Transport Committee on Dec. 6th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Excuse me, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. There seems to be a problem with interpretation. We want to make sure everything works well.

You may continue, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Next we have Mr. Muys, followed by Mr. Strahl and Mr. Badawey.

Mr. Muys, the floor is yours.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

Next we'll go to Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think, to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's comments, no one is disputing that thermal coal is on the way out. He talked a lot about the one mine in Alberta. The majority of this coal is transiting from the U.S. through our ports to China and the Asia-Pacific to be used there. We know that's on the way out. He accused us of being hypocrites on it for some reason. We've been very clear that we support the use of Canadian LNG, liquefied natural gas, to displace coal that's being burned right now at an unsustainable rate in China.

Anyone who has done any work in China.... I went to China with the late Jim Carr. We were there for a natural resources clean energy ministerial. The Chinese government indicated that while it was investing heavily in renewables, at an unprecedented level, it was also going to burn billions of tonnes of coal into the future. I think the number they had was 12 billion tonnes of coal, going out past 2050.

Our position has always been that we should displace that coal with clean-burning liquefied natural gas. That's why we were so disappointed when countries came begging for liquefied natural gas over the last number of years to Canada—countries such as Japan, Germany and others. They said, please, will you sell us liquefied natural gas? The government said, there's no business case for it. You don't actually want that. That was, quite frankly, outrageous. Again, it's another slap in the face to workers in the natural resources sector.

I would be happy to have the Bloc Québécois get on board by promoting clean LNG as an alternative to having China and other countries burn coal. We want liquefied natural gas to be the next fuel that is used to provide baseload power to the world. We have it in abundance. It is something that we absolutely believe we need to promote. I would welcome the Bloc joining us in calling on more LNG to be developed and more LNG shipping to be available to get this product to places around the world that can use it to displace thermal coal, which, as we know, is much dirtier than LNG.

To then rail about how thermal coal is such a dirty fuel and also in the same breath talk about the need to shut down nuclear power.... Talk about a misunderstanding of where the world needs to go. We heard President Macron talk about it this week. There is no world in which we can meet our international climate targets, or that the world can address the targets that have been set, without embracing safe nuclear energy.

On the idea that we should be shutting this down.... We saw the catastrophic results of that type of policy in Germany. Germany has now fired back up its coal-fired power plants, because it had shut down some of the best nuclear power plants in the world to virtue signal and to provide political sop to a certain portion of it's electoral base. Now they're paying the price for it. They're literally paying through the nose to burn coal, where before they had emission-free nuclear power and some of the best plants in the world.

We can't beat our chests and talk about how we're here to save the environment by accelerating a phase-out of thermal coal and at the same time talk down the power sources that are cleaner burning. I would welcome the Bloc to become a champion for clean-burning Canadian liquefied natural gas and to support the nuclear sector in this country. We've seen investments being made in small nuclear reactors to displace things like diesel-powered gensets in the north. We think nuclear power has to be part of the solution when we talk about improving emissions and meeting our targets.

I also take exception to Mr. Barsalou-Duval's saying that this is nothing major. This is nothing major, he said. It's major to every single family that would be put out of work by this accelerated phase-out. It is a major deal for people who have family-supporting jobs. These are well-paying jobs for people who keep our ports moving and keep our supply chains moving. To just backhand away....

We don't even know the number. We know the number at Westshore Terminals, perhaps. We have a range there. We don't know how many will be affected in Prince Rupert. We don't know how many will be affected in Thunder Bay. To just backhand those away and say that it's nothing major, that they can pay the price so that the Bloc can pat itself on the back for accelerating an already agreed-to phase-out....

I just have to reiterate that Westshore Terminals and even the Vista mine are not disputing this. They are well aware that there is a limited time frame for this commodity. They are actively working as fast as they can to transition away from it. In the case of Westshore Terminals, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of investments that they won't see a return on for decades. Again, to Mr. Muys's point, these decisions have to be made decades in advance. To simply say that it's a negligible impact on the economy, that it's nothing major, is an insult to every single worker who will find themselves without a job.

