RNNR Committee Meeting

     I call this meeting to order.

    Welcome to meeting 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

    Before I begin, I'd just like to wish everybody a happy Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh vadhaiyan. That's just bidding Vaisakhi wishes to everybody here in Canada and around the world.

    Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the motion adopted on 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.

    There is 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 this 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 interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

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

    Additionally, screenshots or taking 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 this meeting.

    I would like to provide members of the committee—

    A voice: The screen is off, so we need to suspend for technical reasons.

    The Chair: Okay. We will suspend for a few moments for technical reasons.

     We are back.

    I would like to 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 the 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 vote.

    If there is an amendment 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 of the pages to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, 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 the subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

    Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. 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. That report contains only the text of any amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

    With us today to answer your questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel, and 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, with Lauren Knowles, deputy director, and, by video conference, Cheryl McNeil, deputy director. From the House of Commons, we have legislative clerks Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

    At the last meeting, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to stand clause 147 and also to reconsider and stand clause 38. Therefore, clauses 147 and 38 will be considered after all other clauses of the bill have been disposed of.

    There are no amendments submitted for clauses 148 to 155. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote? Okay. Thank you.

    (Clauses 148 to 155 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

    (On clause 156)

    The Chair: We'll go to amendment G-16.

    Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    This is similar to G-2, which was previously carried.

     We need to be keeping consistency between the Newfoundland and the Nova Scotia versions of this bill, so I support that we vote in favour of it. As a reminder of what it's about, it's part of a group of amendments that would allow for a separate coming into force of certain clauses in the bill that pertain to the Impact Assessment Act.

     Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

    Is there any debate? There's no debate.

    Shall G-16 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    (Clause 156 as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

    The Chair: There are no amendments submitted for clauses 157 to 168. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Clauses 157 to 168 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)

    (On clause 169)

    The Chair: We have amendment BQ-30.

    Mr. Simard, would you like to move that?

    As I said at our last meeting, for the sake of consistency, I will not be moving the other amendments, since the ones I proposed in the first part of the bill were rejected.

    Okay.

     Shall clause 169 carry?

    (Clause 169 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    (On clause 170)

    The Chair: For the consideration of clause 170, members of the committee will have noted on the agenda that the amendments creating new clauses 170.1 and 170.2 come in the middle of amendments for clause 170. That is because the committee must study the proposed amendments in the order in which they would appear in the bill. The amendments creating new clauses 170.1 and 170.2 will therefore be moved and voted on during the study of clause 170. At the end, once all the amendments on clause 170 are disposed of, the committee will vote on clause 170 as amended or not. If amendments to create new clauses 170.1 and 170.2 are adopted, they will be reflected in the reprint of the bill that will be produced for use at report stage.

    We have amendment G-17. Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    As I mentioned with the last one, this is to maintain consistency between the two bills, on Newfoundland and Labrador and on Nova Scotia. It's similar to amendment G-3, which was previously carried, and it is, again, part of a group of amendments that would have a separate coming into force pertaining to the Impact Assessment Act.

     Is there any further debate?

    Mrs. Stubbs, go ahead.

    We're going to vote against this clause and the amendment, but I would just take the opportunity to again impress upon Canadians and all elected members of this committee that it behooves the government to fix their catastrophic, unconstitutional Bill C-69, which should have been done even before members were in a position to try to assess Bill C-49 adequately, given how many clauses from Bill C-69 that were designated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional are in Bill C-49.

    That's a responsibility of and an error on behalf of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal costly coalition, and the Conservatives will vote against that for these reasons. It's the government's job to fix the mess they made.

    Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

    We'll now go to a vote on G-17.

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

    The Chair: We'll now proceed to new clause 170.1 and G-18.

    Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    This is the same as what I said about the previous amendments today. It's similar to G-7 and would ensure consistency between the Newfoundland and Labrador and the Nova Scotia versions of the bill.

    Is there any further debate? No.

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

    The Chair: On clause 170, we have CPC-13.

    Is there a member who would like to move it?

