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.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I understood Mr. Strahl correctly, he would be open to an additional subamendment that would clarify that. I just wonder if maybe we should recess briefly to give a chance to consult with the legislative clerk and come up with some wording?
I could be convinced of this, as long as we protect that aspect of the appointments.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Again, I'm not a legislative clerk, but it would be my.... The reason that we specifically selected those (14)(1)(a) and (d) positions, which have now been amended, was that all of the rules apply except for who's doing the appointing at this point. That would be the intention: Paragraphs 14(1)(a) and (d) would remain intact, and if (d) has been amended to include user groups, which now include specific labour consultation, then the expectation would be that it would be maintained.
Again, I'm open to either standing this and coming back to it, or I'm happy to suspend if we believe we can wrestle this to the ground in a few minutes.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Mr. Bachrach, do you wish to suspend for two minutes to see if we can figure this out? Okay, we'll suspend for five minutes to sort this out.
This meeting is suspended.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Bachrach.
4 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The attempt here is to come to some sort of consensus, or at least as close to a consensus as we can get, understanding that the goal of this amendment is to deal with one of the challenges we've heard from the ports and from port users, which is that there are these long delays in appointing board members. I think the key here is to ensure that the consultation process that leads to board appointments remains intact even when, under this amendment, the boards would be appointing their own directors. There are different ideas around how to do this.
Ms. Murray was just pointing out to me that the government, in addition to the consultations that are required by the legislation, conducts additional screens on the consultation process to ensure that the boards of port authorities are becoming more diverse and that we're reflecting the makeup of our country. I think it's important to consider as well, in addition to the specific consultations with labour groups or with port users, that there's another layer.
If there's a way to build that into the subamendment, I think that would be worthwhile. I understand there's some desire to let this one sit with the legislative counsel for a bit and move on to the next amendment, and I'd be happy to do that.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey, followed by Mr. Strahl.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few comments.
The government has a transparent process, as has been alluded to already by Mr. Bachrach, which ensures proper consultation with user groups and the vetting of candidates based on the makeup of each board that we are a part of—this one in particular.
We recognize that issues have been raised by the witnesses here at committee when it comes to filling board vacancies on a faster timeline. I think that goes without saying. We've seen that with many boards and agencies throughout the years, but the solution to this shouldn't be that the board is automatically able to appoint a candidate.
Appointments are a long process. They take some time because they're subject to consultations, strict checks and balances, background checks, conflicts of interest and security. This amendment seems to circumvent some of that.
To some extent, I understand, however, because I have found myself in the same position with some of the boards and agencies that I deal with almost on a daily basis, with the need to expedite and be timely on appointments.
I think we're hearing from our witnesses that six months is a bit too tight of a timeline, considering the steps we are required to complete for any given appointment. We would like to see this extended to one year, which we think is a more reasonable time frame.
Let's all remember that the boards of directors are composed of different types of representatives, including user class and nominees from various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
If we were to move this subamendment forward, I think it's important to keep the scope to user class, directors only. That way, we wouldn't be putting limits on nominees from any level of government, which is important for representation on the board and, obviously, for all Canadians.
For this class of seats, consultations with user groups are required of the minister, and I think that's a fair thing that we would want to see the board do before making any decision.
Another thing to consider is that we'd need to make sure there's adequate notice that this is going to happen. For example, let's say that a federal nomination is very close to being confirmed but will take a few days past the timeline we set with this amendment. Is the board's decision going to be automatic, six months and one day into the vacancy?
I think this would also help to incentivize the minister to expedite the process, obviously. If he or she knows that the board is going to look to appoint someone imminently, this could be the push that's needed to get the regular appointment process over the line. I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that that's Mr. Strahl's intent in bringing this forward.
The last thing I'll state before I present a subamendment proposal is, for any appointments that happen via the process, let's make sure the same parameters around security requirements and removal for cause are in place. This should be consistent for any member of the board, regardless of how they're appointed.
We'd like to propose, therefore, Mr. Chair, a subamendment to make sure all this is included.
