Bill C-69 (Historical)

An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Part 1 enacts the Impact Assessment Act and repeals the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012. Among other things, the Impact Assessment Act
(a) names the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada as the authority responsible for impact assessments;
(b) provides for a process for assessing the environmental, health, social and economic effects of designated projects with a view to preventing certain adverse effects and fostering sustainability;
(c) prohibits proponents, subject to certain conditions, from carrying out a designated project if the designated project is likely to cause certain environmental, health, social or economic effects, unless the Minister of the Environment or Governor in Council determines that those effects are in the public interest, taking into account the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, all effects that may be caused by the carrying out of the project, the extent to which the project contributes to sustainability and other factors;
(d) establishes a planning phase for a possible impact assessment of a designated project, which includes requirements to cooperate with and consult certain persons and entities and requirements with respect to public participation;
(e) authorizes the Minister to refer an impact assessment of a designated project to a review panel if he or she considers it in the public interest to do so, and requires that an impact assessment be referred to a review panel if the designated project includes physical activities that are regulated under the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act;
(f) establishes time limits with respect to the planning phase, to impact assessments and to certain decisions, in order to ensure that impact assessments are conducted in a timely manner;
(g) provides for public participation and for funding to allow the public to participate in a meaningful manner;
(h) sets out the factors to be taken into account in conducting an impact assessment, including the impacts on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(i) provides for cooperation with certain jurisdictions, including Indigenous governing bodies, through the delegation of any part of an impact assessment, the joint establishment of a review panel or the substitution of another process for the impact assessment;
(j) provides for transparency in decision-making by requiring that the scientific and other information taken into account in an impact assessment, as well as the reasons for decisions, be made available to the public through a registry that is accessible via the Internet;
(k) provides that the Minister may set conditions, including with respect to mitigation measures, that must be implemented by the proponent of a designated project;
(l) provides for the assessment of cumulative effects of existing or future activities in a specific region through regional assessments and of federal policies, plans and programs, and of issues, that are relevant to the impact assessment of designated projects through strategic assessments; and
(m) sets out requirements for an assessment of environmental effects of non-designated projects that are on federal lands or that are to be carried out outside Canada.
Part 2 enacts the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, which establishes the Canadian Energy Regulator and sets out its composition, mandate and powers. The role of the Regulator is to regulate the exploitation, development and transportation of energy within Parliament’s jurisdiction.
The Canadian Energy Regulator Act, among other things,
(a) provides for the establishment of a Commission that is responsible for the adjudicative functions of the Regulator;
(b) ensures the safety and security of persons, energy facilities and abandoned facilities and the protection of property and the environment;
(c) provides for the regulation of pipelines, abandoned pipelines, and traffic, tolls and tariffs relating to the transmission of oil or gas through pipelines;
(d) provides for the regulation of international power lines and certain interprovincial power lines;
(e) provides for the regulation of renewable energy projects and power lines in Canada’s offshore;
(f) provides for the regulation of access to lands;
(g) provides for the regulation of the exportation of oil, gas and electricity and the interprovincial oil and gas trade; and
(h) sets out the process the Commission must follow before making, amending or revoking a declaration of a significant discovery or a commercial discovery under the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act and the process for appealing a decision made by the Chief Conservation Officer or the Chief Safety Officer under that Act.
Part 2 also repeals the National Energy Board Act.
Part 3 amends the Navigation Protection Act to, among other things,
(a) rename it the Canadian Navigable Waters Act;
(b) provide a comprehensive definition of navigable water;
(c) require that, when making a decision under that Act, the Minister must consider any adverse effects that the decision may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada;
(d) require that an owner apply for an approval for a major work in any navigable water if the work may interfere with navigation;
(e)  set out the factors that the Minister must consider when deciding whether to issue an approval;
(f) provide a process for addressing navigation-related concerns when an owner proposes to carry out a work in navigable waters that are not listed in the schedule;
(g) provide the Minister with powers to address obstructions in any navigable water;
(h) amend the criteria and process for adding a reference to a navigable water to the schedule;
(i) require that the Minister establish a registry; and
(j) provide for new measures for the administration and enforcement of the Act.
Part 4 makes consequential amendments to Acts of Parliament and regulations.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the father of 20th-century modern management, Peter F. Drucker, once said, “There is...nothing quite so useless as doing with great efficiency what should not be done at all.” That quote depicts the foundation of the just transition act that we have before us today.

