Transport Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee meets to resume the clause-by-clause consideration on 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 Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

To help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would like to welcome back our witnesses.

We have, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director of ports policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Of course, we have with us today our legislative clerks, Jean-François Pagé and Philippe Méla, who I'd like to point out to our committee members celebrate 23 years in the House of Commons in service to Canadians today.

Before we begin, I see a hand up, and I think you're going to be referencing the sound we're hearing. I'm going to turn it over to the clerk to see if we can rectify the situation, because we're getting simultaneous translation on the speakers in the room we are in.

Colleagues, I apologize for this, but we're going to have to suspend for a couple of minutes, until we rectify the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I will turn the floor over now to Dr. Lewis to speak to amendment CPC-4.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we continue with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would like to take this moment to move a motion that was put on notice on Friday, November 24. The motion is as follows:

Given that, after almost seven years, the Canada Infrastructure Bank:

(a) has made significant investment announcements and commitments that have either been cancelled or failed, including the $1.7-billion Lake Erie connector project, the $20-million Mapleton water and wastewater project and four previously announced investments that have been cancelled in 2022-23 alone;

(b) has made investment decisions that call into question its ability to make sound and responsible investments with taxpayer dollars in projects that benefit the public good, including most recently the multi-million dollar deal for a private equity firm owner of a top luxury hotel;

the committee recognize that it has lost confidence in the Canada Infrastructure Bank to make investment decisions that serve the best interests of Canadians and meet the urgent infrastructure needs of Canadian communities.

Mr. Chair, I'm raising this motion at this moment, because we know that, at a time when carbon taxes are high and runaway deficit spending and inflation are forcing Canadians to attend food banks at rates we've never seen before, this government needs to be held accountable for the policies and how they are contributing to the pain Canadians are feeling. Future generations of Canadians are being saddled with billions of dollars in debt instead of being better off. They're being left with aging, deteriorating infrastructure.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank has clearly failed to make sound investment decisions for the best interests of Canadians, and it has failed by issuing billion-dollar projects, including $655 million promised to a multi-billion dollar company, Fortis, for an electricity project that ironically failed because of inflation projections caused by the Liberal government.

This out-of-touch bank thought it was appropriate also, during a housing crisis, to lend $46.5 million to one of Canada's most expensive hotels, so that it could retrofit its $500-a-night rooms. This is all in the context of a bank that has had seven years to get off the ground but has failed to build infrastructure for communities; this infrastructure is well needed now in order to fuel our economy.

That is why I am requesting the support of this committee to report this opinion to the House, which makes clear that we have lost confidence in the ability of this bank to make investments in the best interests of Canadians at this critical time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lewis.

Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

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

I think that talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and our lack of confidence in it is important, as we see that there are other transport-related files that are impacted by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We're in the middle of a study that we'll get back to soon on high-frequency rail, which includes a huge role for the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

I think, given their failure to operate at this time.... Ms. Lewis listed several failures, and we've talked previously about their spending more on administration than they are on infrastructure. We will continue to bring the case before the committee that we need to express our grave concern and lack of confidence in the Canada Infrastructure Bank until such time as the government takes notice.

Our report called for the Infrastructure Bank to be abolished. That was ignored. We will continue to point out the issues with the Infrastructure Bank, because it has a real impact on Canada's ability to produce the infrastructure it needs in a responsible manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we will go to a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 102)

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

We will now go back to CPC-4. For that, I will turn the floor over to you, Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's good to be here with you all today.

As you'll recall, we were in the middle of a discussion about giving the board the power to make appointments in a case in which the minister has failed to make an appointment in a timely manner. The discussion was whether six months was enough time, or if that amount should be extended to another period, such as 12 months.

Obviously, I can't make that amendment to my own amendment, but certainly the principle that I want to see included here is to compel the minister to make appointments in a timely way and to have a consequence, which still allows the boards to operate but to do so by making appointments. This would only be for those particular appointments that fall to the minister's authority, not for municipal appointments or other levels of government appointments. It specifically addresses just those that the minister makes.

If the ball is entirely in the minister's court and he or she fails to make that appointment in a timely fashion, I think it's good to have this backstop so that boards don't go with vacancies, which we've seen far too often in the last eight years.

