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

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Sure, if we'd like to do that. I just felt that it was 5:30, Mr. Chair, but of course, that is your prerogative and your call, as always.

I will move this amendment. It is that Bill C-49, in clause 125, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 89 the following:

(5) Any evaluation of offshore renewable energy projects should be done similarly to evaluations of offshore petroleum projects.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, yes.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 111, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 85 with the following:

or 45(7), section 67, subsection 70(2), section 98.2,

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Now we will be moving to part 2 of Bill C-49.

No amendments to clauses 107 to 110 have been submitted. Do we have the unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[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—

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

I'll be opposing Mr. Simard's amendment, as it would be redundant.

The regulators' authorities are already clear in the bill. To give the member a fulsome answer, Bill C-49 would only provide the regulators with the authority to conduct regional and strategic assessments under the accord acts. Similarly, the Impact Assessment Act clearly outlines who can conduct regional and strategic assessments. This does not include the offshore regulators. In addition, there are currently no equivalency provisions to allow regional strategic assessments under the accord acts to be deemed equivalent to a regional or strategic assessment conducted under the Impact Assessment Act, or vice versa.

I'm opposing BQ-18.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Again, to remain consistent with what we have said from the start, I move that Bill C‑49, in clause 62, be amended (a) by replacing line 5 on page 41 with the following:

138.017 or a strategic environmental assessment under section

(b) by replacing line 14 on page 41 with the following:

Strategic Environmental Assessments

(c) by replacing line 25 on page 41 with the following:

138.018(1) The Regulator may conduct a strategic environmental as‐

(d) by replacing line 33 on page 41 with the following:

conduct a strategic environmental assessment of any proposed or exist‐

(e) by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 41 with the following:

gic environmental assessment.

The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. The Canadian Energy Regulator must be empowered to conduct strategic environmental assessments, and not just strategic assessments. The term “strategic assessment” comes from the Impact Assessment Act, where it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply to Bill C‑49. The amendment would clarify this aspect.

[Lauren Knowles]

With respect to the first part of your question on section 65 of the Impact Assessment Act, unfortunately I'm not an expert in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. I can't speak to the details of that opinion or decision, but what I can say is that all of the clauses we have been discussing and the motions that have been put forward are to allow for coordination with the Impact Assessment Act so that we can ensure consistency across the statutes.

With respect to coming into force, there are a number of things that need to happen for Bill C-49 to come into force. It needs to pass through this parliamentary process. The provinces also need to table and pass mirror legislation in their provincial legislatures. The clauses that have a separate coming into force would be brought in at a date to be determined in the future, in consultation with the provinces.

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

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 62, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 36 on page 38.

Once again, this deals with the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. When it's already creating problems across the country, I don't think it's good to be imposing the same problems on a couple more provinces. They are going to run into all kinds of issues.

We propose that this entire section be deleted. Erase it.

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

I'm going to get his name right this time.

Mr. Simard, I would like to welcome you.

With regard to BQ-14, much as with BQ-12, the intent of Bill C-49 is to build an offshore renewable energy sector and to support offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. The intent of Bill C-49 is not to cease oil and gas activity or oil and gas production. Thus, this proposed amendment or motion is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely that the provinces would support it.

With that, I will be opposing BQ-14.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The proposed wording is as follows.

(1.1) Section 138 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) A new application for a licence or authorization shall not be made to the Regulator after this subsection comes into force.

The idea is quite simple. The Governor in Council must enforce regulations to ensure that no licences are approved or issued for any new offshore oil and gas exploration projects in the areas covered by the accord. I gather that the spirit of Bill C‑49, as I have said a number of times and as we have heard from witnesses, is to promote clean energy. I don't think that fossil fuels are part of the picture. This would send the right message.

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

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, for your commentary.

With regard to BQ-12, I will be humbly opposing this proposed amendment.

The intent of Bill C-49, obviously, is not to cease oil and gas activity. It is to continue to build offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. It is the responsibility of governments to make strategic decisions regarding the pace and scale of development in the offshore for both petroleum and renewable energy. In making these decisions, it's obviously the responsibility of government, not the regulator, to consider broader policy objectives and commitments. This is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely the provinces would support it.

With that, I am opposed to BQ-12.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

[Jean-François Roman]

In terms of the discussion, as you know, the accord acts are joint legislation. We jointly manage the resources with the provinces. The agreement between the federal government and the provincial government here was to bring forward Bill C-49 with the proposed amendments and motions to carry on the work on Bill C-49.

That's how far I can go in answer to your question.

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

The suggestion we've been making that maybe Bill C-49 could have been looked at later, once you had all of that done, would have some merit.

[Jean-François Roman]

The only answer I can provide you with at this time is that we introduced Bill C-49 on May 30. As my colleagues from the legislative sections have been working on a revision of the IAA, we've been asked to make a few amendments to this bill to ensure we will bring these provisions into force only once the revision of the IAA has been done.