Evidence of meeting #92 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.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I'm going to regret that, aren't I?
The amended text is simply:
(4) A port authority must consult each of its advisory committees at least twice every year with respect to issues related to port activities.
This is supposed to provide some direction in terms of the frequency of consultation. If committees are consulted once per year, I don't think that's quite enough to reflect activity in the community and provide that ongoing feedback.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Are there any questions or comments?
Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on new NDP-13.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays: 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you. NDP-13 has carried.
We'll go now to NDP-13.1.
I'll turn the floor back over to you, Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It adds:
(3) A port authority must publish a summary of the consultations under subsection (2) on its website.
This is simply a transparency measure, to give the rest of the community a sense of what happened in those meetings with the advisory committee and what feedback they were providing to the port authority.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Seeing that there are no questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on NDP-13.1.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
We'll now go to NDP-14.
Mr. Bachrach.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The proposed new section 33.2 will read, in part:
At least once every three years, a port authority must cause to be conducted an independent assessment of its governance practices
I'm fairly certain that this would be the case anyway, but it's just to be specific that when a port authority conducts an assessment of its own governance, it should be done by an independent third party. I would imagine that would be a matter of course, but it's worth being specific, in my view.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on NDP-14.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Shall clause 110 as amended carry, colleagues?
(Clause 110 as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
(Clauses 111 and 112 agreed to on division)
(On clause 113)
We will now go to BQ-4.2.
Mr. Savard‑Tremblay, you have the floor.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fact, as we can see, the proposed amendment is very short and very simple. As part of the study, we were asked to include small ports.
The amendment reads as follows:
(2) The report of a port authority with annual operating revenue exceeding $20,000,000 must be prepared in accordance with the
For example, we talked about some ports, such as the one in Vancouver, for which the additional cost would be $200,000 a year. Some small harbours could be covered by this proposal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay.
Are there any questions or comments, colleagues?
I have Mr. Badawey.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the advantage of having a lot of the amendments proposed by different parties. They're all here before us.
With that, I look at NDP-15 and it's obviously very similar to both BQ-4.2 and CPC-8. It's more granular; I'll say it that way. With that, we won't be supporting BQ-4.2—or CPC-8, for that matter—because NDP-15 gets to that granularity.
As we discussed earlier, we think it's reasonable to give ports with less capacity and fewer resources some flexibility with this bill, but it gets a bit deeper than that, because it actually specifies that $20-million threshold, which seems like a very reasonable threshold. I'm going to ask the officials for their comments, perhaps, with respect to which ports would fall under that category.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, we know that ports like Montreal, Vancouver and some of the other big ports that make well over $20 million have the capability—and I will add that it's $20 million per year—to produce reports on a quarterly timeline. Every 60 days is consistent with what we'd expect of private companies of a similar size, and I think it's a good idea to hold these ports to account.
We heard from witnesses and from the minister that regular financial reporting is important for ensuring our ports are responsible and well run. We have to remember that our ports are somewhat of an entity of the federal government, of Transport Canada, and therefore there can be liabilities that the department may be exposed to. With that, this accountability is very important.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, will make sure that reports stay regular and will give smaller ports an extra 30 days over larger ports, which should be pulling their weight and reporting already. With that, we will be supporting NDP-15 and not supporting BQ-4.2, or, for that matter, I'll even skip ahead to CPC-8, because we feel that NDP-15 will suffice in terms of the intent of the direction that both of the others are taking.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.
Are there any thoughts or questions?
Okay, we'll pass it over to our witness here, Ms. Moriarty.
Heather Moriarty Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
Hi.
With regard to the question about which Canada port authorities would fall into the thresholds that are being proposed, based on financial information within the past 12 to 24 months we would have approximately eight of the 17 Canada port authorities having annual incomes in excess of $20 million, with nine of the 17 falling below that threshold. Just for clarity, I'll read out the Canada port authorities that are above the $20 million: the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority, the Prince Rupert Port Authority, the Montreal Port Authority, the Toronto Port Authority, the Québec Port Authority, the Halifax Port Authority, the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority and the Saint John Port Authority. Those are the eight that would have earnings over $20 million.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Ms. Moriarty.
