Natural Resources Committee on April 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Dreeshen.

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

Thank you.

My comment is similar, but maybe from a different perspective. My question would probably be for the legal folks.

If the provinces find that there are some severe impediments to the structures that are in their waters, and they find that they need to come up with some sort of legislation for the environmental integrity of the sea floor and so on, how is that addressed? Would they then appeal to the federal government so that they could look at changing it?

It's not that the question isn't important as to how we're going to deal with it. We're simply talking about how we're going to manage the legislation that we have in front of the provinces and in front of us right now. If they find that there are problems, how do they talk with the federal government, and what type of process would be required to amend the legislation or to find some way through regulation so that both parties could be satisfied that actual environmental concerns are taken care of?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Thank you for the question. I don't mind providing a response.

Joint management gives us a really strong foundation to work with the provinces on finding common solutions as we move forward with implementing and regulating projects. The accord acts, which have been in place for decades, have a fair degree of flexibility, both within the instructions that are provided to the regulator to respond to the specifics of each project, and for the broad regulation-making powers.

If an issue arose that the provinces or the federal government felt was not adequately addressed in the accord acts, and if both governments felt that legislative change was required, then we would always have the opportunity to go back and make changes.

That said, both levels of government and both of the provincial governments do feel that Bill C-49 as drafted, and with the further strengthening of the subamendment that was discussed at a previous meeting, does provide the flexibility and the tools that are necessary to be able to manage our understanding of both the environment and potential impacts on the fishing sector, and to be able to introduce mitigation measures and other tools that are necessary to promote co-operation and coexistence and manage potential effects.

We also recognize, as governments, that there are a number of things that need to happen outside of legislation that are within the responsibility of government. Mr. Patzer referenced some of the testimony. Some of it has been reflected in the interim report of the regional assessment committees, around the importance of good research, good data, science, and working collectively with different stakeholders to make sure that we have a common understanding of how the fishing industry is changing as a result of climate change and how we need to be responding as technology evolves.

We do feel there are opportunities and mechanisms, and the strength of the co-operation that we have with the provinces through joint management gives us a really strong foundation to work from going forward.

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

I respect what you're saying. You're looking at this as a climate change management process, but I think what the fishers are talking about are the structures and how the fishing industry is going to be affected. The other is perhaps from a different position.

If there have to be changes, will they be done via regulatory changes that both the federal and provincial governments would agree to, or would they have to come back to amendments to this legislation in order to rectify any potential problems that exist?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

We do feel that there are adequate tools within Bill C-49 and within the regulation-making powers to be able to address expected co-operation, coexistence and mitigation of effects related to projects, and that further changes to the legislation or introducing new regulation-making powers is not required at this time.

In the future, if there are new technologies that have different impacts or if the landscape changes and governments feel the accord acts do not provide the strength they need, governments absolutely have the discretion to make further changes to ensure the regime is sound.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have any further debate?

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

(Clause 147 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 38)

Moving on to clause 38, the committee will remember that on March 21, 2024, we agreed to consider and stand clause 38. We are now ready to go back to clause 38, which is now reopened for debate. I would like to remind all members that the following amendments to clause 38 were previously adopted: G-1, on page 19 of the package, and CPC-7, on page 21 of the package.

There are two new amendments that were submitted in relation to clause 38. Amendment G-1.1 can be found on page 21.1 of the package, and CPC-7.1 on page 21.2. Please note that if G-1.1 is adopted, CPC-7.1 cannot be moved, since lines of paragraph (c) cannot be amended twice.

Is there a member who would like to move G-1.1?

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, coming out of the conversation we've just had, this allows for consistency between the Newfoundland and Labrador bill and the Nova Scotia bill. I would propose that we support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have any further debate?

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

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the bill as amended carry?

(Bill C-49 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?

(Reporting of bill to the House agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

(Reprint of the bill agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Before we conclude everything, I have two points to address to committee members.

Since we are finished with the bill, we would like to commence next Monday on the draft report that was sent to everybody on Canada's clean energy plans, as we do have a meeting scheduled for Monday. I'm hoping that everybody has a copy of that report and will have time to review it. That will be our plan for next Monday.

I would also like to advise the committee that we need to set a witness deadline for our next study, which is on Canada's electricity grid. Proposed dates could be next Friday, April 19, at 4 p.m., or April 22, which is the following Monday. That's to provide witnesses so that we can create the panels and have a really good study moving forward.

I'll go to Mr. Patzer, and then to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

I would like the 22nd. I think that would be good. Next week is a sitting week and we have lots going on. It will give us a little extra time to make sure that we can get a response from witnesses. We have to reach out to them first, if we haven't already. It gives us a little bit of extra room there, because we never know what's going to happen upstairs.

Let's give ourselves that little bit of extra flexibility over the weekend and going into that break week, the constituency week.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Ms. Dabrusin, would you like to comment on this specifically?

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

I was going to ask you to release our witnesses. I don't believe they need to be sitting here through this conversation.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, I can do that.

I would like to thank our witnesses for participating in Bill C-49, working with us for the last few months and doing a great job. Thank you so much.

You are released from today's meeting. Thank you.

I would now like to go to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the excellent work in getting us to the finish line on this huge bill. I think it's a real success.