    Mr. Patzer, go ahead.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    This is a pretty straightforward and simple one, as follows:

     There's obviously the long-standing position of the Conservative Party that the reference to the unconstitutional implementation act, Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament, is problematic and needs to be addressed. It needs to be dealt with, and the fact that it hasn't been dealt with is problematic and will create and cause more uncertainty for people looking to build projects in this country.

     I really think that the fact that this has not been done and fixed yet leaves this committee no choice but to delete it, because at this point we need to be passing bills and laws that are constitutional and that wouldn't be deemed to be largely unconstitutional, as Bill C-69 was. I think the committee can do the right thing today by deleting this portion. That way, we can provide some certainty and clarity going forward so that provinces and investors have a chance to do this right.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Jones, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     We oppose this particular amendment. It's similar to CPC-8, which was previously defeated. We want to ensure consistency between both acts—in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia—and it is not something that the provinces supported. They're opposed as well.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Ms. Jones.

    Mr. Dreeshen, go ahead.

    Thank you.

     I brought this up earlier with the folks from the justice department who are here today. My question is for them, if we could have some clarification.

     Once there is legislation that is deemed unconstitutional and it becomes embedded in future legislation, what recourse does the government have? If Bill C-49 is also considered to be unconstitutional, then do we have to go back to the very beginning and deal with this legislation prior to dealing with the unconstitutionality of the previous bill, Bill C-69?

    As you are aware, a group of motions have been brought forward that would provide for a separate coming into force of certain clauses in Bill C-49 to allow for consistency across the statutes, as the government intends to bring forward changes to the Impact Assessment Act at the earliest opportunity this spring. This gives us the flexibility to ensure that, if amendments to the IAA require amendments to Bill C-49, we have the ability to bring those forward and ensure alignment across the statutes.

    That's what I can offer as an answer.

    Mr. Bustros, you're from the justice department. I suppose I should have directed it specifically there.

    I understand what you can do within the legislation and the thoughts about that, but I'm talking about unconstitutionality. Does that then make Bill C-49...? If we are addressing that and cannot come to any agreement there, as has been suggested by your departmental officials, what does one have to do to Bill C-49 if the unconstitutional aspect of Bill C-69 continues to work its way into it? In terms of the conflict that occurs with Bill C-49, what remedies does the justice department see for this situation?

     Can I take a moment?

    Sure.

     I'm sorry about that.

    The intent of these provisions is to coordinate and, as mentioned before, to make sure that when the Impact Assessment Act amendments come into force, they work with what is found in Bill C-49.

    When Parliament adopts the provision, the expectation is that it will be constitutional, but the only intent in this case is for both pieces of legislation to work together. It's not something that is related to the Impact Assessment Act, in this case, in this bill.

    Okay.

    With this bill, the government is saying, “We will come up with a solution to solve that.” I'm wondering what type of solution a future government is going to need in order to blend those two things together, but I'll leave it at that.

    Thank you.

    Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

     Thanks.

    I guess it's kind of building on what my colleague has said. Throughout our study of the bill, there were at least 35 portions of the bill that directly referenced or quoted the Impact Assessment Act, particularly the parts of it that were deemed largely unconstitutional. I think that's the basis for the concern that we have here, that the bill does reference those parts that are unconstitutional. It's building on that part.

    Is it right for us to proceed when we are basically giving validity...? This bill will just give validity to something that is unconstitutional, but it will still be unconstitutional. Is it not going to run the risk, then, of having the same fate as Bill C-69 from the previous Parliament, the Impact Assessment Act, of being in front of the courts and again being referenced as largely unconstitutional and providing issues for investors and for the provinces that are looking to develop their resources?

    Our job is to be certain and clear. Again, this bill quotes unconstitutional parts of an act, so how are we supposed to proceed with confidence in that? I know that you're not supposed to give us advice on that, but I'm just saying.... I think you understand what I'm trying to say here, though, about that. Is that correct? How can we proceed with a bill that is unconstitutional? Does that not create problems?

