Transport Committee on Dec. 4th, 2023

[Sonya Read]

I would say that the scope and the purpose of the Canada Marine Act is.... As it's set out in the “Purpose” section of the act, it does not refer to exports or imports of specific commodities. It has, in the purpose section, a reference to environmental protection in terms of the port operations, but that would be the extent of it.

There's no regulation that I could speak to that would ban a specific commodity through the Canada Marine Act.

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

Do you believe that this section could also be used, for instance, to prohibit the depositing of raw sewage in waters that are under the jurisdiction of a port authority? If not, why not?

[Sonya Read]

Only to the extent that it is actually a port activity. That's my understanding. If it was sewage, for example, that was collected in the context of the operations of the port, it may apply because that's specific to a port's operation—if there was sewage collection on the port—but that would, to the best of my knowledge, be the extent of it.

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

If this amendment passes, how many direct jobs would be lost at the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority and, specifically, Westshore Terminals?

[Sonya Read]

I'm sorry. I don't have that information at hand.

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

There's been no economic analysis of what the impact would be on ILWU-unionized workers working at the port if this measure was enforced. There's been none at all.

[Sonya Read]

I'm sorry. We would not have that information on hand right now.

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

Would this amendment apply only to the port of Vancouver? Is that the only one that would be impacted directly? Is it exporting 100% of the coal?

What other port authorities would be impacted by this amendment, should it pass?

[Sonya Read]

I don't have that information immediately available, but we could provide it.

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

We're voting a bit blind on this issue. We don't know where it would apply, other than at the port of Vancouver.

What does the Minister of Environment's mandate letter state in terms of the timing of the ban on thermal coal exports?

[Sonya Read]

My understanding is that the commitment is to ban thermal coal by 2030.

[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?

[Sonya Read]

My understanding is that it comes into force as of royal assent. It's section 62 that you're—

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

The minister's mandate letter calls for this to be done by 2030. This section would come into force by 2024 if we assume the normal process is followed. That's six-plus years ahead of what the minister has in his mandate letter.

Do you know what the value of the investment at Westshore Terminals is in terms of their other coal-handling facilities? Also, they are planning, with the government, to switch to potash handling. Do you have information on when they will be ready to make that changeover, and when they can expect a reliable supply of potash?

[Sonya Read]

I'm sorry. We don't have that information at this time.

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

Okay.

I note, Mr. Chair, that the bells are ringing in the chamber.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Mr. Strahl, I'm going to have to ask for unanimous consent in order to continue with that line of questioning.

I don't have unanimous consent, so we're going to suspend until after the vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order. We will now resume where we left off.

Mr. Strahl had the floor.

Once he's done, I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Bachrach.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I welcome Mr. Strahl's questions and interventions.

I think the process of creating regulations takes some time. We've seen other bills under which three years has been allowed for the government to create the regulations and bring them into force. Some of them have taken less than that, sometimes as little as a year. I think, with the subamendment that's been proposed, if this part of the act came into force on January 1, 2031, the actual prohibition of coal exports wouldn't come into effect until the regulations were written and came into force. They would have to go through the regulatory process, which recently has involved a discussion paper and then a framework and then the different regulatory steps, the Canada Gazette, part I, etc.

I don't know if there's another approach that might be taken, perhaps even just a simple subamendment to the Bloc amendment that would read “Regulations made under paragraph (1)(a) must prohibit the loading and unloading of thermal coal to and from ships in a port by 2030” or “by the end of 2030” or “by January 21, 2031”. I think that would imply that the crafting the regulations with that regulatory process—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry to cut you off mid-sentence, Mr. Bachrach, but—

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

Can't I talk about my own ideas?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You can, Mr. Bachrach. I just don't want you to do so at the wrong time.

The legislative clerk has looked into this, and this is not a subamendment to what we are discussing. This is an amendment to clause 125, which Mr. Strahl would have to do at that appropriate time. We shouldn't be moving off from what we were discussing to discuss this, because it's not a subamendment.

You have my apologies for cutting you off. I just wanted to make sure that you knew.

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

That's no problem. That's helpful and informative.

I was trying to suggest something that might achieve the same outcome that I think Mr. Strahl was getting at, which is that the prohibition would take place on January 1, 2031 or at the end of 2030.