Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 26th, 2024

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Amendment BQ‑8 aligns with what I've been saying all along.

If we want to shift towards a low‑carbon economy, we can start by putting a stop to new development projects. A logical way to implement the energy transition would be to stop issuing new licences.

My proposed amendment would add the following to clause 30, after line 24 on page 16:

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), no exploration licence or production licence is to be issued after this subsection comes into force.

If we want to remain consistent with our greenhouse gas reduction targets and commitments, we need to take this step.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

I'll go to Mr. Patzer and then to Ms. Jones.

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Resource development is the jurisdiction of the province. It's not up to the feds to tell the province what to do. I think we'll be voting against this amendment for the sole reason that natural resource development is the jurisdiction of the province.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

We'll now go to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with that, and I also want to reiterate once again that as much as my colleague Mr. Simard would like to see this bill cease all oil and gas activity, that is not the intent of Bill C-49. It really is to ensure the development of renewable energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. I will oppose the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

We'll now proceed. Shall BQ‑8 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

(Clause 30 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 31)

We'll now move to clause 31 and BQ-9.

Monsieur Simard, go ahead.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Since I'm passionate about meeting the government's targets in the fight against climate change, I'm proposing a similar amendment to prevent any new oil and gas projects.

It would amend clause 31 by adding the following:

(1.1) A call for bids shall not be made after this subsection comes into force.

No new licences could be issued.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

I have Ms. Jones next.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For the same reasons that I opposed the last amendment, I oppose this amendment. That is not the intent of the bill. The intent is to develop offshore renewable energy in the Atlantic region.

I'll be opposing the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Shall BQ-9 carry?

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 1)

(Clauses 31 to 33 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 34)

We're now on BQ-10.

BQ-10 could only be moved if BQ-8 were adopted, since it would create a subsection. BQ-8 was not adopted.

We will proceed.

(Clause 34 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

There were no amendments submitted for clauses 35 to 37. Do we have unanimous consent to group them in a vote?

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We do not have unanimous consent.

We will proceed to the votes.

(Clauses 35 to 37 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 38)

We will now move to clause 38 and CPC-6. Do we have a member who would like to move it?

Mr. Small, please go ahead.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 38, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 20 the following:

89.1 The Regulator may make a call for bids only in relation to an area that has been identified for potential development following a regional assessment conducted under section 138.017 that

(a) was conducted less than five years prior to the call for bids;

(b) included a study of the regional and cumulative impacts of development of the type and quantity that is to be proposed under the call; and

(c) included all the prescribed information and prescribed studies.

Also, after line 21 on page 21, it would add the following:

(4) The call for bids shall also include a description of the area’s suitability for development.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to start by saying that in one aspect, I agree with the intent of the amendment, but I'm unable to support it in the way it has been presented.

I'd begin by noting that the federal and provincial governments recognize, through their actions, the importance of regional and strategic assessments. This is why they are currently conducting a regional assessment for offshore wind in advance of a future call for bids for both the Canada-Newfoundland and the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore areas. This is why the regulators have conducted strategic environmental assessments in advance of a petroleum call for bids.

The real concern here is that this amendment, if accepted, would require that the comprehensive regional assessments currently being undertaken be redone. When we hear from the Conservatives about wanting certainty and clarity, this would completely undo any work and cause huge delays. That is a huge problem that goes well beyond the intent of the bill. The bill includes amendments that would provide the offshore regulators with the authority to conduct regional and strategic assessments prior to a call for bids, but these authorities aren't intended to be prescriptive, and it's unlikely that the provinces would support this action as presented in this motion.

I would also note, based on some comments we heard previously, that the Conservatives, under previous governments, have taken actions such as this, which created duplicative processes. They added red tape and increased the approval times in Newfoundland's offshore to 900 days. Our government has gotten that down to 90 days. It's not appropriate to reintroduce renewable energy-killing requirements that are already in place under other processes.

For those reasons, we're going to be opposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

I will go to Ms. Jones.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't really have much to add to what Mr. Aldag has said, but I do want to make sure I'm on the record. We already know that there is a regional assessment process for offshore wind. We also know that any projects that are to go ahead have to undergo impact assessment and fall under the Impact Assessment Act. Really, I know where Mr. Small is trying to go here, but the safeguards are already in the bill as it relates to the assessment process prior to any development of renewable energy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Small.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to MP Aldag, Minister O'Regan misled this committee in saying that they reduced the 900 days to 90 days, when in fact the 90 days are the maximum length of time to approve an exploration permit. They're insinuating that the length of time for a development project to be—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'd ask you to pause for a second. We have a point of order.

Go ahead on a point of order, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

First of all, we're doing a clause-by-clause and not a general debate, but beyond that, it's unparliamentary to be saying that the minister has “misled” this committee. At this point we're not taking further evidence on this, and I hear the person across speaking about intentional misleading. None of that is the way we should be discussing this in clause-by-clause.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

On the point of order, colleagues, I would just ask you to make sure that we are not using language that's saying that something was said that may have not been said and using words that could also mean something else. I would ask colleagues to focus on Bill C-49 and what we're discussing today on the motion and to try to keep our attention and focus there.

Mr. Small, you had the floor before the point of order. I'm going to go back to you.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Back to Mr. Aldag's comments, these regional assessments are non-binding. We heard testimony by Katie Power that these regional assessments will have no impact on this bill and that they're just basically people giving their opinions.

On another point, the provinces also heard the testimony that was given here, and if it goes back there, if this bill gets in their legislatures and gets in their committees and they ignore the stakeholder testimony.... They're going to hear the exact same testimony that we heard here from fishing industry stakeholders, and I can assure Mr. Aldag that the provincial government in Newfoundland and Labrador is going to listen to these stakeholders if they want to get elected again. I'm sure that amendments will be made at the provincial level, because they take the fishing industry seriously back in Newfoundland and Labrador, versus some of the attitude I've seen around this table.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Small.

We'll now go to Mr. Angus.