There is nothing just about forcing a transition on an industry or on a community that has made it its life journey to produce the cleanest energy products the world has ever seen, especially knowing that through global turmoil, food insecurity and increased energy demands, the world's hydrocarbons will continue to be needed as a solution to humanity's woes and not, as ideologists would have us believe, as the cause of those woes.

To ensure that, should the world decide that its energy demands will be satisfied by strong environmental hydrocarbon-producing countries, we as Canadians will continue to be there to answer the call, but we will not be there if Canada’s major economic driver is brought to its knees by the twisted ideology of the government and its anti-energy partners.

The Conservative leader has said that we will unleash the growth within our economy, that with our most powerful resources, produced in the most environmentally positive way, there will be benefits to our people and to the environment at the same time. We will not follow the Prime Minister, with the help of his NDP masters, to push production out of Canada and, thus, toward other countries that pollute more, burn more coal and put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with no remorse.

The Prime Minister would sooner drive production away from Canadians, who already have the cleanest electricity grid on planet Earth, toward other nations that, frankly, are incapable of change or just do not care.

By using the wealth generated by our essential hydrocarbon resources, we can protect the environment and prevent the loss of billions of dollars of stranded assets owned by provinces and first nations, and use our innovative skills to move the global needle of greenhouse gases to a level that would satisfy all but the most radical eco-activists.

At the natural resources committee, we have had much debate on the future of Canada’s hydrocarbon industries. I find it unbelievable that the natural resources minister, along with his cohorts in cabinet, would actively pursue a framework to handcuff one of Canada’s greatest assets. Of course, all of this discussion has been created because of the planned attack on resource development in Canada. Had Bill C-69, the anti-resource development law, never happened and if tens of billions of investment plans not been shelved, then the government would not have had to produce legislation to prop up the ghost towns that it is actively creating.

The Liberal just transition action plan is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill off 170,000 Canadian jobs and to put at risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadian workers. This is a plan that creates subsidized jobs, not sustainable jobs. Conservatives do not believe in a central-planning “Ottawa knows best” approach that tells private sector energy companies how to run their operations. The government cannot even track emissions properly.

As a member of the natural resources committee, I have asked multiple times for an analysis of the full life-cycle impact of all the projects we have, from the first shovel in the ground to the last shovel used to cover up those projects. The government has no clue, yet we are to trust it to dictate to industries how to best run their operations. I think not.

Oil and gas are still Canada’s largest export sector, and it is so important in the development of renewable and alternative fuels of the future to have it strong and to keep it strong.

The Liberals and their NDP cohorts are ignoring cost, technology and infrastructure demands. Reports vary on how the federal government has underfunded its climate plans. RBC had a report that stated that the government needed to spend $2 trillion to make it to net zero. It published a supplementary report saying Canada could capitalize on the global increase for oil and gas and still meet its net-zero targets with investments from the profits, but the government turned its back on our allies while peddling technology and alternative fuel sources that cannot be produced at a commercial rate.

A Conservative government would unleash the energy sector while fostering technology and innovation to protect our environment, so that more Canadian energy would get to the world to displace dictator energy and create jobs and powerful paycheques for Canadians.

Let us be clear. There is noting just about this transition and tax plan the Liberals have. Chief Dale Swampy said, “There is nothing fair or equitable about what is happening today.”

After eight years of anti-energy messages, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions, an outright veto of an approved export pipeline and the imposition of project-killing Bill C-69, despite universal provincial opposition, the Liberals have made no secret their intention to accelerate the phase-out of the oil and gas sector in Canada.

It is sad. First nations communities are begging the government to get out of the way and let them produce the resources on their land so that their communities can thrive. Our global allies are begging for our help to get off Putin’s oil, so they can have a stable and ethical energy source. All the while, the government believes that if it cannot be produced, it cannot be shipped and, therefore, its ideological push will win.

The reality is that everyone loses, but the government is too self-absorbed to see that. Canada should be the world’s go-to energy producer and supplier of choice, and be energy secure and self-sufficient as well. Instead, the Liberals put ideology and partisanship above reality and the economy.

