Bill C-33

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act

This enactment amends several Acts in order to strengthen the port system and railway safety in Canada.
The enactment amends the Customs Act to require that, on request, any person in possession or control of imported goods make those goods available for examination in accordance with regulations and deliver those goods, or cause them to be delivered, to a secure area that meets the requirements set out in regulation.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) add a definition of “safety” that includes the concept of security;
(b) prohibit interference with any railway work, railway equipment or railway operation, or damage or destruction of any railway work or railway equipment, without lawful excuse, in a manner that threatens the safety of railway operations;
(c) prohibit behaviour that endangers or risks endangering the safety of a station, railway equipment or individuals who are at the station or on board the railway equipment and unruly behaviour toward employees, agents or mandataries of a company;
(d) authorize the Minister to order a company to take necessary corrective measures if the Minister believes that
(i) a measure taken by the company in relation to a requirement of a regulation made under subsection 18(2.1) has deficiencies that risk compromising the security of railway transportation,
(ii) the security management system developed by the company has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security, or
(iii) the implementation of the company’s security management system has deficiencies that risk compromising railway security;
(e) authorize the Minister to grant, refuse to grant, suspend or cancel a transportation security clearance;
(f) strengthen the administrative monetary penalty regime; and
(g) require a review of the operation of the Act every five years.
The enactment also amends the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992 to, among other things,
(a) require persons who import, offer for transport, handle or transport dangerous goods to register with the Minister;
(b) provide to the Minister powers relating to the management of safety risks; and
(c) establish an administrative monetary penalty regime.
The enactment also amends the Marine Transportation Security Act to, among other things,
(a) set out the Act’s purpose and allow the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements with organizations in respect of the administration and enforcement of the Act;
(b) set out regulation-making powers that include powers respecting threats and risks to the health of persons involved in the marine transportation system, the sharing of information and the establishment of vessel exclusion zones;
(c) authorize the Minister to make interim orders and give emergency directions and modify the Minister’s power to give directions to vessels; and
(d) create new offences, increase certain penalties and extend the application of certain offences and the administrative monetary penalty regime to vessels.
The enactment also amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) specify that the Minister may use electronic systems in making decisions or determinations under an Act of Parliament that the Minister administers or enforces and provide that a power of entry into a place under such an Act may be exercised remotely by means of telecommunications; and
(b) reduce the threshold above which the Minister and the Commissioner of Competition must receive notice of proposed transactions relating to a port.
The enactment also amends the Canada Marine Act to, among other things,
(a) set out that port authorities are responsible for management of traffic and create regulatory authorities respecting fees and information and data sharing in respect of that management;
(b) provide the minister with the power to require, by order, the taking of measures to prevent imminent harm to national security, national economic security, or competition; and
(c) require port authorities to establish advisory committees, which must include representatives from local Indigenous communities, require periodic assessments of port authorities’ governance practices and set out new requirements respecting plans and reports relating to climate change.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act .

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much.

I would now like to move a motion I submitted to the committee in writing in both official languages on Friday:

That the committee undertake a study on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting at Airports and Aerodromes (Canadian Aviation Regulations, Section 303) allocating a minimum of three meetings to this study to hear from witnesses that include the International Association of Firefighters, the Canadian Airports Council and other interested parties, and that the Committee report its findings to the House.

Mr. Chair, this motion comes out of the debate in the House regarding another motion that's before the House, motion 96, which was introduced by Liberal MP Ken Hardie.

The purpose of the motion is to amend the current Canadian aviation regulations to adopt the International Civil Aviation Organization standards for airport rescue and firefighting. Specifically, the motion in the House is to give firefighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or a mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less, but it also specifies that a required function of firefighters be the rescue of passengers.

These changes are coming at the request of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The effect of the motion and the change proposed in it would be to increase firefighting requirements at airports so they can be met by professional firefighters.

There is some divergence of views on this issue. The IAFF has been obviously supportive of this, and for some of the major airports in our country, this will not be a major issue. They already have professional, full-time firefighters who can meet these standards and meet the definitions as laid out in the motion.

As we've been discussing here today as we're dealing with legislation, there are processes that are in place for changing regulations. These things are supposed to take a number of months and years and are supposed to hear from all sides of an issue—all interested stakeholders, all interested Canadians.

What we have heard in our discussions following the introduction of this motion, which again is up for debate very soon for its second hour, is that there are many smaller airports across the country that would be economically devastated if they were forced to change their operating model to adopt this very stringent requirement. They already do operate under the Canadian aviation regulations, which do allow for airports to have their own firefighting and rescue services, including allowing them to have airport operations staff who provide this rescue service, as opposed to having professional firefighters on call at the airport within three minutes of the middle of the furthest runway.

The costs on small airports or even mid-size international airports like Kelowna and Kamloops and Abbotsford in my province of British Columbia would number into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to make this change. We already know, because we've seen reports this week out of the Montreal Economic Institute indicating that the fees that are imposed on Canadian airlines and passed along to customers through higher ticket prices are already much higher than they are in the United States.

This proposal specifically calls for a charge to be added to every ticket for every passenger for every leg of their flights. That all adds up when you add all of the other charges that have been going up and up, including increased carbon taxes and increased costs for fuel. Those are all passed on to Canadian consumers.

We've seen, over the last number of years, that the number of incidents at Canadian airports is down. The number of incidents requiring a rescue is certainly down.

