Transport Committee on Jan. 30th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 97 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to continue with the clause‑by‑clause consideration of Bill C‑33.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The members can attend in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite all members, as well as our witnesses, to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

Colleagues and witnesses, when speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your microphone should be on mute. That's just a quick reminder there.

Colleagues, to help us with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑33, I would like to now welcome back our witnesses, who have done a steadfast job thus far. We have, from the Department of Transport, Sonya Read, director general, marine policy. We have Heather Moriarty, director, ports policy. We have Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services, and we have Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Once again we have joining us our legislative clerks, Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé.

Thank you again for being here.

Colleagues, I hope you had a wonderful break.

We'll now dive in with clause 125 with a CPC amendment. With that, I will open the floor for the first time in 2024.

Oh, it's 124, yes. We'll open up debate.

(On clause 124)

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just to be clear, is this clause 124. Can we read out exactly what we're dealing with right now just so that all committee members recognize what the clause is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Ms. Read, do you want to speak to that?

Do you want to clarify what you are looking for, Mr. Badawey ?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Yes. I'm just looking for some commentary on 124.

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

Certainly. Clause 124 ensures that the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, which oversees some provisions of this legislation in terms of requests for review of administrative monetary penalties.... The provisions of this bill, should they come into effect prior to those of Bill C‑26, will ensure that both amendments to that legislation are effective in that, if this bill amends those provisions and later C‑26 also amends those same provisions of the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act, all those amendments will be coordinated and come into force.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

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

If we had had that explanation at the last meeting, we could have saved ourselves a lot of time.

We said all we have to say on this clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

We'll go to a vote on clause 124.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Mr. Chair, before we vote, can I just be clear that we're voting on CPC-9.1, or are we before that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

No, it's clause 124.

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

It's on clause 124—my apologies.

(Clause 124 agreed to on division)

(On clause 125)

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

I believe NDP-16.1 is first in the order. However, the Liberals amended NDP-15.1 to include this, so I don't believe it's necessary at this point. We won't be bringing it forward, and we're happy to move to the next amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Now we can turn it over to Mr. Strahl, I believe.

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

Thank you.

We had a lot of debate on this section, the accelerated thermal coal ban. We just wanted to clarify that, as per the government's previous statements on the thermal coal ban, it would come into effect no earlier than January 1, 2031. This would clarify that this section, which we debated in terms of including a thermal coal ban in a bill on port modernization, would not come into effect until January 1, 2031, in keeping with the spirit of the government's commitments and the spirit of the negotiations that I understand are under way between industry and government on this.

It just attempts to clarify that the section that was amended to include a thermal coal ban would not come into force until January 1, 2031.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

I have a bit of a different understanding than Mr. Strahl does on this one.

The amendment that we voted on prior to the break essentially reaffirmed the government's own commitment to phase out thermal coal exports by 2030. The date in that amendment is the date of the commitment.

The challenge, and the amendment that we worked hard to include, had to do with the consultation with the relevant trade unions that are involved in the export of thermal coal, to ensure that topics like the continuation of collective agreements, pension bridging and securing other opportunities in marine transportation are discussed with them prior to the phase-out coming into effect. That amendment, which carried, now compels the government to consult those unions and discuss those matters with the people who are most affected.

My concern is that, if this entire statute doesn't come into force until January 1, 2031, there's nothing to compel the government to engage in those consultations prior to that date. It's going to be a process leading up to the phase-out. What we want is for the government to consult the workers as soon as possible. Hopefully, those consultations are already under way. It sounded from our discussions with the officials like they aren't in a formal way, but they should engage those groups as soon as possible.

My concern is that, if we support this amendment, the work that we've done to compel the government to have those conversations won't actually come into effect until 2031, which I believe is too late. Therefore, I'll be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead, Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

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

This has been a long discussion. I would have preferred a much shorter discussion and a different outcome. I thought that amendments regarding the process and the implementation of coal exports had already been proposed. A new amendment is now on the table and a new date is being proposed. I'm just trying to understand how this would align with what we voted on earlier and how this would change the process that we already adopted. Perhaps the analysts or witnesses could shed light on the impact of this amendment, given what we already adopted. I think that the witnesses are in the best position to explain everything.

In practical terms, what would this change?

[Sonya Read, Director General, Marine Policy, Department of Transport]

Thank you for the question. It's a very good question.

Our understanding of the provisions that were originally amended was that they provided for the regulations to be made within 48 months after the coming into effect, but the regulations would themselves prohibit the loading and unloading of thermal coal after December 31, 2030. The regulations would prevent that activity from happening after that date.

If the provision itself does not come into effect, or the regulation-making authority does not come into effect, until January 1, 2031, my understanding is that we would actually not be able to make the regulations.

Is that correct?

[Rachel Heft]

Yes. That's our understanding.

[Sonya Read]

Okay.

Our understanding is that, if the provision regarding a regulation-making authority does not take effect until January 1, 2031, we would not be able to make the regulations until that date, which means that the provisions that indicate when the regulations are supposed to be in effect would be after the date that the authority actually comes into effect. There might be a misalignment there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Ms. Gladu.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm late to the party. I apologize.

Do I understand correctly that the loading and unloading is permitted until December 31, 2030, the way the bill has already been amended?

[Sonya Read]

Our understanding is that the way the bill has been amended, the regulation-making authority would take effect as of the coming into force of the provisions in the bill generally. The regulations must be made within 48 months, but the actual prohibition of the activity would not take effect until after December 31, 2030.