Politicians should be honest about the outcomes of their policies. Too often with these Liberals we see them fall back on wordsmithing and absolve themselves of any negative socio-economic consequences of the so-called just transition concept for Canada. This needs to stop.

Many times we hear about how the world is changing and how important it is for us to keep up with our European partners. Perhaps the government should be paying attention to what is happening in Europe. The mood has changed. Governments in Europe are starting to recognize the consequences of this blind action. They are listening to their people.

That is the problem: We do not have a government that is prepared to vary, in any way, from the path that it has set forward. It is not listening to the people. Here, it is understandable that they do not listen to opposition parties, but it had best be listening to the people in their ridings. The mood has changed, and it is important that all parliamentarians recognize that. If we do not, we will be left behind by a world that is looking for Canadian energy.

Motions in amendment

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in December, while the NDP-Liberals’ self-proclaimed socialist environment minister hung out with 70,000 sanctimonious politicians and wealthy elites at a sprawling air-conditioned steel complex in a major petro-state, without a hint of shame or irony, I might add, who all flew from around the world on publicly funded, commercial and private airplanes and jets, even though virtual attendance was also an option, to scheme up ways to make life poorer, colder, dirtier, slower, darker, more inconvenient, more isolated, more uncomfortable and more expensive for everyone else, the NDP-Liberals colluded to ram through and cover up the pinnacle of their anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-capitalist agenda here at home.

From away, the minister announced yet more damaging policy for Canadians, and even bragged that he was the first environment minister in the world out of touch and radical enough to do something to Canada that no other major resource or oil and gas-producing country is doing to itself, no other country in the world at all, to impose a cap clearly designed to function as a Canadian oil and gas production cap, which really means a cap on the biggest private sector investor in Canada’s economy; a cap on affordable and reliable power and fuel; a cap on clean tech investment in Canada, which primarily comes from the energy sector; a cap on jobs, on businesses, on tax revenues for social programs and services for Canadians.

That is not leadership; it is putting one’s own radical activist ideology ahead of the best interests of the people he serves, which are supposed to be Canadians. It is not at all worthy of celebration.

No other competing oil and gas producer, for which global demand is expected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future, is doing this to themselves. They know it is bad for their citizens and bad for their countries. Rather, it is entitled, out of touch, powermongering and not worth the cost to Canadians.

The NDP-Liberals do not seem to know or care that petro-state dictators, terrorists and despots who control and weaponize the energy supply against others, and Canada’s best ally, customer and biggest oil and gas competitor, the U.S., are, at best, shaking their heads at our government’s self-inflicted harm on Canadians. Those countries are all ramped up to provide for the world’s energy needs, while Canada is home to an abundance of extraordinary resources, expertise and talent, which are, by the way, leaving in droves for friendlier jurisdictions.

The NDP-Liberals constantly roadblock, gatekeep, hamper, punish and kill, by delay, Canadian oil and gas development and exports. They reject every ally who desperately wants and needs Canada’s LNG. Their red tape prevents any meaningful production of critical minerals and rare earth metals, since mines can take up to 25 years to get going in Canada, Because of that, everything is broken and nothing can get built under these NDP-Liberals.

When the PM said he wanted to phase out oil and gas, many thought it was a gaffe, but, it was a tell, and every action, after eight years, shows it.

On one hand, it was appropriate that the announcement was there, given that it is exactly global planning gatherings for global economic and foreign policy like what happens regularly at the annual COP meetings, and many other global policy focused groups, where this whole concept of the just transition started and where it advances still.

On the other hand, it was very disturbing, because it truly shows how totally out of touch the NDP-Liberals really are with the realities of everyday life for the majority of Canadians and how far away the NDP-Liberals are from their long-ago empty claims that they valued inclusion, diversity, transparency and, most starkly, democracy.

The spectacle of the NDP-Liberal collusion and cover-up in the natural resources committee, to impose the globally-planned just transition on Canada and reject nearly all amendments proposed by Conservatives in the early hours of the morning and to silence and sideline every Canadian who will be impacted by the costly coalition’s anti-energy, anti-private sector agenda embodied in Bill C-50 immediately and in the long run, was almost shocking to witness, if it was not such a predictable pattern after eight years.

