Transport Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Gladu.

Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues?

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I just want to clarify that this amendment is admissible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I have consulted with the legislative clerks, Mr. Badawey, and they say that it is indeed admissible.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Are there any more questions or comments, colleagues?

Seeing none, we'll go to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 125 agreed to on division)

(On clause 102)

Colleagues, we will go back to clause 102, which had been stood. We are on CPC-4.

I will open it up for debate.

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

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

I'm unsure what we eventually came to. We gave this back to officials for them to come up with a way to get us where we wanted to go, which was to provide a remedy for lengthy vacancies where appointments have not been made—in some cases, as we heard, for several years. It was to provide an incentive, perhaps, for a minister to make those appointments in a timely fashion. It was suggested that six months was too short a time period, so we talked about one year.

Then we wanted to ensure that any amendments made to the bill—there were amendments made to the composition of boards, the nomination processes, etc.—would not be lost, and that it wouldn't be a way for boards to avoid their responsibilities under Bill C‑33, should it pass, and the changes that were made in terms of labour nominating directors, etc.

I don't know. We threw it back into the laps of the officials and legislative clerks. I'm not sure what they came up with, or whether they have any further comments. We stood it because we didn't want to get locked in on the six months. We wanted to make sure the changes made through the work of this committee were reflected and that this wasn't an end-around on the other nominating requirements.

I'll throw it back to the officials for commentary and would be willing to discuss the best way forward with colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to the officials for a response to that.

[Sonya Read]

My understanding is that, as officials, we aren't in a position to put forward any language with respect to amendments. I would seek clarity on that.

However, my understanding is that the end of the discussion was regarding the time frame for the length of appointments. We noted that six months was too short. I believe the time frame that was put forward at the last meeting would enable a 12-month period.

The other concern was whether or not the language would.... Given that, until the board appoints an individual, there could be a concurrent process under way within the Government of Canada in regard to the GIC process of appointments, the concern was whether or not it would be suitable to have a notification provision, so they could reduce the risk of the potential of concurrent appointments.

I think those were the key considerations that were identified.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

Mr. Strahl.

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

I know we had some internal back and forth. Again, I'm not sure whether the legislative clerk could provide some guidance on what those discussions look like. I know that not all of the Bill C‑33 process has been collaborative, but this was one we all agreed we were going to look for some guidance on.

I would be willing to hear a time frame that is acceptable. If 12 months is too short.... It seemed like a reasonable time. I can't amend my own amendment, but there was some agreement, as I recall—back when we were discussing this—that vacancies are unacceptable after a certain length of time and there should be a remedy provided.

I don't know whether any colleagues are just going to vote this down, or whether we can make this work. I don't have the blues in front of me, but there was discussion about putting it into the hands of officials to capture what we were trying to come up with.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Barsalou-Duval, and then Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

During our earlier discussions, I explained that I was quite willing to move a subamendment to replace the six‑month period with a twelve‑month period. I'm still prepared to do so. I could suggest the same change to amendment CPC‑4.

In terms of the other concerns raised or potential amendments, I'm also open to the idea. However, I don't have any specific wording to suggest. That said, I also support the idea of a 12‑month period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I think that Mr. Bachrach already moved a subamendment to this effect in both official languages. Perhaps we should address that one first.

It's probably roughly the same as what Mr. Barsalou-Duval was—

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

I'll wait to hear Mr. Bachrach's suggestions before moving my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, I'll turn it over to you to speak to your subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval and I are thinking along the same lines in that we like the spirit of the original amendment, which is to create some accountability so that we're not seeing these long delays in appointing board members. It's something that the port authorities expressed as a concern when they appeared before the committee, so perhaps there's a middle ground that can be found by extending the six months to 12 months and also including a clause that would require the boards of port authorities to give the minister notice that they intend to invoke this clause, which could—how shall we say it—create some incentive to accelerate the process if there are barriers that can be broken through by working more diligently on it or allocating more resources to finding board members. It would give a heads-up so it's not a surprise to the department.

There's a subamendment in front of committee members. I can read it. It would replace “six months” in subsection (1.2) with “12 months” and add the following after subsection (1.2): “(1.3) The board of directors of a port authority shall give notice to the Minister of its intention to make an appointment under subsection (1.2) at least 90 days before doing so.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just receiving this now and hearing Mr. Bachrach's comments.

We will, in fact, be in favour of the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

We'll go to a vote on Mr. Bachrach's subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to: 11 yeas, 0 nays [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment as amended agreed to: 11 yeas, 0 nays [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 102 as amended agreed to: 11 yeas, 0 nays)

Colleagues, we are very close and I am excited. We have one last hurdle to jump over, and that is on the schedule, NDP-17.

I will turn it back over to Mr. Bachrach to speak to that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply the schedule, including the coordinates of the areas of concern in the southern Gulf Islands in British Columbia. I'll note that these coordinates reflect Parks Canada's proposed national marine conservation area for the Salish Sea and the ecologically and biologically significant area identified by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. These are also areas that have been identified by the communities of the Gulf Islands as being of concern.

Our amendment does not prevent anchorage in those areas, it simply limits the duration of anchorage to two weeks and empowers the minister to require vessels to move along after a two-week period. We've seen long stays in those ecologically sensitive areas, and the residents of that area are extremely concerned about the impact of industrial traffic—marine traffic—not only on the ecology but on the quality of life in those rural communities.

I know Ms. Gladu offered to debate every latitude and longitude—which, as a former geography major, I would be happy to engage with—but given that we have already voted on the spirit of the amendment, I would hope we could pass this in due course and finish our work on Bill C-33.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Strahl.

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

I would hope that Mr. Bachrach, given his expertise, could perhaps talk to us about sinuosity for some time.

I do think we have expressed our concerns, which were echoed by departmental officials, about the unintended consequences of placing limits on anchorages without having done the work of creating additional anchorages elsewhere. It is fine to say that ships should not be able to stay at anchor in spite of any number of issues that are outside of their control, including port congestion, labour disputes at the port, bad weather or mechanical issues. To simply indicate that they cannot stay there and they must move off no matter what is ill-advised, as I think we heard from departmental officials.

Our advice in that discussion was that, if you're going to shut down anchorages, you should be opening up other ones. No work has been done in that regard.

We believe that this entire idea, while I understand the impetus for it, is irresponsible for a government that believes in a reliable and robust supply chain. This will actually have a negative impact, which runs counter to the purpose of this legislation.

With that, we won't debate the “thence northeasterly along the sinuosity” of this schedule, but we will register again our concern about the impacts this will have on our supply chain, marine shipping and Canada's reliability in that regard.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I will turn it over to Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have now found the word of the day—“sinuosity”. Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask for some comments on this from members of the team.