Transport Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We have Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

The intention of this clause is to support broader decarbonization efforts in respect of the marine sector as part of the overall plan regarding climate change mitigation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the marine sector, including in the port sector. It's providing additional details through regulation in respect of the expectations of ports and the role they play also as intermodal hubs across the range of activities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members, this section of the bill makes it very clear what authorities the government has to make regulations on environmental obligations at ports. I'll even extend it to not only at ports but also with port partners, whatever the method of transportation. This includes the ability to set emissions targets, the contents of climate change reports on a regular basis—timelines, and requirements for “public participation in the development of” these plans.

Mr. Chairman, this is sort of near and dear to my heart, because we've worked quite hard in our part of the world, in Niagara, alongside our partners—for example, with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and with a marine industry that plies the Great Lakes. I know for example that the marine industry that plies the Great Lakes has Green Marine and Marine Matters, and it really has taken on an initiative in partnership with the federal government, which is what this does, along with the Welland Canal area and, of course, into the Hamilton area as well. We take very seriously the partnership that we have with the federal government when it comes to setting those emissions targets and abiding by the environmental concerns that we all recognize—well, that at least most of us recognize—here in this country.

I can't support this subamendment, simply because it takes away that partnership and that ability that we otherwise have with our partners, not only within marine and within ports but also in the bigger picture with respect to the multimodal hubs that we've created and are strengthening. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I want to add to that. Not only are they being strengthened for obvious economic reasons, but they are also being strengthened by the environmental responsibilities and the stewardship they've taken on in partnership with the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll go to the question.

Shall CPC-6 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We'll now go to NDP-10.

For that, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

NDP-10 amends lines 13 to 15 on page 70. The proposed new text reads as follows:

(a) establishing absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in respect of the operation of a port by a port authority that are consistent with Canada's international commitments and with the national greenhouse gas emissions targets for each milestone year under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act;

The idea here is to try to align what we're requiring of port authorities with what the government is doing more broadly. The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act lays out a timeline for reporting and planning. When we're requiring other entities to engage in this planning and reporting exercise, I think it makes a lot of sense that the timelines align, so that the lessons we learn through, for instance, the reports tabled by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development can be integrated into all of these other plans that we're talking about.

Hopefully that's clear enough. I'll leave my comments at that, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

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

My question is about absolute greenhouse emissions reduction targets. We heard some questions in question period today about, obviously, the caps and things like that. Are we getting ahead of where the government is on other pieces of legislation, or is this matching? I guess, obviously, there have been some questions about how that should be done, but without getting into the commentary, just where are things at? Is this an alignment, or this pushing ahead of where the government is now hoping to catch up on the rest of its absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets?

Maybe Taylor could answer that for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

My hope is that it would be consistent with what we're pushing the government to do nationally. Our federal greenhouse gas commitments specify absolute reductions as opposed to relative reductions. I think it only makes sense that we require the same when specifying other climate plans and other targets of other entities.

There are gains to be made through efficiencies, of course, but what we're talking about, as a country, is reducing the absolute amount, in tonnes of greenhouse gases, that we're putting into the atmosphere. Other objectives, economic growth, population growth, etc., have to fall within that constraint.

Really what we're talking about is the fact that, over time, our emissions need to go down. Not only is that applicable to us as a country, but it's applicable to the entire planet. We're talking about absolute emissions reductions, as opposed to intensity-based reductions or relative emissions reductions.

That's the intention there. I hope that helps to clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll vote on NDP-10.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We'll now go to new NDP-11, and for that I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment would require the environment and climate change regulations in the amendment we just passed to be implemented within 36 months of the letters patent; otherwise, the minister would be required to create a report to explain the reason for the delay and to do so within 12 months. I could read out the exact wording, with your indulgence:

(1.2) If no regulations are made for the purposes of each of paragraphs (1.1)(a) to (f) for an existing port authority within 36 months after the day on which this section comes into force or for a new port authority within 36 months after the day on which its letters patent are issued, the Minister must cause a report stating the reasons that no regulations have been made and establishing a schedule for making regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that 36-month period.

Further, proposed new subsection (1.3) states:

If no regulations are made within 12 months after the tabling of the report referred to in subsection (1.2), the Minister must cause a report stating the reasons that no regulations have been made and establishing a schedule for making regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that 12-month period and at least once every subsequent 12-month period as long as no regulations have been made.

This is an accountability measure. It's to serve as a backstop in the case that no regulations are made within the stipulated time frame. Otherwise, I think it should be fairly self-explanatory, if somewhat lengthy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Seeing no questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on NDP-11.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 107 as amended agreed to: yeas 7, nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 108)

We'll now go to clause 108 and BQ-4.1.

I therefore give the floor to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The comments I am going to make will sound familiar to some members of the committee since we addressed this at out last meeting. I had mentioned to you that the main amendment was amendment BQ‑4.1. It basically allows port authorities to work together. They could, for example, form joint ventures, carry out certain activities together. This would give them more flexibility and remove their obligation to compete with each other. This would sometimes even enable them to complement one another and to work better together, to the greater benefit of our supply chain and consumers.

That was my presentation of amendment BQ‑4.1. I hope everyone will support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Are there questions or comments?

I will turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do like the intent of this motion. It's actually something we're working on with many port authorities currently. Quite frankly, there are more than port authorities. As I was saying earlier, it's more multimodal, so it's rail, water, road and air.

However, we need to hear thoughts, first of all, from the witnesses. Perhaps I can hear those first, and then I will have some comments to make, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

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

[Sonya Read]

With respect to the proposed amendment, I think the key concern, from a departmental perspective in respect of the existing legislation, is understanding whether the joint entity would actually be acting as an agent of the Crown. I believe the previous amendment, BQ-3.1, which would have limited agency, was not accepted by the committee. It was not adopted by the committee. Some of the provisions in terms of the existing restrictions, I think, around collaboration in ports are focused on ensuring that the risk to the Crown is managed and that the nature of the collaboration does not place undue risk on one port authority or another. They ensure the continued financial self-sustainability of the ports. Those would be the key considerations, from a departmental perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Read.

Mr. Chair, all of the ports' allowable activities are governed by its letters patent. When you look at this section in the Canada Marine Act, you'll see that paragraphs 28(2)(a) and 28(2)(b) both reference letters patent. If we're proposing to create a new class of allowable port activities, such as joint ventures, I think they should also be specified in the letters patent, as are all other activities. This would help us to be consistent and to make sure, Mr. Chairman, there is appropriate oversight of these new entities. I know that the member's previous related amendments all made reference to the letters patent.

I'd like to propose, Mr. Chairman, a subamendment to this, if it's in order, that inserts that language, just to be consistent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Could you specify, Mr. Badawey, what language and where?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'll read the subamendment. It will articulate all that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It adds, after line 7 on page 71, the following:

(1.1) Section 28 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(2.1) Therefore, to the extent authorized in each participating port authority's letters patent, two or more port authorities may jointly, through a corporation, partnership, joint venture, association or other entity whose shares or other ownership interests are all held by port authorities, engage in the activities referred to in subsection (2).”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Can you send that to the clerk, please? Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Are there any questions or comments on Mr. Badawey's subamendment?

Monsieur Barsalou-Duval, go ahead.