Natural Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I don't see any further debate. Please call the roll.

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

We'll now proceed to CPC-12.

Do we have a member who would like to move CPC-12?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'll move it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Our CPC-12 amendment would be that Bill C-49, in clause 147, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 107 the following:

(c) importance shall be given to the development of measures to assist in the preservation of the fishing industry, including measures to assist in understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry.

This is, of course, because there are countless livelihoods and small businesses of generational families in Atlantic Canada in the fishery and lobster harvesting sectors where the habitat and marine ecology in the area may be impacted by developments. The CPC amendment has been proposed to ensure that this bill includes those considerations and these clear principles in favour of the natural environment and the balance for existing ocean users building their livelihoods and their businesses off of the ocean.

The balance in those principles could, we believe, be easily achieved by including this amendment in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I will go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is similar to CPC-7. While agreeing with the intent of the motion, I'll be opposing it.

I think that it's worthwhile for us to look at the letters that have been sent to our committee by Minister Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Minister Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables from Nova Scotia, which say that they actually oppose this amendment.

Specifically, I would go to the letter from Minister Parsons, which says:

We do, however, have several concerns with this amendment as drafted above. Ensuring the sustainability of the fishing industry involves a comprehensive understanding of the environmental fact of shaping it, extending beyond the purview of the Accord Acts and encompassing considerations beyond interactions with energy projects. This amendment also fails to recognize the evaluation of potential impacts from energy projects is already assessed through spatial planning, such as Regional Assessments, and regulatory review processes outlined in the existing Accord Acts and Bill C-49.

Most notably however, the acceptance of this amendment does not align with the principles of joint management.

It goes on, but I think that gives you an idea.

That opinion is reflected in the letter from the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables from Nova Scotia as well.

I will be opposing this CPC amendment, but I will be proposing a subamendment to ensure that fishers are given importance through the licence issuance process associated with this principal section, while keeping the language in the scope of the purpose and mandate of the accord acts and the responsibilities of ministers and regulators under the acts.

I believe there is a copy of the subamendment, which can be distributed to the members.

I move that motion CPC-12 proposing to amend clause 147 of Bill C-49 be amended by adding text after line 27 on page 107, and it be amended by (a) substituting, for the reference to “importance”, a reference to “during the submerged land licence issuance process, importance”; and (b) substituting, for the reference to “development of measures to assist in the preservation of the fishing industry, including measures to assist in understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry”, a reference to “consideration of effects on fishing activities”.

I'm going to ask the government officials if they can maybe provide to us some greater clarity on the issues with the language in CPC-12, the previous CPC-7, and what this subamendment does to capture the spirit of CPC-12 while respecting the joint management principles that were raised in the letter I just read, the scope of proposed division V and the acts more broadly.

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Thank you very much for the question.

We did share the concerns that were outlined by the provinces about the scope of this proposed amendment and it likely falling outside of, really, the purpose of the accord acts, which is, as you know, about the regulation of offshore energy projects.

The acts set out certain requirements with respect to safety and environmental protection and the consideration of interactions between potential offshore energy projects and other users of the sea. Management of the fishing industry and the environment does fall beyond the scope of the acts. In addition, this particular section of the bill in which this amendment appears pertains to the land tenure process specifically and the process for issuing submerged land licences.

The motion that was put forward includes reference to the development of measures related to environmental management. It's really not well placed in this section of the act. The motion as drafted could be challenging for the regulators to implement.

The consideration of environmental effects takes place at a number of points in the regulatory process—for example, through the regional assessments and marine spatial planning activities that happen before a call for bids is issued. Governments have several opportunities to engage with indigenous groups and stakeholders, including fishers, about potential wind energy areas, and of course through the impact assessment and regulatory authorization phases of work that happen in part III, when there's an actual project that needs to be considered.

We certainly did reflect on the testimony that was presented by the fisher sector throughout the hearings and through further engagement subsequent to the tabling of the bill. We agree that the bill can be further strengthened to reflect the government's intent to consider the impacts of offshore energy development on the fishing sector. We feel that the amendment that is proposed and that has the support of both provinces is in keeping with the scope of the accord acts. It fits well with this particular section with respect to land tenure and does acknowledge the importance of the fishing sector.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Perhaps I can get some further clarity. Am I correct that this entire clause is in respect of renewables only?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

You're correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, is there anything else?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

I'll go to Mr. Angus, and then I have others on the speaking list.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

It's very important that we get this right. I don't want to show my age. I've been involved in lots of legislation, but never one quite as complicated. We're dealing with accords that exist with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and existing accords. We're trying to untie this Gordian knot of very complex issues. At the heart of it for me, of course, is that we have to make sure we protect the environment and protect the fisheries, the people who are using the waters right now.

I very much thank my Conservative colleagues. I supported their motion in the first part of this. I was surprised when I saw the letters from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We had to look into that.

I have a question before I decide, Ms. Lixfeld. Does this amendment cover off concerns in terms of making sure the concerns of the fishers are being heard and that there are obligations that the board has to address? Would this help? If we support this amendment, would it cover that?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Thank you for the question.

I don't feel equipped to speak on behalf of FFAW and what specifically would meet their request. I think their testimony was fairly clear.

One thing we needed to do was to stay within the scope of the purpose of the accord acts and also respect the role of government in deciding how its resources should best be developed. There is potentially some tension or some conflict there. Through the measures that have been proposed in these accord acts, there are opportunities for government to do work to better understand the potential impacts of a particular activity on the environment, on fishers and on other stakeholders, as well as balance its needs for the development of renewable energy technology.

We do feel that the amendment as proposed does further strengthen and acknowledge the importance that both levels of government place on the fishing sector and the importance of balancing environmental considerations while also being true to the spirit of the accord acts.

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

Thank you.

I did not want to put you in a position where you're having to speak for the fishers. I certainly heard from Unifor and they're very clear. I'm very proud of their work.

I did want to clarify this, and you said it. It's that this amendment is not undermining the work, but actually recognizes it. Within the balance of the accord these issues have to be considered, and it strengthens it.

Is that what you're saying?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like a bit of clarity. The official, Ms. Lixfeld, referred to the amendment.

Are you referring to the amendment or the subamendment? I was a little confused, though, as to which one you were speaking to. Could you provide clarity on that?

Also, because we are actually talking about the subamendment, could I get a hard copy to look at? I don't have a copy of it.

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

I wouldn't mind seeing a hard copy as well.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mario would probably like it in his language as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, Mr. Falk has asked for....

An email was sent out, but you would like a hard copy. That is what you mentioned to me, Mr. Falk. I heard that from others as well, so we will suspend until we can get a hard copy over to everyone.

We'll suspend for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back from our suspension.

We were on CPC-12. There was a subamendment moved by Ms. Dabrusin and Mr. Falk had asked for a hard copy of the subamendment, which has been provided. I believe everyone has been able to review it.

Mr. Falk, you had the floor prior to suspension and you do have your hard copy, so I want to give you an opportunity to continue.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I appreciate the hard copy, because now we can see exactly what the subamendment is proposing to change in the original amendment that the Conservatives are providing to this Liberal bill.

I think I'm satisfied with what it says. Am I to understand that the comments made by Ms. Lixfeld were in reference to the subamendment?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Yes. The concerns I outlined were with respect to the amendment that had been proposed, and my comments were in terms of how to address them in the language that was supported by the provinces. This is what appears in the subamendment. I apologize for....