Bill C-49

An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should get some bonus time for the interruptions from across the way. It is 100% relevant. I do not quite understand how the Conservatives do not see the relevance to the issue.

Members opposite need to recognize the damage they are causing to Atlantic Canada because of their filibustering. It means MOUs could be signed that are not being signed, because the provinces need the legislation to pass. If the Conservatives want to support economic activity and Atlantic Canada, they need to at least get out of the way. If they do not want to vote for the legislation, they should not vote for it, but they should allow the legislation to pass. That is what is in the interests of Atlantic Canada and all Canadians. Conservatives are standing in the way because they are listening to the far right as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canada, specifically Atlantic Canada.

I would encourage members opposite to think about what they are doing, to think about their Atlantic colleagues who sit in the Conservative caucus and will, ultimately, have to go to the polls in 2025 when they are going to be asked why they filibustered and stalled Bill C-49, a bill that has been encouraged by two premiers, the government and New Democrats. Ideally, Conservatives should support the legislation, but if they are not going to, they should step aside and allow it to pass. This way, the potential of the legislation's impact on economic development could be realized.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am ever going to get that time back in my life, but that was pretty bad, even for the member for Winnipeg North.

I will ask a question regarding something that has been on my mind and has been talked about in conjunction with the debate about energy renewables and the need to have critical minerals. The government has spent over $50 billion recently on subsidizing environmental lawbreakers like Volkswagen in the creation of new power plants.

In the opinion of the member, how much time should Parliament allot to the study of contracts, when $15 billion is going to Volkswagen, $15 billion is going to Stellantis and $2.5 billion is going to Honda? How much time should Parliament be allotted to study and review those expenditures accordingly?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I did not plant that question. It is amazing; not only do Conservative Party members want to put economic development on hold and kill it in Atlantic Canada, but that question demonstrates that they also want to kill it and do what they can to stop it in the province of Ontario.

Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis are going to be creating good, solid, middle-class green jobs. What is it with today's modern Conservative Party that its members are so against economic development? They do not understand how important it is for the government to directly get involved and support these types of industries. These are the types of industries that are going to provided good-quality, middle-class jobs.

With that kind of an attitude coming from Conservatives today, they are going to be lucky if they can win 50 seats in the next election.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, the Liberals have been woefully weak when it comes to actually making the investments around clean energy so we can do the transition. Look at the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. We can see that 1.5 million jobs have been created from President Joe Biden's investments in clean energy. When is the Canadian government going to step up on those kinds of investments?

Second, I found it a little rich to hear a Conservative colleague talking about scrutiny, when the Conservatives, during the dismal decade of the Harper regime, gave $116 billion in liquidity supports to banks. They gave $30 billion each and every year, $300 billion total, a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens through the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, and then, of course, massive subsidies to oil and gas CEOs.

I want to ask my colleague whether he finds it rich that Conservatives, after all of their fiscal mismanagement, are trying to give others lessons.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we always have to take things with a grain of salt when it comes to economic development. If my colleague wants to reflect on the Harper years, one needs only to take a look at the damage that was caused in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, for example, where hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost under Stephen Harper, not to mention the overall deficit in terms of international trade in many different ways, again under Stephen Harper.

In terms of the environment, I, along with many members of the House, recognize that there is a thing called sustainable development, a universal principle held by progressive-minded people. It means working and thinking about our environment and jobs, and about how we can make the transition to providing good quality, middle-class greener jobs into the future. I see that as a positive thing. That is the reason why I see investments in Volkswagen and Honda as a good thing, contrary to the member opposite. By the way, Doug Ford seems to agree, because he is putting up a lot of money too.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, even by the member from Winnipeg's standards that speech was something else. He did not talk about the bill at all.

I listened to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame's speech. He is from Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a lot of people he consulted with, like those from the united fishermen's associations and a lot of people on the ground. He said a representative group of 14,000 fishermen had concerns with the bill, and they put forward amendment no. 56 so that it could work for both the fishing company and renewable resources.

I am wondering why those peoples' voices do not matter to my colleague and he listens only to the ones in his head.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the real challenge for many Conservatives might be the back and forth going on in their own heads. For me personally, the individuals I listen to are provincial premiers and my caucus colleagues from Atlantic Canada. Contrast that to the extreme right that many Conservatives and, in particular, the leader of the Conservative Party listen to.

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

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that.

I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today.

There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional.

It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point.

The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem.

When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada.

Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada.

That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them.

I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee.

I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated:

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated:

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry.