Like Mr. Patzer, I would like to have that extra time for the witnesses so that we do this right.

There's one thing that I want to follow up on. There were so many motions brought forward by the Conservatives that I can't keep track of all of them, but I do remember one that was about bringing in the minister to testify before us. I think it's always good to have the minister. If we're in a spot where we're waiting to get witnesses and we're about to move to this new study, I would like to have the minister come.

I think they wanted to do it on the supplementary estimates, which we probably missed, but it's always good to have him come and talk about what the government is doing with our money.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

I would ask that we make sure of his availability before confirming a date.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, colleagues.

I'll go to Mr. Maguire, and then I'll wrap up.

Go ahead.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Chair, before we wrap up, I'd like to move a motion, notice of which has already been given.

Given that:

(a) the Liberal Newfoundland and Labrador premier has called on the federal government to spike its 23% carbon tax hike in a letter to the Prime Minister, saying, “I am now asking Ottawa to pause its planned increase to the carbon tax, set for April 1st, as the high cost of living is enough of a burden on families”; and

(b) according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost Newfoundland and Labrador families over $1,300 per year now that the carbon tax has quadrupled, while nearly one third of Newfoundland and Labrador currently lives in energy poverty;

the committee report to the House that it calls on the Liberal government to immediately withdraw the 23% carbon tax increase that it imposed on Canadians on April 1, 2024.

Mr. Chair, I think it's an important issue to bring forward at this time. I commend Mrs. Stubbs for putting this notice of motion on the books here last week.

Like many Canadian families, residents in Newfoundland and Labrador are struggling to make ends meet, as everything is more expensive. Indeed, instead of delivering relief, the Prime Minister hiked the carbon tax by 23% on April 1. Now, the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has asked the Prime Minister to pause the carbon tax increase, because the cost of living challenges are already burdening these families.

Gas prices are high in Newfoundland, the highest in the country. Food bank usage visits have skyrocketed across the province, and I note a similar issue in Manitoba, my home province. People are having to choose between filling up their cars, heating their homes and feeding their families and putting food on the table.

Even to the recognition of some of the members across the way and their own counterparts, last year—I think it was in October—the Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MP, Mr. McDonald, from Avalon, admitted that the carbon tax is hurting his constituents, saying that it is “putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis”. I know Mr. McDonald personally. I think that's a pretty strong statement for him to make, and I would certainly agree with it, because it's happening not just in Newfoundland but across Canada. Despite that reality, though, he turned around and voted to keep that tax on Newfoundlanders and save the Prime Minister as community is paying the price.

I think it's important, Mr. Chair, that increasing the carbon tax has real-world consequences on real people, so it should come as no surprise that 70% of Canadians and 70% of the provinces' premiers have opposed the April 1 carbon tax increase that the Prime Minister has forced, through his environment minister, on all the people of Canada.

Even with that 70% reality, the Prime Minister pressed on, and now he's refusing to meet the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan, who wrote to him asking to discuss alternatives to his punishing carbon tax. That's why the House passed a Conservative motion calling on the Prime Minister to convene a televised emergency carbon tax meeting with all of Canada's 14 first ministers within five weeks. I think that's the least we can do to try to come to some solutions to attack the affordability crisis that's hitting families across the country today, but particularly in Newfoundland.

It's the Prime Minister's responsibility to listen to Canada's premiers about the impact of his carbon tax and the way it is affecting Canadians. He must allow provinces and territories to opt out of the federal carbon tax and pursue other responsible ideas for lowering emissions without taxes.

Mr. Chair, Canadians need relief, not more taxes. That's why I'm encouraging the members of this committee to support this motion and support the struggling families by calling on the Liberal government to withdraw the 23% tax hike that took place on April 1, just 10 days ago.

Let's bring home lower prices for residents in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed all of Canada. I think it's imperative that we do so. We know that many of us are getting emails. I'm sure the Liberal members of the House are getting emails every day as well. The carbon tax is a continuing stress upon the food prices in Canada. We've seen the impacts of Bill C-234 and the cost increases on food by not taking the carbon tax off the heating of barns and drying grain. The amendment that came back from Parliament needs to be put back in place to make sure that all of those are implemented, not just half of them.

We have a situation where we need to be heartened by the calls we're getting from people across the country, particularly in Newfoundland, on the high cost of living. I can't stress enough that the Prime Minister's own watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has indicated that it's going to cost families in Newfoundland $1,300 a year now that the carbon tax has quadrupled.

I'm very pleased to be able to put this motion, brought by my colleague Mrs. Stubbs, on the floor for a vote, or for my colleagues to discuss, at least.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Maguire.

I have Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, before I let you speak on this, or you may be proceeding on a question that you raised previously, I want to make sure that.... It was to invite the minister for the supplementary estimates (C), for which our time has passed, but you were suggesting that we invite the minister to attend at committee. I wanted to make sure that committee members understood what was being asked for, Mr. Angus.

I didn't hear any loud objections here, but I want to make sure that we have the consent of the committee to invite the minister. We had implied consent, but we did not have consent, and I think that's why Mr. Angus may have had his hand up.

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

No. I was going to speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus. You have the floor, before I proceed to other speakers.

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

Thank you.

I move to adjourn—

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

Point of order.

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

I have the floor. I move to adjourn. It's not debatable.