Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Ms. Zarrillo, we do have the correct version distributed to members, so I will turn the floor back over to you to read the new version of the subamendment.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I thank the committee for their patience on this one.

Amendment BQ-5 proposed to amend clause 120 of Bill C-33 by adding subsection (3) after line 30 on page 77. I move that this amendment be amended by replacing “Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must prohibit” with the following: “That the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the prohibition of”, and the following after subsection (1.1): “(1.2) In making regulations under subsection (1.1), the Governor in Council must consult with relevant trade unions on ways to protect port workers who will be affected by the regulations, including by providing for continued collective bargaining, for the respect of collective agreements, for the creation of alternative opportunities in the marine transportation sector and for pension bridging; (1.3) regulations made under subsection (1.1) must provide for the prohibition of the loading and unloading of thermal coal to and from ships in a port no later than December 31, 2030; (1.4) 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 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.”

As I was saying earlier, Mr. Chair, I think the NDP and the Bloc are on the same page on this, and this is an opportunity to provide fairness for workers and still allow the government their obligation to phase coal out by 2030.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Zarrillo.

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Badawey. Mr. Badawey, the floor it yours.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo. I think that's a great subamendment.

I have a question, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the team over at the end of the table.

I have two things. First, isn't this already happening?

I'll ask my second question right away, because in fairness, there might be a connection between the two. Why does it say the Governor in Council “may” instead of “shall” in the original part of it? Is there a difference? Is that standard? I'd like to get some clarity on that as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft, Manager and Senior Counsel, Transport and Infrastructure Legal Services, Department of Transport]

With respect to your question on the reason for the use of “may”, “The Governor in Council may make regulations” is a standard formulation for regulation-making. It empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations specifically respecting a general area or subject matter, which will include potentially more than just the prohibition. It could include elements to lead to the prohibition or address potential unintended consequences that are within the scope of the prohibition itself or within the other subject matters that are listed under the Governor in Council's responsibility in the Canada Marine Act specifically. It's a standard formulation.

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

In respect of the first part of Mr. Badawey's question, I would just note that the regulatory development process requires a robust consultation as part of its development process, including the development of a regulatory impact analysis statement that is included in the Canada Gazette. All interested or normally impacted groups would be included as part of that process.

In respect of the particular amendment that was read out, I would just note that there are some elements of that amendment that I am not sure Transport Canada would actually be able to address in respect of regulation towards collective bargaining or pension, as these are private sector employees under a collective agreement with the private sector employer, although the Canada Labour Code does govern that relationship as part of a federally regulated sector.

That would be our commentary on that particular amendment.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Just to be clear on this, although the subamendment states that this must “protect port workers who will be affected by the regulations, including by providing for continued collective bargaining”, that would not be under the purview of Transport Canada. That would be under the purview of the group that's actually bargaining—the private sector organization or company, or whoever it may be—and the union. To be clear, Transport Canada would have no part to play in that process. It wouldn't play the part of the facilitator or mediator or anything like that unless it was actually looked at in terms of the minister bringing it forward, such as bringing a mediator in. It might be even the Minister of Labour that would be doing that, not the Minister of Transport.

The second part of it is with respect to “collective agreements, for the creation of alternative opportunities in the marine transportation sector and for pension bridging”. Just to be clear, this is not an area that Transport Canada would involve itself in. It would be more between the union and the folks the union is bargaining with.

[Sonya Read]

Yes, that is my understanding, subject to any requirements of other federal legislation, but it would be outside the purview of Transport Canada. It may be raised in the context of a consultation process. However, Transport Canada would not necessarily have the legislative authority to actually address any of those issues.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Finally, through you, Mr. Chair, during the consultation process a lot would be said, obviously, and a lot would be learned between the two groups discussing the different issues. How would Transport Canada then play a part in bringing that message to the actual collective bargaining process? Would they include the folks? Would it be all-inclusive in terms of who's around that table, or would it be a communication that Transport Canada would send out to the different groups that may not be at the table?

The bottom line is this, Ms. Read: How would they actually communicate the consultation they're having with the union to those the union is actually bargaining with?

[Sonya Read]

I think that would depend on the nature and the process that is undertaken in respect of consultation. Generally speaking, once a regulatory amendment is in draft form, there's a regulatory impact assessment. It goes through a first stage in terms of Canada Gazette, which gives all other implicated parties an opportunity to provide additional input in respect of the outcome of that regulatory impact analysis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

[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]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I now give the floor to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I have Mr. Muys, followed by Ms. Zarrillo.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate the dialogue today, because I think that what I'm hearing is really almost a consensus. I know that there were some comments today that maybe this bill isn't the right place because this is already happening. If consultation with labour and consultation around fairness with workers is already happening, then this is the place to put it.

In another bill that I worked on that was on the Canada disability benefit, we extended a lot of trust to the Liberal government. We extended a lot of trust, but at the end of the day, we now can't seem to get the needle to move with the Canada disability benefit because it's not written in legislation.

I think this bill is a good place to put in some language around consultation and what needs to be involved in that consultation. There's been agreement by all parties that this is already happening, but we just want to have it on paper. I think that's good transparency. It's good use of legislation to make governments accountable.

It will be up to the government at any point. They can phase out any time they want to, from now to 2030. We just want to make sure that it's done in consultation with the labour groups.

I'd like to see this move ahead quickly as well, like others on this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lewis is next.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

I just want to echo the comments from many of our colleagues here this afternoon. I very much agree with Mr. Badawey. I believe most of this work is already being done. When I look at proposed paragraph 120(3)(1.2), I have to ask the question: Doesn't the government already consult with the unions?

I'm quite sure that if we look at the last number of strikes at the port of Vancouver, of course we'll see that the government already consults with the unions. I don't know why we would infuse this legislation with something that's already happening. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In all my conversations with the ILWU on the 350 jobs, and that's not talking about the jobs in Thunder Bay and Alberta and so on and so forth, not that those aren't important jobs.... I don't see why this subamendment is going to make a whole lot of impact going forward. I think the conversation needs to be about 2030 and ensuring that these folks with the good-paying jobs have security through until 2030. I think that's what needs to be the conversation. Accelerating the phase-out, I think, is an issue. I believe it to be an issue.

Let's get a plan to ensure that thermal coal is phased out by 2030, but let's not accelerate it. Let's ensure that folks can have some kind of job security going forward.

Mr. Chair, in my opinion and my opinion only, I believe most of this work either has been done or is being done as we speak. I don't think we need a subamendment to this effect.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lewis.

We'll now go to a vote on the subamendment. We'll turn it over to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Carine Grand-Jean]

Ms. Zarrillo has her—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Very quickly, before we go to a vote, I want to be sure that we.... The language does not say “must”. The language says “may”. I just wanted to clarify that.