    Perhaps my Department of Justice colleague will have some additional insight to provide, but I would just like to say that it's important to remember what these amendments actually do. What they do is codify in the accord acts what the regulator will do during an impact assessment process. It's about the ability to collaborate with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the impact assessment of a designated offshore project.

    This is something that is of keen interest to us and also to the provinces. We have worked really hard to make sure that these amendments respect joint management by having a role for the offshore board in how it will provide advice to the agency at steps of the impact assessment process without altering in any way that act. As amendments come forward to that act, if there is any misalignment, then the separate coming into force provisions that have been brought forward through the motions would allow us to continue to work with our provincial colleagues to ensure consistency across the statutes in a way that achieves the intent of these amendments, which is to clarify the role of the regulator in that process and to respect joint management.

    Yes, with regard to the alignment between the two provisions, we don't have a problem with that. We understand the need for that. We fully get that and fully respect that. However, it's the unconstitutionality of the Impact Assessment Act, in and of itself, that's embedded in this. That's where the issue lies. We're not opposed to making sure that things align. That is our job as legislators, to make sure that we pass good laws, which includes making sure that we have a bill that is in alignment, the way it should be. We should do that here, and that's what this amendment generally does.

    However, the rest of the clause—and there are a few more clauses after it—is directly related and tied to the Impact Assessment Act, in particular to the parts of it that were ruled as largely unconstitutional. How can we proceed with a piece that references an unconstitutional document? Basically, what we're doing is making sure that both parts of the accord are unconstitutional now, too, by mirroring it. That's basically what's happening. That's where our concern lies.

    From the justice department side, how can we proceed with that? I don't know how we can proceed with that, unless people around this table know the exact date when the government is going to be fixing the Impact Assessment Act. Maybe the government knows that, and it would be beneficial if it could tell us that. Maybe the department people know that. If you do, it would be beneficial to this committee, and also to Canadians and investors, to know when that certainty in that regulatory provision is going to come, because it's needed. That was the whole point of the reference case, because no government in Canadian history has ignored a reference ruling by the Supreme Court.

    That's the foundational argument that we're trying to make here. Why are we proceeding with something that is unconstitutional?

    Again, if somebody wants to let the cat out of the bag here and tell us when it's going to happen, that would help. Then we could go along with it because then we would know. To just say that the coming into effect date is going to be later, while we still don't know when the Impact Assessment Act is going to be fixed, that does nothing for us.

    I hope you can appreciate the pickle that we seem to be in on this.

     I'm not in a position to answer the question you're asking specifically, but I can say that in discussions with our provincial colleagues, they were supportive of maintaining these provisions in the act as they are currently written, and they were supportive of the motions to allow for a separate coming into force to ensure alignment across the statutes.

    As you mentioned, the timeline for bringing those into force would be dependent on a number of factors. There is no specific date, but that is to allow for consultation with our provincial partners, who have to mirror these amendments in the provincial version of the accord acts as well, in order for them to come into force.

    Then why are we rushing it?

    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

    I have Mr. Falk.

    Thank you.

    I have the same question swirling around in my head: Why are we moving forward on this when we're referencing a piece of legislation that, in fact, may not even exist anymore because it's been ruled unconstitutional? That's what we're being asked to do here. It doesn't matter whether other jurisdictions are asking us to do it—if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. I just don't understand why everybody seems to be okay with Bill C-49 referencing Bill C-69, which we know has been deemed to be largely unconstitutional. It doesn't make any sense why we wouldn't fix that first, before we move ahead, or delete the references—which is what this amendment is doing—to something the Supreme Court of Canada has decided is unconstitutional.

    Why would we reference a document that's no good?

    Thank you, Mr. Falk.

    Do we have any—

    I'd like an answer to that.

    Okay. Were you addressing a question to anybody—

    I was asking a question: Why are we doing this?

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin, on your point of order.

    The people sitting at this table, who are sharing their knowledge with us, are public servants. They've answered this question, I think, several times now, in different formats, but at one point they may be limited in exactly what they're able to answer given their role as part of the public service.

    Mr. Chair—

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

    Mrs. Stubbs, is it on a point of order or on debate?

    Just on this debate, I'll just respond to MP Dabrusin.

