Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Patzer did have a point of order, Mr. Angus. I'm going to him quickly and then I'll go to you.

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

Thank you.

I was waiting for you to finish. I did say “on that point” a couple of minutes ago. I wanted to make sure that I had a chance to quickly speak.

The question was on the admissibility of it. From what I understand, we're talking about how it's been inserted and then there will be debate on it with a speakers list. I think allowing members to debate the amendment to the motion would help provide certainty and clarity, possibly around Mr. Sorbara's question.

Obviously, the Conservatives feel that this amendment is in order because the motion is about the schedule. Our amendment simply rearranges a few things here. I think as you go through the speakers list and as we speak about the amendment, we may be able to help provide a little bit of clarity and debate on the amendment to the programming motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Angus, go ahead on a point of order.

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

As this is a substantial rewriting and in fact an insertion of a whole other piece of legislation into the scheduling motion, I think it would upend Mr. Sorbara's motion dramatically. This is not a friendly amendment.

Does Mr. Sorbara have the right to reject this amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for your point of order, Mr. Angus.

Just give me a second here.

Mr. Angus, on your point of order, the member is allowed to make an amendment although it may not be in the interest of the mover. The member is allowed to make an amendment to the motion to insert at the beginning of this motion, as I think Ms. Stubbs has said.

Do you have a point order, Mr. Falk, or do you want to be added to the speakers list?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I'd like to make an amendment to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You can't make an amendment on a point of order. You can't make an amendment until you have the floor. You have to wait until you're on the floor according to the speaking list.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I think I'm number two, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'm not sure where you are, but I will take a look.

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

Mr. Chair, can you clarify what that speakers list looks like? I do remember all three of us putting our hand up the very second she moved her amendment.

As time has gone on and after multiple points of order, it's taken probably 45 minutes to get to that point. I would just like some clarity on what that speaking order is because I think that would help things out.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I endeavour to do my best to follow the speaking list. We never know when an amendment is being moved until the mover moves it and then it goes into debate.

I have Mr. Patzer next on the speaking list.

Those change as some members add their names and some delete them. I go to one member at a time, and I will proceed in that order.

Ms. Stubbs, I'm going back to you because the floor was yours on the amendment. You had proposed the amendment.

Were you continuing to present the amendment or were you now debating why you think your amendment is appropriate? Are you ceding the floor to the next speaker?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

First of all, it would be wonderful if you could clarify the speaking list as it is. Second of all, as I said multiple times, and did before I was continually interrupted.... I proposed the amendment and I moved it. What I endeavoured to do before I moved it was make the case to all of you and to Canadians for why this had to be done in this order.

I guess it's up to the mover of the motion, or whomever, to figure out how or whether they want to adopt this amendment for all of the reasons I've outlined.

From my perspective, I've made that argument, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I will go to Mr. Patzer in the speaking order.

You're next.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. I do appreciate that.

I think this amendment is solid. We're trying to order Bill C-49 ahead of Bill C-50 with our amendment because of the at least 32 times that Bill C-69 is referenced in Bill C-49. Because the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reference on the largely unconstitutional nature of Bill C-69 and since it is referenced in Bill C-49, that is why there is a priority by Conservatives to start with Bill C-49, but that would of course mean that we need to deal with the case of Bill C-69. The court specified that legislators had to find ways to answer to the reference—not maybe they should find ways, but they had to find ways.

We spent a big chunk of this meeting laying out the case as to why we need to do the order in this manner now that we have our amendment on. Again, it's of the utmost importance that we do it in this fashion because part of Bill C-50 talks about the jobs. This is a jobs bill. It's a just transition. It's going to kill jobs, but let's just say that the government somehow is able to be successful and transition people to jobs. They won't be, but the issue is that we have heard in this committee—I have been on other committees as well where we heard this—over and over again from the private sector, but also from the public sector, and perhaps even more importantly from indigenous leaders, that Bill C-69 is the single largest barrier to actually getting projects done of any kind of any type of energy, or any type of project they are trying to do whether it's traditional oil and gas, whether it's renewables, whether it's various projects, and we've heard it numerous times.

That speaks to the urgency as to why we need to address Bill C-69 and particularly as it pertains to Bill C-49, because this is obviously about jobs in Atlantic Canada and trying to deal with the energy situation there. It would absolutely be appropriate that we deal with Bill C-69 and the impact it has first and foremost.

