Bill C-49

An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

[Lauren Knowles]

With respect to the first part of your question on section 65 of the Impact Assessment Act, unfortunately I'm not an expert in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. I can't speak to the details of that opinion or decision, but what I can say is that all of the clauses we have been discussing and the motions that have been put forward are to allow for coordination with the Impact Assessment Act so that we can ensure consistency across the statutes.

With respect to coming into force, there are a number of things that need to happen for Bill C-49 to come into force. It needs to pass through this parliamentary process. The provinces also need to table and pass mirror legislation in their provincial legislatures. The clauses that have a separate coming into force would be brought in at a date to be determined in the future, in consultation with the provinces.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 62, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 36 on page 38.

Once again, this deals with the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. When it's already creating problems across the country, I don't think it's good to be imposing the same problems on a couple more provinces. They are going to run into all kinds of issues.

We propose that this entire section be deleted. Erase it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I'm going to get his name right this time.

Mr. Simard, I would like to welcome you.

With regard to BQ-14, much as with BQ-12, the intent of Bill C-49 is to build an offshore renewable energy sector and to support offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. The intent of Bill C-49 is not to cease oil and gas activity or oil and gas production. Thus, this proposed amendment or motion is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely that the provinces would support it.

With that, I will be opposing BQ-14.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The proposed wording is as follows.

(1.1) Section 138 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) A new application for a licence or authorization shall not be made to the Regulator after this subsection comes into force.

The idea is quite simple. The Governor in Council must enforce regulations to ensure that no licences are approved or issued for any new offshore oil and gas exploration projects in the areas covered by the accord. I gather that the spirit of Bill C‑49, as I have said a number of times and as we have heard from witnesses, is to promote clean energy. I don't think that fossil fuels are part of the picture. This would send the right message.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, for your commentary.

With regard to BQ-12, I will be humbly opposing this proposed amendment.

The intent of Bill C-49, obviously, is not to cease oil and gas activity. It is to continue to build offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. It is the responsibility of governments to make strategic decisions regarding the pace and scale of development in the offshore for both petroleum and renewable energy. In making these decisions, it's obviously the responsibility of government, not the regulator, to consider broader policy objectives and commitments. This is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely the provinces would support it.

With that, I am opposed to BQ-12.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

[Jean-François Roman]

In terms of the discussion, as you know, the accord acts are joint legislation. We jointly manage the resources with the provinces. The agreement between the federal government and the provincial government here was to bring forward Bill C-49 with the proposed amendments and motions to carry on the work on Bill C-49.

That's how far I can go in answer to your question.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

The suggestion we've been making that maybe Bill C-49 could have been looked at later, once you had all of that done, would have some merit.

[Jean-François Roman]

The only answer I can provide you with at this time is that we introduced Bill C-49 on May 30. As my colleagues from the legislative sections have been working on a revision of the IAA, we've been asked to make a few amendments to this bill to ensure we will bring these provisions into force only once the revision of the IAA has been done.

[Jean-François Roman, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I work for NRCan legal services, not the Department of Environment.

What we're proposing here is creating a distinct date for the coming into force of proposed subsection 119(9.1) so that when the Minister of Environment is ready to introduce the revision to the IAA, we'll be able to bring into force this provision at a distinct time without slowing down the coming into force of all other provisions proposed in Bill C-49.

[Daniel Morin]

We believe that Bill C-49 has many tools to evaluate the impacts, even the tools we use prior to the call for bids being launched to issue licences, such as the regional assessments that are ongoing and spatial planning. All those tools are used to address the impacts on fishers from offshore energy.

This clause in particular is very broad and is not limited to the impacts on fishers from offshore renewable energy. It's just preserving the fishing industry writ large. That's partially beyond the scope of this act. That would be our assessment of the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to 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 interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged in and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

With us today to answer your questions we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Annette Tobin, director; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

We also have legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

(On clause 38)

Now we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, resuming debate on clause 38, BQ-11.

I have a point of order by Mrs. Stubbs.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Angus has gone off topic here. This bill is about wind energy in the ocean, and amendments to the original Atlantic Accord that are all about destroying offshore oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. It has nothing.... Absolutely nowhere is onshore development of oil and gas mentioned in Bill C-49.

I don't know why he's hanging up.... He's wasting time and trying to cut down an amendment that FFAW-Unifor desperately wants so that their stakeholders, the people they represent, have a say in this process. It's absolutely disgusting, and it's an utter insult to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the way he's getting on over there.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

On the point of order, colleagues, I would just ask you to make sure that we are not using language that's saying that something was said that may have not been said and using words that could also mean something else. I would ask colleagues to focus on Bill C-49 and what we're discussing today on the motion and to try to keep our attention and focus there.

Mr. Small, you had the floor before the point of order. I'm going to go back to you.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 38, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 20 the following:

89.1 The Regulator may make a call for bids only in relation to an area that has been identified for potential development following a regional assessment conducted under section 138.017 that

(a) was conducted less than five years prior to the call for bids;

(b) included a study of the regional and cumulative impacts of development of the type and quantity that is to be proposed under the call; and

(c) included all the prescribed information and prescribed studies.

Also, after line 21 on page 21, it would add the following:

(4) The call for bids shall also include a description of the area’s suitability for development.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.