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 .

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 94 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 consideration clause-by-clause 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 using the Zoom application.

To help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I'd like to welcome our witnesses back. They include, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome to you once again.

Of course, we also have with us our legislative clerk, Monsieur Philippe Méla.

I'd like to welcome you once again.

Before we begin, colleagues, I want to inform members that, unfortunately, there was a small error that occurred in the last meeting. I have to bring it to the attention of members once again.

For the subamendment to NDP-15.1, there's a small correction that needs to be made. We had approved “In the case of a port authority specified in subsection 37.3(a)”. In the last meeting, I asked you to approve a small change. Unfortunately, that small change was also incorrect. I was just informed by our legislative clerk. He asks us to once again seek unanimous approval to replace “subsection 37.3(a)” with “paragraph 37.1(3)(a)”.

Do I have unanimous consent from all members?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, perhaps, am not as trusting of the government as Mr. Bachrach is, understandably. I do think he's heard a possible scenario, but these workers have also been told that 2030 is when this transition will be done by. I recognize that “done by” means it could be earlier, but I am not convinced that this is something that we should leave up to a cumbersome regulatory process in order to give those workers the opportunity to have the government live up to its promises.

Yes, the regulatory process takes time. With regard to the amendment, which I apologize for moving early—I misunderstood that—I want to be very clear that we are not talking about giving a free pass to thermal coal. We are simply talking about giving the workers the time they were promised for an orderly phase-out, as has been indicated.

That would be my question. This is not in, by the way, the Minister of Transport's mandate letter, as far as I'm aware. This is in the Minister of Environment's mandate letter.

Quite frankly, to tack this on to Bill C-33 without consulting with the ILWU and with the workers in Hinton, Alberta, is outrageous. We would never consider that this would be something that was appropriate.

I guess this would be a question I would ask the officials: Has Transport Canada entered into discussions with the ILWU or with workers at the Vista mine in Hinton, Alberta, to discuss the timeline for a phase-out on thermal coal exports?

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I think I was asking some questions of the witnesses. I was told that no other commodities or goods have been prohibited under section 62. It hasn't been used previously in this way.

During the break for the voting, I was able to look up the number of jobs that would be directly impacted by this amendment's passing. I think we should be very clear that Westshore Terminals is aware that the government has a 2030 timeline. They are not trying to overturn that.

They are not trying to change the government's mind, even though they might have a difference of opinion there. They recognize the direction that this is going in and in fact are working with the government, but not at the transport minister level. This is being done with natural resources bureaucrats and with Environment and Climate Change Canada. This company is working with the government on their timeline.

The mining companies and terminal operators do not operate in six-month projections. They are planning out decades into the future, and I think what is so surprising about this is the timeline that's being proposed. It's not giving Westshore Terminals...which would lose, we've been told, anywhere between 125 and 350 ILWU workers, who would be out of a job, if this came into force as quickly as the Bloc amendment proposes that it does. They are, as I said, planning for a thermal coal free future. They are planning to bring on a significant volume of potash from a new mine in Saskatchewan that will not become fully operational until the end of the decade. Then they have plans already into the mid-2030s to move ahead and switch commodities and keep those 350 jobs and the untold number—hundreds more—of indirect jobs at the port.

I think the timing is a real issue here. The timing caught them completely by surprise, because they are currently negotiating with the government on timelines. In the last meeting we had, last Wednesday, when Mr. Badawey was explaining that they would be supporting this amendment from the Bloc, he talked about a phase-out, and he talked about the Minister of the Environment's mandate letter. A phase-out isn't six months. That's not a phase-out. That's slamming the door in the face of those workers and telling them to hit the bricks. There is no way to phase in potash when the mine won't even open for several years and won't have enough production for another decade.

That is a real insult to those ILWU workers that the government claims to stand up for, that the NDP claims to stand up for and that the Bloc Québécois claims to stand up for. It's a funny way to show it: to show them the door within six months if this passes, as we expect it would.

There's also the issue of a mine in Hinton, Alberta, the Vista mine, which is the only thing going, quite frankly, in that region. The community rallied around that mine, again with an understanding that thermal coal has a shelf life and that 2030 is the deadline for how long they can hope to export this commodity. We know that they are planning for that as well. There are 400 union jobs at stake and an entire community that believed they had until 2030 to continue to work at that mine, which supports their families and supports their community. In fact, to get it reopened, the community, the suppliers and everyone at that mine took a huge hit.

