Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Monsieur Simard, would you like to move BQ-3?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

As I said in my preamble, the purpose of our amendments is to bring Bill C‑49 closer to transition. In the idea of transition, there's also the obligation to take into account changes that are quite rapid in terms of climate change.

Proposed new section 17.01 reads as follows:

17.01 Every five years after this section comes into force, the Federal Minister shall cause to be undertaken a review of the duties and functions that this Act confers or imposes on the Regulator to ensure those duties and functions allow for (a) meeting Canada's commitments to gradually reduce petroleum‑related activities and its national greenhouse gas emissions targets for the milestone years set out in the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act; and (b) conserving Canada's biodiversity and achieving the targets set out in the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and any national biodiversity strategy.

As I said in my introduction, the climate situation is changing. Canada's progress towards its targets—as we know and have seen on many occasions—is uncertain. So I think the regulator's targets should be reviewed every five years. That would be a good mechanism to ensure that we can keep up with the reality of climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate the intent of the amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague, the objective of Bill C-49 is to expand the duties of the regulator to regulate offshore renewable energy. It's not to impose a duty on the independent regulator to reduce petroleum activity. I think it's really beyond the scope of what the provinces expected, asked for and negotiated with the federal government. I would think that they would likely not support this type of amendment or motion.

For those reasons, I am opposed to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, I made a mistake. I thought we were on this motion the last time I spoke.

With the issue of indigenous rights being ignored and being taken out by the bill, I could not go back and tell anybody how we took out indigenous rights.

I respect what my colleague is bringing forward, and I might have voted for it if it had been written with that respect in mind, but it isn't, so I can't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I don't see any other hands, so we'll proceed to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

That is defeated. We will now go CPC-2.

Is there a member who would like to move CPC-2?

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

17.2 His Majesty in right of Canada or in right of the Province may rely on the Regulator for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada respecting any potential adverse impact of a change to a work or activity in the offshore area on existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Regulator may, on behalf of His Majesty, if appropriate, accommodate any adverse impacts on those rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll now go to Mr. Aldag.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I have just a brief comment on this one. In my opinion—and I think my colleagues will support me, hopefully—I found this amendment to be repetitive and not required. If we look back to clause 12, proposed section 17.1 already stipulates that governments can “rely on the Regulator for the purposes of consulting”, and therefore this clause is not needed. I'll be voting against it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I'm very interested in it, but I do see that it does say in proposed section 17.1 that:

the Regulator may, on behalf of His Majesty, if appropriate, accommodate any adverse impacts on those rights.

I'm just wondering if we could maybe get an opinion from our esteemed panel here on whether or not what's covered under proposed section 17.1 would cover what's being proposed for 17.2.

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

Mr. Chair, we think the wording in proposed section 17.1 is broad enough to cover the situation that is proposed under 17.2, and it's not necessary to repeat that element in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Patzer.

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

Yes, I recognize that a lot of the text is the same, but there's just the one element of a change to a word. Even if there is a change to something after the fact, would the wording of 17.1 still encompass that?

[Jean-François Roman]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll now proceed to a vote.

Shall CPC-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Clause 12 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

As there are no amendments submitted for clauses 13 to 17, do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We don't have unanimous consent.

Please call the vote.

(Clause 13 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 14 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(Clause 16 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clause 17 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 18)

We'll go to BQ-4 on clause 18.

Monsieur Simard, would you like to move it?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'll pick up what I was saying earlier about the transition.

I believe that schedules for reducing oil and gas production should be put in place as the clean offshore wind industry grows. Hence our proposal to add the following text:

30.1 (1) Within 12 months after the day on which this section comes into force, the Regulator shall submit to the Federal Minister and the Provincial Minister a strategic plan for making decisions related to petroleum and offshore renewable energy. (2) The purpose of the strategic plan is to ensure, among other things, (a) the consistency of the decisions with Canada's commitments to gradually reduce petroleum‑related activities and with its national greenhouse gas emissions targets for the milestone years set out in the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act; and (b) the conservation of Canada's biodiversity and the achievement of the targets set out in the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and any national biodiversity strategy. (3) Before January 31 in each milestone year set out in the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act, the Regulator shall prepare an updated strategic plan and submit it to the Federal Minister and the Provincial Minister.

As I was saying, this aligns with the idea of a transition, but also with the commitments made by the Canadian government.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I feel strongly that it's the responsibility of the governments to make strategic decisions regarding the pace and scale of offshore development for both petroleum and renewable energy. I also feel that it's not the responsibility of the regulator to do this. It's a broader policy objective and commitment. It really goes beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces.

I am opposed to this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

We'll now proceed to the vote on BQ-4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

(Clause 18 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

We have a point of order.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Yes. It's just a brief point of order for clarification.

When we're adding an amendment to a particular clause, shouldn't we be looking at all the amendments before we actually deal with the clause in its entirety?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

If you're adding an amendment to the existing clause 18, that's fine. You can do that. It's what we did earlier.

However, 18.1 is a new clause. It's a stand-alone. It's separate from clause 18.