Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2023

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

Thank you. That's helpful.

I guess what I'm wondering is, if it's to inform borrowing limits, I can't imagine that long-term borrowing would be based on quarter-to-quarter financial performance, like, “Oh, you had a good quarter, so we're going to loan you a bunch more money over a longer period of time.” Maybe I'm off base here, but I'm wondering again what the risk of going with 90 days over 60 days would be for the large ports, for instance.

[Heather Moriarty]

I think there isn't a great risk in moving from 60 to 90. The information will still be relevant, as long as it continues to be provided within those time limits. I can't see any real difference between the 60 and the 90 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have one last question, Mr. Bachrach.

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

At the risk of exceeding the limits of my colleagues' patience, can you remind me of the current reporting timelines, or the frequency?

[Heather Moriarty]

Currently, port authorities report annually. What we're seeking to change is to ensure they report annually and post it publicly, and we're seeking for them to also report quarterly and to post that publicly, and then the timeline is what we're speaking about here today.

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

I guess what I'm saying, Mr. Chair, is that if it's every 90 days, the government is still receiving quarterly reports. They're still being posted publicly quarterly. It's just that they're three months behind. They're always three months behind.

Perhaps we could hear from some of our Liberal colleagues on whether that would meet their sense of what's required for transparency and what's required in order to assess borrowing limits and these kinds of things. I'm wondering whether 90 days might work across the board, instead of....

This comes back to this question of $20 million. At the time, Mr. Strahl asked how we chose $20 million. We looked at all the ports and their revenues. There's a clear break point there where the ports that are below $20 million are quite a bit below $20 million. It seemed like a logical place.

I take his point that it is likely to change, and perhaps quite rapidly. The legislation would then have to be updated. Maybe it's cleaner to simply have 90 days across the board.

I'm looking for some sense from our good friends across the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I thought I was going to have time to eat.

Thanks, Taylor. Yes, we support 90 days for the smaller ports. We want to be clear on that. The 60 days for the regular ports is simply consistent.

As Ms. Moriarty alluded to, the fact is that it's very fluid when it comes to the ports, especially with respect to their borrowing limits. In meeting with the port authorities, even beyond this process of Bill C-33 and especially over the last couple of days, this was a topic of discussion.

What I mean by “fluid” is that their balance sheets move around quite a bit and quite quickly. If it's a debenture that might be paid out or maturing, they then open up the ability to borrow more and to put more capital into their facility. This, in my view, would only benefit them at 60 days.

Again, it's consistent with business practice, but it will also benefit them with respect to having the ability, if need be, to fulfill their capital needs by having that borrowing limit expanded because of those debentures that might mature at that time, or other reasons, of course, that would open up some room for them to do more capital work for which they would have to borrow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Muys.

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

There's some consistency of 90 days across all ports. It's 60 to 90 days. We're not talking about a big difference. I don't think it's out of step with the private sector.

I spoke with the CFO of a large port. They indicated that they can hire more people on their team to do the preparation of the reports, but ultimately they're the CFO and they have to review them. There would still be that bottleneck.

I think giving that additional flexibility, even for large ports, is not unreasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Badawey's point, would there be anything preventing the larger ports from reporting two weeks after the quarter, or more promptly in the event that they wanted to get the information to the government so they could have their borrowing limits reassessed? The maximum is 90 days. The ports have told us they could do it in 60 days or less. I imagine if there was some change that opened up higher borrowing limits, they'd be quite motivated to deliver those reports to the government.

Would there be anything in this bill to stop them from meeting a tighter timeline if there was a reason to?

[Sonya Read]

Do you mean prevent them from publishing earlier if they wanted to?

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

What we heard is that part of the reason the government is requiring ports to provide these quarterly financial reports is to inform the assessment of their borrowing limits. What Mr. Badawey was saying was that their financials might be quite fluid; there might be changes and something might happen that they think will open up their ability to borrow.

In such an instance, couldn't they complete the quarterly report more quickly than the 60-day timeline, get it off to the government and ask if it can assess it based on this?

[Sonya Read]

Certainly, there would be nothing in the legislation that would prevent them from doing so, as far as I'm aware. They can do it faster if they can do it faster.

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

I guess what 90 days does is provide flexibility for ports that are stretched for capacity or, for whatever reason, need those 90 days—especially the smaller ports. For larger ports, it's only to their benefit to get the report in early, because the government is using those reports in order to assess their borrowing limits.

Maybe I'm missing something here. I think finding a way to get around the $20-million threshold could be a useful thing, because then we don't have to go back into the legislation and change it again.

I'm looking to Mr. Badawey to see whether that's something he can come around to, or he's....

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I can. Yes.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I've received word that Mr. Iacono lost power; therefore, he's no longer online. If it's okay with colleagues, we'll suspend until such time as we can get Mr. Iacono back. The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Bachrach, I will turn it over to you and see where we're going to go with CPC-8 and NDP-15. Do you have any thoughts on that?

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

I'm happy to vote on our amendment. We can try to amend it to the point where we come together around some sort of solution. One idea was indexing the $20 million to inflation. There was some talk about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I will turn it over to you, Mr. Strahl.

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

I think there was some talk when we were off-line. We heard there was nothing preventing these eight large ports from filing in a shorter time period, and that it may be advantageous for them to do so. Perhaps they could reach the 30 days the department originally envisioned when they were doing the consultations. Having up to 90 days for all ports makes it uniform. You don't have to worry about a financial threshold that will be stagnant.

I don't know how easy it is to tag something to inflation in a piece of legislation. Do you have to get very specific? Are you talking about the CPI? I think you get further away from the clarity we are seeking here.

Our amendment is very clean. It will cover all port authorities and allow them the flexibility to file within 30, 60 or 90 days—whatever they are capable of doing, and whatever is to their advantage. I don't quite see how the upcoming NDP amendment can be subamended to achieve that same level of simplicity, if I can put it that way.

We would like a vote on ours, at this point. Whether or not it will pass.... We've talked about it. It makes sense. It covers all ports and allows for flexibility. We still think it is a good option.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

I see we have Mr. Iacono joining us on his cellphone, but I've been given the indication that it's not clear enough to identify whether he's voting in favour or against.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Hello.

I'm looking for candles. I'll be able to vote or whatever, but I'm in the dark.