I'm hoping that the clerk is taking note of it, because it does get very granular.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Before you do that, Mr. Badawey, I just want to point out that we already have a subamendment on the table by Mr. Muys, so we can't put forward another subamendment on this.
The two options we have are either voting on the subamendment that was proposed by Mr. Muys, or Mr. Muys, you can withdraw it.
Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I realize that we might be out of order here, but I think it sounds like there's a good-faith effort to get to the same place, so perhaps we can stand this. I'm not sure, now that there's a government subamendment that will be proposed, whether Mr. Bachrach should be the one collecting all of that.
Perhaps we could get it to the legislative counsel. Everyone can submit their....
Ours includes 12 months, going from six months to 12—Dan's does. Mr. Badawey's read that way—that was part of it. There are some other things we clearly want to have in it, but we can't subamend all the way through.
I take everyone at their word that we're looking for the same thing. Maybe we should stand this and work behind the scenes to get something we can all agree on.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
The other option we have is for everybody to send what they have to the legislative clerk. There's no middle person. There's no [Inaudible—Editor] exactly. The legislative clerk will give us all the ideas back, summarized.... Counsel, excuse me.
4:10 p.m.
A voice
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
He doesn't want to give himself work—23 years in and he doesn't want any more work.
I meant the legislative counsel.
Does that work for everybody?
4:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We're going to stand clause 102 until we get advice back from the legislative counsel.
(Clause 102 allowed to stand)
We will now move on to clause 103.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
You guys called for recorded votes before. It's up to you.
Shall clause 103 carry?
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
On division.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
(Clause 103 agreed to on division)
(On clause 104)
Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
We would like to see clause 104 deleted. Voting against it, I guess, is how we'd accomplish that.
Clause 104 essentially creates a new clause that allows.... Previously, an officer or employee of a municipality mentioned in the letters patent was prevented from being appointed to the board. Now there's an attempt, with this particular clause, to allow them to be appointed if they're not found to be in a conflict of interest.
I'm not sure who this is for or why this is being proposed. I think there are plenty of candidates who could be appointed and who do not, through their employment, have a built-in conflict of interest. You're an employee of, let's say, the District of North Vancouver, and you're on the board of the Port of Vancouver. You're paid by one. You're supposed to act in the interest of the other. I don't know how you can separate out and choose which issues that are raised result in a conflict of interest.
It's cleaner to have it removed, to not include this new provision to allow municipal...and members of the legislature, etc., to get around this provision. We think it's a clause that actually creates more conflicts of interest, as opposed to removing them.
I don't know why it's in there. We couldn't really get an answer to that. It seems to me that it's creating more conflict of interests than it is preventing. We just think the clause should be negatived.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe this is the clause that speaks to both municipal employees and provincial employees. Is that correct? I see Mr. Strahl is nodding.
I represent a region where we have very significant ports surrounded by very small communities or smaller municipalities. It's a situation in which a considerable portion of the population works either for the provincial government or for the municipal government. When you're looking for qualified board members who are able to make that contribution, and have the background and professionalism required for such a position, it's not a huge pool when it comes to local voices for those roles. I think that might be the spirit in which this clause was brought forward by the government: They want to ensure people aren't prevented from filling those roles in their home community when no conflict exists.
I've looked through some of the conflict of interest provisions that are part of the letters patent, and they're fairly strong. We had this conversation when it came to the appointment of labour representatives on ports and looking at what stipulations already exist to prevent conflicts of interest.
If you're a provincial employee and you work for a ministry that has no association with port activities or the marine transportation sector, I feel that shouldn't be a disqualifying factor. I would hope that.... I think Mr. Strahl raises the important question: Where conflicts clearly exist, we don't want people to be put in those positions, but it seems that right now the rules cast that net too broadly and prevent a significant number of people from filling those vacancies.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you.
Mr. Strahl, do you have any other questions?
Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I agree with Mr. Bachrach: This gives an opportunity for qualified local candidates to be part of the process. Frankly, if, in fact, they have a conflict of interest, it would be under the same rules that anybody else would be under. I agree wholeheartedly with what Mr. Bachrach said.