Evidence of meeting #91 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I guess I'd ask the witnesses. This is a new provision. Previously, they were just excluded. It was not possible. It was deemed that those were inherently conflicting positions—working for another level of government and then getting onto a port board.
Is there a specific case or is this, as Mr. Bachrach said, simply a matter of expanding the qualified pool of...? I would assume that, up near the port of Prince Rupert, there are many qualified candidates, and not all of them work for the government or different levels of government.
What is the impetus for this change, and why is it necessary to include new provisions that allow for employees who were previously considered ineligible because of an inherent conflict? Why is this being done?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
I could turn it over to our witnesses, perhaps, for a response to that.
Go ahead, Ms. Read.
4:15 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
In the context of the ports modernization review, this was one of the issues that was raised, particularly in respect of ports that were located around smaller communities. It's the reason that the provision is being introduced, and also the complementary position in respect of the provincial employees as well. In both cases it was really about expanding the pool of available people who potentially could be appointed to a board of directors. Recognizing that there are substantive provisions both in the letters patent—in terms of how to manage conflict of interest—and understanding, by virtue of the fact they are a municipal employee or potentially a provincial employee, that it can be a very broad net, it's not necessarily inherent they have a real conflict of interest based on their duties in respect of that employment.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
What do the letters patent currently say? Who is the arbiter of those conflicts of interest? Who determines who holds a conflict of interest? What is the process for, perhaps, a complaint or a concern being raised by either the board or a user, someone in the ports system? How do they raise concerns if the board director, who's now an employee of either a provincial or a municipal level of government, does not believe they're in a conflict but someone else believes they are? Who's the arbiter of that, and what does that process look like?
4:15 p.m.
Heather Moriarty Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
What I could point to is the Canada Marine Act, subsection 22(1), which actually outlines duty of care as it relates to directors and officers. In there it talks about the fact that they have a vested interest in ensuring that they “act honestly and in good faith”. It does speak to the concerns that you raise in here in respect of conflict of interest. That's in the Canada Marine Act.
As well, there are elements that are contained in the letters patent if there are issues. That is there, as well as, before there are appointments, the vetting procedures that take place within the government system. Then, if there are any issues that are flagged during that tenure, it's my understanding that those are investigated, but I'd have to get back to you on the exact process by which that happens. I don't have it at my fingertips.
What I can say is that there is a requirement in the law that any officer of the court, as it relates to being a board director or other, ensures that they adhere to a certain protocol.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. Moriarty.
I'm going to turn it back over to Mr. Strahl.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Are there cases, even currently, in which a board member, prior to appointment or as a condition of appointment, has...? We see it here in government as well—a pre-set ethics screen. There are certain ministers who can't talk about Irving because of their relationship with them, etc.
I'm not saying this is bad. This is how the system is supposed to work. Does that system exist, where you say you're a qualified person, but if this type of issue comes up you must recuse yourself, or is that on the good faith of the board member to self-select in that regard?
4:20 p.m.
Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
I actually don't have the answer to that question with me here now. I'll have to circle back.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joyce Murray Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
I want to comment that I think the idea of a particular screen may be a good solution, because otherwise what's happening here is that the Conservative amendments are at cross-purposes. On the one hand, there is a desire to make sure that appointments happen more quickly, knowing that there sometimes is a pool that's not inexhaustible, and that there are parameters around inclusion, competence and so on. On the other hand, the conversation here could be seeking to reduce the pool.
My thought is that there are many provincial officials who have nothing to do with the port but may have something to do with supply chain, or safety and security standards for the long-term health care system, or something very unrelated to what could create a conflict of interest. They may have a basic experience and competency that would make them an excellent board member. I wanted to make that observation. It's not all port people that we're talking about in the provincial government or municipal government.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. Murray.
Seeing no other questions, comments or concerns, we will go to a vote on clause 104.
(Clause 104 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(On clause 105)
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You all have the text of amendment BQ‑4. I'll spare you reading it out and just explain the purpose of it and what it does specifically.
The amendment would delete all of section 17 from clause 105 of Bill C‑33. With respect to section 17.1, the amendment would delete the four words at the end, “without the Minister's approval”.
I think everyone around the table is well aware of the testimony heard in committee. Almost all the witnesses were concerned about the appointment of the chairperson of the board of directors. No one wants to get the impression that someone might be appointed to a position like this for political reasons and that this individual might be an instrument of the government or the party in power. All the witnesses seemed to indicate that the current process was preferable to the one proposed in Bill C‑33. That's why we are moving this amendment.
Of course, we could have also deleted section 17.1 completely, but we noted that the current bill amending the Canada Marina Act doesn't address the possibility of appointing an interim chairperson. Removing “without the Minister's approval” seems sufficient to me. This will allow the ports to operate with interim appointments, if certain circumstances require it.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Strahl, please go ahead.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I have one question for Mr. Barsalou-Duval and one for the witnesses.
The first, just to be clear, is this: Does this amendment...? I know it takes out “without the Minister's approval” from proposed new section 17.1, but is the intention—I thought I heard you say this—to delete section 17 in its entirety? This would preserve proposed section 17.1 but would delete section 17, which is the minister's authority to appoint the chairperson. Is that correct?
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
That's correct. Your interpretation is correct.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Certainly, we have.... I think ours is very similar to that.
To the witnesses here, we're talking about, obviously, a case in which the chair is incapacitated or removed and then the vice-chair is incapacitated or removed. We're talking about a fairly uncommon occurrence here, I think, for proposed section 17.1, in which we're down to the third-in-command acting as the chair. What is the current process, in legislation, for a board of directors at a port, if both the chair and the vice-chair are unable to act?
4:25 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
Currently the legislation is silent on that. Proposed section 17.1 was to address the scenario in which that happened and what the process would be, because there is no provision right now.