    I guess, since you're the parliamentary secretary for natural resources, you could answer that question.

    Certainly I would agree that the public servants are trying to do the best they can in their roles with their expertise in fixing bills that your government has made a mess of and helping you justify the amendments that you have brought forward to fix this flawed bill in the first place, and now helping you try to justify passing a law—

    Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I do believe we are supposed to be speaking through the chair rather than speaking—

    I'm sorry, but I wasn't done yet—

    I'll ask everybody to hold for one second.

     Mrs. Stubbs, I'll ask you to hold because Ms. Dabrusin has a point of order.

    Go ahead on the point of order, Ms. Dabrusin.

    Mr. Chair, we're supposed to speak through the chair, rather than to say “you”—

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs.

    I'll now go to Mr. Angus.

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

    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.

    Thank you, Mr. Angus.

    I'll now go to Mr. Patzer.

    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.

     Thank you.

    Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    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.

    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.

    Thank you.

    Thank you.

    I will now go to Mr. Dreeshen.

    Go ahead.

    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?

    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.

    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?

    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.

     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.

    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.

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

     Thank you.

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

    (Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

    The Chair: We'll now go to G-19.

    Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    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.

    I don't see any further debate.

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

    The Chair: On G-20, we have Ms. Dabrusin.

    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.

    I don't see any further debate.

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

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

    This is similar to G-11, which was previously carried by this committee. Again, consistency is important, and this is part of a group of amendments with a separate coming into force.

    I don't see any further debate.

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

    The Chair: We'll now go to G-22.

    Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

    We are once again proposing to correct an error in the language used in the French version.

    We want the two bills to be consistent, so we propose replacing the wording “qu'elle précise” with “précisé”. We adopted the same amendment in the case of another clause.

     I don't see any further debate.

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

    (Clause 170 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    The Chair: There are no amendments to clauses 171 to 184. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

    Not yet.

    Okay.

    (Clauses 171 and 172 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    (Clause 173 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

    The Chair: Mr. Patzer.

    We would be good to group clauses 174 to 184.

    Do we have unanimous consent to group clauses 174 to 184?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Thank you.

    Shall clauses 174 to 184 carry?

    (Clauses 174 to 184 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

    (On clause 185)

    The Chair: Now we have G-22.1.

    Ms. Dabrusin.

    Again, it's maintaining consistency. However, I'll just note that this amendment makes it clear that royalty owners are not party to a unit operating agreement and do not have to approve it. The unit operating agreement is an agreement between the working interest owners and would not involve the royalty owners.

    I don't see any further debate on G-22.1.

    I'm sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

     I'm sorry. We were just wondering if there would be a further rationale as to why. Is there an example, specifically, of where this would come into play? What specific case would this be used for?

    That's for the sake of us trying to make sure, for absolute clarity, when giving this type of approval to something.

     I'm assuming you are asking the officials.

    You moved the amendment, so if you have an answer, that's fine.

    Through the chair to Ms. Dabrusin, if she wants to answer, that's fine, too. If the officials have an answer, I'm fine, as well. However, I would think the parliamentary secretary would have some comments on it.

    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

    Officials or Ms. Dabrusin, would you like to add any further clarity?

    The provinces have supported it.

    I think the officials would be well placed to answer the question in more detail.

    Thank you.

    Officials, go ahead.

     I'll turn to my colleague Cheryl McNeil.

    Cheryl, please go ahead.

     Thank you.

    This is with respect to where there would be petroleum pools found that straddle different administrative boundaries. In that instance, the parties would work together to agree to a unit operating agreement. The unit operating agreement deals with property matters—the unitization of rights and interests—while the other deals with procedural matters and how the working interest owners would make those operational decisions.

    That would be the difference between the two.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Dreeshen.

    Thank you.

    To Ms. McNeil, on the transboundary pools, the assumption is that this is interprovincial. However, are we dealing in any way, shape or form with Canada-U.S. boundary pools? Has that been taken into account in this particular discussion?

