Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 29th, 2024

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

The suggestion we've been making that maybe Bill C-49 could have been looked at later, once you had all of that done, would have some merit.

[Jean-François Roman]

This is not for the—

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

Would it have been easier if you did not have to deal with this legislation and you had some certainty on how the government was going to deal with the unconstitutionality aspect of Bill C-69?

[Jean-François Roman]

In terms of the discussion, as you know, the accord acts are joint legislation. We jointly manage the resources with the provinces. The agreement between the federal government and the provincial government here was to bring forward Bill C-49 with the proposed amendments and motions to carry on the work on Bill C-49.

That's how far I can go in answer to your question.

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

Thank you. My main question was on timing and whether or not there had to be a rush to get that done until we had sorted out what the other problem was.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen.

I'll now go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Maybe I'll follow up with the officials on that.

I'm wondering if you could advise us on whether or not the provinces support the amendments.

[Jean-François Roman]

The provinces have been consulted on the amendments and motions and they support what is being proposed here.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

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

I have one more. It's a quick one.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

No problem, Mr. Patzer. Go ahead.

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

Is this standard procedure? I understand that you're trying to leave room for them to make the amendments to the unconstitutional parts, but in terms of the wording here, is it standard procedure to create wiggle room for them to do that, or will this have to come back to committee, after those proposals are done, for us to revisit it at a later date?

[Jean-François Roman]

The wording here is what we need to create the distinct date for the coming into force of the provisions. If there are further amendments required, this will be addressed when we see what the IAA revision bill will propose, if necessary.

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

It's without a distinct date, though. The point of my first question earlier was about the fact that there isn't a distinct date. This is common language to create room to retroactively put in a distinct date—after the fact. This is standard. This is regular. This happens all the time. Is that what I'm to believe here?

[Jean-François Roman]

Yes. That's what we have to insert into the bill to create separate clauses.

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

You guys don't have a date in mind yet, obviously.

[Jean-François Roman]

There's no set date. Clause 221 of the bill simply has that the coming-into-force date is by order of the Governor in Council for the different provisions.

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

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Do we have any other speakers?

Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

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

I'm just getting myself back to ground zero on earth here, but to the officials, my understanding is that the push for this is coming from the provinces to update an existing accord. Is that correct? We're not making something new. There's an accord. The provinces are pushing us to do this. There's a timeline to get this thing done.

Did I misunderstand all of this or is that how this is playing out?

[Jean-François Roman]

No, you're correct.

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

Okay. Thank you. Well, then, I'd say let's get it done, because that's what the provinces have asked us to do.