Natural Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Before I begin, I'd just like to wish everybody a happy Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh vadhaiyan. That's just bidding Vaisakhi wishes to everybody here in Canada and around the world.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the motion adopted on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

I would like to provide members of the committee—

[A voice]

The screen is off, so we need to suspend for technical reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. We will suspend for a few moments for technical reasons.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will continue to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly, to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner of the pages to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

With us today to answer your questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel, and Jean-François Roman, legal counsel. From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, with Lauren Knowles, deputy director, and, by video conference, Cheryl McNeil, deputy director. From the House of Commons, we have legislative clerks Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

At the last meeting, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to stand clause 147 and also to reconsider and stand clause 38. Therefore, clauses 147 and 38 will be considered after all other clauses of the bill have been disposed of.

There are no amendments submitted for clauses 148 to 155. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote? Okay. Thank you.

(Clauses 148 to 155 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

(On clause 156)

We'll go to amendment G-16.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

This is similar to G-2, which was previously carried.

We need to be keeping consistency between the Newfoundland and the Nova Scotia versions of this bill, so I support that we vote in favour of it. As a reminder of what it's about, it's part of a group of amendments that would allow for a separate coming into force of certain clauses in the bill that pertain to the Impact Assessment Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Is there any debate? There's no debate.

Shall G-16 carry?

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

(Clause 156 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

There are no amendments submitted for clauses 157 to 168. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Clauses 157 to 168 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)

(On clause 169)

We have amendment BQ-30.

Mr. Simard, would you like to move that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

As I said at our last meeting, for the sake of consistency, I will not be moving the other amendments, since the ones I proposed in the first part of the bill were rejected.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

Shall clause 169 carry?

(Clause 169 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 170)

For the consideration of clause 170, members of the committee will have noted on the agenda that the amendments creating new clauses 170.1 and 170.2 come in the middle of amendments for clause 170. 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 170.1 and 170.2 will therefore be moved and voted on during the study of clause 170. At the end, once all the amendments on clause 170 are disposed of, the committee will vote on clause 170 as amended or not. If amendments to create new clauses 170.1 and 170.2 are adopted, they will be reflected in the reprint of the bill that will be produced for use at report stage.

We have amendment G-17. Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

As I mentioned with the last one, this is to maintain consistency between the two bills, on Newfoundland and Labrador and on Nova Scotia. It's similar to amendment G-3, which was previously carried, and it is, again, part of a group of amendments that would have a separate coming into force pertaining to the Impact Assessment Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is there any further debate?

Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We're going to vote against this clause and the amendment, but I would just take the opportunity to again impress upon Canadians and all elected members of this committee that it behooves the government to fix their catastrophic, unconstitutional Bill C-69, which should have been done even before members were in a position to try to assess Bill C-49 adequately, given how many clauses from Bill C-69 that were designated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional are in Bill C-49.

That's a responsibility of and an error on behalf of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal costly coalition, and the Conservatives will vote against that for these reasons. It's the government's job to fix the mess they made.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

We'll now go to a vote on G-17.

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

We'll now proceed to new clause 170.1 and G-18.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

This is the same as what I said about the previous amendments today. It's similar to G-7 and would ensure consistency between the Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nova Scotia versions of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is there any further debate? No.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On clause 170, we have CPC-13.

Is there a member who would like to move it?

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a pretty straightforward and simple one, as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 170, be amended by deleting line 23 on page 119 to line 12 on page 120.

There's obviously the long-standing position of the Conservative Party that the reference to the unconstitutional implementation act, Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament, is problematic and needs to be addressed. It needs to be dealt with, and the fact that it hasn't been dealt with is problematic and will create and cause more uncertainty for people looking to build projects in this country.

I really think that the fact that this has not been done and fixed yet leaves this committee no choice but to delete it, because at this point we need to be passing bills and laws that are constitutional and that wouldn't be deemed to be largely unconstitutional, as Bill C-69 was. I think the committee can do the right thing today by deleting this portion. That way, we can provide some certainty and clarity going forward so that provinces and investors have a chance to do this right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Jones, go ahead.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We oppose this particular amendment. It's similar to CPC-8, which was previously defeated. We want to ensure consistency between both acts—in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia—and it is not something that the provinces supported. They're opposed as well.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Dreeshen, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I brought this up earlier with the folks from the justice department who are here today. My question is for them, if we could have some clarification.

Once there is legislation that is deemed unconstitutional and it becomes embedded in future legislation, what recourse does the government have? If Bill C-49 is also considered to be unconstitutional, then do we have to go back to the very beginning and deal with this legislation prior to dealing with the unconstitutionality of the previous bill, Bill C-69?

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

As you are aware, a group of motions have been brought forward that would provide for a separate coming into force of certain clauses in Bill C-49 to allow for consistency across the statutes, as the government intends to bring forward changes to the Impact Assessment Act at the earliest opportunity this spring. This gives us the flexibility to ensure that, if amendments to the IAA require amendments to Bill C-49, we have the ability to bring those forward and ensure alignment across the statutes.

That's what I can offer as an answer.

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

Mr. Bustros, you're from the justice department. I suppose I should have directed it specifically there.

I understand what you can do within the legislation and the thoughts about that, but I'm talking about unconstitutionality. Does that then make Bill C-49...? If we are addressing that and cannot come to any agreement there, as has been suggested by your departmental officials, what does one have to do to Bill C-49 if the unconstitutional aspect of Bill C-69 continues to work its way into it? In terms of the conflict that occurs with Bill C-49, what remedies does the justice department see for this situation?

[Jean-Nicolas Bustros, Counsel, Department of Justice]

Can I take a moment?

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

Sure.