Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2023

[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?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

(On clause 120)

We will now resume our discussion on BQ-5.

I'll open the floor. I see Mr. Strahl's hand is raised.

I'll turn the floor over to you, sir.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

In the last meeting, I asked a number of questions of the witnesses. I'm hoping that, in the 48 hours since we last met, some of the ones they didn't have answers for.... I'm going to ask them again, in case, in those 48 hours, they've firmed up their answers or have been able to gather the information I asked for.

Most of these were answered by Ms. Read.

I asked whether, apart from thermal coal, there were other commodities or goods prohibited from being loaded or unloaded in section 62 of the Canada Marine Act.

I want to give Ms. Read an opportunity to answer that, if she has a firm answer today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Read.

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

The answer to that question about whether anything else is banned—in terms of import or export under those regulations—is no.

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

Okay.

I went on to ask how many direct jobs would be lost at the Vancouver port, specifically at Westshore Terminals, if this amendment was to pass unamended. I wonder whether you've had a chance to gather that information.

[Sonya Read]

My understanding is that Westshore Terminals have 250 full-time employees.

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

Okay.

I also asked if there had been an economic impact study done on a thermal coal ban, in terms of the timeline proposed by BQ-5.

Were you able to find any information on that?

[Sonya Read]

We would have to defer to colleagues at Environment Canada with respect to that question.

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

Okay.

Another question I asked was, would the ban on thermal coal being advanced, immediately after this amendment takes effect, apply only to the port of Vancouver?

I guess the question is this: Is thermal coal exported through any other Canadian ports?

[Sonya Read]

Yes. Currently, coal is exported through the port of Prince Rupert. Some thermal coal, we understand, is exported through Thunder Bay.

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

Okay, so—

[Sonya Read]

There may also be private sector ports. They would not be impacted by regulations under the Canada Marine Act.

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

We have Vancouver, the port of Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay. Do you have the volumes by tonnage of thermal coal that was exported in 2022 through each of those ports?

That's just thermal coal, if you have it....

[Sonya Read]

With respect to the port of Vancouver coal, 39.8 million tonnes of coal are exported. In the case—

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

Right, but a lot of that would be metallurgical coal, which is not impacted—steel-making coal that the government has not yet decided to phase out.

I'm looking for the delineation between thermal coal and metallurgical coal. I think that is an important distinction here. They're very different and used for very different things. One's used for electricity generation, which is being phased out, while the other is used for steel-making, which is only going to increase.

Thermal coal, specifically, is what I'm hoping we might have information for.

[Sonya Read]

We don't have that breakdown.

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

Okay.

We now know it would impact workers in Vancouver, workers in Prince Rupert and workers in Thunder Bay, but we don't know the number of workers and we don't know the specific volume, so, we're still, I would argue, voting on this without all of the information we need, or discussing it without all of the information we need.

We heard that in Vancouver, Westshore Terminals is planning to transition to potash transloading from rail to marine, but that is going to take a number of years and a significant investment, in the millions of dollars.

Do we know if the ports of Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay have similar plans to offset the loss of thermal coal exports at their ports?

[Sonya Read]

We don't have full information for all of the individual terminals. We are aware that the terminal in Prince Rupert has plans with respect to transitioning away from coal, based on the expected ban that was announced. With respect to Thunder Bay, I don't have any information, unfortunately.

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

We don't know if those jobs would be permanently lost or if they would eventually transition to something else, based on the timeline.

I also ask if Transport Canada entered into discussions with ILWU for Vancouver. I'm not sure which union handles the thermal coal at Thunder Bay or the port of Prince Rupert.

Do you know which union represents the workers who will be impacted at the ports of Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay?

[Sonya Read]

I believe it's ILWU at Prince Rupert. I'm not sure of the bargaining agent at Thunder Bay. To the best of my knowledge, I'm not aware of any conversations with the union in that regard.

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

Transport Canada hasn't had discussions, nor has it....

Are you able to confirm whether Transport Canada has spoken to anyone in the Vista mine in Hinton, Alberta, or anyone in Hinton, Alberta, about the economic impact that accelerating the phase-out would have on that mine, its workers and the town?

[Sonya Read]

I'm not aware of any conversations that Transport Canada would have had, but I would defer to colleagues at ECCC about whether or not they've had conversations.

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

Okay. Thank you.

I wanted to ask you as well how many railcars, on an annual basis, would be carrying thermal coal to the port of Vancouver or to Westshore Terminals. How many railcars do we think would be impacted by this accelerated phase-out?