There's a good note from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation to minimize risks that some major projects pose to the environment. However, “this scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” That's what the Supreme Court said. Moreover, “it is open to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their respective powers over the environment harmoniously, in the spirit of co-operative federalism.” That's another quote from the Supreme Court ruling.

The whole point about Bill C-69 was every single province, every single premier said there were issues, and the territorial leaders did too. It is important that is noted, that going all the way back to 2018-19 when this was debated, flags were raised over issues with this bill by members of Parliament. In particular, all three at this table on the Conservative side spoke to it. In fact, my colleague from Lakeland did multiple times, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers spoke against the overreach of this. Particularly the Ontario premier very strongly stated on it.

It's important that this be considered as we look at the ordering of these bills. That is why the Conservatives have put this amendment forward, because we need to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is why the Provincial Court of Alberta made a ruling on Bill C-69, which of course the federal government challenged at the Supreme Court. We then saw the Supreme Court make its ruling in the reference case.

I would just like to note that all throughout the history of Canadian parliaments, any time the Supreme Court has made a reference ruling, Parliament—the government of the day—has decided to make the necessary changes to it.

For the certainty of communities and people who are looking for certainty going forward, I think it's extremely important that we address this first.

I'm going to read something from the Saskatchewan government. The first line here is, “5-2 Decision Finds That The Federal Government Overstepped Constitutional Authority And Should Be More 'Cooperative' With Provinces In The Future.”

The opening statement lays out the case as to why and how co-operative federalism is actually supposed to work. It clearly was not done in this case. The rest of the quote contains kind of no-brainer points. It reads:

Saskatchewan welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada's...ruling against the federal government's environmental Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69.

“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces' rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation,” Justice Minister and Attorney General, Bronwyn Eyre said. “It should also force the federal government to reassess other areas of overreach, including capping oil and gas production and electrical generation. The IAA has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.”

That last sentence, “This major decision will correct course”, is why our amendment has been moved. That's why we feel this bill needs to be done first.

I'll finish the article:

The IAA received royal assent in 2019. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 4-1 majority) held that the IAA was unconstitutional, violated the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, and took a “wrecking ball” to exclusive provincial jurisdiction under Section 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government appealed the decision to the [Supreme Court of Canada].

Last March, Saskatchewan was part of the constitutional intervention, along with seven other provinces, before Canada's top court, arguing that the IAA had exceeded federal jurisdiction.

The majority recognized that the IAA is a clear example of federal overreach. Specifically, the Supreme Court majority held that the IAA's designated projects scheme, by which the federal authorities could permanently put a project on hold was an “unconstitutional, arrogation of power by Parliament” and “clearly overstepped the mark.” The majority also found that the Act “grants the decision-maker a practically untrammelled power [of] regulated projects qua projects.”

In 2023, Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan First Act to [deal with] matters of provincial jurisdiction.

My own province has made it very clear where it stands on this case and on this point. We know all of the other provinces did as well when it came to the government tabling Bill C-69 back in 2018-19.

The fact that the Supreme Court has made its ruling kind of puts us in the position we're in now, where we have a largely unconstitutional bill impacting a lot of things that the government is trying work on—multiple pieces of legislation. It's not just Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Other issues will arise if it is not dealt with and addressed.

Quite frankly, it is hamstringing the provinces to be able to proceed with projects. We heard about LNG. We heard about simply trying to get highways built or repaired.

I mentioned earlier that some of the first nations leaders were concerned about this as well because they're looking at timelines. They're looking at how there will be opportunity for self-determination, economic participation for their residents and economic reconciliation.

Many of them have earmarked and flagged natural resource projects and development and also renewables, which also gets to the point though of why we have a problem with Bill C-69. They have told us over and over again that even on the renewable side, Bill C-69 is a problem. It's not even just about this being the.... It was originally dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill. This is just a “no more energy” bill. That is what we have here in front of us.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No more building anything ever anywhere.

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

Yes, exactly. No more building anything ever anywhere.

I think it's important that we address the issues around Bill C-69, because we've heard from many people, many stakeholders, private, public and otherwise, that this is a problem. I think what we're going—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

The guys are worried about me interrupting you. You can maybe explain how you feel about that. The guys over there are worried about how I'm speaking to you.

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

Yes, exactly. They're looking like they maybe want to have a—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm pretty sure you would tell me to buzz off if you were worried about it.

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

Well, exactly. We're colleagues. We banter back and forth about things. We are like-minded. I have the floor.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We have a point of order, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Sorbara, go head on the point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Could you remind the committee who actually has the floor to speak at this moment in time?

I'm not too sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I—