I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added:

Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Third Reading

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

Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today.

I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill.

Having gone through it, as I had said, and I will say it again today, the Liberal government has made a mess and it continues to refuse to clean it up. It did that with its Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, and now those same Liberals are once again right on track to interfere with local industry and provincial jurisdiction.

In this case, we are talking about the Atlantic fishing industry. We have heard from many fishing groups that are deeply concerned about a lack of consultation and a lack of protection for their livelihood. They do not feel that enough has been done to rule out the potential for major irreversible damage to their industry. The government is ignoring them, but we need to hear what they have to say for themselves. I am going to continue sharing what a few more witnesses told us at committee.

Michael Barron, from the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said:

In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia.

Dr. Kris Vascotto, from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, said:

Historically, members have relied on the federal government to protect the interests and viability of their enterprises. They have worked to support science and refine rules for the fishery, and they have tried to be part of the solution. In turn, they rely on the government to make good decisions.

Perhaps this is why members are surprised and dismayed by the content of the bill before you. Collectively, we understand that, as a planet, we are facing profound challenges related to climate change risk, and we realize that we all have an important role in finding a viable solution. However, rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters and lacks proper safeguards to ensure a viable and resilient coastal economy is myopic.

There are some important things that so many fishing groups mention consistently. They made it clear that they were absolutely not against renewable or wind energy per se, but they wanted acknowledgement that there were still many unknown factors and potentially negative impacts on ocean wildlife and their ecosystems. If that happens, it would devastate their industry and it may not be reversible. There is a witness who addressed this concern.

Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology, shared his thoughts at the committee. He said:

Developing the wind farms will add hard structure, thousands of small islands, throughout these areas, islands that pull energy out of the system. This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries. Some will be able to harvest within the wind farms; some will not. All will have to navigate through or around them.

Right now, some wind farms are beginning to monitor the marine environment and the animals associated with them, but it is a disjointed effort. There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding.

What we have heard from local witnesses in Atlantic Canada is that Bill C-49 has been rushed and lacks the necessary safeguards for the fishing industry.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, as indicated earlier, Bill C-49 is all about economic growth and prosperity, and it provides a great deal of hope. I know that because many of my Atlantic colleagues talk about how important it is to see Bill C-49 pass.

We have many people wearing barongs today on Parliament Hill, recognizing that June is Filipino Heritage Month. Part of growth is seeing how communities have been able to participate in growing in Atlantic Canada. The type of growth that Canadians want to see, I believe, is of an economic nature, providing opportunities for all people to grow and be a part of a community.

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

Madam Speaker, putting the livelihoods of tens of thousands of fishers and all the spinoff industry that comes from it at the behest of another industry is not the way we build an economy. It is not the way we get more people involved in the economy.

As the witnesses, who I referenced in my speech, talked about, they are happy to see more economic development in the region. They just want to see the process done properly. They want to see proper consultation. Many fisher groups, Unifor, talked about how there was a complete lack of consultation with the fishers and the different associations in the fishing community. They are worried that their livelihood will be lost because there is a lack of certainty and clarity in this legislation.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my time with the member on the natural resources committee. Like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who brought up her Newfoundland heritage, I, too, have a family heritage there. I lived there for three years while going to university. I actually lived in a lighthouse. I can attest, as well, to the vast wind resource available in Newfoundland. I was blown around quite a bit.

Newfoundland and Labrador wants this. Nova Scotia wants this. Regional assessments will be done that will have full involvement of the fishing industry. Why does the Conservative Party still hold up this bill when everybody wants it? The Conservatives want to block it just because it involves sustainable energy.

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

Madam Speaker, our desire in committee was to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. When the bill came to us, it had over 35 direct references to the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and the government gave us no timeline as to when it would deal with that. Therefore, to us, it seemed absolutely pressing and urgent to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional.

The Liberals and the NDP wanted none of it, so we ensured that we would set out to get a bill that would be constitutional so that investors in the wind industry would have absolute certainty and confidence when they looked to make proposals on building their industry.

Also, we want to ensure that the current users of the waters, the fishers, have the certainty they need so that their industry can continue and flourish. We do not need these two industries combatting each other. There needs to be a way to figure out if they can coexist, and this bill would provide no certainty for that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, this divide-and-conquer approach seems very typical of the Liberal government. The Liberals say one thing, do another and it pits group against group and region against region. I wonder if my colleague could comment further on whether Bill C-49 is about that; not about building prosperity, but rather playing politics with our federation.