That's the problem with this. We did a study at this committee about labour shortages that are affecting our supply chains. When you chase away a worker or tell them that they don't matter and that it's nothing major when they lose their job, they will leave the sector. They have to leave the sector to support their family. Do you think you can just walk away from a six-figure job in Delta or Ladner or Tsawwassen when the price of a home is $2 million? This is not something that should be taken lightly.

We are not the ones inventing these numbers. These come from ILWU. These come from the terminals themselves, which say that this will be the impact. To say that it's nothing major is an incredible insult to each individual worker—hundreds of workers, from what we're hearing, up and down the B.C. coast, as well as in northern Ontario.

He talked about risks in a legislative environment as though companies that make investments in jobs should just accept the fact that even if the government was telling them two weeks ago.... Even if on December 1 you come to Ottawa, you have meetings, you sit down with Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, you can't rely on that. There are risks. “So we told you two weeks ago that it's 2030. Well, maybe today it's 2026.”

That's outrageous. It's unbelievable that we would even be talking about that as an acceptable risk to workers and the companies that provide those jobs, negotiating in good faith and planning a transition that's already under way. That's the part of this that, again, I....

The Bloc is the third party in the House. They have no power to pass this amendment without government support. The Bloc can propose this. The government should join us in voting it down and simply relying on its own current process. By voting in favour of this, government members are condemning their own process. They're saying that their own process, which our environment minister is undertaking, has loudly proclaimed and is probably talking about after he flew to COP28, has been undertaken because it's in his mandate.

The Liberal members on this committee, by endorsing this Bloc Québécois amendment, are saying, “We don't think our environment minister is going to get this done. We don't believe in our own process. We don't believe in the honour of our bureaucrats and our ministers when they talk to stakeholders. We don't believe in supply chain reliability. We don't believe in having a predictable regulatory environment. With the snap of our fingers, that amendment looks good. We haven't thought about it. We've done no analysis of it as the government, but we're going to support it anyway because we don't want Mr. Barsalou-Duval to accuse us of hypocrisy.”

Well, stand up for the workers and trust your own government. It's quite something to have members of the government on this committee saying, “Well, we can't trust Environment Canada to get this done. We've got to do it through the back door, through the Canada Marine Act.” It's ridiculous.

I want to turn to some technical questions that I have, and this might be for the legislative clerk. I'm not sure.

When we proposed our amendment, which I read into the record last meeting, we wanted to bring in a coming into force provision that would ensure that the timeline that had been communicated to workers, companies, stakeholders, the railways, our partners, the contracts and the Americans—all of that timeline that's been part of the negotiations and a part of the transition.... We said that we wanted to bring in our amendment, which, again, is in clause 125, and it says that subsection (1.1) comes into force on January 1, 2031, which gives all of 2030 as part of this transition.

Concerning “by 2030”, I guess we can go round and round about what that means. Does it mean by the beginning of 2030, during 2030 or by the end of 2030? I think it's something that we will have to discuss.

We were told to put that in section 125, so I guess I have a question, and then I'll have some more, but I want to start there.

When we wanted to ensure that the timeline would be respected through a coming into force provision, we were told to do it in section 125. How is it that the NDP subamendment was allowed to be moved in section 120?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll pass it over to the legislative clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Philippe Méla]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Strahl, the amendment that was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois is to section 62 of the act, which deals with regulations, so that's why it is allowed there. Clause 120 of the bill also deals with the regulations.

Your subamendment, which is more of a new amendment than a subamendment, cannot be brought up in section 62 of the act because it would be right in the middle of all the regulatory power, whereas it addresses the coming into force of a particular provision of the act.

Your amendment is drafted as “in clause 125”, so you would achieve the same result if your amendment were to be in adopted once we get to clause 125. It would apply to the amendment of the Bloc as far as the coming into force provision is concerned.

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

If the NDP subamendment to BQ-5 passes, are we still able to move the Conservative amendment calling for a coming into force date, or does that render that duplicative and out of order?

[Philippe Méla]

I don't want to get into a legal argument here, because I'm probably not qualified. Maybe somebody across the way is more qualified than I am. However, I don't think the subamendment from the NDP touches on the coming into force of anything. It just explains the timeline, basically, for what things could happen or not.

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

Okay.

