Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, Ms. Zarrillo. We're voting on the revised version.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I just wanted the committee to know that we're not forcing anything in these consultations. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Would you like the reference number, Ms. Zarrillo, or are you fine?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I'm fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay. Thank you.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to a discussion, colleagues, on the amendment as subamended.

Seeing none, we will go to a vote on BQ-5 as subamended.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

We'll now address BQ-5.1.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given the passage of amendment BQ‑5, as amended by the NDP, the new version is a weakened version of what was originally intended. The original intention was to ban the export and import of thermal coal from Canadian ports within four or five years at most, depending on when the regulations came into force. Now, according to the amended version of the BQ‑5 amendment, it appears that the government's promise to ban the export of thermal coal by 2030 at the latest will be maintained.

However, people have made certain points during the committee's recent meetings. This led me to reflect and propose amendment BQ‑5.1. Some people wanted to maintain the 2030 date to give people in the sector predictability and especially to keep jobs in the sector for as long as possible. I understand the idea behind that. However, I believe we will still have to eliminate the export of thermal coal eventually. That's what the government wants too, according to what's been indicated so far.

But if we wanted to eliminate coal exports, logically we wouldn't increase the volume. At the very least, we'd have to maintain current levels. Since this was included in our mandate in 2021 and was also added to the Liberal Party's election platform in 2021, the elimination of coal exports became predictable from 2021 onwards, in my opinion. Logically, we could therefore expect that, from 2021 onwards, we would have stopped launching new projects to increase exports or imports of thermal coal. It is for this reason that I propose amendment BQ‑5.1, which aims to limit these volumes so that they do not exceed those established in 2021 between now and the complete ban.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Are there any questions or comments?

Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

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

The year 2021, like that election, was in the middle of a pandemic. I think we need to be careful that we aren't picking a number.... If we want to have a number that doesn't increase going forward, I think we have to respect what the volumes are since the pandemic ended.

Maybe I can ask the witnesses if they have current information. Do they know if the volumes for Westshore or the port of Vancouver in 2022 or 2023 increased, decreased or remained the same?

I believe I know the answer to that. I think they have increased their throughput since 2021, which is not unexpected. We saw unprecedented congestion and problems at the port of Vancouver that year, which caused them to be ranked near the bottom of the global performance indexes in terms of dwell times, wait times and port congestion. I think it's unfair to go back to a time that was not normal in terms of the business cycle.

Once again, we could get into the discussion about the impact on workers at the port. If their volumes for 2023 are significantly higher than they were in 2021, as was their right.... There's no reason why they wouldn't try to increase their volumes, despite the fact that a 2030 phase-out is in place.

To suddenly cap it at 2021 while telling them, as the committee has just voted, that we're accelerating the phase-out of thermal coal faster than what we said we were going to, is strike one against them. Then, by the way, while we are accelerating this phase-out, we're going to force them to reduce their throughput as well. We're going to hit them once, and then, while they're down, we're going to kick them.

I realize the ideological discussion that's happening here. Once again, you're impacting union workers. You're going to force layoffs if, through the royal assent to this, you have to go back to 2021, which will be three years in the rear-view mirror.

If we want to have that discussion about a maximum year over year, we should do it. I think picking 2021, which was an anomaly year in the middle of a global pandemic with a port slowdown and with parts of the port shut down, is once again being unfair to the workers and to a company that is not doing anything illegal. It is operating under the program that has been described to them by the government. There was no promise that there would be no increase in thermal coal exports between 2021 and 2030. There was a promise that by 2030 it would be over.

I realize that there's a desire here to signal some virtue or ensure that the government keeps its promises. Again, we're missing the target here and you're hitting the workers.

I don't know how to amend it. I think it's just unnecessary at this point. You already have your accelerated phase-out. That's what was just passed. You're using a transport bill, Bill C-33, to accelerate a coal phase-out, which will impact workers right across the supply chain across the country. We spoke against that.

Now, to say that it's not just in Vancouver but also in Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay, and not only are you going to have an accelerated phase-out but you're also now going to have to go back to pandemic-level export numbers I think is unfair to the workers. It's wrong-headed. They're already going to be disadvantaged by the amendment that just passed.

The idea that we would further impede their ability to do business in the very short time frame that has now been given to them—business that they are working on with the government to come up with a program that allows them to comply with the government's regulations—I think is unfair. It's unfair to working families. We can't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Monsieur Barsalou-Duval is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to say to committee members that, if people want to propose other reference years, for example 2022 or 2023, I'm very open to that. What's important to me is the principle. In light of the intent to eliminate coal exports, we're not going to start increasing the quantities.

Therefore, I think the principle is more important than the choice of one year or another. If a particular year allows us to have a greater consensus around the table, I can live with that very well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I think this is an interesting conversation. I was just trying to find some testimony on any kind of reasonable caps. I didn't see any testimony in the quick search that I did.

Was there ever witness testimony in this committee about a reasonable cap on the thermal coal and what the expectations were on volumes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry, Ms. Zarrillo. Can you repeat the question for our analysts?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I was wondering if there was any witness testimony or if any experts had spoken about a reasonable cap on shipments in relation to this thermal coal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

The analyst doesn't think so, but we can suspend for two to three minutes to give them an opportunity to have a look.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

I think I'll just carry on, if you don't mind, Mr. Chair. I'm pretty sure there's none.

I wanted to ask the expert witnesses who are there today about the numbers for 2021. What were the numbers in relation to shipments?

I know there is a discussion about the pandemic, but I am interested to know the numbers from 2020-21, and even from 2021-22. Do we have data about shipment totals?

[Sonya Read]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have some data from the Canada port authorities. For Westshore Terminals, we understand the export numbers were nine million tonnes in 2020, 15 million tonnes in 2021 and 16 million tonnes in 2022, which is the most recent year we have data available for.

For Prince Rupert, we understand that in 2020, there were five million tonnes of coal. There were one million tonnes in 2021, and then two million tonnes in 2022.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Read.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Chair, I note that at the Westshore Terminals, the major shareholder, Jimmy Pattison, who is also the CEO of one of the largest grocery chains out here in western Canada, is a 40% shareholder in this terminal and is doubling down on thermal coal right now.

I'm wondering if there is any additional information that the markets are getting that this committee isn't getting. Why would Mr. Pattison be investing so strongly in this thermal coal? Is there a transition to other goods coming into that port, such as potash or other goods?

I wonder if the witnesses could share whether there are any plans to phase in new products and goods coming in to that port.

[Sonya Read]

Thank you for the question.

Our understanding is that Westshore is in the process of transitioning some of its handling capacity to potash as soon as 2026.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

All right.

I have one last question for the witnesses today. Is there any data around a reasonable cap on thermal coal for the government to reach their target of 2030?

[Sonya Read]

I'm sorry. I wouldn't be in a good position to answer that. I would have to defer to colleagues at NRCan and ECCC in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Strahl.