They were owed money when a previous iteration of the mine couldn't make it. They took less money than they were owed so this mine could continue to operate on the Liberal government's timeline, and I think that is the critical issue here. There is no one who believes the future of the mining sector in this country is in thermal coal, but we do believe in an orderly process. We do believe words should be kept and negotiations that are under way should not be abruptly cut off with this type of amendment, which has no coming-into-force provisions outside of royal assent.

I do have a subamendment, Mr. Chair, which has been circulated to a legislative clerk, which says that Bill C-33, in clause 125, be amended by adding after line 16 on page 80 the following: “(6.1) Section 120(3) comes into force on January 1, 2031.”

What that would do is honour the government's commitment to allow both the terminal workers and the mine workers to continue to transition away from thermal coal to other products, as has been promised by this government and is currently being negotiated by this government and these entities that are currently processing thermal coal.

That subamendment has to do with the main issue we have here—that an abrupt six-month timeline or even a year to come into force is still half a decade shorter, six or seven years shorter, than what these workers were promised. I think we need the government to keep its promises. It can still meet the objectives of the mandate letter. It can still honour their word in the negotiations that are currently under way. Simply saying that this comes into force when royal assent is achieved, I think, is extremely unfair to those workers and it's not what they have been promised by this government.

This amendment would ensure that, as of January 1, 2031, there would be no more thermal coal imports or exports, but it does allow for the time those companies have been promised and those workers have been promised to be honoured.

I'd be happy to hear my colleagues' comments on that subamendment.

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

If this proposed subsection of the act were to be adopted at this meeting and, subsequently, by Bill C-33, when would it come into force?

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

I will probably be with you this Wednesday.

BQ‑5 concerns clause 62 of the bill.

I move that Bill C‑33, in clause 120, be amended by adding after line 37 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)(a) must prohibit the loading and unloading of subbituminous coal and lignite coal containing less than 70% carbon to and from ships in a port.

Witnesses who took part in the committee's work told us about the fact that we're still allowing coal to be exported from Canadian ports, in addition to allowing coal to be used for electricity as well as for production purposes. This is a completely archaic practice, dating back to the last century, and it shouldn't be supported or encouraged by Canada. As a society and as an economy, Canada is trying to eliminate the source of energy that is oil, but we're talking about coal here. It seems completely incongruous to me that we're still in a dynamic that promotes the export of this type of energy.

However, the amendment makes a distinction. We're talking about thermal coal, or coal for heat production. We want this type of coal to continue to be exported so that the industry can continue to produce steel, because it needs it. We're not talking about steel‑making coal or high‑carbon coal.

I hope that all members of the committee will vote in favour of this amendment so that we have a better planet, to accelerate the energy transition to green and renewable energy, and to eliminate the energy sources of the past, which should no longer be used today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 93 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 consideration of clause-by-clause on 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 using the Zoom application.

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

From the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Amy Kaufman, counsel.

To help us with clause-by-clause, as well, we are pleased to be joined, once again, by our legislative clerk, Philippe Méla.

Thank you again for being here today.

Colleagues, we're now resuming clause-by-clause. When we left off, the committee was debating clause 120, and had just voted on amendment PV-5, which did not carry.

(On clause 120)

The committee will now resume debate on BQ-5.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for joining us here today.

I have two quick items I want to follow up on.

My colleague started by asking for an economic impact assessment document. I would like to get on record that you will be able to provide that document to the committee. Heads are nodding, so I'll take that as a yes.

Secondly, there was also discussion around Bill C-33 at the beginning of this committee. I want to follow up on some of the comments made.

Essentially, do the bulk exporters at the port support this active vessel management process being proposed by the Port of Vancouver?

[Sonya Read]

As announced in the course of Bill C-33, we are undertaking work regarding the complementarity of ports, and that work is under way. We will then be looking at things that will include work around the opportunities, challenges, risks and opportunities associated with collaboration.

[Sonya Read]

Bill C-33 proposes a number of legislative amendments, particularly related to vessel traffic management. It would provide greater capacity for ports to actively manage vessel traffic going in and out, and help improve the fluidity of the supply chain in terms of the presence of vessels unloading and loading cargo.

It also provides a framework for ports to collect certain types of data from port users to help support active traffic management. That is also an important input in terms of providing a line of sight into when vessels need to be at port, what cargo they're moving and how long they can be expected to remain in port.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Thank you.

Thanks to the witnesses for being here today.

