Natural Resources Committee on March 18th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 89 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 will make 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 and 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, and for those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although the 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 a 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 that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and that they avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind members that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

I will provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will continue to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments 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 each member 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 all 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 you have moved an amendment, 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 a 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 amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and 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.

With us to answer your questions today are, from the Department of Justice, Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector; Annette Tobin, director, offshore petroleum management division, fuels sector; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

As well, we have, as the legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

At the last meeting, the committee adopted clause 62 as amended.

Now we proceed. There are no new amendments submitted to clauses 63 to 75—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, Mr. Patzer, before we proceed to the vote on that, I will go to you for a point of order.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I have two quick points.

First, I am thankful and grateful that you did allow everybody time to listen to the tributes to former prime minister Brian Mulroney and also to his family. I think it's very important for parliamentarians to do that and be a part of it.

However, I want to comment on a process that I think was flawed. I think there should have been notice given not just to all members of Parliament, but also to the witnesses who are sitting here. Some have travelled great distances to be here and, quite frankly, have had to sit there for an hour doing nothing. They are all experts in their fields and there are other things they probably could have been doing with their time instead of sitting here and staring at the wall.

In the event that something similar happens in the future, since you have the prerogative to let everybody know what the scheduling is going to be, you should inform members of this committee of the schedule. It would have been handy to know that we were going to start an hour late. We could have made the proper arrangements to make sure this meeting would be as effective and efficient as it possibly can be, and it would have done a lot to prevent wasting the time of witnesses and members of this committee.

Again, I think it was important for members to attend and listen to the remarks of the leaders of their respective parties, but I think that the way it was handled could have been better.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer, for your point of order.

I believe all whips were advised of the importance of today's events, and all members were invited to be upstairs in the House of Commons to hear the speeches from the leaders of our respective parties. All whips were also advised—as we do for votes—that we would allow 10 minutes for members to join us at committee afterwards, and I believe all of our witnesses also were aware, but I thank you for providing your point of order and I will take that into consideration also as we move forward.

I have a point of order from Mr. Angus.

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

To follow up on that, because the notice of motion went out today and we knew we were going to have the tributes to Mr. Mulroney and that his family was going to be there, it was said, from 3:30 to 5:30, are we still ending at 5:30?

The motion said we had two hours. We knew we were going to lose probably that first hour, but we're supposed to end at 5:30. If we're changing that, it should be in the motion in advance, because as parliamentarians we have to balance a whole bunch of other competing things as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We do have two full hours, up until 6:30, to conduct today's meeting. I know members may have other items on their agenda. I'm hoping to use the full two hours, unless there's an objection from committee members.

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

What concerns me is.... I don't want to look like I'm a slacker and I really want this bill to pass, but I saw that when it came out today, we knew what the times were. It said 5:30, so I made other arrangements. I don't like being stuck in a situation where I'm the one who has to leave. If we knew we were going to have it, I think it would have been better to say 5:30 or until 6:30 just so that we could have made those arrangements then, but I'm kind of stuck now.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

I'll go to Ms. Stubbs for a point of order as well.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I support what our colleague Charlie is saying. With all due respect about the start time and the allotment for this meeting, the notice that the meeting would happen between 3:30 and 5:30 came out from the clerk while we were in question period.

While you might talk about agreements among whips and that sort of thing, we are all still members of this committee and you're the chair of this committee and the schedule of this committee is your prerogative. That's why, when you say baloney about how you invited Premier Smith to appear here but there was a scheduling conflict, it was all a farce, because you, of course, control the schedule.

I think the point that MP Patzer is making is to just not waste the time of all the members of Parliament, their staff and these departmental officials sitting here, who came here for that time. When the notice from the clerk went around, it said that our meeting would start at 3:30 and go until 5:30. I really strongly encourage you to take the due consideration of MP Patzer's advice that it deserves and not do this kind of thing again.

Second, for all the reasons outlined, we support MP Charlie Angus and we won't consent to extending the meeting. We'll be happy to go to 5:30, but that's it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I'll go to you next, Mr. Sorbara, but I will once again remind everyone that all whips' offices were aware that we would be starting late today, particularly at this committee. We did not know how long the speeches would be, but it is standard practice, if a committee is delayed, to extend the time for the committee with the allotted resources we have. If there's an objection from members at the regular scheduled time, we can bring it forward at the time, but we do have a full two hours allotted to us, which will bring us to 6:30.

I'll go to you, Mr. Sorbara, on a point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Just very quickly, Mr. Chair, with the passing of the former prime minister, we were asked to remain in the House after question period to hear the speeches by all of the pertinent leaders and so forth, so if we have any qualms about the committees afterwards—all committees scheduled for 3:30 started late this afternoon—we should go back to our pertinent whips' offices and individuals in those offices to speak to them.

I'm not coming to your defence all the time, Mr. Chair, but on this matter, I don't think it's right or even fair to say you were in charge of how that scheduling has worked out for us. I think the quicker we get to work now, the better off we will be.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara.

I think we've exhausted all points of order. We'll proceed now.

There are no amendments submitted for clauses 63 to 75. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

(Clauses 63 to 75 inclusive agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 76)

We'll now proceed to clause 76 and amendment G-13.1.

Is there a member who would like to move that amendment?

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

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

I'd like to provide my support on this one, since it provides clarity to the original text that was there.

The amendment makes it clear that the royalty owners are not party to a unit operating agreement and do not have to approve it. Also, the unit operating agreement is an agreement among the working interest owners and would not involve the royalty owners.

With that as context, I'll be voting in favour of this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

Do we have any other members who would like to speak on this? No?

Shall amendment G-13.1 carry?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go to amendment G-14. Do we have a member to move it?

Mr. Aldag, go ahead.

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

This is just a very small amendment to correct a minor error in the bill as it was originally printed. It's changing “regulatory” to “regulator”.

I will be voting in favour of this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

Is there any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 76 as amended carry?

(Clause 76 as amended agreed to: yeas 6, nays 5)

No amendments to clauses 77 to 106 have been submitted.

Shall clauses 77 to 106 carry?

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

They shall not all at once, no.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

Shall clause 77 carry?

(Clause 77 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

(On clause 78)

Shall clause 78 carry?

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

Mr. Chair, I have a quick question for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead on a point of order.

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

I may have missed this in your introduction. If that's the case, please forgive me.

I noticed that, at least on my list, I have BQ-18 to deal with, which was on clause 62. I want to make sure I didn't miss something here with the order I have on my page. I know we did some jumping around in the last meeting and I want to make sure we're not missing things. I do have amendment BQ-18 on clause 62. It should have been after amendment G-14, because we were dealing with that one clause.

Mario, do you maybe have some thoughts on that, in case I'm wrong? I know you withdrew some because something else was defeated previously. I'm making sure that I didn't—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Amendment BQ-18 was defeated previously, and the committee did adopt clause 62 as amended.