Evidence of meeting #90 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.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Badawey.
Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Amendment CPC-2 is defeated. Colleagues, that means that amendment CPC-3 cannot be moved, since it would create an inconsistency in the bill.
We will now move to new amendment NDP-8. For that I will turn the floor over to Mr. Bachrach.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
New amendment NDP-8 would add, after line 31 on page 67, that, with respect to subparagraphs (8)(2)(f)(ii) to 8(2)(f)(iv) of the act, “the remaining individuals nominated—
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Yes. The clerk is informing me that you're on the old NDP-8, not the new one, which was submitted, I believe, this morning or today.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. I think this is the right one: NDP-8. This is the same text here, I think. Mine looks different, but it proposes that Bill C-33, in clause 101, “be amended by replacing line 20 on page 67 with the following”. Then it's the subparagraph that I'm not going to try to recharacterize, because it has 14 roman numerals after it.
It also proposes adding, after line 31 on page 67, the following:
(iv) the remaining individuals nominated by the Minister in consultation with the users selected by the Minister or the classes of users mentioned in the letters patent, including one individual nominated by the Minister in consultation with the labour groups selected by the Minister or with those mentioned in the letters patent;
Mr. Chair, this relates to the testimony we heard regarding the need for labour representation on the boards of Canadian port authorities.
This amendment would make the appointment of a labour representative parallel to the other appointments in terms of its being at the minister's discretion but clearly in consultation with the labour groups, the assumption being that they would be the relevant labour groups; that is, the labour groups that are involved with the operation of the port. It could also be the labour groups that are mentioned specifically in the letters patent of the port authority.
I think it's fairly self-explanatory, but I'll leave it at that and see if there's any other discussion.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.
Could you confirm for me, as well as the clerks, that we're talking about 12721749?
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, that's correct.
I literally read it word for word. I hope we're on the same page.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Yes. That's perfect. Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Badawey and then Mr. Strahl.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to emphasize the last part of that amendment, which reads:
by the Minister or with those mentioned in the letters patent;
I wanted to emphasize that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I guess the first thing would be a question.
This comes out and then.... The users who are mentioned in the letters patent right now have a number of seats that are allocated to them on the board currently. This amendment reduces by one the number of seats that the users mentioned in the letters patent would have on the board of directors. Am I reading that amendment correctly?
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
This would be among the remaining individuals nominated by the minister. There are a number of individuals on the boards who are specified in the legislation to be from municipalities, from the prairie provinces, etc. This would not take away from those.
I think Mr. Strahl's question is whether it would reduce the number of board representatives selected in consultation with the port users, and I think that's a fair question. I don't have the answer for that. Maybe we could look to someone who is more familiar with the Marine Act.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Sonya Read Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
The effect of the amendment wouldn't be to reduce the overall number of user-nominated or user group-related individuals on the board. It's just that one of those would now be in consultation with a labour user group as set out in the letters patent. That's my understanding.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
I don't have the number in front of me, but let's say a port user group is currently consulted on six. Now they would be consulted on five, and organized labour at the port would be consulted on one. Is that not reducing the port user group number by one?
Where it says “including one individual nominated”, is this adding to the board or is it reallocating? If it's reallocating, who is it reallocating from? That's my question.
9:10 p.m.
Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport
That would depend on the individual letters patent of the board. The user groups are defined in the letters patent for each individual CPA.
Six of 17 of the CPAs already do consult labour groups in the context. For six of the 17 CPAs, labour groups are included as part of their user group. In each individual CPA, the user groups may be defined slightly differently, but in this case, if you have, for example, six individuals nominated to the board, there would still be six user groups, only one of those user groups must be a labour group.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I understand Ms. Read correctly, she's characterizing labour groups as one of the user groups at the port. If I understand Mr. Strahl correctly, he's distinguishing between labour groups and port users, which would be terminals or other commercial entities that operate at the port.
Is that fair? I think we're saying the same thing, and what Ms. Read is saying....
Currently, the only users that are consulted about board seats are commercial port users—that is, terminals or other commercial entities. This would reduce, as Mr. Strahl is suggesting, the number of seats that are nominated by those users and add a single board seat that would be in consultation with labour groups. I think Mr. Strahl is thinking of those two things as separate—port users and labour groups.
Is that correct, Mr. Strahl?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Well, we just heard that in 11 cases, they are separate by the letters patent. Labour is not included in the user groups that are referenced in this section. Ultimately, if this were to be applied evenly, you would amend the letters patent to include labour in all cases, but I haven't seen that amendment yet.
I think we're not talking about adding a seat. We're talking about taking it away from a group that currently has it. From what we've just heard, we'll be reducing in 11 port authorities, taking a board seat away from a user group identified in the letters patent and reallocating it to the labour group.
I think we should be clear about what is happening. If I understand correctly, in 11 CPAs this will be the reality. There will be someone who loses for the gain. I think we should be aware of that as we consider this.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you, Mr. Strahl.
Are there any other questions or comments, colleagues?
Seeing none, we will go to a vote on NDP-8.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
9:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
We will now move on to amendment BQ‑3.2.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.
9:15 p.m.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do not know whether I am going to get a surprise after moving amendment BQ‑3.2.
Essentially, the purpose of this amendment is to allow the government to establish, in port authorities' letters patent, the extent to which they may use a joint venture or associate with other port authorities to carry on joint operations.