Natural Resources Committee on April 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin, for your point of order.

Now, Mr. Patzer, you have a point of order.

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

I do, and my point of order is that she actually didn't even raise a point of order; she just started talking over my colleague, and you granted it as a point of order, so that actually is a problem. We need to make sure we do this properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, when a member says “point of order”, and I hear a member say “point of order”, I recognize the member. As we've gone through this over the past several months, I do want members to be able to speak, but if there is a point of order, I want to allow members to bring forward their points of order.

Now that that's been brought forward, Ms. Dabrusin had a point of order, and you had a point of order, Mr. Patzer.

I'm going to go back to Mrs. Stubbs, before I go to Mr. Angus and others who want to speak.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We always seem to have to start again with simple explanations.

Bill C-49 is updating the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a long-standing piece of legislation that was negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. There have been attempts to undermine the Atlantic accords by the previous Conservative government. Pierre Poilievre was in that government. The attack on the Atlantic accords didn't go well.

When we get letters from the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia calling on the federal government to update the language of the Atlantic accords, so we can move ahead with new employment opportunities and new energy projects, our responsibility is to make sure the language is updated so it can do the job it has done. It has never been challenged as unconstitutional. It hasn't been opposed.

We keep going back to square one, because the Conservatives want to fight about Bill C-69. My concern is that the longer we delay, the more we're guaranteeing that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia are being undermined, because the projects that are getting off the ground are going to jurisdictions where they have the certainty that legislation is actually going to be passed and not filibustered.

Bill C-49 is constitutional. It has been constitutional. It has never been opposed. I would hope that we can get this done so we can move on to other pressing matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I'll now go to Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those same premiers have also written a letter to axe the carbon tax. We're still waiting on the government to do that, too. I would appreciate members' support for the premiers on that one, too.

The point, Mr. Chair, of why we are here.... The amendments the government is proposing are to delay the implementation of the act. They have to consult with the provinces, because they haven't done their job yet, and they have to fix the Impact Assessment Act, because it's been ruled largely unconstitutional. That's the problem.

Why not take this bill and make sure that there are no unconstitutional elements to it and that we're passing something that will withstand the test and not have to go before the courts as the previous Parliament's Bill C-69, now known as the Impact Assessment Act, has done? It had to go to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think the provinces and industry want this bill to suffer the same fate. We know they want updates to the accords. We know that and we get that. That's what we're here to do. We support that. What we don't support is passing an unconstitutional bill. That's why Conservatives are doing the work here and now, at committee, to prevent the same result for the bill we're working on here today, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts is to prevent the same fate as that of Bill C-69.

We are trying to do the best we can now so there's certainty in the long run. I understand that this might be hard for some members to get, but that is the point of this exercise here today. It's to do our job as legislators.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

Perhaps I can ask the officials this question, because it might be helpful for the entire committee to hear the answer.

CPC-8, which is a mirror to CPC-13, was voted down by this committee when we were discussing the bill and its application previously. Maybe you can help us understand the importance of ensuring consistency between the Newfoundland and Labrador bill and the Nova Scotia bill, and whether it would be acceptable to have different clauses and different wording in the two bills.

[Lauren Knowles]

What I can tell you is that we have worked together with our two provincial partners, both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, to clarify in the two pieces of legislation what the role of the two regulators would be in the context of a federal-only impact assessment.

It's important to remember that these are federal-provincial regulators that operate in a joint management context on behalf of both governments and both levels of government. There is a desire to ensure that both offshore areas provide the same opportunity and regulatory and legislative frameworks to ensure that companies coming into both the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore and the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore can expect the same operating framework.

Having one set of amendments in the Newfoundland act that speak to the role of the regulator in participating in an impact assessment, and the subsequent absence of similar amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia version of the accord act, would create uncertainty, inconsistency and a lack of clarity for industry. It would also strengthen joint management in one offshore jurisdiction and weaken it in another. Our provincial colleagues would not support having an inconsistent approach whereby one regulator is given a certain treatment and the other regulator is not.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I will now go to Mr. Dreeshen.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you.

I appreciate your answer to that, Ms. Knowles.

I'd like to ask you this question. Were the provincial governments given a course of action, if the regulatory framework related to Bill C-69 is not corrected? In your discussions, were they given a course of action and expectations of how long it will take or how we might have to go back to correct this? Are they aware of it?

We understand they're supportive of the concept, with the hope that Bill C-69 is going to be dealt with. Have they been given a course of action in the event that the regulatory framework can't be corrected?

[Lauren Knowles]

As you're aware, the federal government has to introduce and pass these amendments, and the provincial governments must do the same to their versions of the accord acts. The two must be brought into force at the same time to work together.

The proposal to allow for a separate coming into force gives the flexibility to ensure consistency across the impact assessment and accord act statutes. The course of action, if there is disagreement by the provincial colleagues to move forward with mirroring those amendments in their provincial versions of the accord acts, will be to not bring them into force until such time as there is provincial concurrence.

That would be the course of action.

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

Could the legislation they are putting forward then be jeopardized if we can't come to some sort of agreement and relationship with Bill C-69? Will the legislation they are presenting to their legislatures be in jeopardy if the aspects of Bill C-69 that relate to their bills can't be resolved?

[Lauren Knowles]

I would say no, because they can still introduce and pass the same amendments that you see in the rest of Bill C-49. They can take the same approach to introduce, if they wish, the same amendments related to impact assessment and provide for a separate coming into force of those amendments so that we can work in lockstep together.

No, I don't see that any uncertainty on Bill C-69 will prevent the rest of Bill C-49 from proceeding, or the provincial mirror amendments, because we have an administrative approach to allow for the bill to proceed and to allow for those IAA amendments to come forward and ensure consistency without impacting the rest of the amendments in the bill.

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

Therefore, if Bill C-69 continues to be considered unconstitutional, they aren't using some reference point from a federal piece of legislation that is going to somehow jeopardize the legislation they put forward in their legislatures.

[Lauren Knowles]

It would be up to the provinces to determine what they would introduce in their legislatures and the timing of that introduction, and that could include a delayed coming into force for those clauses related to the Impact Assessment Act.

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

That was the course of action that I was wondering about and whether or not you had spoken of it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay. I think we have exhausted debate on CPC-13.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We'll now go to G-19.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

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

This is similar to G-9, which was previously carried by this committee. As I mentioned, it's important to ensure consistency between the Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nova Scotia versions of this bill. It is to correct an inconsistency between the English and French texts of the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I don't see any further debate.

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

On G-20, we have Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This one is similar to G-10, which was previously carried by the committee. Again, consistency is important. This one makes a change to the French-language text.

It would replace the word “et” with the word “ou”.

I would recommend that we support this.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I don't see any further debate.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On new clause 170.2 and G-21, we have Ms. Dabrusin.