We think the best way to address this issue is to have this committee conduct more robust meetings, rather than simply having a debate that proposes a one-size-fits-all solution for all Canadian airports. That's the part of this that is the most troubling—the one-size-fits-all approach. We talked about that in discussing Bill C-33, when we were talking about the different regulations applying in different ways to different ports.

We believe this motion, which has been introduced and debated for one hour and will soon be debated for a second hour, needs a more robust discussion. Should the Vancouver International Airport have the same regulations and costs applied to it as Kelowna, Kamloops, Abbotsford or many of the other, smaller airports across the country? Can they absorb that and still meet their mandates to balance their books? The answer in the past has been no.

We've heard examples of how taking away this flexibility to provide a rescue service.... No one is talking about reducing the firefighting regulations as they are—getting to the end or midpoint of a runway in a certain amount of time and providing the ability, for instance, to put out a fire on a plane that had an emergency landing. Those requirements are still there. They are currently in the smaller airports operated by a dual-purpose staff who can provide that service to Canadians and that assurance to Canadian travellers and those travelling into our country that they are safe and secure, that they aren't in any danger because of the current regulations.

We want to make sure there are discussions and that we hear from the CAOs of those airports about what the change would do to them, and from the larger airports, such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, in order to determine what their current practices are and whether this would have an impact on them.

I think there needs to be an overall lens on this, as well as to the cost environment for Canadian passengers and airlines. As I said earlier, studies out in the last week are indicating the wide discrepancy. What happens when there is a wide discrepancy in costs is that Canadians start to look to.... There's leakage. There are jobs and opportunities lost for Canadian airports, airlines and workers, because Canadian passengers look to airports near the borders. They look for cheaper alternatives in Bellingham, Seattle, Montana and Buffalo. We've seen numerous cases of leakage in the tens of millions of dollars. This additional cost would have an impact on families, business travellers, etc.

I think we always want to make sure there aren't unintended consequences when we have motions like this coming before the House.

Again, there would be three meetings where we would hear from the firefighters. We're not saying that.... Perhaps they have the right approach; perhaps this is the way that things should go, but again, there should be an appropriate regulatory process.

When we were asking about what the timeline would be, for instance, to bring in regulations to ban thermal coal, we were told that it would be a three-year process and that there would be a robust discussion with affected workers, affected companies and affected industry, and that it wouldn't be done prior to those regulations coming into force. What we have here instead of that, in this motion that's in the House, is simply an imposition, calling on the government to impose new regulations without having gone through that regulatory process.

We promised we would bring this forward when we were debating this because we want to hear from firefighters, and we want to hear from airports and from airlines and from the workers who would be affected by this if this change were forced onto airports by a simple motion in the House of Commons.

We think there's a better way. We think that this issue is important and that it deserves more discussion, and the discussion should start here. We should hear from those parties and then, crucially, report back to the House. I think it is our right as members to ask for those hearings to happen, ask for that robust discussion to happen and then report back with the expectation that the government will hear from us, hear what we heard and come back with a response. Hopefully, there will then be a robust regulatory discussion and not simply the discussion happening for two hours in the House of Commons.

I note, Mr. Chair, that the bells are ringing in the chamber. I guess we have to suspend until that vote is over.

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

I just want to say that, in the context of Bill C‑33, which deals with the activities of port authorities, we believe that an amendment should not be passed that will, for example, prevent cities from carrying out activities that may be essential. This is despite the fact that we don't like cities discharging their wastewater into waterways and we consider that this is not the right place to do so.

We don't see what this has to do with port activities. I thought that limiting the requirement to wastewater from port activities would be more reasonable in the context of the bill that is currently being studied.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motion, just so everyone has it here, would amend Bill C-33 in clause 120 by adding after line 30 on page 77 the following:

(3) Section 62 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) regulations made under paragraph (1)(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

I think certainly Conservatives have had the desire to ban the dumping of raw sewage. Since we've now decided that we are going to use transport bills to advance other issues, I think it's only appropriate that now we talk about the dumping of raw sewage into Canadian waters, waters that are under the jurisdiction of the various port authorities.

Certainly we were very disappointed that one of the first acts of the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, was to authorize the discharge of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing government to bypass treatment plants and to simply discharge raw sewage, which is disgusting and which no doubt has a negative impact on that waterway.

In previous campaign platforms we've called for a ban on raw sewage being dumped into Canadian waters. It's something that is not good for the environment. It's not good for Canada's image. If we're going to use Bill C-33 to advance other agendas, I think we should also make sure that we ban raw sewage discharge in waters that are under the jurisdiction of the ports. I asked about this previously in passing. Obviously, a lot of territory falls under the jurisdiction of port authorities when it comes to their activities.

To the witnesses, what is the current amount of discharge of raw sewage in waters that are under the jurisdiction of port authorities? Does a port authority have the ability to prevent that sort of activity from happening? For instance, again, with the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Liberals permitted eight billion litres to be dumped into that active seaway, which, as we know, has a very diverse marine ecosystem. A huge number of residents, millions of residents, live in Montreal and downriver from where that raw sewage was dumped.

Is there anything the port authorities could do, if this amendment were passed, to prevent this sort of dumping of raw sewage from happening again?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

The year 2021, like that election, was in the middle of a pandemic. I think we need to be careful that we aren't picking a number.... If we want to have a number that doesn't increase going forward, I think we have to respect what the volumes are since the pandemic ended.