If there was any doubt left, it is more obvious than ever that the NDP-Liberals are focused solely on power, not principle; on power, not purpose; on their own partisan, political and parliamentary power and on currying favour with their fellow global policy elites, not on the Canadian people, not on the power of the Canadian people, not on the power to the Canadian people

Bill C-50 is the NDP-Liberals’ behind-closed-doors, top-down central plan for wide-scale, radical economic restructuring for Canada. It does not even achieve their own stated purpose for their power grab to ram it through, but what else is new with those guys?

The truth is that there is not a single tangible skills or jobs training program proposed or even outlined in the bill that the costly coalition says it has worked on, behind closed doors, for nearly two years.

What Bill C-50, which is the global just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals call it, which is anything but just in every possible way, would do is create a government committee behind closed doors that would create another government committee behind closed doors that would give instructions to governments to centrally plan Canada's economy on a cycle, every five years; soviet-style planning, every five years.

The words are in the title, but Bill C-50 does not actually mandate any transparency or accountability about the committees, the cost, the membership, their plans, except for the government to table reports, but it is granted extraordinary power to direct governments to radically overhaul Canada's economy and redistribute wealth.

The NDP-Liberals also know that their agenda in Bill C-50 would kill over 200,000 jobs in energy and threaten 292,000 Canadian jobs in agriculture, 193,000 Canadian jobs in manufacturing, 642,000 Canadian jobs in transportation and 1.4 million Canadian jobs in building and construction. Those last two are 10% of Canada's employment alone. That is what the government's own internal memo about Bill C-50, the just transition, means when it cautions about “significant labour market disruptions” and “larger-scale transformations” to jobs and the economy. It is sneaky bureaucratese and “parliamentese” that is common in government, but its meaning is clear and it should make every Canadian uneasy.

The NDP-Liberals even know it will lead to lower paid, more precarious work for indigenous and visible minority Canadians, because it is in a memo. They should already know that since indigenous and visible minority Canadians work in the energy sector at double the rate of other sectors. However, the NDP-Liberals do not care.

They will stick with their cruel carbon tax, their energy export ban, Bill C-48, and their half a decade old unconstitutional Bill C-69 and fight for their crazy plastics as toxins decree, even though provinces, indigenous communities and entrepreneurs challenge the NDP-Liberals on all of those harmful anti-energy agendas and policies through federal court and to the Supreme Court.

The NDP-Liberals that know that some Canadians will be hurt more than others. People in Newfoundland and Labrador, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta will be “disproportionately affected”, but the NDP-Liberals do not care.

Bill C-50 would build central planning ideological bureaucracy, not Canadian skills training programs; bureaucracy, not Canadian jobs; bureaucracy, not Canadian businesses; bureaucracy, not Canadian clean tech.

Canadians might be wondering what the heck is going on here. The truth is that the NDP-Liberals cooked up up Bill C-50 behind closed doors for about two years, introduced it last summer, with a last-minute spin job name change, and no debate. Before the committee even reported on what, in hindsight, was clearly a collusion charade to appear to help create the legislation in the first place, they brought it back in the fall; shut it down with less than a normal business day of debate for all MPs of all parties; spent a month obsessed with blocking Conservative MPs at committee; and censored any MP and any Canadian with a different view or even with any reasonable questions about their plan, which they imposed through a top-down edict from the House of Commons. By the way, that was used only twice in urgent scenarios in nine years under the previous Conservative government, but has been used at least 10 times by the costly coalition.

Let us talk about the kinds of amendments that were rejected, amendments that were proposed by the Conservatives.

We proposed measures to: ensure access to affordable and reliable energy; ensure a strong export-oriented energy sector; avoid regulatory duplication and necessary delays; outline how the federal government would help ensure the affordability and reliability of energy; improve affordability and to facilitate and promote economic growth, private sector investment, the creation of sustainable jobs; ensure that major and clean energy projects under the federal regulatory framework could be delivered on time and on budget; the importance of collaborating with all levels of government, including provincial, territorial and municipal governments, and all relevant partners and stakeholders; the inclusion of representatives of provincial, territorial and indigenous governance bodies; measures to recognize local and regional needs, including indigenous communities; ways to create economic opportunities for indigenous communities; ways to promote economic growth, including the economic growth indigenous communities; mandate meaningful consultation and to account for the cultural values, aspirations, strengths; and to include at least two members who represent indigenous organizations, at least one of which has a substantial interest in Canada's natural resources sector.

