SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/10/23 10:27:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government has carved out room on the boards of our ports for municipalities and local governments for obvious reasons. They are important stakeholders in our ports. As well, they have carved out room for the prairie provinces so that shippers of natural resources have a voice when it comes to the operation of the ports that deliver those resources to market. However, we all know that it is the working people at our ports who are so essential to their success. I wonder if the minister would be willing to expand the representation on our ports to include the working people who are so essential to the function.

111 words

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Hon. Omar Alghabra

Mar/10/23 10:32:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague is trying to personalize his question, but let me be very clear. Ports are public institutions. They are there to serve Canadians and the Canadian economy. It is really important that the port mandate is in line with government's expectations and commitments. Therefore, it is important that the board of directors is aligned with government's objectives. Yes, we need to be careful and sensitive about this and make sure that the ports have the independence they need, but, at the same time, make sure that they maintain their responsibility to the public.

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Hon. Omar Alghabra (Minister of Transport, Lib.)

Mar/10/23 10:53:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to express my disappointment with my colleague's take on the bill. I would say that he has said a couple of contradictory things. On the one hand, he said that the ports need to have a national lens. On the other, he opposes introducing representatives of the prairie provinces to the boards of the ports. On the one hand, he said that the ports need to be at arm's length from the government, which I agree with. However, on the other, his own leader is criticizing the government for policies that, by the way, the ports enacted under the Harper government. Therefore, he has made several contradictory statements. I would ask my colleague this: Will he really miss out on this opportunity for us to work together on strengthening the governance of ports? I welcome his ideas for amendments, but it would be prudent to send this bill to committee so that we, as members of Parliament, can work together on advancing the goal that we all agree on, which is making sure that our ports are more efficient and resilient.

187 words

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/10/23 10:54:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I certainly disagree with the minister's characterization of my remarks. I have no problem with the provinces having representatives on the board; they already do. I have said that the users of the port, the tenants, are having their voices diluted by adding others to it. That needs to be addressed. As I said in my question to the minister, it does not really matter if the provinces and port users are supposed to have a voice in who is selected to the ports to represent them if the minister ignores their voices. He would be ignoring them if, when nominees are put forward by the provinces or port users, the minister said, “No, I know best. I am going to appoint people who have not been recommended because Ottawa and the Liberal government know best.” They do not know best, and they should start listening to those groups that are directly impacted.

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Mar/10/23 10:55:26 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. The Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, but we have some concerns. The various proposed measures may end up creating a disproportionate administrative burden for small ports. According to my colleague, how might we amend this bill in committee to ensure that the administrative burden is not excessive for small ports?

66 words

Context: House Hansard - 168 - Mar/10/23

Mr. Mark Strahl

Mar/10/23 10:56:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I tried to address some of that in my speech. I think the bill was written for the Port of Vancouver. It was clear that the government looked at the Port of Vancouver and designed the bill around that port. This absolutely does not take into consideration a port like the Port of Saguenay, which has very different volumes and financial resources, as well as a different size. The bill is very clear. It imposes all three advisory committees, no matter where the ports are across the country; quarterly financial statement requirements; and a greenhouse gas emission evaluation. We have to delete all the clauses that impose these new burdens on all ports, because not all ports have the same capacity to manage them.

133 words