Maybe I can ask the witnesses if they have current information. Do they know if the volumes for Westshore or the port of Vancouver in 2022 or 2023 increased, decreased or remained the same?

I believe I know the answer to that. I think they have increased their throughput since 2021, which is not unexpected. We saw unprecedented congestion and problems at the port of Vancouver that year, which caused them to be ranked near the bottom of the global performance indexes in terms of dwell times, wait times and port congestion. I think it's unfair to go back to a time that was not normal in terms of the business cycle.

Once again, we could get into the discussion about the impact on workers at the port. If their volumes for 2023 are significantly higher than they were in 2021, as was their right.... There's no reason why they wouldn't try to increase their volumes, despite the fact that a 2030 phase-out is in place.

To suddenly cap it at 2021 while telling them, as the committee has just voted, that we're accelerating the phase-out of thermal coal faster than what we said we were going to, is strike one against them. Then, by the way, while we are accelerating this phase-out, we're going to force them to reduce their throughput as well. We're going to hit them once, and then, while they're down, we're going to kick them.

I realize the ideological discussion that's happening here. Once again, you're impacting union workers. You're going to force layoffs if, through the royal assent to this, you have to go back to 2021, which will be three years in the rear-view mirror.

If we want to have that discussion about a maximum year over year, we should do it. I think picking 2021, which was an anomaly year in the middle of a global pandemic with a port slowdown and with parts of the port shut down, is once again being unfair to the workers and to a company that is not doing anything illegal. It is operating under the program that has been described to them by the government. There was no promise that there would be no increase in thermal coal exports between 2021 and 2030. There was a promise that by 2030 it would be over.

I realize that there's a desire here to signal some virtue or ensure that the government keeps its promises. Again, we're missing the target here and you're hitting the workers.

I don't know how to amend it. I think it's just unnecessary at this point. You already have your accelerated phase-out. That's what was just passed. You're using a transport bill, Bill C-33, to accelerate a coal phase-out, which will impact workers right across the supply chain across the country. We spoke against that.

Now, to say that it's not just in Vancouver but also in Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay, and not only are you going to have an accelerated phase-out but you're also now going to have to go back to pandemic-level export numbers I think is unfair to the workers. It's wrong-headed. They're already going to be disadvantaged by the amendment that just passed.

The idea that we would further impede their ability to do business in the very short time frame that has now been given to them—business that they are working on with the government to come up with a program that allows them to comply with the government's regulations—I think is unfair. It's unfair to working families. We can't support it.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've seen over the course of a number of meetings now this whole discussion, and various subamendments, and there have been a number of versions of new amendments today. I think, as we've said from the outset on Bill C-33, that this bill is the wrong place for the intended policy being put forward in this amendment.

This is a bill that's about ports and about supply chains. We have here an effort to accomplish something that the Government of Canada has said it's already going to accomplish by the end of the decade. The players who are involved in that are already working towards it in an orderly fashion. We're proposing an abrupt change to that or an accelerated change to that. Pick any of the amendments or subamendments; I don't think any of them bring any clarity.

Mr. Badawey asked some good questions to the witnesses, who confirmed that a lot of this stuff is already taking place under other auspices. It's like we're changing the rules of the game in the seventh inning with 350 union jobs on the line at Westshore Terminals, ILWU jobs. We don't know the number at Prince Rupert. We don't know the number at the port of Thunder Bay. We have 400 workers in Hinton, Alberta, who are impacted by this. I learned over the weekend there are another 150 to 250 direct jobs in Edson, Alberta, that are impacted by this.

That's already a significant number of good, well-paying jobs in the Canadian economy. Those are the direct jobs, not the indirect jobs, for something that doesn't belong in this bill and that is already being pursued by Environment and Climate Change Canada.

We're saying we should stick to the rules of the game as they were set out. Let's work towards an orderly transition for 2030. Let's leave it at that.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So far, we've had a lot of discussion about amendment BQ‑5. Much has been said, and I don't intend to add any more. However, I would like to commend the NDP, who have put forward a subamendment with the aim of achieving the maximum compromise possible, in order to gain the agreement of many members of the committee. I would therefore like to salute this approach.

What I see is that amendment BQ‑5 is weakened. Personally, I consider it urgent to deal with the coal issue. In my opinion, the 2030 deadline mentioned in the roadmap is too late. Nevertheless, we must ensure that the government keeps its promises. I'm fully convinced of the relevance of amendment BQ‑5, as originally tabled, and of the modified version, if any. It's better than nothing at all. As long as it remains a promise, it won't be enough. At least, if it's enshrined in law, it will have a little more force. It will be a step in the right direction.

As for the subsequent amendments that have been submitted to the committee, these are not subamendments, but amendments, and they will have to be debated. In my opinion, unless our legislative clerk says otherwise, the committee will be able to debate them at the appropriate time. I'm realistic about the outcome, but I think everyone wants to move the bill forward. We need a better framework, and it will be essential, it seems to me. We need to be sure that other measures will eventually be taken. It remains to be seen what the opinion of the committee members is on these amendments.

Right now, we need to discuss Mr. Bachrach's amendment, which was introduced by Ms. Zarrillo. It's time we discussed it so that we can finish studying Bill C‑33. That said, for my part, I still see this as a weakening of amendment BQ‑5.

