Transport Committee on Dec. 11th, 2023

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

I think when you deal with this sort of thing, your consequences pile up on you. The ability to get good data or clean data or information that is not somehow skewed I think is very difficult.

In 2020 and 2021 we were dealing with the pandemic. We've already talked about that. There were also labour disputes affecting Westshore and the ports in 2022 and 2023. Who knows what will happen? We have rail contracts coming up in the next number of months. All these things can have an impact. To pick a spot in time in a transport bill that is supposed to be about improving supply chain efficiency and dealing with port governance and railway safety and all the things that we were told this was about....

Now we're getting into the nitty-gritty of accelerating a commodity phase-out and preventing a company that is being phased out, or is having their primary business phased out, from continuing to operate until that phase-out occurs. We've told them when the end date is, and no one is disputing that, but now you're further stating that this is based on a date in the middle of a pandemic. If you picked another date, such as 2022, 2023 or 2024, I think you'd find problems with each of those years. There would be anomalies in each of those years.

Again, this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. You've already secured through a transport bill an accelerated phase-out. I just don't know how much more you want to make those workers pay by reducing their hours and reducing their work in advance of putting them out of work. That's what's going to happen to them, because the potash is not going to come online until the middle of the next decade in enough volumes to offset what's happening right now with thermal coal.

Again, I just think we can go around and around about the need for this. The phase-out is happening. It's happening sooner than was promised now, because of this amendment, but why do we have to pile on those workers again? I just think this is an ill-advised amendment that adds more uncertainty. It will result in immediate job losses, which we just talked about, to workers in the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay. I just don't know why we would do that to those workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd just like to inform committee members that, during our previous deliberations, we had the opportunity to talk about projects. In particular, we talked about a coal mine in Alberta, whose current production of greenhouse gases is equivalent to that of Quebec's entire automobile fleet, which is no mean feat. It was mentioned that the mine's directors intend to increase production by 50% in the coming years, and that they plan to continue extraction until 2049, which is really beyond the 2030 target set by the government.

The way I see it, this example, in itself, demonstrates the importance of imposing a cap. If we want to eventually eliminate the use of coal, we can't keep producing more and more of it, hence the idea of imposing a cap.

As I mentioned to the committee members, my idea is not to cap volumes and make sure they don't exceed 2021, 2022 or 2023 levels, it's to come to the adoption of the principle of a cap. I wanted to be constructive in my approach. So I'm open to proposals from my colleagues, but the need for a cap is pretty clear, given the information we have at the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

We'll go to a vote now on BQ-5.1.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Shall clause 120, as amended, carry?

I'm sorry, Mr. Strahl. Do you have your hand up?

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

Yes, I do.

I'm seeing that there are more amendments. Are there more amendments, or are they not being moved?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

He is, right now.

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

No. I mean, Mr. Barsalou-Duval has another one, does he not, on clause 120? Is that not correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Strahl.

Actually, you are correct. There is one that was put forward by the Bloc, but it would require unanimous consent of the committee to address it because it actually goes back into the previous sections of the bill.

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

As did one that I put forward, I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I just want to confirm with all members whether or not they have the amendments put forward by Mr. Strahl and Monsieur Barsalou-Duval. If not, please let me know so that those can be distributed to you.

I see some heads shaking, saying no.

What we'll do is make sure that we get those out. Once again, colleagues, it would require unanimous consent by the committee to address those, but I'll make sure that we have those for our discussion.

Mr. Strahl, before I suspend for two minutes so that we can get those to everyone, can you confirm that the reference number is 12707192?

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

You're asking a lot, Mr. Chair. It's about discharge of sewage. Is that the one that you have there?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the numbered copy in front of me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No, the one we have has nothing to do with discharge of sewage.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm glad you clarified that, though.

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

I'll grab that. I'm sorry that I don't have that number right in front of me. Let me find it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

We'll wait to hear back from you, Mr. Strahl, and once we do that, we'll suspend to make sure that it's distributed to all members.

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

Thanks. Just give me one second.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Do you know what, Mr. Strahl? I'm going to suspend for five minutes while you get that to the clerk. We'll circulate it and then we'll reconvene once everybody has it.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Thank you, colleagues and witnesses, for your patience.

The first thing we will do is address the amendment put forward by Mr. Barsalou-Duval. It is not in order. It therefore requires unanimous consent for us to address it.

Do I have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I do not have unanimous consent. Okay.

We will now turn to the CPC amendment with the reference number 12793443. That amendment is in order.

Mr. Strahl, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motion, just so everyone has it here, would amend Bill C-33 in clause 120 by adding after line 30 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)(b) must prohibit the deposit of raw sewage in waters under the jurisdiction of a port authority.

I think certainly Conservatives have had the desire to ban the dumping of raw sewage. Since we've now decided that we are going to use transport bills to advance other issues, I think it's only appropriate that now we talk about the dumping of raw sewage into Canadian waters, waters that are under the jurisdiction of the various port authorities.

Certainly we were very disappointed that one of the first acts of the former environment minister, Catherine McKenna, was to authorize the discharge of eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence Seaway, allowing government to bypass treatment plants and to simply discharge raw sewage, which is disgusting and which no doubt has a negative impact on that waterway.

In previous campaign platforms we've called for a ban on raw sewage being dumped into Canadian waters. It's something that is not good for the environment. It's not good for Canada's image. If we're going to use Bill C-33 to advance other agendas, I think we should also make sure that we ban raw sewage discharge in waters that are under the jurisdiction of the ports. I asked about this previously in passing. Obviously, a lot of territory falls under the jurisdiction of port authorities when it comes to their activities.

To the witnesses, what is the current amount of discharge of raw sewage in waters that are under the jurisdiction of port authorities? Does a port authority have the ability to prevent that sort of activity from happening? For instance, again, with the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Liberals permitted eight billion litres to be dumped into that active seaway, which, as we know, has a very diverse marine ecosystem. A huge number of residents, millions of residents, live in Montreal and downriver from where that raw sewage was dumped.

Is there anything the port authorities could do, if this amendment were passed, to prevent this sort of dumping of raw sewage from happening again?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Go ahead, Ms. Read.

[Sonya Read]

Thank you, Chair, for the question.

My understanding is that the regulation regarding the treatment of sewage is done through Environment Canada, through the waste-water systems effluent regulations. Any authorization that was done in respect of the incident Mr. Strahl was referring to would have been through that mechanism, which is an Environment Canada regulation. My understanding is that the regulation effectively prohibits the deposit of raw sewage into waters out of treatment systems that treat more than 100 cubic metres, I think, in terms of volume. That would apply in the context of port authorities as well.