    Yes, these amendments could work with respect to both domestic pools and those that would straddle international boundaries, such as Canada-U.S. or Canada-France—for example, with Saint-Pierre and Miquelon off the south coast of Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Does this also deal with international waters? Is it a similar type of argument you would have there?

    I'm not sure I understand the question.

    The nose of the Grand Banks, for example—

    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.

    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.

     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.

    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?

     Yes.

    Thank you.

    I'm going to go to Mr. Patzer.

    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?

    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.

    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?

     I'll let Ms. McNeil answer this one.

    The working interest owners would refer to the operators who would be exploiting the field, whoever they might be.

    Okay. That's perfect. Thank you.

    I don't see any further debate.

    Shall G-22.1 carry?

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: On G-23, go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

    This corrects a minor typo in the legislation, removing the word “regulatory” and replacing it with the word “Regulator”.

    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)

    The Chair: There are no amendments submitted for clauses 186 to 209. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

    Not yet.

    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)

    The Chair: Mr. Patzer.

    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.

    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?

    Yes, that makes sense.

    That's good for me.

    Would we like to group clauses 191 to 209?

    Mr. Patzer.

    Yes, that's fine.

    Shall clauses 191 to 209 carry?

    (Clauses 191 to 209 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

    The Chair: Now we will proceed to part 3 of Bill C-49.

    There are no amendments submitted to clauses 210 to 219. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    (Clauses 210 to 219 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

    Go ahead, Mrs. Stubbs.

    Thank you.

    Given the conversations we have been having about uncertainty and about energy, I would like to move the motion that I submitted on Friday, April 5.

     I want to address the issue of LNG exports from Canada and talk a bit about why committee members here at the natural resources committee should support the motion to ask the Minister of Natural Resources to come to this committee to talk about the moral, political, geopolitical, security, sovereignty, energy and food poverty reasons that Canada should take the opportunity to provide LNG around the world, particularly to Canada's allies.

    The motion I submitted on April 5 says:

    I just want to give some context to make the case for why elected members of the natural resources committee should support this motion and invite the minister to appear.

    First of all, of course, Conservatives agree in principle that what should happen is that a government should set attractive fiscal and regulatory investment conditions so that private sector proponents can bring home big projects, jobs and money to Canada while helping to expand and accelerate Canada's environmentally responsible oil and gas, other energy and other technologies—but in particular LNG—in the near term to European allies.

    Conservatives agree that oil and gas projects, export projects, pipelines and energy infrastructure should not require taxpayer subsidies or taxpayer dollars. That, of course, has been happening in recent years, precisely because of the NDP-Liberal anti-energy red tape, gatekeeping, permitting timelines, uncertainty, and anti-energy messages and policies that have driven investment in major energy projects out of Canada, primarily into the United States, and therefore have driven a brain drain and have driven Canadian jobs, money and businesses into other jurisdictions as well.

    It should be noted, of course, that the Greek prime minister was the first Greek leader to come to Canada in more than 40 years. It is a big deal that here, on this goodwill visit to discuss shared interests with the Prime Minister of Canada, he said in Canada and in the media that his country would like to start importing Canadian LNG and that Canada would, as he said, “absolutely” be an ideal partner.

     Greece's prime minister made the point that Greece is a big entry point for LNG, obviously for the Greek market but also for Eastern Europe in general. He specifically commented on the fact that a supply of Canadian LNG could help support Ukraine in real ways by breaking dependence on Putin's oil and gas in the region as they fight his illegal aggression and attack on them. He told Canada and Canadians that Greece is putting the finishing touches on a major facility to start importing LNG and processing LNG tankers.

    Of course, that great Prime Minister just follows in the footsteps of other Canadian allies and world leaders who have been asking for a supply of Canadian LNG, including the Japanese prime minister and the German chancellor.