I don't intend to drag out the discussion on the subject forever, but I wanted to mention that it would be better to keep the original version, in my opinion.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To quote Mr. Badawey, isn't this what's already being done? I think that's the point we've been trying to make now for several meetings. It's that the government has made this commitment to phase out thermal coal by 2030, however you want to define that, whether January 1 or December 31, 2030. I note the new date now.

Again, the concern continues to be that by putting an amendment.... Also, we just heard that Transport Canada doesn't have the authority or isn't the right government department to ensure that workers are protected, etc., which is why, I think, we've been arguing that this Bill C-33 is not the right piece of legislation to try to shoehorn this prohibition into.

This work is being done. The negotiations are taking place. The consultations are taking place among the affected groups to ensure that there is a transition plan and that they are working with Environment Canada and the natural resources department to develop plans that will respect contracts, respect workers, respect international contracts and law and trade agreements and all the things we've raised in the last number of meetings.

This subamendment talks about “(1.4) if no regulations are made under subsection (1.1) within 48 months”. It's essentially saying that the Governor in Council, the cabinet, must do it. If they don't, there's this accountability function. If they don't do this within four years, we're now advancing the transition by a number of years. If this law comes into force in 2024, which we assume it will, by 2028, according to this amendment, there must be regulations in place or the cabinet or the government of the day will have to table in the House and the Senate the reasons that they have not got the job done, so we're talking now about 2028 being this accelerated transition phase again.

Then going back to (1.3), it says it must be done by 2030. With this prohibition tacked onto this bill, as I read it, we are talking about any time between royal assent and 2030, with a slap on the wrist, a public humiliation or an explanation before the House and Senate as to why it hasn't already been banned. Once again, we are talking about accelerating the phase-out by a number of years with this amendment. It doesn't force the government to do it within 48 months, but it does create an incentive to accelerate it faster than had been laid out by the government.

I think it's a nice try to try to let the workers know that they will be consulted, which is part of the regulatory process already, so I would say that this is redundant in parts and certainly doesn't provide the protection that workers are actually looking for, which is that they will be given the time frame that has been promised to them to make that transition from thermal coal. In the case of Westshore Terminals, as we've talked about, it's to potash.

My first concern is that this subamendment is pushing this forward and accelerating it by a significant percentage. Going from six or seven years to four is not insignificant.

The second point is that there appear to be several other amendments that are going to deal with the first part of this. I'm not sure how to handle this, Mr. Chair, and how it works when an individual who has proposed an amendment that is now being subamended has now proposed more amendments.

Perhaps Mr. Barsalou-Duval can chat about his plan here. It appears as though we're now subamending an amendment that itself may be withdrawn or amended. By the end of this, I think we're going to really have to pause for a moment and get a very clear picture of what we're actually considering at this point, given the flurry of back-and-forth that it appears will happen on this section.

We continue to believe that the amendment and the subamendment are unnecessary and that this work is already under way. We've been told it's under way by both the union and the company. I have no reason to doubt them on that.

We are now into I don't know how many meetings in discussing this. I think it's misplaced to try to insert this ban into a transport bill when it should be dealt with by Environment and Climate Change Canada or NRCan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 95 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us once again with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome back our witnesses.

Joining us once again from the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Also, once again, we have our legislative clerk, Monsieur Philippe Méla. Welcome back.

Colleagues, we left off with new BQ-5.

I see a hand raised by Ms. Zarrillo.

Ms. Zarrillo, if you would like to get us started on that discussion, by all means, the floor is yours.

[Tim McEwan]

Thanks very much for the question.

I'm ill-equipped to speak to Bill C-33.

I would say that, generally, our association—and I personally—support free collective bargaining. It is constitutionally entrenched in this country.

In this circumstance, though, when matters bargain to an impasse, there need to be—and we're very pleased to see the review the minister is undertaking under section 106 of the Canada Labour Code—tools that can be used to keep parties at the table so they can come to a fair and equitable resolution. In some cases, that may mean binding arbitration, final offer selection arbitration or other means to resolve a dispute.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It's two things.

First, do you agree that negotiations are best negotiated at the table?

Second, for the current law presented, Bill C-33, are there things in there you agree with and think would help, or are there things you might want to see in there in order to make sure we strengthen the law?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We're talking today about finding measures or solutions to ensure that, in the future, the negotiation process can continue at the table. I think that we all agree that the best negotiations happen at the bargaining table.

The government tabled Bill C‑33, An Act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

To make sure that we're all on the same page, I'd like to say the following. The bill aims to amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate; remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure and resilient supply chain; expand Canada port authorities' mandate over traffic management; position Canada's ports as strategic hubs that support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth; improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and modernize provisions on rail safety, security and transportation of dangerous goods.

In its current form, the bill is a win‑win approach. Of course, the bill could be strengthened. That's our focus right now.

I want to hear the witnesses' views on this matter.

First, do they agree that the best agreements are made by the parties at the bargaining table?

Second, I would like to ask each witness to comment on the legislation. Some witnesses have already made suggestions, but others haven't yet had the opportunity to do so. What does it mean for the members and sectors that you represent?

Ms. Martin, I'd like you to answer the question first. The other witnesses can then respond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a tiny portion of Canada's economy that relies on the import and export of coal. We all agree that it's not essential to the Canadian economy, but it is essential, for example, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. So, if we have the political will, we'll say that it has a minor effect on the economy, but a major effect on climate change. It seems to me that the equation is simple: a small gesture can have a very big effect with very few consequences. Isn't that wonderful? There would be few consequences for the economy, but many benefits for the climate. It's all very positive. So there's no reason not to go down this road.

