TRAN Committee Meeting

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities met at 11:13 a.m. this day, in Room 269, West Block, the Chair, Mervin Tweed, presiding.

The Committee commenced its clause-by-clause study of the Bill.

Emile Di Sanza, Laureen Kinney and Ekatarina Ohandjanian answered questions.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 1 to 4 inclusive carried.

On Clause 5,

“(3) Subparagraphs 8(2)(f)(ii) and (iii) of the Act are replaced by the following:

“(ii) a number of individuals comprising a majority of the board of directors who are either municipal councillors for the municipalities mentioned in the letters patent or appointees of those municipalities,””

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the Bill, as provided on page 654 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 5 to 13 inclusive carried.

On Clause 14,

(a) replacing lines 6 to 10 on page 7 with the following:

“14. Section 25 of the Act is replaced by the following:

“25. Even if the port authority or subsidiary is an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada as provided under section 7, no payment to a port authority or a wholly-owned subsidiary of a port authority may be made under an appropriation by Parliament to enable the port authority or subsidiary to discharge an obligation or liability unless

(a) the payment””

(b) replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 7 with the following:

“or

(b) the authority for the funding of”

Clause 14, as amended, carried.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 15 and 16 carried.

On Clause 17,

“(4.1) A port authority shall not engage in any activity related to the non-marine transport of passengers and goods except if that transport is incidental to the marine transport of those passengers and goods.”

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 17 to 20 inclusive carried.

Clause 21 carried.

On new Clause 21.1,

“21.1 Section 43 of the Act is replaced by the following:

“43. A special examination shall be carried out by the Auditor General of Canada.””

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend section 43 of the Canada Marine Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 43 of the Canada Marine Act is not being amended by Bill C-23, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment.

Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

On Clause 22,

“(3.1) A port authority shall not permit the development of or construction on any federal real property or federal immovable that it manages, occupies or holds without first having obtained the permission of the municipalities mentioned in its letters patent and of the province in which the port is situated.”

RULING BY THE CHAIR

Bill C-23 amends the Canada Marine Act to clarify the circumstances under which the Minister may give to a port authority the management of any federal real property or federal immovable. This amendment proposes a framework for consent wherein the port authority may not engage in development or construction without obtaining the permission of the applicable municipality and province.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654:

‘An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.’

In the opinion of the Chair, the introduction of this framework for consent is contrary to the principle of Bill C-23 and is therefore inadmissible.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 22 to 26 inclusive carried.

On new Clause 26.1,

“26.1 Section 48 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

“(1.1) In developing the land use plan referred to in subsection (1), the port authority shall consult with the municipalities mentioned in its letters patent and the province in which the port is situated.””

RULING BY THE CHAIR

The amendment seeks to amend section 48 of the Canada Marine Act.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 654:

“… an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is specifically being amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 48 of the Canada Marine Act is not being amended by Bill C-23, it is inadmissible to propose such an amendment. Therefore, the amendment is inadmissible.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 27 to 32 inclusive carried.

On Clause 33,

“33. Section 61 of the Act is replaced by the following:

“61. (1) Subject to any regulations made under section 62 or under the Marine Transportation Security Act, a port authority shall take appropriate measures for the maintenance of order and the safety of persons and property in the port and for the maintenance of marine transportation security, including having an annual security audit performed the Minister of Public Safety.

(2) A port authority shall not sell or lease a port facility to a non-Canadian within the meaning of the Investment Canada Act unless the Minister of Public Safety has reviewed the proposed transaction and advised the port authority in writing that the acquisition or lease of the port facility by the non-Canadian would not pose a security risk to Canada.””

After debate, the question was put on the amendment of Brian Masse and it was negatived, by a show of hands: YEAS: 1; NAYS: 10.

By unanimous consent, Clauses 33 to 66 inclusive carried.

The Title carried.

The Bill, as amended, carried.

ORDERED, — That the Chair report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

ORDERED, — That Bill C-23, as amended, be reprinted for the use of the House at report stage.

At 11:56 a.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.