It's less clear to me now than previously what this would then achieve. Again, I think what we heard from ILWU workers is that they want to see the original timeline respected. I'm not sure that the NDP subamendment does that, because it says “may make regulations respecting the prohibition, by December 31, 2029”. Again, I would argue that it should be one year after that to respect the 2030 mandate letter and commitment that the Liberals have made to those workers. However, it says that it can be made “by” then. It doesn't say that it cannot be made before then.

To me, this section doesn't prevent the government from moving forward, because “by December 31, 2029” could include December 31, 2025, as far as my reading of this goes.

Can you correct me? Am I misreading that? When they put in “may make...by”, that, to me, shows a last date that they could do it. It doesn't prevent them from doing it five years before the current transition plan for 2030 calls for it.

I'm not sure which one of the witnesses or if the legislative clerk can confirm that I'm reading that correctly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'll turn it over to Ms. Heft.

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

As I understand the proposal, it is the prohibition that would be “by December 31, 2029”, so the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the prohibition by 2029. It is the prohibition that would be set for that date.

The regulations themselves could be made earlier, but the prohibition would be by a certain date. That is specified in the legislation and, therefore, would be the same date as made in the regulations.

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

However, saying that something must be done by that date makes that a deadline, not a.... It doesn't say “on December 31” or “not before December 31”. I read that as saying that it could be any time up to and including December 31, 2029. I'd like to be convinced otherwise, but that's my reading. Saying that I have to submit an assignment by January 1 means that I can submit it anytime between now and then.

I assume that by using that language—“by” that date—allows the government to do it faster, which is our concern about BQ-5 on its own.

I'm not convinced that this actually achieves what Mr. Bachrach and Mr. MacGregor are hoping it does. It doesn't provide that certainty, because it seems to me to be a deadline. It doesn't seem to be preventing it from happening much more quickly than has been anticipated.

We need an answer to that before we can decide how to proceed here. I look for guidance, because it seems to me that this is a deadline, not a “not before” type of situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'll turn it back over to Ms. Heft.

[Rachel Heft]

As a regulatory authority, it doesn't specify that the government is allowed to select a date but that the date would be “by December 31, 2029”. I should say also that the Governor in Council may not select a date. There's no prescribing of a date permitted by the regulatory authority. It specifically uses the language that the prohibition is “by December 31, 2029”.

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

They couldn't do it December 31, 2025, then. Is that right?

I don't understand how this prevents the Governor in Council from making the regulation before December 31, 2029.

[Rachel Heft]

If I look at the French version of the language,

it says: “Le gouverneur en conseil peut prendre des règlements concernant l'interdiction, par le 31 décembre 2029 [...].”

This would seem consistent with the English, in that it's selecting a date in the regulatory authority and not suggesting that another date can be selected.

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

Okay. Perhaps it's legalese versus how one normally thinks about something being done “by” a certain date, which normally would allow for that to be done sooner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Mr. Strahl. I have a point of order from Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Strahl is currently discussing the subamendment proposed by the NDP and the witness refers to the translation. For my part, when I read the French translation of this amendment, I'm not convinced that the quality of the translation is sufficient for us to accept the amendment as is.

Could we have some clarification, to make sure that the text really says the same thing in the French and English versions? Personally, I understand the English version better than the French. I have the impression that the latter has not been well written, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I wanted to ask the clerk a question, but she is unfortunately talking with someone.

I'm going to suspend for two minutes as we look into this, to see whether or not the situation can be rectified. From what I'm gathering, and from what Mr. Barsalou-Duval is pointing out, the translation does not reflect exactly what the English says. There are perhaps two ways of interpreting it.

I'll suspend for two minutes while we look into this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, unfortunately, there is an issue with translation, which we hope to rectify by the next meeting. We have the option of asking for UC to withdraw and then re-presenting a subamendment at the next meeting, or we can just do it all at the next meeting.

I would propose that we simply adjourn for today and wait to come back at the next meeting, at which time, Mr. MacGregor—if it is Mr. MacGregor—or Mr. Bachrach will have a chance to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw and then put forward the new subamendment with the new text, which would be revised and allow us to move forward.

Do I have agreement from all members?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

This meeting stands adjourned.

I will see you all on Monday.

I'd like to thank all of you.