However, where I'm most stunned—I simply can't believe it—is that there's a party, a representative of which is sitting on my left, which is supposedly left-wing and which, officially in its election platform, defends the environment. It tells us that it defends the environment, that we must reduce greenhouse gases, that we must make an effort. But let's look at the amendment tabled by the NDP. I had intended to discuss it. I thought we'd see what kind of compromise we could come up with.

The Americans have already stopped exporting coal through their ports because they figured it didn't make sense. How often we align ourselves with our American partners, whom we so love to take as examples. Logically, we should do the same and put an end to this export of coal, which makes no sense for the planet. We're lagging behind the Americans. Why don't we catch up? I don't understand it.

In fact, there seems to be no will to catch up, at least, not before 2030. What's more, the NDP amendment is even worse than what the Liberals are proposing. Maybe the NDP didn't realize it, or maybe they didn't draft their proposed amendment well, or maybe the translation is wrong; in any case, subsection (1.1) of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

(1.1) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the prohibition, by December 31, 2029, of the loading and unloading of thermal coal to and from ships in a port.

It doesn't say “must make” or “will make,” but "may make.” It means “maybe he will” or “maybe he won't.” In my opinion, it's not a very strong commitment; it won't scare a lot of people.

Next, in subsection (1.2), we're given guarantees in case subsection (1.1) doesn't apply.

Subsection (1.2) reads as follows:

(1.2) If no regulations are made under subsection (1.1) within 48 months after the day on which this section comes into force the minister must cause a report stating the reasons that no such regulations have been made and establishing a schedule for making regulations to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first 10 days on which that House is sitting after the expiry of that 48‐month period.

The text ends there. Then, I presume, they explain why the regulations aren't in place yet.

Generally speaking, despite the translation that seems to be wrong, we understand that the NDP wants the government to explain itself to Parliament if it doesn't do its job, if it doesn't keep its election promise to stop importing and exporting oil by December 31, 2029. It will have to explain why it decided not to and what its plan will be afterwards.

I'm very disappointed that the NDP seems even less ambitious than the government. The government has promised to end the import and export of coal by 2030. So, “by 2030” means it could be 2030, 2029, 2028, 2027, 2025, any time between now and 2030. So it could be before 2030. I understand that when we say “by 2030,” it may not be tomorrow morning. Earlier, I referred to oil instead of coal, but I was talking about coal. I don't want to be misquoted. That said, as far as oil is concerned, we'll have to get there one day as well.

With regard to such amendments, I was thinking that perhaps there had been a negotiation between the parties. Maybe the NDP and the Liberals talked to each other. Maybe they even talked to the Conservatives. Earlier, the Conservatives were telling us that if there was a predictable roadmap, they would agree.

I find it interesting to see Conservatives say they'll agree, if they keep their promise. However, that's not what we heard after the tabling of the NDP amendment, which has no effect and creates no obligation. This amendment just cancels amendment BQ‑5, basically, or it gives the minister the power to do something, maybe one morning, if he feels like it, or maybe do something on December 31, 2029.

So I need a serious explanation of how we could hold the Liberals to their promises. At least, if they keep their promises, we'll be able to talk. We'd like the dialogue to move faster. Faster would be better. I think everyone agrees on that.

We're talking about a single location, a single mine, which alone, with its coal, produces as much greenhouse gas as the entire Quebec car fleet. Yet we don't want to tackle this problem. I don't understand that. I don't understand it, Mr. Chair.

What's even crazier about all this is that this mine hasn't been in operation for 100 years. It hasn't been in operation for 50 years either. It's been in operation since 2019, four years after the signing of the Paris Agreement. We already knew that we were heading for the end of hydrocarbon exploitation. We already knew we were moving towards clean energy. That was the global action plan, including Canada's 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan. In 2019, when this mine started up, once the investments had been made, its owners knew full well that they would eventually have to deal with the government's wishes. When you operate a business, there are risks. For example, the business might not operate; there might not be a workforce; there might not be a market for its products. When you decide to do business, that's part of the rules of the game. There are risks.

There's also the risk that a government will create regulations and laws that will mean our investment may not return as much as we would have liked. It may turn out differently. It's a risk that's part of the legislative environment, the governmental environment, the political environment. It's all part of it. When you invest in a company, you obviously hope that its environment won't change. But there's no such thing as a static environment. All environments change at some point. Nothing is eternally immutable.

Moreover, the government has announced that it intends to end the export and import of coal by 2030. What's crazy is that this mine wants to increase its production by 50%. It wants to do more—when what the whole planet is saying, and we agree, is that we need to do less.

The Conservatives are defending this company. I feel there's a bit of hypocrisy there. They're telling us they agree with the 2030 deadline, and that surprises me a bit. After the NDP tabled its amendment, which imposes absolutely no obligation and has absolutely no effect, the Conservatives continue to systematically filibuster around an amendment that is absolutely insignificant, ultimately, and poses no threat to this company.

In fact, I'm trying to understand the current situation. I get the impression that, around the table, there are simply three parties who are very timid and reluctant to make the necessary efforts to achieve the results to which they have committed themselves. At the very least, there are two parties committed to the Paris Agreement. I'm pretty sure that's the case for the NDP and the Liberal Party. We haven't heard from the Liberals yet. I can't wait to hear their comments. I can't wait to see how they vote.

