Transport Committee on Dec. 13th, 2023

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

You mentioned earlier that at the beginning of COVID there was obviously great constraint in our supply chains. That had impacts on consumers, businesses, trade and all sorts of things. Is this an attempt to remedy that? Given the experience of what you saw in 2020 and what has transpired since, is this sufficient?

[Heather Moriarty]

This stems a lot from the ports modernization review, which was initiated before the pandemic. I think what we can say is that the measures contained in this bill were definitely time-tested during the pandemic and made us realize that, yes, these are important and needed.

We hope that these measures together will protect us in the future. I unfortunately can't say for certain, because we don't yet know what's going to happen, but we hope that these measures together will ensure the supply chain is protected and give us the tools we need.

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

How would this work with things like the supply chain office and some of the other recommendations coming out of the national supply chain task force to address those issues?

[Heather Moriarty]

That's a good question.

I believe we've already tabled some information in terms of how Bill C-33 seeks to address some of the measures contained in the supply chain report.

I like to say that Bill C-33 is a bit of a down payment on what's to come from the supply chain office and from that report. This helps to protect supply chains and ensure fluidity, but we're not sure where the supply chain office is going. It's on its feet. There may be more coming from a ports perspective, but it may be more integration.

This will certainly help our colleagues in the supply chain office as they seek to move forward with their work, because it will give them a lot of what they need to advance and to ensure ports are those intermodal hubs that connect all other modes of transportation, to make sure they can do what they need to do.

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

This is a bit of a down payment, and a lot of that still needs to be fleshed out. Is this putting the cart before the horse?

[Heather Moriarty]

That is another great question.

What I would say is that the time to advance the ports elements is now. The review concluded that ports were working well but more was needed to strengthen the governance of ports to make sure we had what we needed to prepare them for the future.

We don't know what other measures will be needed as part of the supply chain office or the report. These are a step in the right direction, and I'm sure that anything else will not only complement this but build on what we have here.

Bill C-33 obviously is more port-specific, whereas the supply chain office is very much multimodal, and I understand that there will be other elements coming from that as well.

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

Given that testimony—and I know this is an amendment from Mr. Barsalou-Duval and he may wish to comment on that—I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Kurek, and then Mr. Badawey.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It's good to be back before the transport committee.

I appreciate what my colleague Mr. Muys had to say about this clause.

I would just note that as soon as this clause is over, Chair, I would ask for a brief intervention. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Is that all, Mr. Kurek?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Seeing no other debate, I'll go to a vote on BQ-6.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

BQ-6 does not carry.

We will now go to NDP-16.

Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm just looking for the appropriate moment, but when it comes to NDP-16, I'm looking at the possible impacts this might have on the economy.

I wonder if Ms. Heft or Ms. Moriarty would be able to comment on some of the changes. I know there's a bill before the House right now, Bill C-58. I'm wondering if there's been any consideration about possible impacts between that legislation and what is being proposed here by Mr. Bachrach.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

We would have to examine that legislation to look for any correlation or impacts between this amendment and what's proposed in Bill C-58.

Having said that, I'm not aware of any conflict that would arise on account of amendment NDP-16 with respect to an order not being used for the purpose of terminating a strike or lockout.

I'll turn to my colleague for a policy perspective.

[Heather Moriarty]

What I think I can offer in this regard is.... Looking at NDP-16, it says, “for the purpose of terminating a strike or lock-out or imposing a settlement in a labour dispute.” The intent of the ministerial order is not to be invoked in any of those scenarios. First of all, the order can only be issued to a Canada port authority or a person in charge of a port facility. The order power would not enable the minister to compel a striking labour group to return to work.

I would offer this, as well: Because this is under the CMA, the purpose is more related to shipping and navigation within navigable waters. A CPA is a natural harbour. I would offer that the relevance as it relates to a strike or lockout doesn't apply under the CMA. It was never the intent for this to apply in any sort of labour situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

Next is Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Partly to respond to Mr. Kurek's question, I think this addresses something that is somewhat different from Bill C-58, which deals with the use of replacement workers in the case of a strike or lockout. This has to do with the minister's use of discretionary powers provided for in this act. I take Ms. Moriarty's point that the intention of the government is not to use this section in those cases.

The reason we brought forward this amendment was to provide greater clarity. When union members and union leadership read the bill.... Labour actions are sometimes construed as risks to national economic security or competition, etc. It gets exaggerated in all sorts of different ways. The concern was that this may cast a wide net. It's worth articulating very clearly that it is not intended to be used in the case of a labour disruption.

I hope that answers the question around whether this is similar to Bill C-58. As was noted earlier, I think the risk is that it would be used to order people back to work, which is not something Bill C-58 deals with. Bill C-58 deals with the continuation of activities by using replacement workers. It is related, I guess, in terms of the fact that they both relate to labour, but with different aspects.

I hope that helps provide a bit of the thinking behind why we brought this forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Next is Mr. Badawey, followed by Mr. Lewis and Mr. Muys.

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Mr. Bachrach just basically said what I was going to say, so we're good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Lewis.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again to the witnesses for joining us here this evening.

I want to see if I can tie it in here. I know that we're already done with BQ-6, but I think this is very relevant to the conversation. If I'm reading this correctly.... I'm looking for clarification, please. NDP-16 says, “under such an order, must not be exercised or performed for the purpose of terminating a strike or lock-out or imposing a settlement in a labour dispute.” What if there was an imminent threat or imminent harm to our port terminals? Would the minister still be able to use his powers to force workers back?