Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Sorbara.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

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

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

(Clause 61 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 62)

For the consideration of clause 62, members of the committee will have noted on the agenda that 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 the amendments of 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.

Okay, everybody understands that.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's as clear as mud.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

That's great.

Now we will proceed to G-3.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

As I said, there is a group of amendments that I will be moving to coordinate with the Impact Assessment Act. Specifically, this amendment separates the provision referencing “conditions established under the Impact Assessment Act” from other provisions in clause 62 pertaining to offshore renewable energy authorizations. As I said for the others, it's a separate coming into force.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Patzer.

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

I'd like a quick clarification on the lines here.

Paragraph (c) of this amendment says, “by adding after line 10 on page 38”. I'm just curious about deleting three lines on the page prior. Is that not going to impact where the next portion is going to fall in, or does it all just move up and it's all fine? Maybe I'm just overthinking this, but does it not change which line we're talking about here?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Just give us a moment.

As I discussed with the clerk, it does not change the lines, but if any changes are required, they will be done at reprint.

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

It's just a small technical thing. That's all I was wondering. That's fine.

I think our outstanding comments about our concerns with the Impact Assessment Act still stand. This should have been dealt with in advance instead of our having to include this TBD provision in the bill. Either which way, thanks for clarifying that small technical point for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll now go to Mr. Dreeshen.

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

I hope I'm in the right spot. On page 38, proposed paragraph 138.011(2)(b) says, “the Minister of the Environment has issued a decision statement under section 65 of that Act.” It's one thing to talk about the unconstitutionality of it, but here we're also putting into the bill a direction from a minister that speaks to section 65 of the act. A lot of the act was considered unconstitutional. I'm assuming this is as well.

The discussion we had earlier was about how we're going to fix all of this later and not to worry about it. Is that also the remedy that we suggest is going to come about for proposed paragraph 138.011(2)(b), which speaks about the role of the Minister of Environment?

[Lauren Knowles, Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources]

Before we answer, I would just like to get a clarification for the officials.

The question you're asking pertains to a section that is addressed later and that is not part of this particular amendment. I'm not sure if we should defer answering that question to the discussion on the later clause or we should answer it now.

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

I respect that. It's just that we're going in a lot of different directions here.

There is another one I will speak to when it is the right time. That is proposed subsection 138.011(3), which does specifically speak about the Minister of Environment under section 9 of the Impact Assessment Act and the things that it allows them to do if they so choose.

The clause on page 38 that we're dealing with right now deals a lot with the Minister of Environment having full force to do what he deems should be done. Hopefully we can work that into the discussion. If that's not ready with respect to this clause, I'm prepared to wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Do we have any other speakers on amendment G-3? We don't.

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

BQ-15 is moot and cannot be moved since BQ-4 was defeated. We will skip past it.

We will go to BQ-16.

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

It's necessary to remain consistent. The proposed amendment would ensure that each project had had a specific environmental assessment. In other words, the regional assessment currently in place is necessary. However, we consider it insufficient. Many stakeholders told us that the lack of a project‑specific assessment under the acts could lead to conflicts and legal issues for the fishing industry, environmental groups and other users.

The proposed wording is fairly straightforward:

(a) by adding after line 12 on page 37 the following: (2.1) On receipt by the Regulator of an application for an authorization referred to in subsection (1) or of an application to amend the authorization, the Regulator shall conduct an environmental assessment of the proposed work or activity if the proposed work or activity is not subject to an impact assessment under the Impact Assessment Act. (b) by adding after line 25 on page 37 the following: (e.1) an environmental assessment conducted by the Regulator; and

That's my recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Look, safety and environmental protection are very important functions of the regulators. I respect that and the intent of what Monsieur Simard has put forward. Regardless of that fact, regulators currently take on environmental assessments, so we don't need this proposed amendment. In fact, it would be outside the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces.

I want to keep highlighting that what we're talking about is an agreement we have negotiated with provinces.

I'm going to oppose this proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Mr. Angus.

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

I read it over. From my understanding of regulators and the job they have to do, particularly in the fragile North Atlantic, big projects need to be properly assessed. That's the process. What feels problematic with this is that it's overkill for the federal government to tell them they'll have to do one when that is the standard operating practice.

I don't think it's necessary, but I appreciate my colleague bringing it forward to remind us that all of these projects, if they're moving ahead, are going to be in very sensitive waters. There are fisheries and all kinds of issues that have to be looked at, but that is the job of the regulator. We don't have to tell the regulator to do the job the regulator is already obligated to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Okay, we will now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

We'll now move to G-4.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

This is another cleanup type of amendment. It's to correct a minor error in the legislation.

An errant word—“be”—was inserted there. It's just to strike out that word. It would also keep it consistent with the Nova Scotia legislation that's going to be following this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is there any further discussion on G-4?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now proceed to new clause 62.1 and amendment G-5.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

You're going to hear this from me a few times. It's in the same grouping of amendments to deal with a separate coming into force under the Impact Assessment Act.

This one would create a new subclause 62.1 under the “Impact Assessment” heading to allow for a separate coming into force for certain sections under clause 62.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.