Transport Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Are there any questions or comments on the amendment, NDP-4?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(Clause 61 as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 62)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor on the subject of amendment BQ‑3.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At our last meeting, on Monday, I moved amendment BQ‑2, the purpose of which was to make sure that immediate action would not depend on the opinion of the minister rather than on the necessity of the action.

The spirit is the same in the case of amendment BQ‑3. It therefore proposes to remove the words “the Minister is of the opinion that” and retain the rest of the paragraph.

I will not expand any further on the subject, because I presume that the result and everyone's opinion will be fairly similar to what they were regarding the previous amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. Your assumptions are correct. I can pretty well read verbatim what my comments were on Monday with respect to the same issue. It was all about reasonableness.

The bill was created on the basis that the reasonableness standard will be used in all these determinations. The reasonableness standard is what has generally been used in Canada's judicial system. Correctness would mean that the minister would essentially have no discretion to exercise the power, given that the threshold will be too high, making it unusable.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Seeing no other questions or comments, we'll go to a vote on BQ-3.

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

(Clause 62 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

Colleagues, there are no amendments to clauses 63 to 85. It will require unanimous consent to group them all together. Do I have unanimous consent?

(Clauses 63 to 85 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

We now have NDP-5, which would create a new clause 85.1.

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment is simply the schedule that is referenced by the two previous amendments that we dealt with. It lays out the specific areas in the southern Gulf Islands that those amendments would apply to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there any comments, questions or thoughts? Seeing none, we will go to a vote on NDP-5.

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

Colleagues, there are no amendments to clauses 86 to 99. Do I have unanimous consent to group them together?

(Clauses 86 to 99 inclusive agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

(On clause 100)

Next is NDP-6, and for that, I will turn it over once again to Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not going to read the entire text of the proposed new section, but it inserts a number of words.

Under proposed paragraph 4(f), it inserts the words “or in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored”, and in proposed paragraph 4(f.2), it adds the words “as well as the protection of the environment and the well-being of the communities in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

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

This relates—for anyone following along at home and having trouble sleeping—to the purpose section of the Canada Marine Act and expands it slightly, in the same manner as previous amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I believe Mr. Badawey had a point of clarification or a question.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

He just gave it to me, but I would like to comment on this if I may, Mr. Chair.

We're not against this idea, but in hearing the wording that Mr. Bachrach just put forward, we would suggest making sure that we keep the obligations of the ports within their jurisdiction. I'm throwing out two counter-proposals.

One is (a) replacing line 6 on page 67 with the following:

community in which a port or harbour is located or in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored within the port jurisdiction;

The second is (b) replacing line 14 on page 67 with the following:

chains as well as the protection of the environment and the well-being of the communities in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored within the port jurisdiction;

I'll look to Mr. Bachrach, after he gives it some thought, to comment on my counter-proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

The whole text, Mr. Chair—and I appreciate Mr. Badawey's suggestion—reads:

manage the marine infrastructure and services in a commercial manner that encourages, and takes into account, input from users, Indigenous peoples and the community in which a port or harbour is located

—and then our addition—

or in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored

This isn't just about the area that a port has jurisdiction over. It's also the area affected by its activities. It could be just outside of that, but the port has influence over those activities. For instance, “Indigenous peoples” could include indigenous people who reside in the larger territory and are affected by the port's activities.

This is pretty high-level language. It simply states that when the port manages the marine infrastructure and services in a commercial manner, they should also take into account these broader factors. In most cases, that will be areas under their jurisdiction, but I think there are cases in which the impact of the activity of the port actually extends outside of the specific geography that they have jurisdiction over. They should take that into account as well. That's the intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Ms. Moriarty would be the most appropriate person to ask this question to: Would they have jurisdiction over this? If it's outside the port jurisdiction.... Would the port actually have jurisdiction over activities that happen outside its jurisdiction?

[Heather Moriarty, Director, Ports Policy, Department of Transport]

They would not. Canada port authorities have the ability to manage what's within their jurisdiction, what's within their letters patent—what they have been asked and given the authority to manage.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Would they actually be able to do what this amendment is asking them to do?

[Heather Moriarty]

They often undertake activities outside of the port, but that is different in terms of how it gets classified.

In terms of Canada port authorities, they can undertake activities outside of their jurisdiction, but they are limited in terms of the intent and how they're managed. Ideally, it would be within the jurisdiction of the ports, just for clarity and ensuring they have what they need to appropriately manage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thanks, Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

The amendment text is the text that precedes it in the purpose of the act. Perhaps if I read that, it will put it in context, because it's not actually referring to ports at all, it's referring to the act. This is about section 4, under the purpose of the act. It states:

In recognition of the significance of marine transportation to Canada and its contribution to the Canadian economy, the purpose of this Act is to

It would then carry on with:

manage the marine infrastructure and services in a commercial manner that encourages, and takes into account, input from users, Indigenous peoples and the community in which a port or harbour is located or in proximity to which vessels are regularly anchored.

It's talking more about the government's responsibility and the minister's responsibility, and less about the ports' responsibility specifically. I know there are other parts of the act that relate specifically to the jurisdiction and activities of ports, but I think the purpose is broader than just ports. It's actually all marine infrastructure and services.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Kurek.

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

Thanks very much.

I just want to make sure I understand that there is a subamendment. Is it beneficially proposed? I'm not 100% clear on that, so I want to make sure we have it in writing.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

No. I haven't put it on the floor yet. We're just discussing it. I'm trying to get clarity from the officials, as well as on the intent of Mr. Bachrach.

Hopefully, once we have this discussion, we can tailor it to what Mr. Bachrach is looking for and what is acceptable in terms of what we can actually do as a government, and/or what the port can do through its letters patent.