marine facility or to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system, the Minister may direct the vessel

This introduces environmental concerns and the well-being of coastal communities to the list of reasons the minister may direct a vessel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll ask for the committee's indulgence as I confer with the clerk. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I apologize, colleagues. We're going to suspend for two minutes, because there are additional discussions that are required for this amendment proposed by Mr. Bachrach, NDP-2.

Thank you. We'll suspend for two minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll call this meeting back to order.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, and thanks to all members for your patience on this.

We'll now go to comments or questions on NDP‑2.

Yes, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It seems that I'm saying this more times than I usually do, but I support the intent of what the member has brought forward. However, I just don't think it's in the right act.

I'm sure it can be declared inadmissible, but again, we agree with the intent of the NDP, and for this reason we're willing to hear the debate and to go from there. I'd like to hear a bit more from Mr. Bachrach.

I know there are a few amendments throughout this bill that they're making within the transportation security act that don't deal necessarily with environmental issues at all, but there is an argument to be made that environmental issues can be the security of people as well.

I think a lot of the members from British Columbia, as well as our colleague here, Ms. May, would agree that both could be correlated.

I'd like to hear some more on this, Mr. Chairman, and I would support that it actually go to a vote.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.

I see Mr. Strahl's hand is up, and then perhaps I'll turn it over to Mr. Bachrach, or even the officials, to comment on this.

Mr. Strahl.

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

I think the intent is clear. I have a concern, though.

I would be interested to hear whether the well-being of a community has ever been defined in legislation. I think it could mean just about anything. Essentially, when you use the broad terms “to the environment” and “the well-being of coastal communities”, that could be in the eye of many individuals in that coastal community. With some work in the transportation sector and the supply chain, when they see a ship in the region, perhaps they think of economic activity in the jobs they have.

I think it's an incredibly broad term, and what you would end up doing.... Perhaps, for a minister, the intent is a good one, but I think we have an obligation to draft legislation that cannot be abused. When you have broad terms that are ill-defined, I think you risk that abuse.

I have concerns with how incredibly broad this is and how a future government, or even this government, could use that legislation to completely shut down economic activity in the region, with no other option for ships. There are no new anchorages, for instance, so the ships would be just circling around and burning fuel and harming the environment somewhere else.

I think this is much too broad and gives much too much power to the minister to regulate in this case.