Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

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

This is a technical question.

We still have a whole pile of clause 62 amendments and we're rushing off to a brand new clause. Are we going to circle back to the rest of them? I'm curious as to why we're doing it in this fashion. Later on, we have clause 62.2, but I think that comes up after we've done all of clause 62. No, actually, it does not. There's a 62.2 clause, and then we circle back to 62 again.

I'm curious as to why we are jumping around to different clauses, then back again. I'm wondering, Chair, if you want to clarify why we are playing hopscotch with the clauses here.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer. I had provided an introduction to clause 62. If you like, I can read it again—slowly, because there's a lot to digest there—and you can follow the hopscotch, as you've said.

For the benefit of all members, I'll go over it once again.

For the consideration of clause 62, members of the committee will have noted that on the agenda, the amendments creating new clauses 62.1 and 62.2 come in the middle of amendments for clause 62. That is because the committee must study the proposed amendments in the order in which they would appear in the bill. The amendments creating new clauses 62.1 and 62.2 will therefore be moved and voted on during the study of clause 62. At the end, once all the amendments on clause 62 are disposed of, the committee will vote on clause 62 as amended or not. If amendments to create new clauses 62.1 and 62.2 are adopted, they will be reflected in the reprint of the bill that will be produced for use at report stage.

I hope that clarifies your question.

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

Why are they considered amendments rather than whole new clauses? Why is that?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, I will get the clerk to explain it to you.

[Émilie Thivierge, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Patzer, you are right. They are just amendments. They are amendments to clause 62.

The agenda says “new clause”, but it's just a title. It's an amendment to clause 62, which is why it's in clause 62.

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

Okay. After four years, this is only the second piece of legislation I've ever had a chance to deal with. Bill C-50 was the first one. This is the first time I'm really seeing a package like this.

Normally, if there's a clause 47.1 or whatever, we vote for that whole clause. Then we do the next new clause, 47.2 or whatever. That's why I was curious about why it was labelled this way. All of a sudden we're still within the clause we were already working on.

At any rate, I appreciate it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We learn something new every day. I'm like you; Bill C-50 was my first bill and this is my second. We're learning together.

If everybody is clear, G-5 was moved. We'll now proceed to the vote.

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

We will now proceed to CPC-8.

Would a member like to move it?

Mr. Patzer.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I'm going to Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This falls into the same category as the coming-into-force amendments I've been moving to have separate coming-into-force dates.

I understand what the member opposite is trying to do here, but I think it's dealt with by the fact that we are going to have separate coming-into-force dates, as we have moved. I think that's exactly what the clause from G-5, which we just did, would touch upon.

I'm not going to support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'll now go to Mr. Dreeshen.

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

This is the part I spoke about earlier when I asked the officials about the significance of “the Minister of the Environment has issued a decision statement under section 65 of that Act”. I was questioning whether or not that happens to be one of the sections that have been deemed unconstitutional. If it has, I guess we're living in hopes that there will be a remedy, but I just want to know whether for section 65 of the act, there is hope that later it will not be unconstitutional.

We're also dealing with section 137 of the act. I think that's it. No, there's also a reference back through to it.

Could you just give me some clarity as to whether this is one of the sections that have been deemed unconstitutional? Again, my hope is that we're not going to be putting these ministers or any future ministers in jeopardy, in that we don't really know what the results are going to be.

I might ask one other pointed question on this as well. There has been a big discussion about the direction and when it will come into force. If we survive around here until 2025, maybe there's a chance it will have come into force by then. If that is not the case, if it's a little sooner, what are your thoughts on all of these remedies taking place such that this legislation is going to be properly addressed from a legal standpoint?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There are no other speakers so we'll now proceed to the vote.

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

We'll now go to G-6.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is another correction piece.

You're going to hit a few of these in a row, and I apologize for that, but this one is just to correct a minor error and ensure consistency with the Nova Scotia part of the bill. It is in clause 62:

(2) The Regulator shall, on the Agency's request made under subsection 13(2) of the Impact Assessment Act, engage

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We'll now proceed to G-7.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is to correct a numbering error in the bill. Basically, it adds a zero so that it says “137.01”. It's just a numbering error that I'm seeking to correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. We have no debate, so we'll now proceed to the vote on G-7.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now proceed to G-8.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is another one that corrects a minor error and ensures consistency with the Nova Scotia bill. It inserts the word “review” before “panel”. The word “review” was missing. This adds it in.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Shall G-8 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now proceed to G-9.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

G-9 makes another correction. It would correct an inconsistency between the English and French texts of the bill. At proposed section 138.014, it will remove from the English the word “makes” and change it to “is to make”.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll now proceed to the vote.

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

Now we'll go to G-10.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

This is another correction of inconsistency between the English and French texts of the bill.

In this case, in French, the word “and” is used instead of “or”. This should be changed, because it doesn't mean the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll now proceed to the vote on G-10.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have new clause 62.2, which is G-11.

Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

It's back to me again.

It's part of the similar grouping of previous amendments that I brought up that change the coming-into-force date for certain clauses. Specifically, this is the creation of a new clause 62.2, which will allow for a separate coming into force of some sections in clause 62.