To me, it's very clear that the NDP's proposed amendment, as written, is absolutely unacceptable. You have to have at least a little ambition.

For example, we could claim, as the Conservatives say, that we need predictability. We need it out of respect for the people who work in this field. On that, I agree. That's why, in Quebec, for example, when we put an end to nuclear energy and asbestos, we set up programs to help people working in these plants find other jobs. There were, for example, funding programs to help new businesses get established.

The Bécancour Industrial Park, among others, is becoming an extraordinary place, one that will give rise to massive investment in the economy of tomorrow, particularly in the electrification of transport. As we all know, the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant used to be located in this region. It's because of the closure of the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant that such projects are now taking place in Bécancour. In fact, programs have been put in place to help the economy of the future settle in these areas, rather than relying on the economy of the past. We told people we were going to help them look toward the future rather than the past.

However, what we're seeing now are Conservatives and New Democrats defending the extremely polluting energy production of the past.

I'm bitterly disappointed to see an amendment like this, and I hope we'll have a chance to give it some teeth. The Conservatives tell us that they agree with the 2030 deadline. In other words, the NDP amendment doesn't even go as far as what the Conservatives support. It just doesn't make sense. This is the NDP pretending to stand up for the environment.

I'd like to add something in connection with what was said about predictability and the need to stop exporting and importing coal by 2030. We say we want predictability and we want to respect the Paris Agreement. As I said earlier, one mine alone emits as much greenhouse gas as Quebec's entire automobile fleet. And that's not counting the planned increase in production, which will boost emissions by 50%. This means that mining and exporting this coal will produce one and a half times the greenhouse gas emissions of the entire Quebec auto fleet.

Moreover, we know that this coal is exported to China, which produces electricity with extremely polluting coal. I don't understand why we don't encourage China—this country that Conservatives hate so much and with which Liberals are currently at loggerheads—to make its energy transition. Personally, I have no particular aversion to China. Of course, I'm aware that their regime is different from ours. However, I don't think we have to fall flat on our faces in front of China either; nor am I sure that putting in place slightly stricter regulations would have much impact, in the end.

So, if we really intend to put an end to hydrocarbon exports produced from coal by 2030, we should at least start by stabilizing them and by saying that we won't be doing any new projects. You'd have to start by quietly reducing production, perhaps, but you certainly shouldn't increase it. That would make no sense. How can we reduce it if we increase it? Are we going to produce more gasoline-powered cars to have fewer of them later? Will there be fewer fuel-burning airplanes later if there are more now? Absolutely no one could understand such reasoning.

Logically, if we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, this implies a transition. This means finding different ways of achieving the same ends, and developing new technologies to produce as much energy as we do now. That's what we're talking about right now.

The good news is that there are already different sources of energy. There's hydro, wind and gas. I'm not so much in favour of gas, let me reassure you right now, but natural gas-fired power generation is a lot cleaner than coal-fired. There are so many solutions to replace coal-fired power generation that I find it hard to understand why we don't at least want to begin a transition.

We could start the discussion by talking about ways to initiate a transition and make sure the government keeps its promises. I don't think the government is going to tell us that it doesn't want to keep its promise. I hope they're going to tell us they're going to keep it.

So I'll start the discussion on that. I hope that my colleagues will reassure me, that amendment BQ-5 will be adopted and that Bill C‑33 will also be adopted, so that we all come out winners, collectively.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we have a lot of time to talk about Amendment BQ‑5. I see that a lot has been said, and I have a feeling we'll be talking about it for a little while yet. That said, for the benefit of the people listening—and I hope there are a lot of them—I'm going to take the time to explain the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in.

The purpose of the proposed amendment to Bill C‑33 that we're discussing right now, Amendment BQ‑5, is to put an end to the export and import of thermal coal. Why do we want to put an end to this? Because thermal coal is probably the worst way in the world to produce electricity. I don't think there is a worse way. Right now, if I'm not mistaken, 31% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are produced by coal-fired power plants. Coal-fired power plants alone account for 31% of emissions. Canada is the world's seventh-largest coal exporter. So we're complicit in this. Canada is one of the main countries causing this extreme pollution on a planetary scale.

Interestingly, the government had already announced that it intended to end the export and import of coal at Canadian ports. That was good news. However, the bad news was that this would not happen until 2030. You might say 2030 is better than never.

The Conservatives got scared. They said we couldn't end coal production and that it didn't make sense. Finally, they tell us they agree on the year 2030. I'm surprised. I hope we can see that today, because we're going to put the Conservatives' word to the test. If the Conservatives tell us that they agree on the 2030 date—that's what we've heard—that means that, in theory, they'll vote in favour of a proposal to that effect.

There's a famous coal mine in Alberta. I'd have to find its name. The Conservative member mentioned it earlier today. The people listening to us, and those around the table, may not know it, but this mine currently produces 10 million tonnes of thermal coal a year. In terms of pollution, that's the equivalent of the Quebec car fleet. It's huge. It's enormous. It's monstrous. It's gigantic. A single plant produces as much greenhouse gas with its coal as the entire Quebec car fleet. Yet the Conservatives are rending their garments. They say we absolutely mustn't touch this. How, then, are we going to stop climate change? How are we ever going to mitigate climate change if we don't tackle this and we let one plant produce as much pollution as all the cars in Quebec? It's crazy.