    Of course, mind-bogglingly, the Prime Minister of Canada said there was no business case for the development of Canadian LNG. First of all, he's apparently the only world leader and the only guy in the entire discussion who thinks there's no business case for Canadian LNG. Of course, what is actually happening is death by delay, which is because this anti-energy government has increased permitting timelines, increased taxes and pancaked and layered on anti-energy policies and laws that deter investment and then jeopardize even approved projects' being able to get built. What has actually happened is the reality of fiscal and regulatory conditions, which means that when we are trying to attract projects of that size with that investment, with that risk and with those job numbers, the regulatory and fiscal conditions passed by governments are inextricably linked and inherently embedded in the private sector's assessment of what is a good business case.

    The problem in Canada's scenario is our domestic government's anti-energy policies, red tape and laws. The problem in Canada's scenario is the Prime Minister of Canada being the only person in the country, and apparently also among world leaders, saying there's no business case for Canadian LNG.

    I think it's important to note, of course, that the request for Canadian LNG has been made by more world leaders. For example, in June 2022, Ukraine's ambassador issued a call for Canadian oil and gas companies to help in the fight against Putin's attack by entering and expanding into the European market with LNG. She said, at that time, “Canadian companies, we do think, should take the opportunity to enter and expand in the EU market”.

     I'm sure, Chair, since you are from the province of Alberta, a major natural gas area along with many others right across Canada, you would agree with the importance of expanding natural gas development and exporting LNG around the world to help break dependency on despots and dictators with much lower environmental track records and almost no human and labour rights or standards to speak of.

    Also in 2022, Latvia's ambassador made it known that they would welcome shipments of Canadian LNG to help Europe reduce its dependence on Russian gas. He said, “We are trying to build a resilient energy system. If Canada is going to invest in LNG, we would wholeheartedly support it.”

    Of course, the reality is that, after nine years, today, Canada still doesn't export any LNG, despite being the fifth-largest natural gas producer in the world, and it is precisely because of the NDP-Liberals' domestic anti-energy policies and red tape. This is bad for Canada, but good for all of Canada's global competitors, good for the United States, our biggest energy competitor and customer, and good for the top 10 major oil and gas competitive regimes in the world, almost none of which are democracies and almost all of which are dictators and despots.

    The truth is, of course, that there have been 18 LNG proposals made in Canada, and in the last eight to nine years of these NDP-Liberals, zero of them have been built. Only three have been approved, and only one is actually currently under construction. That, of course, was approved by the previous Conservative government but then delayed by the Liberals after they formed government, after which they did give another green light, but that, of course, was a delay in itself.

    The reality is that, because of Prime Minister Trudeau's anti-energy messages about Canadian LNG and because of the suite of anti-energy policies and laws passed by this government in the last nine years, the NDP-Liberals have almost left Canada completely behind. We have almost entirely missed the opportunity with our moral, political, security, sovereignty, and energy and food poverty reasons. Regardless, we have almost entirely missed the opportunity for Canada to participate in what is obviously a global role that is demanded by world leaders, including, very significantly, our allies around the world in various conflicts combatting regimes hostile to Canada and to the free world.

     Warren Buffett cancelled the 50% of funding that he was prepared to invest in the Saguenay LNG plant, because of instability in the current Canadian political context. He, of course, diplomatically meant the various anti-energy policies and laws passed by this government.

    What's important is that the NDP-Liberals try to pretend they're external observers and have nothing to do with this. They like to blame global trends and things happening around the world to rationalize our unique Canadian situation actually caused by their own policies and legislation.

    To make that point, and to make sure Canadians don't.... It's not just me saying it. Here's the contrast of what has happened with the United States in almost the exact same time frame where 18 LNG proposals were made to this government, but most have been mothballed or withdrawn by their private sector proponents because of these anti-energy NDP-Liberals. In that same time frame, seven LNG terminals have been constructed—not just approved but constructed—in the U.S. Twenty more have been approved, and five more will be opened by 2028. In that same time frame, the United States has become the world's leading LNG exporter. Its exports are expected to double by 2030.

    What is wild about this is that in January, the Biden administration announced that it would put a pause on the permit approvals for LNG projects. The reality is, of course, that this is after it has already moved forward to ensure that the U.S. dominates the global market, while our own Prime Minister, against the best interests of Canada and Canadians, has let Canada fall behind. I think it is incomprehensible that instead of taking the opportunity for Canada to lead in North America, the natural resources minister praised the pause and said it would create an opportunity for Canada—except that, of course, the numbers show it's his own government that has driven LNG exports, projects, jobs, and money away from Canada and almost lost that opportunity for all of us.

