Natural Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[Jean-Nicolas Bustros]

I'm sorry about that.

The intent of these provisions is to coordinate and, as mentioned before, to make sure that when the Impact Assessment Act amendments come into force, they work with what is found in Bill C-49.

When Parliament adopts the provision, the expectation is that it will be constitutional, but the only intent in this case is for both pieces of legislation to work together. It's not something that is related to the Impact Assessment Act, in this case, in this bill.

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

Okay.

With this bill, the government is saying, “We will come up with a solution to solve that.” I'm wondering what type of solution a future government is going to need in order to blend those two things together, but I'll leave it at that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thanks.

I guess it's kind of building on what my colleague has said. Throughout our study of the bill, there were at least 35 portions of the bill that directly referenced or quoted the Impact Assessment Act, particularly the parts of it that were deemed largely unconstitutional. I think that's the basis for the concern that we have here, that the bill does reference those parts that are unconstitutional. It's building on that part.

Is it right for us to proceed when we are basically giving validity...? This bill will just give validity to something that is unconstitutional, but it will still be unconstitutional. Is it not going to run the risk, then, of having the same fate as Bill C-69 from the previous Parliament, the Impact Assessment Act, of being in front of the courts and again being referenced as largely unconstitutional and providing issues for investors and for the provinces that are looking to develop their resources?

Our job is to be certain and clear. Again, this bill quotes unconstitutional parts of an act, so how are we supposed to proceed with confidence in that? I know that you're not supposed to give us advice on that, but I'm just saying.... I think you understand what I'm trying to say here, though, about that. Is that correct? How can we proceed with a bill that is unconstitutional? Does that not create problems?

[Lauren Knowles]

Perhaps my Department of Justice colleague will have some additional insight to provide, but I would just like to say that it's important to remember what these amendments actually do. What they do is codify in the accord acts what the regulator will do during an impact assessment process. It's about the ability to collaborate with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the impact assessment of a designated offshore project.

This is something that is of keen interest to us and also to the provinces. We have worked really hard to make sure that these amendments respect joint management by having a role for the offshore board in how it will provide advice to the agency at steps of the impact assessment process without altering in any way that act. As amendments come forward to that act, if there is any misalignment, then the separate coming into force provisions that have been brought forward through the motions would allow us to continue to work with our provincial colleagues to ensure consistency across the statutes in a way that achieves the intent of these amendments, which is to clarify the role of the regulator in that process and to respect joint management.

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

Yes, with regard to the alignment between the two provisions, we don't have a problem with that. We understand the need for that. We fully get that and fully respect that. However, it's the unconstitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act, in and of itself, that's embedded in this. That's where the issue lies. We're not opposed to making sure that things align. That is our job as legislators, to make sure that we pass good laws, which includes making sure that we have a bill that is in alignment, the way it should be. We should do that here, and that's what this amendment generally does.

However, the rest of the clause—and there are a few more clauses after it—is directly related and tied to the Impact Assessment Act, in particular to the parts of it that were ruled as largely unconstitutional. How can we proceed with a piece that references an unconstitutional document? Basically, what we're doing is making sure that both parts of the accord are unconstitutional now, too, by mirroring it. That's basically what's happening. That's where our concern lies.

From the justice department side, how can we proceed with that? I don't know how we can proceed with that, unless people around this table know the exact date when the government is going to be fixing the Impact Assessment Act. Maybe the government knows that, and it would be beneficial if it could tell us that. Maybe the department people know that. If you do, it would be beneficial to this committee, and also to Canadians and investors, to know when that certainty in that regulatory provision is going to come, because it's needed. That was the whole point of the reference case, because no government in Canadian history has ignored a reference ruling by the Supreme Court.

That's the foundational argument that we're trying to make here. Why are we proceeding with something that is unconstitutional?

Again, if somebody wants to let the cat out of the bag here and tell us when it's going to happen, that would help. Then we could go along with it because then we would know. To just say that the coming into effect date is going to be later, while we still don't know when the Impact Assessment Act is going to be fixed, that does nothing for us.

I hope you can appreciate the pickle that we seem to be in on this.

[Lauren Knowles]

I'm not in a position to answer the question you're asking specifically, but I can say that in discussions with our provincial colleagues, they were supportive of maintaining these provisions in the act as they are currently written, and they were supportive of the motions to allow for a separate coming into force to ensure alignment across the statutes.

As you mentioned, the timeline for bringing those into force would be dependent on a number of factors. There is no specific date, but that is to allow for consultation with our provincial partners, who have to mirror these amendments in the provincial version of the accord acts as well, in order for them to come into force.

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

Then why are we rushing it?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I have Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I have the same question swirling around in my head: Why are we moving forward on this when we're referencing a piece of legislation that, in fact, may not even exist anymore because it's been ruled unconstitutional? That's what we're being asked to do here. It doesn't matter whether other jurisdictions are asking us to do it—if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. I just don't understand why everybody seems to be okay with Bill C-49 referencing Bill C-69, which we know has been deemed to be largely unconstitutional. It doesn't make any sense why we wouldn't fix that first, before we move ahead, or delete the references—which is what this amendment is doing—to something the Supreme Court of Canada has decided is unconstitutional.

Why would we reference a document that's no good?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Falk.

Do we have any—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd like an answer to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. Were you addressing a question to anybody—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I was asking a question: Why are we doing this?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin, on your point of order.

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

The people sitting at this table, who are sharing their knowledge with us, are public servants. They've answered this question, I think, several times now, in different formats, but at one point they may be limited in exactly what they're able to answer given their role as part of the public service.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for your point of order.

Mrs. Stubbs, is it on a point of order or on debate?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Just on this debate, I'll just respond to MP Dabrusin.

I guess, since you're the parliamentary secretary for natural resources, you could answer that question.

Certainly I would agree that the public servants are trying to do the best they can in their roles with their expertise in fixing bills that your government has made a mess of and helping you justify the amendments that you have brought forward to fix this flawed bill in the first place, and now helping you try to justify passing a law—

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

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I do believe we are supposed to be speaking through the chair rather than speaking—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm sorry, but I wasn't done yet—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll ask everybody to hold for one second.

Mrs. Stubbs, I'll ask you to hold because Ms. Dabrusin has a point of order.

Go ahead on the point of order, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Mr. Chair, we're supposed to speak through the chair, rather than to say “you”—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.