If anyone else would be willing to amend that to be a 12-month period, I would be very amenable to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Go ahead, Mr. Muys.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Pursuant to that and following up on our conversation from late Wednesday evening, in which there seemed to be a consensus developing around the 12-month mark, I propose that as a subamendment, and hopefully a friendly one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

We'll go to a discussion on the subamendment, and I'll turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. bercrombie-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to mention that if Mr. Muys had not proposed a subamendment like this, I would have done it myself. At the beginning of the discussion, we were talking about a six-month period, but now we're talking about a 12‑month period. An amendment had been moved to that effect.

The committee members will understand, of course, that since I agree that a subamendment like this should be introduced, I will vote in favour of the subamendment to extend the period from six to 12 months.

I think 12 months is reasonable. If the government is unable to fill a vacant position in less than a year, that is excessive, especially given the strategic importance of infrastructure such as port authorities. So I feel very much at ease.

Having such rules in place, I imagine that the government will do everything in its power to ensure that the positions are filled within 12 months.

I don't think the government should see this as a threat. Ultimately, if something were to happen and there was only one position the port authority could co‑opt, that would simply enable the port authority to operate, which is what everyone wants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, you now have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to recall where we left off in the conversation on this.

I do find the idea to be a compelling one, because I think it's a clever way to encourage the government to speed up its appointment process. Obviously, this is something that has been very challenging for port boards.

At our last meeting, when we were discussing this, the officials who were with us were explaining some of the consultation process that the department undergoes when it's considering an appointment, partly in an effort to ensure that our port boards aren't old boys' clubs—or young boys' clubs, for that matter. I think that's something all of us around the table would support.

Under this new proposal, if the board itself were going to appoint people after this one-year period, would it also be required to undertake similar consultations, or would it be less encumbered and could it essentially appoint anyone it wanted to? That's, essentially, my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Strahl for a response.

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

I think it is also important to note that these board appointments are for a specific term. What is happening here is that the government is aware and the minister is aware that an appointment term is coming to its end. Well in advance of someone's term ending, they should be preparing a list of possible replacements and new board members.

It's not like the clock starts the moment there's a vacancy. The clock actually should be starting—if the planning is being done—well ahead of time, so that the work can be done to find someone. In British Columbia we have former labour representatives on the board at the Port of Vancouver, etc. This work can be done in advance.

This is essentially saying that once the vacancy occurs, that's when the time starts for the one-year vacancy clock, if we can call it that. The work that Mr. Bachrach refers to and that Ms. Murray referred to in the previous meeting can begin well before a term expires.

I think this is simply saying to do your work ahead of time and get it done in a year. That's reasonable. If you don't, it's not a hostile process. The board is then able to choose from nominees to make those appointments. There really is no excuse for this to ever be used, but right now, the vacancies are just extending way too long. That's what this is attempting to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

This is along the same lines as my last question. There are certain seats that are appointed by the minister that have specific criteria around them. For instance, the minister appoints a number of seats in consultation with the users of the port. Should this bill pass, one of those seats is going to be allocated to a director in consultation with labour groups at the port.

My concern is that if one of the directors' seats is vacant for more than a year and they fall into that category in which they have to be appointed in consultation with either the users, terminals or what have you at the port, or the labour groups, it's unclear whether the members of the board who are doing this self-appointment would be similarly required to consult those groups and ensure that the seat is filled by someone who comes from those groups. It doesn't speak to whether that would be the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Strahl.

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

Perhaps I could get the legislative clerk or someone to confirm this. It specifically says:

The board of directors of a port authority may appoint a director under paragraph (1)(a) or (d)

Could they reference which positions that would refer to?

That's for either you or...I don't care who.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn it over to any of our witnesses to respond to that.

Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Under paragraph 14(1)(a), those are the Governor in Council appointees. One individual is nominated by the minister.

Paragraph 14(1)(d) is in relation to the individuals nominated by the minister in consultation with user groups. Pursuant to the amendments that were adopted previously by committee, that would include the labour groups.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, Mr. Bachrach.

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

My question for Ms. Read is on the current amendment and subamendment that we're debating right now. Would it be clear that those positions that are left vacant for more than a year are to be filled under the requirements of those two subparagraphs that you mentioned, or do we need additional language to make that clear?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

Based on our understanding of the amendment, it's not clear, because the board of directors isn't actually appointing them under 14(1)(d). They have to appoint them under the new provision. The new provision does not include language that says it has to be done in consultation with the user groups. I'm not clear if, from a policy perspective, that would be the case.