Evidence of meeting #87 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
Director, Offshore Management Division, Fuels Sector, Department of Natural Resources
Yes, I'm sorry.
Maybe I'll turn to my colleague here. I don't know if the act sets that out somewhere or not.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
We don't change anything in the act in this regard.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Does the current legislation specifically include a requirement to publish this type of decision? If not, then the government isn't required to do so. Maybe it will, but it doesn't have to.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
Major decisions are made by the regulators and ratified by the ministers. It's actually the regulator that must publish the decisions. The Canada‑Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, unlike the Canada‑Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, includes a requirement to publish when the minister suspends or opposes major decisions. However, that's all the legislation currently sets out.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
When the minister opposes or suspends a decision, the regulator must publish it.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
In the case of the Canada‑Nova Scotia accord, yes.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
There isn't any provision of this kind in the other accord.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Conversely, if the minister doesn't suspend or oppose a decision, there's no requirement to publish it under the legislation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
I will now go to Mr. Angus, and then Mr. Patzer.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you.
I'm ready to move on.
It's a regulator that reports to the government to say they've made a decision. At the end of the day, it's a regulator doing this. We haven't heard of a situation in which the minister has said they want the regulator to keep quiet. If the feds oppose something, the province has a veto, so we have checks and balances. This is an independent regulator. I haven't seen evidence that the federal government could tell the regulator to keep quiet. My colleagues could attempt to really ensure transparency, but I just don't see that this is a reality we have to worry about.
I'm ready to vote.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Maybe it's because they're not publishing those notices, Charlie.
I'm just wondering, do you guys have a definition handy to really hone in on what a fundamental decision actually is? If you have to submit it as a brief afterwards, that's fine, but if you have it handy right now, that would probably be helpful too.
Director, Offshore Management Division, Fuels Sector, Department of Natural Resources
We're certainly happy to submit it. It is set out in the act.
Jean-François, I don't know if you know off the top of your head what constitutes a fundamental decision.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
It is not defined as such, but what is considered a fundamental decision is any situation in which the federal and provincial ministers must approve the decision that was made by the board.
I wasn't completely clear. Once a decision has been ratified by both ministers, then the board has a statutory obligation to publish the decision that was ratified. Your motion is proposing
to publish a notice stating that a decision has been submitted to the minister for approval. There isn't any requirement of this nature. The department is responsible for publishing a notice.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
If I understand correctly, this amendment would compel that public notice be given on any fundamental decision, and even though it might be happening today, this would ensure that it would continue to happen, that the public would be made aware of any fundamental decisions and that there would be full disclosure and transparency.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you.
We'll now proceed to the vote.
Shall amendment BQ-5 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We'll now go to amendment CPC-3. Do we have a member who would like to move it?
Mr. Patzer, go ahead.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
This amendment would add after line 11 on page 7:
18.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 31:
31.1 Decisions of the Regulator respecting offshore petroleum projects and offshore renewable energy projects must be made no later than two years after it begins its review of the project.
One thing we hear regularly is that extended timelines and a lack of certainty for investors and proponents who want to build, regardless of technology, are of paramount concern to them. They want to see more certainty. I think prescribing a two-year window would give a decent amount of time to do the review, and it would definitely put a target date on it, so there would be some certainty for investors. I think it's a good idea to put more certainty on it, because otherwise people are going to go build in friendlier waters. Pardon my pun.
Liberal
John Aldag Liberal Cloverdale—Langley City, BC
The issue that I have, and that I think my colleagues would have, relates to the arbitrary nature of the two-year timeline that's being imposed in this amendment. When we put in a specific timeline like two years, it could hinder the regulator's ability to make certain decisions or to investigate perhaps safety and environmental issues.
I also think there could be unintended, or perhaps even intended, consequences of creating a risk that the projects not go forward if the regulators don't meet that two-year timeline. There could be mitigating circumstances. Ones that come to mind are market conditions, supply chain issues and other such delays. It would extend that. Having that hard two-year timeline would create an even greater risk to projects.
For that reason, I won't be supporting this amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Thank you, Mr. Aldag.
Shall CPC-3 carry?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
(On clause 19)
We'll now proceed to CPC-4.
Do we have a member who would like to move it?
Mr. Patzer, go ahead.