Are there any questions or comments?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We'll now go to CPC-8.
For that, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Strahl.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, ours is a little simpler and just gives everyone 90 days to make their filings. I can do math, and I understand how this will go, so I won't prolong the discussion. I think it was just our attempt, as well, to...without getting into operating revenues.
I would simply, for the next discussion on NDP-15, love to hear how “$20,000,000” was chosen. Was it just an arbitrary number that was going to catch these top eight? Why not $30 million or $40 million? I guess I would say that a number like that will become out of date very quickly over time. I don't know how often the Canada Marine Act will be updated. Given growth, inflation and all the rest of it, a fixed number like that will eventually capture more than those eight, I would imagine.
I think ours is a simpler way to give more. I'm sure that the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority won't need 90 days to do so.
Obviously, we'll be supporting our own amendment. I understand why there's a desire to have these bigger ports file in 60 days. I would love to hear that part of the discussion and whether or not we should consider with Mr. Bachrach's amendment—which will likely be more successful than mine—a discussion about whether “$20,000,000” should be...and how we would address the issues that I raised about that number staying stagnant while all the rest of the world does not.
We can go to a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.
With that, we will go to a vote.
I'll turn it over to you, Madam Clerk.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Chair, perhaps we could discuss both of these amendments at the same time. If we vote on this one and then discuss the other one and want to go back, it's already too late.
I don't know; it's up to you. There were some questions there about why we made certain choices in writing ours. I think Mr. Strahl made some good points. I wouldn't mind just discussing the topic as a whole. Then we can see if there's any room for agreement.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Would you be amenable to making changes to yours, when we reach yours, to, perhaps, incorporate the aspects that we like?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I think that if the conversation comes around to the idea that maybe all ports should have the same time requirement, then I suppose that we could subamend our amendment. However, that's a pretty laborious way to go about it.
I have a couple of questions about Mr. Strahl's amendment. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I'm happy to speak about why we made certain decisions, and I wonder if that would be in order now.
Liberal
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, that's awesome. Maybe these are questions for the witnesses we have here tonight.
I don't fully understand what happens within these 30, 60 or 90 days after the end of a quarter, after which the port authority has to provide its financial report to the government. Are there implications that the officials can think of if we choose 60 days or if we choose 90 days? What's the risk of a longer time period?
It is interesting. It's a quarterly report. That's every three months, and 90 days is also three months, so you're getting everything a quarter behind.
Perhaps they can just provide some general thoughts on this. This is an accountability measure. It's to give the government a line of sight on the financial management of the port authorities. Is it important that it's done in a timely way, quarter by quarter, or is it enough to have everything a quarter behind? I guess that's the question.
Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
Thank you.
In terms of the first part of your question around why 90 days or why 60, in the consultations that we have undertaken, we have had conversations with the Association of Canada Port Authorities, who were witnesses at the committee.
They articulated for us the timelines as to why 30 days would be too short for some of the Canada port authorities and how the additional timeline would provide them and their membership with the ability to respond to the request. They took us through the process by which they would need to have the statements examined and ready for publication, the French and English requirements and those sorts of things. They outlined that for us.
In terms of the second part of your question, I apologize. I seem to have forgotten it at this point.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It was the 60 days or 90 days. Have you heard from small ports that they need longer than 60 days?
Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport
We've heard through the association that the additional timeline would definitely be used by the smaller port authorities and would enable them or help them to meet the requirement.
To your second question, which I now recall, around the timing of the information and the 90 days being effectively three months later, the reason and the rationale for bringing forward or requesting the quarterly financial reports were really about informing borrowing limits and making sure that Canada port authorities provided updated financial information to the Government of Canada and to Canadians in a transparent and timely manner.
It then helps us examine borrowing limits as related to ports, and the ability, then, to have a good financial picture in terms of how they manage their assets.