Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think we've exhausted the speakers list.

We'll now proceed to the vote.

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

(Clause 47 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

I'll go to Mr. Patzer prior to moving forward.

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

At our last meeting, we talked about proposals to group certain clauses together in the spirit of trying to be collaborative and trying to honour the provinces' wishes to get them the piece of legislation they need, while simultaneously doing our job to point out some of the inconsistencies, flaws and problems in this bill.

I have a quick proposal for this next grouping. If we could group together clauses 48 through 57, we'd be fine to vote on all of them together in one grouping. There are a couple of other pieces that we would like a recorded vote on after that. There are a couple of clauses after that that we would like to parse out separately, but as far as grouping a few together goes, if I have unanimous consent from everybody around the table for clause 48 through clause 57 to be the next grouping we vote on, I'd be happy to move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, do we have unanimous consent to group clauses 48 to 57 together?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We do.

Shall clauses 48 to 57 inclusive carry?

(Clauses 48 to 57 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(Clauses 58 and 59 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

We'll now go to BQ‑12 and new clause 59.1.

Mr. Simard.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Again, to pick up on my remarks at our most recent meeting, a number of stakeholders have made their wishes quite clear. I'm thinking, for example, of East Coast Environmental Law; Normand Mousseau, professor at the Université de Montréal and scientific director of the Trottier institute; and certain representatives of the first nations. They basically told us that if this were truly an energy transition project, it would align with the philosophy of this transition, meaning that it would prioritize low‑carbon energy.

Our amendment is as follows:

59.1 The act is amended by adding the following after the heading “Licences and Authorizations” after section 137.1: 137.2(1) If more than one application is made under section 138 or 138.01 for the same area, the Regulator shall take the following factors into account in making its decision: (a) the objectives and obligations set out in the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act; and (b) proposed or potential renewable energy projects in that area. (2) If applications are made for both a petroleum‑related work or activity and a work or activity relating to a renewable energy project in the same area, the Regulator shall give priority to the work or activity relating to a renewable energy project.

I think that this amendment would help bring the bill more in line with the reality of the energy transition.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We'll go to Mr. Dreeshen and then Mr. Sorbara.

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Perhaps the folks in the department could answer this. We speak here about “the objectives and obligations set out in the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act”. Do those deal with the full life cycle emissions that take place from the start of the project until the end? As I've mentioned, in many cases, if we're not going to speak about the emissions in development, building, transportation and everything else, how does it really tie into a net-zero emissions metric? That is my concern.

We see these acts and see the fancy names, but if no one can tell the proponents that they are actually doing something good for the planet and are changing the amount of emissions taking place; or if you're going to get the same amount except you're paying somebody to put something else up; or if you're going to have worse emissions but you're paying somebody to work on a project, then I'm concerned about what level of metrics is associated with the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and whether or not the things I just discussed are being looked at for each and every project we might have.

[Annette Tobin, Director, Offshore Management Division, Fuels Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you for your question. I hope I've followed it enough to say that, unfortunately, I don't think your panel here from NRCan can answer it. I really don't have any insight into specifically what is in the act you referenced, so—

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

Who could we speak to? You're a department official. You must have a network somewhere. Who could we speak to in order to get that type of information?

[Annette Tobin]

One moment. I'll have to check here.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor].

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

They have to measure everything, so you're right, they would.

[Annette Tobin]

I'm sorry. I wish we had some insight. We'll have to come back.

We could speculate. It seems like maybe it is one of our other departments, as you would expect, but we'll have to come back. I'm sorry.

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

I appreciate that. Whether it be industry or whomever, we know there is a footprint for anything out there. I just hope somebody is paying attention before we start jumping into how one project is better than another and that sort of thing.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

Mr. Sorbara.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

We will now proceed to Mr. Angus.

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

I will pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

As we have no other speakers, we will now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

(Clause 60 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 61)

We're On BQ-13.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Since the amendment has become null and void, I won't be moving it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will now proceed to BQ-14.

Mr. Simard.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I'll go to Mr. Patzer, then to Mr. Sorbara.

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

I think we've heard quite clearly that the provinces are still interested in developing their offshore petroleum resources. It's unfortunate that there were no bids, but I think it would be wrong-headed of the federal government to tell a provincial government what they can and cannot do with their natural resources. As we all know around the table, natural resource development is the sole jurisdiction of the provinces, so let's let the provinces do what they do best.

We will be voting against this amendment.