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 .

[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?

[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.