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.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses for being here today.

My questions are for Mr. Bewick.

Thank you for so eloquently giving the temperature of what Alberta is feeling like and what Albertans are feeling like today. After eight years of this Prime Minister, we've never seen the country so divided or broken—whether it's anti-energy, anti-Alberta or anti-growth laws; legislation like Bill C-69, the northern pipeline bill or Bill C-48, the tanker ban; or the carbon tax.

We recently saw the Prime Minister do a massive flip-flop on this carbon tax, giving 3% of Canadians—in Atlantic Canada, where the Liberals' poll numbers are tanking—a break on the carbon tax on their home heating. We also recently saw a very out-of-touch, Liberal Atlantic and rural affairs minister say that, if the Prairies want a carve-out like what Atlantic Canadians got, they should “elect more Liberals”.

Well, there are Liberals in western Canada. There is one here in Edmonton who is a minister. I can't figure out whether he's irrelevant or whether he just has no voice at his own cabinet table.

I want to ask you this, Mr. Bewick: Is this unfair treatment to the rest of Canadians, and should all Canadians not have gotten this carbon tax carve-out for home heating?

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we agree that it is absolutely unparliamentary for someone to give the finger on the floor of the House of Commons. That is why we have called on the entire Liberal caucus to apologize for the conduct of one of its MPs. By the way, the Speaker did not say we were not allowed to address the incident. He did say he would come back, but we are free to speak, and we will not be censured.

We know that the Prime Minister now has a carbon tax coalition with the separatist Bloc Québécois. We know that he did this because he could not maintain his existing coalition. The pressure the Conservatives mounted on the NDP forced the NDP to collapse and admit that it had been wrong all along.

I remind the House that there has been only one party that has been consistent throughout and will be consistent forever. We are the only common-sense party that would axe the tax for everything, for everybody and everywhere, forever.

I note that the NDP today has now performed yet another flip-flop. Originally, the New Democrats wanted to quadruple the tax. Yesterday, they said they wanted to pause the tax. Today, they will not take a position, because they have omitted mention of the Prime Minister's quadrupling of the carbon tax in the motion. They do not want to stick by their position. They think they will quietly sneak back into the carbon tax coalition and have nobody notice. Well, their constituents are noticing, and that is why working-class people across the country are abandoning the NDP in droves.

Even the NDP Premier of Manitoba has now said that the carbon tax represents an attack on working-class people and therefore cannot work as climate change policy. I will note that we are getting all pain and no gain from the Prime Minister on the carbon tax, because his own environment commissioner came out just today and confirmed that under the current policies, including the carbon tax, he will miss his 2030 climate targets. He has missed his Paris accord climate targets again and again. Emissions continue to rise under his leadership, which proves that the carbon tax was never an environmental policy. It was a tax policy designed to pick the pockets of people and put more money in the hands of politicians to spend. This is political and governmental greed at its worst. It is no wonder Canadians have never been worse off than they are after eight years of the Prime Minister.

What I find interesting is that the Bloc Québécois has announced a costly coalition with the Prime Minister. This was confirmed in an article in La Presse, where the Liberal ministers said they had an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to keep this Prime Minister in power for another two years. Yesterday, the leader of the Bloc Québécois saved the Prime Minister. We were going to adopt a motion to reduce the cost of heating for everyone, but the Bloc Québécois was there to prevent the motion from being adopted, to vote against working-class people who want to heat their homes, to vote against seniors, to vote against people who cannot pay their bills, and to prop up the Prime Minister.

The funny thing is that the Bloc Québécois is going against Quebec's position. The Quebec government joined the other provinces in opposing a federal carbon tax as part of the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Bill C-69 and as part of the lawsuit against the carbon tax. The Quebec government wanted to curb federal taxation powers, but the Bloc Québécois is on the federal government's side. This is a centralizing Bloc Québécois. Each time the federal government decides to impose a tax on Quebeckers, we can expect the Bloc Québécois to say yes. It said yes to bigger government in Ottawa, and no to Quebeckers. That is the Bloc Québécois's real record.

