Natural Resources Committee on April 11th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 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 would like to make a 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. 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 can 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 the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. I believe one of the witnesses, Ms. McNeil, is having some technical issues, which I hope will get resolved with our technology ambassadors as we proceed with the meeting.

With us today to answer your questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel; and also 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, by video conference; Annette Tobin, director, offshore management division, fuels sector, by video conference; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

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

Today we are resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49.

(On clause 221)

We are at clause 221.

At the last meeting, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to allow Ms. Dabrusin to move her amendment, the new G-25, which starts on page 75 of the package.

Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

This motion is similar to others that I have brought in respect of a different coming into force date relating to the Impact Assessment Act. I'm going to be supporting it and asking for my colleagues to support it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Ms. Dabrusin, thank you for moving the new G-25.

Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you very much.

Obviously, we all supported her having the ability to move that amendment again, which was fine. Because we are moving a date in regard to the Impact Assessment Act, I know we've had a few days, so I'm just wondering if either the parliamentary secretary or maybe the officials know the date. Maybe they know it today. I'd like to give them that opportunity. If anybody knows when the date is that the Impact Assessment Act will be fixed and will be compliant with Canadian law, then that would be helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Is there anybody who'd like to answer Mr. Patzer's question?

Mr. Patzer, are you addressing it to somebody specifically?

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Okay.

Ms. Dabrusin, I'll start with you, and then we can proceed onwards.

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

We anticipate that it will be happening shortly. On the other hand, for the purposes of writing legislation, there is not going to be a fixed date added into this. The coming into force date would be left to the Governor in Council for this section. It's the same as the other ones we have put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Do we have any further debate?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 221 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

(On clause 147)

The committee will remember that on March 21, 2024, we agreed to stand clause 147. We are now ready to go back to clause 147. When the committee agreed to stand that clause, we were debating amendment CPC-12, on page 57 of the package, which was amended by a subamendment that was adopted. The text of the amendment, CPC-12, as amended by the subamendment, reads as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 147, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 107 the following:

(c) during the submerged land licence issuance process, importance shall be given to the consideration of effects on fishing activities.

Before we vote on CPC-12 as amended, do members wish to further debate the amendment or to propose another subamendment?

It's over to you, Mr. Patzer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the committee allowing us to have the time to go back and do this one again.

I tried to keep the spirit of the language that Ms. Dabrusin proposed in the amendment that the committee adopted, so I hope that you guys will see that it is in there.

I don't know if you'd call it a subamendment or what, but the subamendment I'm proposing would be that motion CPC-12, as amended, proposing to amend clause 147 of Bill C-49 by adding paragraph (c) after line 27 on page 107, be amended by replacing “the consideration of effects on fishing activities” with the following:

“considering the effects of the proposed work or activity on fishing activities and to understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry”

We had some witness testimony that did speak to the characteristics of the ocean floor. That was from Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, Ph.D. in marine ecology, in regard to the development of wind. He did have this to say:

This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries.... There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding.

I suggest that a framework that categorizes information about the ecology, economics and social and institutional effects of each of these two industries, with appropriate spatial and temporal scales, is key to reducing conflict and improving co-operation.

Of course, the two industries he's talking about are fishing and the new wind power industry that is seeking to be developed with the passing of this bill.

There were also some other concerns that were raised by the representative of FFAW around some of the proposals to weaken some of the wording. They were seeking, at the federal level, some adequate language in here to protect and help the fisheries. She made the following comment: “claims that 'where feasible, fishing activities will be able to continue to take place in areas that also have offshore renewable energy activity' are irresponsible, ill-informed and have been made without any consultation to our membership.” She was concerned about some of the impacts that it would have as well.

That's another type of support for an amendment that would provide a bit more certainty, not just to fishing activity but to the environment and the ecosystem that goes along with the development of offshore wind as well.

Those are some of the witness testimonies that I had.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

Now we'll go to Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Given that we've just received the subamendment, I would ask if we could suspend to be able to review it.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think that's fair. We will suspend for a few minutes so that colleagues have an opportunity to review the subamendment. I want to let everybody online know that they should have received an email with the subamendment as well. We will suspend for a few minutes to give you time to review it.

Thank you. We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We're back.

I want to make sure that the members online did have an opportunity to review it. I see thumbs-up. Thank you.

