Transport Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[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.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to a member of the committee again.

The amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there seems to be a problem with the interpretation. We're going to look into that.

I'm told that the problem has now been resolved.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor again.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Lewis, we don't see you, sir.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I know. My screen just went completely black. I was on the call. Should I log off and log on? What am I supposed to do?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I will turn it over to the clerk for guidance on this.

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

Mr. Lewis, you will have to log off and log on, but we will have somebody from technical support help you out.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you.

Do you want me to do that now, Madam Clerk? It literally just went black. I can see everybody, but nobody can see me. This is very strange.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

As a courtesy, I'm going to suspend the meeting for a few minutes to rectify the audiovisual situation with Mr. Lewis.

This meeting stands suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I know the AV team is working with Mr. Lewis to rectify the situation, but I want to make the most of the time we have here together.

Colleagues, before we resume and I pass the floor back to Mr. Barsalou-Duval, I want to let you know there will be a delay in translation, because we are one of the committees that has been selected for a pilot project where they're doing translation virtually, at a distance. There will be a bit of a delay.

If it doesn't work, please let me know, but please take into consideration that delay.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor again. The discussion is on BQ‑5.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I mentioned at the outset, I'm pleased to be back with my colleagues on the committee. I'm sorry I'm not with you in person. I'm virtual for a reason. I welcomed a new child to my family on November 29.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Congratulations, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[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]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I received a message from our interpreters. They kindly ask us to speak more slowly, if possible.

Next I have Ms. Collins and then Mr. Morrice. I also have Mr. Strahl. That's it for now.

Ms. Collins, the floor is yours.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking my Bloc colleague for this amendment and congratulate him on the recent addition to his family.

This is a critical amendment. We know that we are in a climate crisis. This is the existential crisis of our time. The burning of thermal coal is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. We are definitely on a pathway of phasing out thermal coal ourselves, but emissions don't know borders. If we're shipping thermal coal to be burned elsewhere, those emissions are still contributing to the climate crisis.

It's been two years since the Liberals promised to phase out thermal coal exports, and we've yet to see any legislation. That's why I'm tabling a private member's bill to ban thermal coal exports.

I want to thank my Bloc colleagues and my Green colleagues for pushing this. I want to extend a special thanks to Ecojustice, Environmental Defence, CAPE, as well as the Council of Canadians and citizens all across the country who have been pushing the government to do the right thing and ban thermal coal exports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Collins.

Mr. Morrice.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To add to those comments, I'm really encouraged to hear from other colleagues who have been pushing for this for a long time. As members likely know, thermal coal contributes to 30% of global carbon emissions and 800,000 premature deaths every year from the choking smog it produces. The vast majority of thermal coal exported from Canada is from U.S. mines, because their own ports have already banned its export.

I'm encouraged that the Liberal Party promised to do this back in 2021. Former Green MP Paul Manly introduced a bill to do this in 2020. While the Green amendment was defeated at your last committee meeting, I'm optimistic that the Bloc version of the same amendment will be passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Morrice.

It's now over to you, Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before I begin my remarks, could you clarify the standing orders or the practices in committees in terms of independent members speaking when they are not moving an amendment? Obviously, during committee time, another member can give his or her time to an independent member. However, we are not at a normal hearing. We are studying legislation.

Could you or the clerk perhaps read the rules in terms of how this goes from now on?

The Green amendments were defeated. We're on a Bloc amendment now. Ms. May had the right to make remarks and ask questions, etc.

Before I go to my intervention, I would like some clarification on how that is intended to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I've asked the question of the clerk and she's advised that, as chair, I am able to provide speaking time to a member who comes to the committee and wishes to speak.

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

Okay. That wasn't my understanding, but we will leave it with the table for now and perhaps come back to that later.

I have a number of questions that I would like to ask of the witnesses. I will just put them out in general, and the best placed witness can respond.

Other than thermal coal, are there any other commodities or goods that are prohibited from being loaded or unloaded using section 62 of the act?

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

To the best of my knowledge, I don't think there's anything under section 62 of the Canada Marine Act that is outright prohibited.

I think there are some regulations that may apply in the context of the handling of dangerous goods, but most of those are subject to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, so there are no outright bans under the CMA.

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

Okay, so this was not listed as one of the goals of the legislation. Neither Minister Alghabra nor Minister Rodriguez mentioned this as a possible outcome, nor did we hear from any witnesses calling for this to be included as an amendment, so it's a bit out of left field that this would be done this way.

Has the section ever been used in the past to perhaps do something a bit...? Obviously, this is under Environment and Climate Change Canada's purview. This is in the minister's mandate letter, which I'll get to in a minute.

Has this section ever been used in this way? Previously, I asked if it had banned any other goods and commodities. You said you didn't think so, so I guess it has not been used to perhaps....

We haven't used the Canada Marine Act to achieve an environmental goal in the past. Am I right to state that?