The leader of the Bloc Québécois is afraid of an election. He wants to hang onto his position as leader so he can go on big trips to Europe. He wants to fly there on a plane that burns fuel so he can talk about the sovereignty of various overseas groups that are far removed from with the concerns of Quebeckers. I doubt the people of Beloeil—Chambly who are struggling to pay the bills are all that interested in the European separatist causes that the Bloc Québécois is obsessed with. The Bloc Québécois has no common sense. It is not working for Quebeckers.

Only the Conservative Party has the common sense to take the second carbon tax off the backs of Quebeckers. Quebeckers do not want to pay the taxes that the Bloc and Liberals are imposing on their gas and food anymore. Quebeckers want lower taxes so that work pays again. Quebeckers want the federal government to encourage municipalities to cut the red tape so more affordable housing can be built. Only the Conservative Party can get those things done.

In the next election, Quebeckers will have two choices. The first is a costly Liberal-Bloc coalition that raises taxes, takes their money, sets criminals free and doubles the cost of housing. The second is the common-sense Conservative Party, which will bring home lower taxes and bigger paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and housing in safe communities.

The choice is between either the costly coalition that takes one's money, taxes one's food, doubles one's housing cost, punishes one's work and frees criminals into the street or the common-sense Conservatives who free one to bring home powerful paycheques that buy affordable food, gas and groceries in affordable communities.

That is why I move the following amendment to the motion, which would add section (d): “Extend the temporary three-year pause to the federal carbon tax on home heating oil to all forms of home heating.”

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

I welcome the witnesses joining us today for this important study. My first questions will be for the chief Indigenous science adviser, Dr. Ballard.

Dr. Ballard, thank you for joining us today.

I know that some people might mistrust Indigenous knowledge since it's not always scientifically verified. However, I'm open-minded and I'm pleased that we're conducting this important study today in an attempt to demystify a number of things.

I'd like you to comment on information released by the Quebec government, in particular by Patrick Beauchesne when he was deputy minister of the environment and the fight against climate change. He had sent a missive to the federal government regarding Bill C‑69, which sought to replace the National Energy Board Act with the Canadian Energy Board Act, among other things.

Mr. Beauchesne wrote that systematically placing Indigenous knowledge on equal footing with scientific data could prove problematic where Indigenous knowledge and science were found to be in contradiction.

If Indigenous knowledge contradicts science, how will it be possible to work around that and make decisions?

Oil and Gas Industry

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in the House to ask a question I asked in this House just last week about the Impact Assessment Act and the Supreme Court's ruling that overturned the federal government's move on the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69. The government moved ahead despite everybody it could possibly consult with, including opposition parties, every provincial legislature, 100 first nation bands across Canada and many other parties, saying the Impact Assessment Act as written was unconstitutional and treaded on their rights. So many rights are expressed in legislation, yet this was ignored for so long.

The Government of Alberta was backed by nine provincial governments at various points in time throughout the process. It took four years because the reference case took two years to go through the appeal court system and then almost another two years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada. It was four years of lost economic activity and, effectively, constitutional strife in Canada. That is a long time.

How many projects were held up in Canada in that time? It was hundreds of billions of dollars in projects. Right now, 42 projects have not received an environmental assessment. About half of them are under the old regime, the one before the Impact Assessment Act, called the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed by the previous government and effectively allowed a whole bunch of environmental assessments to be done.

What amazed me was the response I got from the parliamentary secretary for housing when I asked a question about the federal government's involvement in this. He said at that point in time that the previous government's legislation got nothing done and had a gutted process. We cannot have it both ways. I cannot say how many times I hear from the other side of the House that they have their cake and eat it too and that the old legislation they tried to fix did not get anything done and yet was gutless. We cannot have both those things at the same time, but that is the continued narrative I hear on this all the time. It bewilders me to some degree, because it contradicts itself in so many ways, but he said that.

This was supposed to deal with the fact that the Impact Assessment Act had to go back and get corrected as quickly as possible. Getting it corrected as quickly as possible would bring forward economic activity in Canada so we can get something done in this country again, including in all the provinces across Canada. This has to happen.

I think about all the economic activity that has been held up because of the uncertainty created by the Impact Assessment Act and how it has affected so many project proponents across Canada. It is an embarrassment. It is an international embarrassment too that so much capital, including Canadian investments, is being deployed elsewhere and not here in Canada. That includes the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. This is a travesty. We need to get over it as quickly as possible.