Ms. Dabrusin, I'll go back to you.

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

Thank you for giving us some time to look at it.

My question is for the officials. Similar wording was floated and discussed the last time we were considering amendments and subamendments. I'm wondering if, since the time we had these conversations about this additional type of wording, you've had a chance to touch base with the provinces about how they feel about this type of wording, because it is similar to what was previously discussed. What was their opinion about it?

[Abigail Lixfeld, Senior Director, Renewable and Electrical Energy Division, Energy Systems Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

I apologize that I can't be in the room with you today.

We did discuss the previous discussion with the provinces, after the meetings on March 21, and we did reflect further on the testimony that was provided during the hearings. Both the provinces and Natural Resources Canada recognize that the principal section in Bill C-49 could be further strengthened to ensure that potential effects on fishing activities are considered during the submerged land licence issuance process.

However, we feel that the language that was adopted by the committee in that subamendment is sufficient, and the provinces were not supportive of making further amendments.

They did provide a number of supporting points as to why they felt concerned about making additional changes, including “maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area”, in part because of the role and purpose of the regulator, which is of course to ensure the responsible development of offshore energy projects.

They raised some additional considerations that the term “environmental characteristics” is not well understood. It doesn't have a common definition or accepted meaning in common law, and we were not able to find any other federal legislation that uses this terminology. There were a number of concerns raised on the part of both governments and the provinces about establishing such a broad and open-ended requirement that doesn't have established tools or guidance to support the regulator in carrying out that duty. Ambiguity like that often increases the risk of challenge, creates a great degree of uncertainty for both the regulator and industry, and when we're looking to develop a new industry with offshore renewables, it is quite challenging.

That said, government does recognize the importance of the fishing sector, and of course the importance of the environment. We do feel that the provisions that are already set out in both part II and, particularly, part III of the accord acts, and in Bill C-49, which is all about regulation of specific projects, are the appropriate place to assess and consider the potential impacts on fish.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you.

If I can follow up on that, we do have two letters, one from the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons, and the other from the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables of Nova Scotia, Tory Rushton. Both of those letters refer to joint management. In light of the fact that the provinces have said that they do not support having this type of wording added into the bills, am I correct in saying that it would go against the principles of joint management?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Yes, in our view, and in particular the view of the provinces, to include any language in Bill C-49 that has not been agreed to by both levels of government goes against the spirit of joint management, which is really to do everything together and to set aside what would ordinarily be unilateral decision-making in favour of common decisions.

All of the clauses and all of the provisions that are in Bill C-49 were agreed to by the provinces. Once the federal version of the bill is complete, the provinces would need to mirror the same legislation in their own legislatures. It would be quite problematic, and I believe unprecedented, for the federal statute to include provisions that are not replicated in the provincial bill, and it could create quite a degree of administrative uncertainty, where basically we would be giving the regulators competing instructions and putting them in a rather untenable place.

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

Thank you.

In light of those answers, I'll be opposing the subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

I'm going to go to Mr. Patzer.

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

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

Thank you.

I want to make a quick extra plea. When the provinces look at this and propose amendments, does that mean they are going to have to consult with you guys, or consult with this committee, seeing as it's supposed to be joint management? As I understand it, we're doing this here, but then the province is going to have to go through it as well. I'm curious what the process is there. If they get it and then start amending things on their end, what does that do to the process of what we've done here today?

[Abigail Lixfeld]

I might defer to my colleagues from Justice or other NRCan colleagues if they have a perspective on what would happen if the provinces moved something that does not appear in the federal legislation.

[Daniel Morin, Senior Legislative and Policy Advisor, Renewable and Electrical Energy Division, Department of Natural Resources]

Thank you for the question.

The typical process is that the federal legislature would move first, and then the province would mirror exactly what's in the federal legislature. Should there be divergences in the provincial process, there would be the same administrative issues that were mentioned by my director, Abigail. The process has been for the federal legislative process to go first, and then the provinces mirror it, typically word for word or with some minor drafting style changes. They mirror the intent of the federal legislation, and then the boards implement that based on both pieces of legislation.

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

Okay.

Given the situation on the ground in the Maritimes around some of the fishing issues, I think it's important that we make sure we do everything as properly as we possibly can. I appreciate that.

I have no further comments.

Thanks.