Transport committee  I think we would have to look at the proposed amendment and give it some consideration. I couldn't speak to that right away.

Transport committee  I would say that most of the anchorages were not officially created. Under the common law right of navigation, basically, ships can anchor in safe places. The anchorages, as I understand, have been established through common law practice and rights over many years, in some cases probably since the 1600s or 1700s—basically, since ships have been coming to the southern Gulf Islands.

Transport committee  With respect to indigenous consultation and involvement in terms of the process around anchorages, I think there are a few considerations. The first is that we have, through Bill C-33, amended the CMA in a couple of ways to ensure that there's a recognition of the nature of indigenous groups.

Transport committee  With respect to ensuring that ships have just generally safe anchorage spots, it's important for ships to be able to have those in the event that they have issues on board: navigation issues or equipment issues, or if there is bad or extreme weather that would prevent them from being able to conduct safe navigation.

Transport committee  Currently, the standard is, generally, that there is a quarterly report. It's produced three times a year. The fourth report is actually the annual financial report, which would summarize the entirety of the year.

Transport committee  Thank you. That is the standard. Every quarter within a 60-day period, there is a quarterly report. There are three quarterly reports. The fourth report is the annual report, which summarizes the entirety of the financial year.

Transport committee  I can't speak about international accounting norms, but I believe that is the case. I know that, under the Financial Administration Act, departments, agencies and Crown corporations are required to publish their quarterly reports within a 60-day period. That would be consistent with other practices across the federal government, including agencies and Crown corporations.

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

Transport committee  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.

Transport committee  Going back to the other amendment that was made, which would ask that the government specify in the letters patent the types of collaborations that can be undertaken by these entities, effectively I think the two pieces will work together. There are a number of amendments in Bill C-33—existing and potentially as amended—that would require us to go through the process of revisiting the letters patent to update them to give effect to that.

Transport committee  With respect to the proposed amendment, I think the key concern, from a departmental perspective in respect of the existing legislation, is understanding whether the joint entity would actually be acting as an agent of the Crown. I believe the previous amendment, BQ-3.1, which would have limited agency, was not accepted by the committee.

Transport committee  The intention of this clause is to support broader decarbonization efforts in respect of the marine sector as part of the overall plan regarding climate change mitigation and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through the marine sector, including in the port sector. It's providing additional details through regulation in respect of the expectations of ports and the role they play also as intermodal hubs across the range of activities.

Transport committee  As I understand it, it would probably provide more clarification for the process. It would still provide clarification for our process. However, my understanding, based on conversation, is that it is not necessary for the board to appoint a new chair in the event that there was a vacancy under the current process.

Transport committee  To clarify, Mr. Chair, the question is regarding proposed section 17.1 being necessary if section 17 is removed. Is that the question?

Transport committee  Proposed section 17.1 would not be necessary if section 17 is removed. That is my understanding.