How do we do that? We could put forward legislation that is constitutional very quickly; stop sitting on our hands; take some lessons from some environmental advocates, environmental experts and constitutional experts; and listen to what they are saying: Stay in our lane, abide by our jurisdiction and get some proper legislation we can abide by in this country.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I am almost done, but I wanted to read the transcript because it precisely proves the point.

The chair said, “Okay, I'm going to ask all members.... We have Mr. Genuis and then Mr. Angus.”

You established that order, Chair, and then you proceeded to me. I said, “Thank you, Chair. I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C‑69.”

At that point, you'll recall that I sought to move a motion of privilege. You correctly pointed out subsequently that it is up to the chair, when a matter of privilege is raised at committee, to determine if that is a matter of privilege or not.

I think it was unfortunate that you initially allowed the debate but then ruled later that it was not a matter of privilege. Nonetheless, that was the ruling you made. and it was upheld by the committee, which meant that no motion was moved. No motion of privilege was moved because you determined it was not a matter of privilege. Since you determined it was not a matter of privilege, no motion was moved. I had the floor before I tried to move that motion and was told I couldn't and I had the floor after I tried to move that motion and didn't.

There are various means by which the chair can establish the order, but the chair in this case did establish the order. The chair determined that I had the floor, provided me with the floor and cannot then decide in the middle of my remarks that I no longer have the floor.

Once I have the floor, I have the floor unless and until I cede the floor or if there is some other reason why I have given it up.

I think the transcript is clear that I had the floor. I was given the floor properly by the chair. No motion was moved and thus I didn't lose the floor. At no point did I cede the floor, so I have the floor, Chair. The legitimacy of the committee in all subsequent proceedings depends on your willingness to uphold the rules as they are clearly written and established in the book and in the transcript.

I hope you will rule in accordance with the rules.

Thank you, Chair. That's my point of order.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, upon serious reflection on the matter, I have decided I would like to keep the floor because I do have more to say. I will now do so.

I do want to begin, though, by recognizing the incredible hard work of our shadow minister for natural resources, my friend and riding neighbour, Ms. Stubbs, who represents the riding of Lakeland. She has clearly shown already today and will continue to show what a passionate advocate for the energy sector, for Albertans and for all Canadians she is. In particular she's also a strong voice for indigenous communities that are part of and benefiting from the energy economy, and she brings a great deal of understanding and authenticity in her discussion of those issues.

We are, however, primarily focused at the moment on the privileges of a different member, that is, privileges of the member for Peace River—Westlock. I will just remind the committee that we are debating my motion that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock was breached when the chair and committee refused to allow him to speak in the debate on Bill C-69.

Maybe a good place to start is just on the series of events that took place in committee that involved the violation of the privileges of my good colleague from Peace River—Westlock. We were in debate on a programming motion in relation to this government's “unjust transition” legislation. The context of this is very interesting, and I think this explains the eagerness of many members to speak to this issue.

The minister made an interesting admission in the House during time allocation on this bill. He actually told the House that workers don't like the term “just transition”. I thought it was a prescient observation that workers don't like the term “just transition”, although his solution to this was to call it something else. He said he was not going to use the terminology “just transition” anymore and that they were going to describe the same set of policies in a different way, right?

This is sort of like when I'm trying to get my children to eat their brussels sprouts and they won't eat them, and I say, “Well, let's just call them chocolate cake.” It doesn't change the substance of them, though. They're still brussels sprouts, right?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

How do you hope to be able to do that?

In what process are you actually going to start engaging with the provinces? According to them, they weren't engaged early on in the development of the Canada water agency. At what point and how are you going to go about actually engaging with the provinces to make sure their jurisdiction is respected, particularly in light of their rightful concerns as highlighted by the Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Given your comments and also from the comments of my colleague, I did want to clarify my aim in that the point of order was specifically related to what you had been talking about procedurally this meeting about alleging falsehoods and lying among members. I don't think my interjection was that extensive, although I suppose we could start timing so that we have proof for it.

