Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

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

I'll just say briefly that without question the federal government, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia highly value the fisheries industry. I think everybody recognizes the significant economic impacts the fisheries have not only on those provinces, but also on our country.

That being said, there are already mechanisms within the existing accords, the existing acts and this bill that provide for assessments to look at things like the impact of potential energy projects. I think this is an unnecessary addition to the legislation, and we will not be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

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

We certainly heard a lot of concern from the fishing community, and it's not just about the huge economic impact of fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but also about the fragility of where they work. I was very struck by the deep concern for the changing climate and for the ocean currents it's putting more pressure on.

What I read in this amendment from Mrs. Stubbs is that it's not prescriptive. It's not overriding what may exist already at the board level and in both provinces. It's reminding us that we have to consider the importance of fisheries and the fishing industry, so I think it's a pretty straightforward amendment.

If the provinces have a problem with looking after the fisheries, well, I think they have to go back and talk to their own people. I don't think this is overriding, demanding or changing anything that exists. It's just reminding us that we have to not let the very fragile fisheries be damaged. In anything we do, we should always put that as a top priority. I think it's a pretty straightforward amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'm going to Mr. Aldag.

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

I'd like to go to the officials and get their advice or opinion on this. We've now had two different perspectives on whether or not this is needed related to acknowledging the value and importance of the fisheries, as well as the sensitivity. If we could turn to the officials for their thoughts, that would be helpful.

[Daniel Morin]

We believe that Bill C-49 has many tools to evaluate the impacts, even the tools we use prior to the call for bids being launched to issue licences, such as the regional assessments that are ongoing and spatial planning. All those tools are used to address the impacts on fishers from offshore energy.

This clause in particular is very broad and is not limited to the impacts on fishers from offshore renewable energy. It's just preserving the fishing industry writ large. That's partially beyond the scope of this act. That would be our assessment of the clause.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

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

That's all very helpful. I did go to bat for the operating engineers and got shot down. I went to bat for the IBEW and got shot down. I went to bat for the longshore workers, but I will not go back to Katie Power at Unifor and tell her that we didn't go to bat for the fishers.

I think it's pretty straightforward, so I'll be supporting it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll go to Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I want to thank Charlie for his support of the amendment.

To the Liberal MPs, with all due respect to their assurances—and I thank the officials—we're of course here to do our jobs as elected representatives. This is the place where we need to fix bills and ensure they achieve the outcomes we want.

I thank Charlie for his support of this very straightforward common-sense amendment that talks to protecting the livelihoods, the businesses and the generational family investments of fishers and lobstermen in offshore areas. It would ensure that in this legislation, there is consideration of cumulative environmental impacts and potentially negative impacts, or at least that those will be mitigated, both for the environmental stewardship of sensitive marine and ecological areas and for preserving the livelihoods and businesses in these sectors, which are so important to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I thank the officials, certainly, for their input, but I think it would be shocking to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador if the Liberal MPs on this committee did not support this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will now proceed to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5)

(Clause 38 as amended agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)

No amendments have been submitted for clauses 39 to 46. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

(Clauses 39 to 46 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 47)

We will now go to clause 47 and G-2.

Would a member like to move G-2?

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

This is part of a group of amendments that you will see coming forward to allow for a separate coming into force for certain clauses in this bill that pertain to the Impact Assessment Act. This would allow for coordination between statutes, as we will be bringing forward amendments to the Impact Assessment Act this spring.

This amendment separates out a provision that cross-references section 16 of the Impact Assessment Act from other parts of clause 47. There are going to be similar motions. It's part of a group.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Do I have any other speakers?

Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

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

I hope this means the government is going to be taking seriously the unconstitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act. I believe this is one of the many clauses of this bill that would be impacted by that.

This is my only question. It is for Julie, or maybe the officials working on this would know.

You mentioned spring, but is there a more specific timeline for when we could realistically see some fixes, hopefully, to the Impact Assessment Act?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Is that question directed to the officials? I could put—

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

I don't know. You just said it to me.

I can answer. I can say that spring will be upon us soon. I don't have a specific date to give you, but keep your eyes peeled. It will be in the spring.

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

Okay. Hopefully the minister can answer that if we get to a vote on the motion by my colleague about getting him here for the estimates. Hopefully at that point the minister can give us an update on it, because I would think this is issue number one and there would be a five-alarm fire about getting this dealt with. It should have been dealt with before this point, because when something is unconstitutional, usually that should be priority number one.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I'm going to Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Our witnesses here are from the justice department and particularly associated with Environment, I believe. Nevertheless, they should be the experts to speak to the unconstitutionality of Bill C-69. Of course, the whole issue is it not being dealt with before we're forced to deal with this. Therefore, the actions we have at this particular point in time, if we include those elements of Bill C-69, make this unconstitutional in my view.

I'd like to know what justice department officials have been doing to ensure there is no issue, or that it can be dealt with quickly, because that has been the whole point of what has been taking place here for the last couple of months.

I would like someone from Justice to enlighten me on that.

[Jean-François Roman, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I work for NRCan legal services, not the Department of Environment.

What we're proposing here is creating a distinct date for the coming into force of proposed subsection 119(9.1) so that when the Minister of Environment is ready to introduce the revision to the IAA, we'll be able to bring into force this provision at a distinct time without slowing down the coming into force of all other provisions proposed in Bill C-49.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Then there is an admission that there is a conflict between the Impact Assessment Act, with the unconstitutionality that has been presented, and this legislation. I want to make sure that because you are carving out portions.... I'm sure that if we go to any of these, there would be a similar answer: We have to change one because we are awaiting the ministry or the department to try to sort that out.

This is a concern I've had over the years. We have lawyers in departments. There should be decisions made that do not make things unconstitutional. However, we have courts—the Supreme Court and others—that will say, no, there's a problem and it has to be fixed.

What is the reason you weren't able to give information about the fix earlier on? Do we simply have to wait and assume the minister will come up with the proper type of legislation to fix it? How will we know that it actually fixes it? I mean, it will be a bunch of legal people from your team who will say, “Okay, we believe this is a fix.”

Is this going back to the Supreme Court, then, to see whether, in effect, it does remedy the concerns? How will we know?

[Jean-François Roman]

The only answer I can provide you with at this time is that we introduced Bill C-49 on May 30. As my colleagues from the legislative sections have been working on a revision of the IAA, we've been asked to make a few amendments to this bill to ensure we will bring these provisions into force only once the revision of the IAA has been done.