The Liberals even rejected an amendment where Conservatives called on achieving a fair and equitable plan. The Conservatives will be—

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not here to talk about the Premier of Alberta; I am here to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador know that we have 13 trillion cubic feet of natural gas lying under the Grand Banks and under the Labrador Sea. That natural gas could go to Germany, which is building steam plants right now that in the interim could be fuelled by natural gas. Down the road, when we can have green hydrogen, hydrogen could replace natural gas; however for now, the quickest way to get emissions down is to use natural gas.

In terms of the green revolution, it takes over 18 years to green-light a mine to produce the rare elements needed in the green transition. The government, with Bill C-69, is destroying our mining industry and our opportunity to take part in the green economy.

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

Therefore, if Bill C-69 continues to be considered unconstitutional, they aren't using some reference point from a federal piece of legislation that is going to somehow jeopardize the legislation they put forward in their legislatures.

[Lauren Knowles]

I would say no, because they can still introduce and pass the same amendments that you see in the rest of Bill C-49. They can take the same approach to introduce, if they wish, the same amendments related to impact assessment and provide for a separate coming into force of those amendments so that we can work in lockstep together.

No, I don't see that any uncertainty on Bill C-69 will prevent the rest of Bill C-49 from proceeding, or the provincial mirror amendments, because we have an administrative approach to allow for the bill to proceed and to allow for those IAA amendments to come forward and ensure consistency without impacting the rest of the amendments in the bill.

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

Could the legislation they are putting forward then be jeopardized if we can't come to some sort of agreement and relationship with Bill C-69? Will the legislation they are presenting to their legislatures be in jeopardy if the aspects of Bill C-69 that relate to their bills can't be resolved?

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

Thank you.

I appreciate your answer to that, Ms. Knowles.

I'd like to ask you this question. Were the provincial governments given a course of action, if the regulatory framework related to Bill C-69 is not corrected? In your discussions, were they given a course of action and expectations of how long it will take or how we might have to go back to correct this? Are they aware of it?

We understand they're supportive of the concept, with the hope that Bill C-69 is going to be dealt with. Have they been given a course of action in the event that the regulatory framework can't be corrected?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those same premiers have also written a letter to axe the carbon tax. We're still waiting on the government to do that, too. I would appreciate members' support for the premiers on that one, too.

The point, Mr. Chair, of why we are here.... The amendments the government is proposing are to delay the implementation of the act. They have to consult with the provinces, because they haven't done their job yet, and they have to fix the Impact Assessment Act, because it's been ruled largely unconstitutional. That's the problem.

Why not take this bill and make sure that there are no unconstitutional elements to it and that we're passing something that will withstand the test and not have to go before the courts as the previous Parliament's Bill C-69, now known as the Impact Assessment Act, has done? It had to go to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think the provinces and industry want this bill to suffer the same fate. We know they want updates to the accords. We know that and we get that. That's what we're here to do. We support that. What we don't support is passing an unconstitutional bill. That's why Conservatives are doing the work here and now, at committee, to prevent the same result for the bill we're working on here today, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts is to prevent the same fate as that of Bill C-69.

We are trying to do the best we can now so there's certainty in the long run. I understand that this might be hard for some members to get, but that is the point of this exercise here today. It's to do our job as legislators.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We always seem to have to start again with simple explanations.

Bill C-49 is updating the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a long-standing piece of legislation that was negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. There have been attempts to undermine the Atlantic accords by the previous Conservative government. Pierre Poilievre was in that government. The attack on the Atlantic accords didn't go well.

When we get letters from the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia calling on the federal government to update the language of the Atlantic accords, so we can move ahead with new employment opportunities and new energy projects, our responsibility is to make sure the language is updated so it can do the job it has done. It has never been challenged as unconstitutional. It hasn't been opposed.

We keep going back to square one, because the Conservatives want to fight about Bill C-69. My concern is that the longer we delay, the more we're guaranteeing that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia are being undermined, because the projects that are getting off the ground are going to jurisdictions where they have the certainty that legislation is actually going to be passed and not filibustered.

Bill C-49 is constitutional. It has been constitutional. It has never been opposed. I would hope that we can get this done so we can move on to other pressing matters.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.