We all know Canada's ports play a significant role in the lives of Canadians, handling more than 90% of Canada's marine traffic. More than 343 million tonnes of cargo were shipped through our ports in 2021 alone. It's Canada's port authorities, or CPAs, that advance the growth and prosperity of the Canadian economy by managing these key marine infrastructures and services.

Earlier this week, I had the pleasure of addressing the Canadian Association of Importers and Exporters. We heard directly from them about the value ports add in terms of getting their products to market around the world and the economic value of creating jobs right here in Canada.

I'd like to hear more from the witnesses here.

Could you share with our committee how Bill C-33 would optimize traffic management by Canada's port authorities, and the benefits that could be realized through this important legislation?

[Sonya Read]

With respect to indigenous consultation and involvement in terms of the process around anchorages, I think there are a few considerations.

The first is that we have, through Bill C-33, amended the CMA in a couple of ways to ensure that there's a recognition of the nature of indigenous groups. They're not just a stakeholder; they have a special status within the context of the CMA, and that's recognized through changes in the purpose of the act.

In addition, some of the changes involve adding indigenous groups as an advisory committee to broader port activities. That is another mechanism whereby indigenous groups can feed into the processes and the decision-making by the ports over time.

I would note that in the context of the southern Gulf Islands anchorages, we have begun a process respecting indigenous consultation that began in February of this year. In terms of the governance of anchorages and the potential management of those anchorages by the VFPA, that process is still ongoing. It is meant to be a very robust process that reflects the nature and the traditional activities of indigenous groups in those waters. It includes discussions in terms of their involvement and how those anchorages are to be managed into the future.

We are very cognizant of our obligations under UNDA and of the respective indigenous groups in the southern Gulf Islands.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking at several amendments for this clause, from many parties. I'll just give our explanation for this amendment.

Bill C-33's language on the management of marine traffic presupposes that a centrally controlled government system is required to address anchorage and mooring issues. Not only is it highly unlikely that a regulated traffic management system will be required or the best approach in every marine port across the country, but we believe that it's an obligation of the government to consider the least trade-restrictive or commercially restrictive approach that still achieves the desired social or environmental outcome. This requirement recognizes that the government will consider alternative approaches.

Regarding the strikeout on fees, port-related fees are already applied and within the mandate of the port authorities. The addition of user fees in this section is duplicative with existing authorities and would inevitably cause confusion.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I thought I was going to have time to eat.

Thanks, Taylor. Yes, we support 90 days for the smaller ports. We want to be clear on that. The 60 days for the regular ports is simply consistent.

As Ms. Moriarty alluded to, the fact is that it's very fluid when it comes to the ports, especially with respect to their borrowing limits. In meeting with the port authorities, even beyond this process of Bill C-33 and especially over the last couple of days, this was a topic of discussion.

What I mean by “fluid” is that their balance sheets move around quite a bit and quite quickly. If it's a debenture that might be paid out or maturing, they then open up the ability to borrow more and to put more capital into their facility. This, in my view, would only benefit them at 60 days.

Again, it's consistent with business practice, but it will also benefit them with respect to having the ability, if need be, to fulfill their capital needs by having that borrowing limit expanded because of those debentures that might mature at that time, or other reasons, of course, that would open up some room for them to do more capital work for which they would have to borrow.

[Sonya Read, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Going back to the other amendment that was made, which would ask that the government specify in the letters patent the types of collaborations that can be undertaken by these entities, effectively I think the two pieces will work together.

There are a number of amendments in Bill C-33—existing and potentially as amended—that would require us to go through the process of revisiting the letters patent to update them to give effect to that. That would ostensibly be one of the things we would be consulting on, or we would engage with ports, I guess, on that collaboration in the context of those discussions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 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 using, as always, the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us once again this evening with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, I would now like to welcome our witnesses, who include, from the Department of Transport, Ms. Sonya Read—welcome back—director general, marine policy; Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy—welcome again; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and, of course, Ms. Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome, all of you.

I'd also like to welcome back our legislative clerks, Jean-Francois Pagé and Philippe Méla.

Oh, pardon me.

He isn't here?

Unfortunately, colleagues, we have only half the capacity of our legislative clerk department, but we have Mr. Méla joining us, and he has 23 years of experience, so we're in good hands.

(On clause 108)

Colleagues, where we left off at our last meeting was, I believe, at BQ-4.1.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk.

We had a subamendment that was proposed by Mr. Badawey, which I believe was submitted to all members.

For that, Mr. Badawey, I'll turn it back over to you to get things started.