Evidence of meeting #91 for Natural Resources in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
I'm not sure I understand the question.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
I may need to get one of our legal counsels to step in here.
Specifically, this is with respect to administrative boundaries. It could be, as you say, Canadian boundaries like the one between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, or Canada-France and Canada-U.S.
I don't believe it would extend beyond the outer continental shelf—the extended shelf—into international waters.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
Thank you.
Perhaps some of the folks from Justice could fill us in. They would certainly have some input on international treaties and international waters.
4:35 p.m.
Jean-François Roman Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
This specific clause is about the Canada-Nova Scotia accord act. The Grand Banks is not concerned here, because it is part of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador accord area. The scenario under the Canada-Nova Scotia accord act will be more likely regarding the southern edge of the boundary with France, or near the United States coast.
If it's in international waters, there's no other appropriate authority. The clause of UNCLOS says it is the country where the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles that has authority. It's not a transboundary pool in that case.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Earl Dreeshen Conservative Red Deer—Mountain View, AB
There is a specific definition of “transboundary pool” that you, as legal people, and the department are satisfied with. Is this what I'm to understand from that?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you.
Maybe the officials could clarify another couple of points for me here. It says, “The Regulator and the appropriate authority may approve the unit agreement”. If we're dealing with interprovincial boundaries, wouldn't multiple authorities be included? Should that be a plural word? Again, we have a regulator and an authority, but are there not multiple authorities? As I understand it, there's the federal department, but there are also the two different provincial agreements here. Is that right? Should that be a plural word? If it was interprovincial, would it not be both of them? If it happens to be in, say, Nova Scotia-New Brunswick waters, then what?
4:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
According to the Interpretation Act, when we use the singular in a statute, the plural is included as well, so that's not a concern.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Okay. That's perfect. Thank you.
At the end of the amendment here, it says, “if all the working interest owners in the transboundary pool are parties to it.” Would the working interest owners be a company that's looking to drill a well, or is that the provincial government, or is it the first nations in the area? Who are we talking about when we say “working interest owners”? Can you provide some clarity, for my own knowledge here, as to what that actually means?
4:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Department of Justice
I'll let Ms. McNeil answer this one.
4:40 p.m.
Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources
The working interest owners would refer to the operators who would be exploiting the field, whoever they might be.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
I don't see any further debate.
Shall G-22.1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On G-23, go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
This corrects a minor typo in the legislation, removing the word “regulatory” and replacing it with the word “Regulator”.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Okay. I don't see any further debate.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 185 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
There are no amendments submitted for clauses 186 to 209. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
Okay. We'll start with clause 186.
(Clause 186 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
(Clauses 187 and 188 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
(Clauses 189 and 190 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)
Mr. Patzer.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm sorry. I just have a quick question.
You said previously, or at least I heard you say, it was clause 209. Did you mean 219? I don't have an amendment for 209, unless I'm missing something.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal George Chahal
The reason we're stopping at 209 is that clause 210 starts part 3 of the bill, so we will go to 209, and then we will shift to part 3 of Bill C-49. We'll then start again with clause 210 and onward.
Does that make sense? Does that clarify things for everybody around the table?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Liberal