And yet, the Liberals say we shouldn't touch it before 2030. I have the impression—we'll see—that the Conservatives say it should never be touched. If we follow their plan of action, we'll all die of asphyxiation before we manage to pass anything, Mr. Chair. I think that's pretty crazy. I feel like I'm witnessing a crude farce, because I think the Conservatives don't respect people's intelligence. An MP told us earlier that parents won't have any more diapers for their children if we close this plant. He became indignant when I laughed. It doesn't make any sense. People won't have diapers because we're not producing coal anymore. Is that it? It doesn't make sense.

There might be ways of doing things differently. In Quebec, we decided to put an end to certain industries we deemed harmful to the collective interest. We can do the same thing on a state level.

For example, in Quebec, the decision was made to end the use of nuclear energy, and the Gentilly‑2 nuclear power plant was shut down. People lost their jobs. That's true. However, there are others who still have jobs there, because the plant has to be dismantled to safely end its operations.

We also decided to end asbestos production, Mr. Chair, because it was causing cancer, killing people, here and abroad. At some point, we got smart, and figured it might not be a bad idea to end production of something that's killing people.

Coal kills people, Mr. Chair. What's more, it's not half of Canada's economy that's based on this industry, but a tiny proportion—

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Okay.

I would also like to draw attention.... The further we get into this, the more ridiculous it seems that the government members would be supporting this amendment. I can understand how a Bloc member can, with no affected workers and a different goal in mind, but I'm very surprised that the Liberal members on this committee would allow this amendment and indicate their support for it, when it so clearly has not been part of the consultations done by the minister in advance of this legislation. Quite frankly, the work has not been done to justify any of the job losses proposed. It seems, in fact, that the information on the proposal in amendment BQ-5 has not been considered at any level—international, national, provincial or local—or by the unions involved.

I can tell you that when President Rob Ashton of the ILWU was before this committee, he did not bring it up. It was not brought to his attention. I can assure you that, had it been brought to his attention, he would have strongly advised that he would be fighting for the 350 jobs that will be impacted at the port of Vancouver alone. He certainly told us that. Since the government announced its intention to move forward with this Bloc amendment and support it.... The fact that he was here and was not asked about it, or given an opportunity to provide his input on it.... I think he would be quite surprised that he and his workers are being taken for granted. That's 350 in Vancouver. We don't know the numbers that will be affected in Prince Rupert or Thunder Bay. Maybe it's a handful. Maybe it's hundreds. That analysis has not been done, yet members of this committee are prepared to support an amendment that could throw the entire system into chaos and advance this thermal coal ban.

Again, no one is disputing that this is going to happen. What we are talking about is a professional, reasonable process that respects workers, the investments made, the contracts signed and the discussions that are currently ongoing in Ottawa, which are being undermined by members of this committee, who should and do know better. They're telling the workers one thing at one table and are prepared to come here and sandbag them at another. It's quite outrageous.

I want to go back to when the former minister introduced this bill. The whole point of Bill C-33 was this: “Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act: Minister...introduces a new bill to make our supply chain stronger”.

I'll go through the list of what the bill aims to do:

amend current legislation and modernize the way Canada's marine and railway transportation systems operate;

remove systemic barriers to create a more fluid, secure, and resilient supply chain;

expand...Port Authorities' mandate over traffic management;

position Canada's ports as strategic hubs that support national supply chain performance and effectively manage investment decisions for sustainable growth;

improve the government's insight into ports and their operations; and

modernize provisions on rail safety, security, and transportation of dangerous goods.

Together, these measures seek to improve the supply chain, including the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and operations that are safe, secure, efficient, and reliable. The proposed measures would support the flow of essential goods and would implement tools to mitigate risks and impacts of future supply chain challenges.

I guess the question is this: How does advancing the thermal coal export ban by several years improve the supply chain?

How does it improve the competitiveness of Canada's transportation system and operations that are safe, secure, efficient and reliable? How does it support the flow of essential goods and implement tools to mitigate risk and the impacts of future supply chain challenges?

Of course, the answer is that it does the opposite of that. I would argue that it actually throws a wrench into the supply chain. There are 170,000 cars that the rail companies have contracted to move goods until 2030, and suddenly that's slammed shut, and by several years they lose that traffic. They lose those trains. They lose those jobs. They lose that revenue.

I have no idea, nor does the government have any idea, how they will make up for that, or what the impacts on the supply chain will be.

Once again, we have heard evidence here that this is not well thought out, that this is not the place that the government, if it wants to change its mind and accelerate its thermal coal ban.... Again—I repeat it again and again—no one is disputing that thermal coal exports will be banned, but what is in dispute is the timeline.

By all measures, by all of the answers we've received, we don't even know what this will do, let alone what the long-term impacts will be. We don't know what it will do today. We don't have the information on the impacts today. I think it's completely irresponsible to consider moving forward with this amendment, given what we know and given what we don't know, which is significant, given what we've just been told.

Once again, I would urge members to think closely about what this will do and what we have been told this will do. This is not Conservative propaganda here. This is what we've been told by the longshore and warehouse union at the port of Vancouver.

We've been told that the impact on them would be devastating. We've been told that these are family-supporting jobs. We've been told that the company has been very responsive in working with them to try to find a way forward and to replace the jobs that will be lost by the thermal coal ban, by moving to a different commodity, but this takes time. It takes time that the government has promised to them.