I only used the examples that are publicly verifiable that, of course, Conservatives do support the work on assessing all of the existing gaps as well as required grid capacity towards electrification. There is the reality that first nations communities also support development in the Ring of Fire. Bill C-69 is holding back the Ring of Fire because of the gatekeeping requirements for the regional assessment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will continue to push forward on this. This legislation has to be passed.

This committee had 56 meetings with 133 witnesses and over 112 hours of testimony. We know what the energy file is. We know what the sustainable jobs issue is. We need to get this legislation passed.

We are hearing from labour groups across the country who are very concerned. I'm hearing from investors who are looking to shift investment to the United States because they are seeing that Canada is becoming a gridlock, with the Conservatives blocking Bill C-49, when there are such opportunities.

To that, this motion that I read, or my attempt to speak to this, was referred to us because two pieces of legislation were referred to our committee. As someone who has been in Parliament for multiple years and in opposition for all that time, I don't always agree with how government works. I know that when government moves legislation to the committee, it becomes the priority of the committee. The committee has to address that legislation.

What we saw from the Conservatives was an attempt to monkeywrench that motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 by introducing another study on top of that. I reached out to the Conservatives. I said that I'd be more than willing to look at that study, but that study would have to come in order. It doesn't get to pre-empt the work that has been given to us by Parliament. There is a timeline ticking on this. We need to get this done. This is what we're hearing from labour.

We have a series of these amendments that are very.... First, it was Sudbury. Suddenly, we're going to have people from Sudbury. It wasn't really clear who we were going to have from Sudbury, but we were going to get somebody from Sudbury. The Conservatives suddenly were really fascinated. It's funny. They didn't have anybody come when the coal transition happened. It was the New Democrats who brought representatives who went through the coal transition. They didn't bring anybody. Suddenly, they wanted someone from Sudbury.

I believe the motion was that they wanted representatives from the mining industry in Timmins, which I think is a great idea. I would love to have a set of meetings with representatives from the mining region of Timmins, maybe Val-d'Or, maybe Sudbury, but outside of this meeting on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because it would certainly be a huge education to my Conservative colleagues.

If they think that the mining representatives from northern Ontario are going to come down and back their climate-denying anti-investment in EV technology, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise.

We have Alamos Gold in Matachewan that's running 8,000 tonnes of gold a day underground. That's massive. When I go underground at Alamos, we talk about the really important need to move from diesel to electric trucks. That's a huge investment. Those ITCs will be huge for being able to move those kinds of underground pit trucks to battery power.

There's the Newmont mine. I would love to invite Newmont to come and talk about Borden. Borden is a mine that's running almost entirely green now. It is possible.

Again, this is something my Conservative colleagues would not probably know anything about. When you work underground in a diesel environment and work with oil from the drills, the lung cancers and stomach cancers are enormous, just from what you're breathing.

When you go into a clean battery-driven mine, the air is so much cleaner, and it drops your costs enormously. What you pay in battery investments, you actually make up in less cost for underground fans. When you have to run fans, let's say at Creighton, deep, 9,000 feet underground, you're pumping a lot of cool air down at those depths. When you run diesel motors at that depth, you have to run really heavy fans.

I talk to mining representatives, and I'm sure they would love to come to this committee to talk about how ITCs would help in those investments so that we could make switches. For example, I believe Vale, which is not in my region, but is in Ms. Lapointe's region, is running 72-ton haulage trucks now on batteries. That's a really transformative moment. People didn't think that was possible. Certainly the flat earth EV deniers would say that you couldn't run trucks that big. What they can do now, because of how they've tied the batteries to the braking energy on those pit trucks, is run from six hours to 10 hours. A 10-hour shift on a battery hauling 72 tons of ore is a major transformative moment.

I would love to have them come and talk about that technology and why they are absolutely committed to the clean-tech future, because they see the opportunities for mining.

Whenever I talk to people in the mining sector, they get it. If we're going to be competing against China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are horrific human rights abuses, we need to have a supply chain that is free of the abuses that are happening in places like Congo, but also that has a clean energy footprint. We can't say we're going to be a clean energy superpower and get critical minerals unless our mines are able to start running on clean energy.

That leads to questions on the grid.

I know, Chair, when you were sitting as just one of the members, we were going to study the grid, something my Conservative colleagues don't seem to want to deal with. But the grid is important, because we actually can't move some of this battery technology for big industrial projects without dealing with issues of the grid.

