Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone that their headset is plugged into and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed their required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member has received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We have a few witnesses today to answer your questions.

From the Department of Justice, we have Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel, and Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Annette Tobin, director; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

We also have the legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

Before the chair calls clause 1, there is an amendment, on pages 1 and 2 of the package, seeking to introduce a preamble to the bill.

Monsieur Simard, would you like to move BQ-1?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, please.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to quickly come back to something that has been raised by some witnesses, namely, that Bill C‑49 isn't necessarily part of the energy transition. For many stakeholders, the energy transition is about putting low‑carbon energy ahead of fossil fuels. However, there is no clear indication of that in the bill.

We would therefore benefit from including a short text in the preamble that would enable us to both give the bill an intent, that is to say to be part of the energy transition, and to meet Canada's commitments with respect to meeting emissions reduction targets. We could also talk about reforming certain oil and gas frameworks.

I will read you the proposed text:

Whereas Canada has ratified the Paris Agreement, done in Paris on December 12, 2015, which entered into force in 2016; Whereas the goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep the increase in global mean temperature to well below 2^oC above pre‑industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5^oC above pre‑industrial levels; Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to achieving and even exceeding the target for 2030 in its nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement; Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to achieving net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050; Whereas the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act entrenches the commitment to achieve net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050 in Canadian law; Whereas, in December 2022, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, known as “COP15”, adopted the Kunming‑Montreal Biodiversity Framework; Whereas Canada has committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030; Whereas marine petroleum exploration and exploitation projects pose a direct and indirect threat to marine biodiversity; Whereas the oil and gas production sectors are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in Canada; Whereas, in order to cap and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil and gas production sectors, their total production must gradually decline; Whereas, in order to reach net‑zero carbon emissions, states must cease making new investments in petroleum research and production; Whereas the first step in the energy transition is to stop approving new petroleum exploitation projects; …

If we added this text to the preamble, we could resolve a major problem that makes me reluctant to support Bill C‑49, namely, the fact that, as part of the transition, fossil fuels are being treated the same as renewable energy.

In the amendments we've proposed, this reading will come up again and again. It was also shared by many witnesses we've heard from, including Normand Mousseau of the Trottier Energy Institute, who is probably the most credible person in Quebec, if not Canada, when it comes to the energy transition.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

The amendment seeks to add a preamble to the bill, but as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774, “if the bill is without a preamble, the committee may not introduce one.”

Bill C-49 is without a preamble. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

There is no debate on this. It is inadmissible. We can move forward to the next item.

No amendments have been submitted for clauses 1 to 6. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Chair, before we get into it, I think that, for clarity's sake, maybe we should do a recorded vote. I'm good with grouping them together and having a recorded vote on all of them. When we get to the final vote on each clause, at the very least, I think having a recorded vote would be helpful, just so we're all clear on what exactly we're doing and what is happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Fair enough.

Shall clauses 1 to 6 carry?

(Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 7)

We will now go to clause 7, for which there is amendment CPC-1.

Do we have a mover for amendment CPC-1?

Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 7, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 4 with the following:

section 5(1), section 29.1, subsection 41(7),

That's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Just for the record, I'd like to indicate that I will not be supporting this motion. By way of brief explanation, my understanding is that the purpose of clause 7 is to ensure that the provincial minister is consulted with respect to and must approve any regulations that are made under the accord acts.

The removal proposed under CPC-1 would allow the federal government to unilaterally make these prohibition regulations, and that's very contrary to the spirit of the legislation. The clause has been negotiated with and agreed to by the provinces. My understanding is that the provinces would not support this, and therefore we will not be supporting it.

I'll leave my comments at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

Shall amendment CPC-1 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

(Clause 7 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

There are no amendments submitted to clauses 8 to 10. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Shall clauses 8 to 10 carry?

(Clauses 8 to 10 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Next, we have a new clause, clause 10.1.

Mr. Simard, would you like to move BQ-2?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The new section 10.1 would read:10.1 Section 10 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):(2.1) When appointing members under subsection (2), the Federal Government is to take into consideration the need for members who have knowledge, experience or expertise related to offshore renewable energy technologies and their environmental impacts.

This amendment is easily explained by the fact that the regulator, whose witnesses we've heard from, said itself that it didn't have expertise in renewable energy projects. I find it hard to see how the planning and assessment process can be carried out completely without appropriate expertise. This assessment process could even be compromised. It would be quite normal to specify that the people who are going to do the analysis have the skills to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I'll now go to Ms. Dabrusin.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be opposing this amendment.

There are many factors that might come into play when considering amendments, including the protection of the environment, but there are other considerations that may need to be considered. This clause has not been considered with the provinces, so it's unlikely that they would want us to be stepping into this territory without having their agreement.

On that basis, I will be opposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

We will now go to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

For me, what's really important in the legislation is the obligation to consult indigenous people over their historical land rights. To erase that and put in so-called experts.... The real experts on land are indigenous people, and we can never forget that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

May I add something quickly, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I find it quite interesting that my colleague Ms. Dabrusin is putting respect for provincial jurisdictions first here, which isn’t always the case with the Liberal Party.

I still think it's important to point out the following question: How can we carry out analyses if we don't ensure that we have the people with the necessary expertise to do them?

I think there's something out of place there. I'll leave it up to my colleagues to vote on this amendment, but I still think there's something wrong.

A public decision‑maker wants to make decisions with the best possible information. I think that, within the legislative framework, we must also ensure that projects are assessed by people who have the skills to assess them. Still, I find it rather odd to reject this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands for debate.

We will now proceed to the vote on BQ-2.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

(Clause 11 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 12)