Transport Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll make sure that you're the first to get the floor when we are at clause 125, if that's okay with you.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

My last thing, Mr. Chair, is that I know that there are some folks around the committee table who have other places to be, and I know that the votes, etc., have shifted the timeline of this meeting. I wonder if you would entertain a motion to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

It's non-debatable, so we'll go to a vote.

Do I have unanimous consent?

We do not have unanimous consent.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I didn't ask for unanimous consent. I asked for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We have to vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I listened carefully to the comments of my Conservative colleague, as well as those of my NDP colleague. I completely understand their concerns or their point of view with regard to the amendment we're proposing. However, I don't have the same concerns.

I would say that my concerns are the opposite of his, because my main concern is about climate change and the damage that coal use is doing to the planet and our environment. Greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas, heating oil or petroleum are unparalleled compared to those from coal. No fuel is even comparable to coal in this respect.

The government did promise to ban the export of coal by 2030. It was in the Liberal election platform. However, I would say that 2030 is too far away. We need to accelerate climate action now. There's a global crisis, and 31% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions come from burning coal for electricity. This is major. The impact of burning coal is huge.

I'm completely open to the idea of discussing the terms we'd like to impose. Is six months too short? I don't know. I don't know what they're basing the six months on, either. Basically, amendment BQ-5 proposes that the regulations prohibit the loading and unloading of coal. I can't say whether the regulations will come into force in six months, three weeks or a year. Maybe the government could tell us. Perhaps a specific date will even be set out in the regulations. However, I find that proposing a coming into force in 2030 isn't responsible. I think it's too late. We're already behind.

The Conservatives, and perhaps even the Liberals, often say that we have to keep up with our American neighbours when it comes to electrification or the standards we want to put in place. It's used as an excuse. However, we're even behind the Americans. In reality, saying that Canada wants to keep pace with the Americans is an excuse for not acting, for not moving faster than them. The fact that our neighbours aren't moving quickly shouldn't even be an excuse for us to move at a slower pace.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to belabour the point, but I think it's important that we move forward and that we adopt this amendment. Canadians, like Quebeckers, expect their elected representatives to take responsible measures in the interest of everyone, such as reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and reducing the combustion of coal. There are virtually no other fuels that generate more pollutants than coal. I don't see how we can say we're going to do this later, or we're just not going to do it.

I think it needs to be done more quickly, and I invite the members of the committee to vote in favour of the amendment. In terms of enforcement, if there's a desire to have a specific enforcement provision in the bill, I think we'll have time to discuss that later. In the meantime, we have time to think about it, because I have a feeling that we won't finish the study of the bill this evening, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I have Mr. Bachrach, and then Mr. Strahl.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

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

I would like to ask the witnesses what consultations Transport Canada has undertaken with the ILWU.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl, you have my apologies. I had given the floor to Mr. Bachrach, and you were next.

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

I'm sorry. I heard Mr. Strahl. I will stop talking for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry about that, sir.

Mr. Bachrach, please go ahead.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. My apologies to Mr. Strahl.

I also have questions for the witnesses.

Based on the wording of the Bloc amendment in front of us, what would the approximate timeline be if the government were to start considering what the regulations were to look like when this bill comes into force?

How long before you could get through all the consultations, the regulatory stages, etc., and actually have a regulation coming into force?

[Sonya Read]

The process, as far as I'm aware, would normally take about 36 months from inception through consultation through gazetting.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

If this bill came into force in 2024, then it could take as much as three years. Thirty-six months is three years.

[Sonya Read]

It can be longer. It depends on the nature of the regulation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We're looking at 2027-28. Even if we were to pass this today, it's going to take several years to actually get regulations that hit the ground and create the change.

Could those regulations also include a timeline for the phase-out? I guess what I'm getting at is that the language before us is fairly broad. “Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must prohibit the loading and unloading of thermal coal to and from ships in a port” doesn't include any timeline. How would that be interpreted? Could the regulations include a timeline other than right away?

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

Given the language in the proposed amendment, it's impossible to say exactly how it would be interpreted, but it does use the language “must”—that the regulations “must prohibit”. Therefore, I think we can interpret that to be literal.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Can we interpret that to be right away?

[Rachel Heft]

We would have to examine that. The regulations are being drafted, but it seems to be phrased as an obligation.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

From your perspective, would the amendment benefit from clarity on the timeline, or is that an opinion you could provide?

[Rachel Heft]

I don't think that's an opinion we can provide.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

The first answer, to me, was the most illustrative, which is that the regulatory process takes quite a bit of time. Therefore, the alarmist commentary that Mr. Strahl was providing.... Although I understand how he interpreted it that way, I don't think that's actually the reality that would unfold. We've seen with other regulatory commitments that the reality is that the government takes quite a bit of time to consult people, put together the regulations, consult people on the regulations and put together amended regulations. That can take three or four years.

Even on the very fastest timeline that this bill would envision, it would still only come into effect a couple of years before the 2030 commitment. Maybe that's something that can be refined with subamendments, but this is just to be clear about what we're talking about here for anyone watching who thinks that, as soon as this vote is done, it's going to cause cataclysmic change.