I think it would be really great to have representatives of the Timmins mining industry. They would also explain to the Conservatives that Bill C-69 has really nothing to do with how mine projects are developed. I know Conservatives are going on that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine up and running, and they blame the Liberal government for that. Well, it always takes 10 to 15 years for a mine, because when you're talking about a multi-million dollar investment underground, you have to make sure you really know where you're putting your infrastructure. If you put the shaft in the wrong place, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly, and you're not going to be able to raise the money on the international market until you've done all the important steps that are necessary.

Take Doug Ford. He announced he was going to run a bulldozer through the Ring of Fire. Well, that didn't go so well. I wouldn't be betting any money on the Ring of Fire right now, because it was Conservative politicians who shot their mouths off about the Ring of Fire. If you go to Neskantaga First Nation, they're saying, “It ain't going to happen, because it's not done properly.” To build a mine properly, you have to have a proper environmental plan, a proper financial plan, the support of first nations, because when you have the support of first nations, things move a lot quicker.

For example, we had representatives from the Timmins mining region come—

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

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Angus started the meeting with the floor. He was not interrupted until he finished reading the motion, but he conveniently left out the amendment the Conservatives put forward to make sure that Bill C-49 is actually given precedence. We want to undertake a study on Bill C-69, but of consequence, we want Bill C-49 to go ahead of Bill C-50, for the sake of ordering.

I just want to make sure all committee members remember that Bill C-49 should come ahead of Bill C-50, and we would like to see Bill C-49 first.

Thank you.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.

I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.

We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I tried to get on the speaking list before I was subbed in. I know that for folks back home, Bill C-69 is something they're very passionate about. Hence, I'm here to speak to it. The fact that I was unable to get on there does seem to be limiting to my privileges as a member of Parliament.

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

Thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

On the subamendment we have at hand here, as we laid out the case before, the case will be laid out again as to why we want to hear from witnesses all across the country. Certainly, we want to hear from folks who work at the mines in and around Timmins and James Bay. I think Mr. Falk highlighted very well the importance it has for the greater region and greater area—in particular, for resource development for economic reconciliation—and opportunities for all of Canada to be able to participate in the economy.

We have lots of proposals for witnesses. We just want to make sure that the area in the riding of Timmins—James Bay won't be left out and forgotten, as we found out not a single person there has received a heat pump or a carbon tax carve-out either. I think it's important to make that note as well. I think it would be good to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay. The government hasn't done much in the way of helping those folks out.

We look at how just transitions have previously gone and been attempted. We heard previously that workers have been left out in that region of the country, so we want to hear from them about what might happen when another just transition is forced upon resource workers in this country. It's not just the smaller scale of the first attempt that spectacularly failed and how that was done up; now we have a national scope and scale for a so-called “just transition”.

Conservatives put forward another common-sense subamendment to another common-sense amendment. As we know, after eight years of this government, the penchant to do things that are largely unconstitutional, as we saw with Bill C-69, is problematic. It would be good to hear from the folks in and around Timmins—James Bay about what their thoughts are on that.

If we don't deal with the issue of Bill C-69, how's that going to play out for the folks in that area? They're obviously looking for more involvement in the development of natural resources in that area. We've heard the extensive list of critical minerals available for the energy transition—not just here in Canada, but around the world—that people want for components. Therefore, trying to get the best opportunity for people to be able to speak to what we're dealing with here at committee with this bill and getting their perspective will be of the utmost importance.

I would recognize Timmins—James Bay as another area of the country.... I was talking about the stats earlier. In Ontario, with a pretty significant amount of gas and oil that is still used for power and energy production, and without a doubt with the amount of mining that goes on in Timmins—James Bay, certainly a lot of it would be used there as well to make sure that they can power their operations and keep the work environments in a manner that is suitable for the workers.

I think it's important that we deal with witnesses from all across the country. That's why we have another common-sense subamendment here that we're looking forward to dealing with.

I want to thank Mr. Falk—I know he has left—for moving this amendment. I look forward to seeing what the good people of Timmins—James Bay have to say.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.

The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.

Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.

Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.

It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.

Thank you.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.

Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, 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, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.

Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.

Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.

That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....