The ILWU is very upset at the prospect of 350 of their members being out of work because the government has decided to support a Bloc Québécois amendment. That is what we're trying to put a stop to today. That's why we're talking about this, because of the impacted workers who have been told they have time to transition to a new commodity. On the one hand, they've been told the government will give them to time to make that transition, and on the other.... The government is speaking out of both sides of its mouth.

They're telling the workers, “We've got your back. Don't worry. There will be a transition. We'll let you have time to make this changeover,” and then on the other side now, at transport committee, tacked on to a supply chain efficiency bill, a ports modernization bill, we have a government that is willing to throw those workers under the bus, because we've heard again and again that no matter how you dress it up, this will result in several years of less opportunity at those terminals at Vancouver, the port of Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay.

We've heard that very clearly. No matter how long the regulatory process is supposed to be dragged out.... We have no guarantee of that. We've seen this government use orders in council, use the power of the cabinet, to make unilateral regulations on a whim. We saw it when they banned 1,500 firearms, including many hunting rifles. They just did that on their own. There was no regulatory process involved there. That was the cabinet making a decision on their own.

We take no comfort in the fact that the regulatory process is slow, because the government has shown that when they want to make a change, they can make it quite quickly; they can be unilateral, and they can make a change on a whim based on what the Prime Minister's Office wants to have happen.

We take no comfort in the fact that it usually takes three years to come up with regulations. It might take three years, three months or three days, depending on what the government decides. This amendment gives the authority to the cabinet to make those changes as soon as this law receives royal assent.

We've gone from 2030, in the mandate letter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, which is what that department and Natural Resources Canada have been negotiating with.... The companies, including Westshore Terminals, and the workers have been at the table discussing how this transition is going to go. I would have assumed that those negotiations were taking place in good faith, but when we have something like this that completely undermines it, that has to be questioned.

Once again, on this amendment, while perhaps it is something people can support—that there's a thermal coal ban coming, so why don't we just use the Canada Marine Act to make it happen...? I don't blame Mr. Barsalou-Duval for putting it forward, but I think we've proven, through questions, answers and the lack of information, that the work has not been done to justify its passage. We are not fighting for anything but the process that will protect the workers, that will ensure that they have the transition time they've been promised and that the companies can do their work.

That is going to happen. If you talk to people in the industry, no new thermal coal mines in North America are being approved. This phase-out is a fait accompli. However, this timeline, which has suddenly been thrust upon this committee through Bill C-33, is disrespectful to the workers who will lose their jobs and to the companies that are talking to the government in good faith on one hand while this is happening on the other hand.

I really think that, again, this exposes Canada to a number of risks, of lawsuits that could cost into the hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. If we're talking about multiple-year contracts that are cut short by multiple years, Canadian taxpayers can expect to pay. That is not something this bill envisaged. It's not something former minister Alghabra spoke about in the House. It's not something Minister Rodriguez spoke about when he came before this committee.

This is a government playing politics and trying to jump on board to look like it is concerned about the environment and look like it wants to move this forward, but we've seen numerous examples where that is simply not the case, where there's no plan. This is another example of having no plan, a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants approach, which, again, has a devastating impact, on workers.

It might sound great, in an Ottawa committee room, to do this, to move ahead and to accelerate the timeline, but it doesn't sound great to the people in Delta or to the workers in Tsawwassen and Ladner, who face the prospect of losing their jobs because this will come too quickly for the adaptation to occur. The planning is already well under way.

I would say that the government—the Liberals and the NDP especially, as there are no Bloc MPs in British Columbia—will have to answer to those workers, and the hundreds more workers who aren't in the ILWU but will be impacted by any shutdown of Westshore Terminals. They can't just wait around with an empty terminal for years while the potash mine gets going and the volumes get ramped up. This is complex stuff that takes billions of dollars of investment and years and years of planning. For all that to be undermined by a one-line amendment thrown in on a clause in a bill that didn't intend to deal with this is unacceptable.

It seems that the government has made up its mind that it's going to go ahead with this, but it's a shame, and it's a shame that it isn't listening to the workers and the communities that will be impacted but, for political purposes, is charging ahead with this.

I won't assume to know why, but I think it probably has to do with keeping the peace with the coalition, and that's not any way to govern the country.

Again, this is irresponsible. It is something that has not been thought out. Consultations have not been done. Legal analysis has not been done. Economic impact studies have not been done. It will throw supply chain partners into chaos. It will negatively impact many of the partners we rely on to move our goods and the workers we entrust to keep our ports up and running.

If the government, the Liberals, want to go ahead with this, they can answer to the ILWU who, trust me, will have a lot of questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I see. I think it's fairly clear that this has not been in Transport Canada's file, that this was never envisaged to be a part of this legislation, because I know that the public servants who serve the government in this country would do their due diligence and would have done all of that work, had they believed that the Canada Marine Act, in section 62, would be the method by which the government would choose to accelerate its own timeline for a thermal coal phase-out. I believe that there's too much professionalism, and that they would not leave a minister and the government and the taxpayers of Canada this exposed. They would have done their homework. In fact, it would have been a part of the bill to start with, had this been something the government intended to move forward with.

I want to go back now. The legislation we're dealing with, Bill C-33, comes out of a consultation process that was undertaken by the then minister in the ports modernization review. I'm wondering if we can go back to that to determine this. Did the transport minister.... In the summary of the evidence, in the summary of the hearings and what you heard from people who participated in the ports modernization review, was an accelerated thermal coal ban one of the priorities? Was that a priority of the people who engaged in the ports modernization review? Did this come up?