Natural Resources Committee on March 21st, 2024

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

Yes, we did, but beyond that.... My point is that when you're working with the provinces on something like this.... Again, we want to make sure that we get this bill right.

We have stakeholders' testimony that is very specific to this. Part of why marine protected areas became a thing.... I mean, there are a few aspects that go into it, but a lot of it is about preserving the condition of the area that we are protecting, whether it's an MPA or protected land. It's about preserving the condition of the environment. We talked to the fisher groups that were here. They want to see as much of the environment in and around any offshore renewable development be as closely preserved and maintained as it possibly can be. If there are substantive alterations to the environmental characteristics of the area, that's where problems occur.

We've seen and heard the alarm bells go off from witnesses at our committee but also when we browse through the news. We have seen and heard from around the world what has happened when they didn't take these considerations seriously when they were legislating the frameworks around it. It's important that we take the warnings from other places around the world and apply them here. We had witness testimony in this very committee that pointed to this very issue, which is why we have this part of the amendment.

I think it's important that we take the time to do this properly and do this right. I will come back to the committee with some hard language here. Like I said, I'll pull up the witness testimony, and I'll definitely be proposing something in writing when I get a chance to actually see the new amendment in writing. Then I can work with it and make sure that I get it done properly. However, part of this whole point was also to see if the committee agrees that we should have a little bit more language around it, because I don't want to waste my time and your time by bringing back an amendment that nobody is going to want to see anyway.

I'm just wondering if there is a broad consensus to try to see something around that. Then I can bring something, and we can work. If it needs to be massaged a little bit to make it fit, that's great. However, I just want to make sure that I'm not going to be wasting my time and yours by doing that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

I will now proceed to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

In all my years, when we vote on an amendment, we accept the amendment and understand what's in the amendment. Once we've accepted the amendment, then we vote on the main motion unless there is a subamendment, but there hasn't been a subamendment. We don't get a time out then to go study and think and come up with some ideas. We're in the middle of clause-by-clause. Either they have a subamendment ready to go, or they don't. I would call the question. We have to move on.

I'm concerned about trying to bring forward amendments and subamendments that are undermining the provincial jurisdiction here. We hear the Conservatives. If Danielle Smith wants to burn the planet, it's all about provincial jurisdiction. If Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have accords that have been in place and that need the federal government to sign off on, then I say let's do it.

There is no subamendment. Without a subamendment, I'm not going to be willing to suspend and give time for people to think one up. Either it's there or it's not. I say we vote on the amendment as is and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

We have Mrs. Stubbs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that MP Patzer will want to respond after, but I'll just take this moment to say this: Let's spare the sanctimony around here with the crowing about listening to provincial premiers, if we will, since the NDP and Liberals actually have zero problem ignoring the Liberal Newfoundland premier who has asked over and over that they spike the carbon tax hike on April 1.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work in good favour by accepting the two subamendments. MP Patzer has summarized exactly why we are engaging the will of the elected members of this committee to consider including the Conservatives' specific language on protecting and maintaining the environmental characteristics in the case of offshore renewable development and explicitly include this in Bill C-49.

Here is why. It is because it is not enough at this point, after nine years, for the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, to say, “Just trust us.”

I will give this example. It has been five months since the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law based on Bill C-69, which has been in place for half a decade, is largely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that less than 6% of the law based on Bill C-69 stands up, including, as we've discussed multiple times in the debate on this rushed bill, the dozens of references that are here in Bill C-49 to Bill C-69. This will automatically cause this bill, if it's passed as written, to be vulnerable to litigation and challenges, causing even more uncertainty for offshore petroleum developers, obviously, but also for any private sector proponents who want to launch into offshore renewable development too.

This is why—so Canadians understand—Conservative MPs on this committee are trying to compel the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members of this committee to be explicit about our elected representatives' priority to protect and maintain the environmental characteristics according to the expanded new scope and scale of the mandate that Bill C-49 will provide for regulators. Also, in addition to my colleague's tough but fair and accurate comment on the Conservatives' 20,000 amendments to Bill C-50, the just transition bill, let me just say for the record—because I heard him quip it—that those were not generated by AI.

Second of all—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, and I answered the media about that, so I'm not sure why you're claiming it.

Second of all, thank goodness the Conservatives actually tried to propose amendments to Bill C-50, given that the government's own internal briefing shows that Bill C-50, the just transition bill, will kill 170 oil and gas jobs immediately and disrupt the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and energy. Of course, the truth is that, because of the actions of the NDP, Liberal and Bloc MPs on this committee, there will be no debate on Bill C-50 and not a single Canadian will be able to be heard from on that bill.

This is why it's not sufficient. This is why—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—MP Patzer is arguing to make it explicit in the legislation. This isn't on the officials.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, we have a point of order. If I could just ask you to pause.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

No, I'm going to finish my comments. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You're talking into the mic, so what you want me to do right now is to do as you say but not as you do.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I will ask everybody to halt. We have a point of order.

[An hon. member]

The rules apply to everybody.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Don't tell me what to do, John. Go run in the provincial legislature like you said you wanted to.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mrs. Stubbs, I would ask you to hold, please, for a moment. We have a point of order.

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

Mr Chair, Mr. Aldag just mouthed the words “eff off” to my colleague right here. I demand an apology from Mr. Aldag.

I saw that, John.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

That's not sunny ways for a feminist. I guess because it's 2024, we're not feminists anymore.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back from our suspension.

Mrs. Stubbs, I'm going to go back to you, as you had the floor.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Chair, thank you for allowing me to conclude my remarks.

My main point was that this is the reason the Conservatives have proposed to insert, explicitly, the language around protecting and maintaining environmental characteristics. It is because we can't just cross our fingers and hope that things happen. Our job as legislators is to make sure it is embedded with clarity in principles on which I think we would all agree.

That is why Conservatives proposed that amendment in the first place, have worked in good faith to accept the subamendment and hope that we will be able to work in further good faith to improve the bill even more on this topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Stubbs.

I'm going to now go to Ms. Dabrusin.