Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Once again, I have a ruling.

Bill C‑33 amends several acts, including the Canada Marine Act. The purpose of the amendment is to amend section 8 of that act, which deals with the content of the letters patent creating a port authority. The amendment seeks to add to those letters patent the manners in which port authorities may organize to carry on their activities jointly with other port authorities through another entity. Port activities are governed by subsection 28(2) of the Canada Marine Act.

The third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, at page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion, for the reasons stated earlier, that the creation of mechanisms for port authorities to associate is a new concept that goes beyond the scope of the bill as passed by the House at second reading.

I therefore declare this amendment to be out of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I completely disagree with you on that, and I am going to explain why.

First, what is not defined in proposed amendment BQ‑3.2 is defined in proposed amendment BQ‑4.1. It is definitely not defined, because it will be defined in another amendment.

Second, you say it goes beyond the scope of the bill. If that is the case, it is a serious problem.

The fact is that when the government introduced its bill publicly, the only article that was published in the entire Quebec press was entitled “Un projet de loi pour resserrer la collaboration entre les ports”—A bill to provide for closer collaboration among ports. However, this bill contains absolutely nothing that allows collaboration among ports, despite the fact that the minister said that was the case.

We are proposing something that is entirely consistent with what the minister said. I absolutely do not see why what we are presenting here today would not be in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

You can always challenge the decision of the chair.

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

I think it is clear that I am challenging your decision.

[The Clerk]

The question is therefore as follows:

That the decision of the chair be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The ruling of the chair is overturned.

We will now go to a debate on BQ-3.2.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was actually smirking when that vote was happening, because it's sort of bittersweet. I appreciate the passion and the dedication of Mr. Barsalou-Duval on this issue, because this is the whole reason we've taken on many studies in the past: to integrate our supply chains, looking at the overall need—as we spoke about, Mr. Chairman, earlier today—to ultimately establish a national transportation strategy. I know exactly what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is going after here, and I appreciate it, because it is the right direction to take.

However, it doesn't fit into this act or this bill. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the ruling you made, and I agree with it. Although it was overturned, I agree with it. The bittersweet part is that....

I appreciate the direction you're taking, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, in attempting to have that integration and that dialogue and to have those ports working together to accomplish the integration of supply chains. By the way, that's not just domestically, with ports in Canada, but also binationally, with ports in the United States.

I appreciate where you're going, although it's not part of the bill, hence the reason for the chair's decision. However, here we are, having it on the table to discuss. Again, I'm not sure how we're going to move forward with it in this bill. Therefore, if it does pass, I'm not sure how we're going to shoehorn it in there, so I guess I would ask the clerk for that guidance.

I do very well appreciate the intent of the direction that Mr. Barsalou-Duval has taken, though.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be sure I understand the situation. I am being told that it would exceed the scope of this bill, but how could that be the case when the former minister said, when he introduced it, that this was precisely the purpose of the bill? The present minister or the officials could explain it.

This bill was introduced in the press, everywhere in Quebec, saying that it was going to allow ports to work together better. So the amendment we are proposing here would allow the ports to work together better.

It could not be more consistent with what was said publicly by the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there other questions or comments?

Seeing none, we will go to a vote on BQ-3.2.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 101 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(On clause 102)

CPC-3 can no longer be moved, because CPC-2 failed, so we'll go to NDP-9.

For that, I'll turn it back over to my colleague Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is a companion piece to NDP-8, and it will sound very similar. The reference number is 12721750. It moves that Bill C-33, in clause 102, be amended by adding after line 18 on page 68 the following:

(1.1) Paragraph 14(1)(d) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(d) the Governor in Council appoints the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent, including one individual nominated by the Minister in consultation with the labour groups selected by the Minister or with those mentioned in the letters patent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We will now go to CPC-4. For that, I will turn it over to Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This addresses the issue of board vacancies. We have heard from many court users and people in the supply chain who are very frustrated with delays in appointing board members in a timely manner when there are vacancies.

This would give the minister six months to fill a vacancy on the board. After that time, the board would be able to make an appointment on its own. This is an attempt to encourage the minister to fill board positions in a timely fashion and to provide a remedy for when he or she fails to do so.

That is the purpose behind this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to go back to my other comments about the representation, that they would be expected to otherwise look after the best interests of the area they're representing. The government, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, has a transparent process. That transparent process ensures the proper consultation with the user groups, as well as ensuring that those who have interests within that area have the opportunity to vet all candidates.

With that, and with respect to the interests of those jurisdictions, time is needed. Therefore, with the amendments that are being proposed by the Conservatives, we'll be voting against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval and Mr. Bachrach, followed by Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand the intention behind the amendment proposed by my Conservative colleagues, and I am very sympathetic. However, I have a reservation.

I understand that no one wants there to be an incomplete board of directors or that there be positions vacant for more than six months. I also understand that giving the power to the ports would enable them to put a degree of pressure on the minister, since the cabinet would say that the minister should hurry up and appoint someone or else the port would appoint someone itself after a few months. However, six months after someone departs seems a little short to me, if we take into account the time needed for consulting people and for receiving and analyzing applications.

I might propose a subamendment to set a 12‑month deadline, which would be more reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Is there a formal subamendment?

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

We can discuss it, to see whether people prefer a ten‑month or eight‑month deadline. However, six months is too short.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Right.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thinking is similar to my colleague's. I like the idea of putting some parameters around the timeline. It's something we heard from port authorities in terms of frustration around the long delays in appointing board members.

To be frank, I'm not that familiar with what's involved in the current selection process. I'm wondering if our witnesses who are more familiar with it could lay out what the different steps are. How much time do those typically take? What currently is the average time to approval from a position becoming vacant to having someone in that seat? We've heard that it can be years.

I'm curious about the parameters, and I'm just worried. Six months seems short to me. Is a year reasonable? I don't have much to base it on, so I'm wondering if they could provide some guidance on what has to take place within that time period and what the current time period is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I will look over at our witnesses to see whose light goes on.

Ms. Read, I'll turn it over to you.

[Sonya Read]

For federal directors, candidates apply to a selection process via the Privy Council website. A selection committee then undertakes evaluations for the minister's consideration, and the minister then recommends a candidate for a Governor in Council appointment. The recruitment for user directors is managed slightly differently. It's managed by each Canada port authority through their user nominating committee. Often they will do a similar recruitment process, but it may vary. The committee then identifies candidates for the minister's consideration and makes recommendations to the minister. Then the minister recommends candidates to the Governor in Council for appointment.

We would note that in addition to this, federal candidates all have to go through security clearances as well as the interview process before the recommendation is made to the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council makes the appointment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I want to turn it over to Mr. Strahl first, because he's been very patient.

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

There was another part to that question, though.