Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we've heard from the witnesses that it's in the mandate letter of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to phase out thermal coal by 2030. We're not disputing that. That's already in process.
What we're talking about is an orderly process and an orderly transition that was promised to workers, promised to industry and promised to the stakeholders that were involved in that. They saw the 2030 deadline and prepared on that basis. That's only six years away.
Here we are, debating a bill that is coming out of a port modernization review and a number of other things on the supply chain task force. That's about supply chains. It's about the fluidity of supply chains and improving our supply chains. Maybe it's improving the fact that the port of Vancouver is now the third-worst port in the world.
That's the intent of the bill. We heard the questioning of the witnesses by my colleague Mr. Strahl about what the objectives of the bill were. He recited what the previous minister indicated the objectives of the bill were at the introduction of it.
Now we have, after the fact, a last-minute amendment to the Canada Marine Act that has nothing to do with the objectives of that bill. It's going to accelerate the timeline that's already been planned for and talked about of 2030 for the phase-out of thermal coal.
What's particularly disingenuous is that we had the International Longshore and Warehouse Union here at committee, and this wasn't on the radar. They didn't have the opportunity to comment on this, and their workers are directly impacted. We know it's 350 jobs in Vancouver; we don't know how many in Prince Rupert. I did a quick Google search. There were, in 2020—so we'll assume that's relatively recent—434,021 tonnes of coal shipped out of the Port of Thunder Bay. That's more direct jobs impacted. We don't know the number. We asked that question. Plus, there are all the indirect jobs.
This is having an impact simply by accelerating what is already under way. Instead of an orderly process and an orderly transition, there's an abrupt change, with all of that uncertainty. It laughs in the face of the workers who are directly impacted.
The union that represents those workers was here to present and didn't have the opportunity to even speak to that point, because it didn't exist at that point. All of that is disconcerting, because what it also says is, “Here we are in Canada, with an unpredictable investment climate.”
When I worked in the private sector on infrastructure projects, decisions were made multiple years, if not decades, in advance. These were investment decisions, the allocation of resources, staffing decisions and all of those things. By simply inserting an amendment that's going to make an abrupt change that could come into effect as soon as this bill gets royal assent, which could be next year, in 2024.... It's six years ahead of what the timeline was that people were planning on for that predictable investment climate.
I guess it's no wonder that the OECD put out a report that Canada lags the entire industrialized world in private sector investment in our economy for this decade and the next two as a result, because we don't have that predictable regulatory climate. It's no wonder.
We have direct jobs being impacted. We're talking about indirect jobs being impacted. We're talking about our reputation as a destination for investment by companies. Certainly, the questions were also asked about our reliability as a trading partner and what the ramifications are under CUSMA. We don't know. We didn't have an answer to that, because no analysis was done.
Again, we're talking about what would be an orderly and reasonable transition to achieve the phase-out of thermal coal in 2030, rather than an abrupt change. That's what we're talking about here.
I also take exception to the talking down of nuclear. In my province of Ontario, nuclear power is over 60% of the grid on any given day. It's a clean energy source. We have the second-largest nuclear plant in the entire world, in Bruce nuclear in southwestern Ontario. That technology, Canadian nuclear technology, is being exported to other destinations, and it's a source of pride, income and business opportunity for our country. In fact, there are many companies in the nuclear supply chain located in both my riding and my home community of Hamilton, Ontario, that are servicing Bruce nuclear and beyond—other nuclear plants around the world, so again, I take exception to the talking down of nuclear.
Again, Mr. Chair, to be clear, we're not opposed to the phase-out of thermal coal by 2030. That is what everyone is working towards. That is what Westshore Terminals is working towards. The ILWU workers—the union workers—who work there know that's happening. They're waiting for this potash mine in Saskatchewan to come, and they're planning on that basis, too, so that that can be replaced at Westshore Terminals and those jobs can be transitioned to that as a different commodity.
As well, there are the rail cars. We have 170,000 rail cars—as my colleague Mr. Strahl pointed out—that are currently very specifically and exclusively designed for thermal coal. They need to be transitioned. That's probably billions of dollars in transition. All of that is being planned for on the basis of the end of the decade, so to rush this through in an abrupt change like that is irresponsible, in our view.
Thank you.