    It behooves Canadians to ask, what are the consequences of all this? What does this actually mean? Well, this is what it means. It means that in the midst of a global energy and food poverty crisis, and in the midst of a skyrocketing cost of living crisis in Canada, driven by inflationary deficit spending by the NDP-Liberals, interest rates have increased, making life more and more unaffordable for Canadians.

    Despite the fact that European allies are begging Canada to help supply the energy needs for their citizens, for their countries, and to reduce dependence on despots and dictators, it is just mind-boggling that the Prime Minister continues to say there isn't a business case for Canadian LNG. The natural resources minister has not bothered to take that opportunity, that window for Canada, which is almost completely lost.

    It is also mind-boggling given the debate in Canada around support for Ukraine against Putin's illegal attack. There are many great words coming from the Liberals, and they have taken measures to support Ukraine, but it is blindingly and wildly obvious to me that the biggest way to help support Ukraine, in addition to sending weapons, is to send Canadian LNG and energy, and other technologies so it can break its dependence on Putin and Putin's energy control of the entire region. Instead, this government signed off on permits to actually send turbines to help Putin's own gas pipeline and fund his war.

Let's talk about what else has happened since then. France has signed a 27-year agreement with Qatar for LNG. Germany has signed a 15-year deal with Qatar for LNG. The Netherlands has signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for LNG. China has signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for LNG. India signed a 20-year deal with Qatar for LNG just last month. You'll know that a week ago, the Indian prime minister was talking about how they're ramping up coal and the benefit it will provide to many of their citizens, who are also suffering from food and energy poverty, who live in places that are not as industrialized and who don't yet have the same standard of living and quality of life that many Canadians and people living in North America get to enjoy. Japan is also currently in talks with Qatar to secure LNG imports, after our Prime Minister turned it away. I think Canadians should know that in the midst of all this, the leader of Hamas, the terrorist organization wreaking havoc in Gaza and on Israel, lives in Qatar.

    These are the real geopolitical, security and sovereignty consequences of the Prime Minister's, his minister's and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy costly coalition. It's clear that the world wants and needs more Canadian LNG, but what has happened after nine years of this anti-energy government is that our allies are forced to sign deals with despots and countries that are home to terrorist organization leaders.

    The result is that our biggest energy competitor, customer and North American ally is outpacing Canada. Mexico announced a couple of months ago that it is also going to have a goal to ramp up its LNG development and export, so we may also.... This anti-energy NDP-Liberal government and anti-energy Prime Minister are apparently going to be just fine with Mexico also outpacing Canada on the continent for LNG development and exports.

    It's absolutely mind-boggling, but clear from a common-sense Conservative perspective, that the reality of Prime Minister Trudeau's anti-energy policies and messages is that they actually enrich regimes that sponsor terrorism and are attacking allies—including the people of Ukraine, whom these NDP-Liberals like to talk about supporting.

    To make it clear, common-sense Conservatives would expand and accelerate traditional oil and gas development in Canada. We would expand and accelerate LNG approvals and exports from Canada. We would ensure that private sector proponents have clarity, certainty, predictability, fairness and the backing of the government to build their projects, once approved—after they've gone through Canada's expert and unparalleled regulatory assessment regime.

    For these reasons, I hope the elected members from all parts of this country on the natural resources committee will support this motion to discuss this issue in further depth and invite the Minister of Natural Resources to be present at the committee to join this discussion.

    Thanks, Chair.

    Thank you, Mrs. Stubbs, for presenting your motion.

    I have a speaking list established. I will go to Ms. Jones, and then I'll go to other speakers. I have Ms. Jones, and then I have Mr. Patzer, Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Small.

    Ms. Jones, go ahead.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate that.

    I just want to say that we have been very active on the agenda of moving forward on energy projects in Canada. We have launched more investment in clean energy initiatives than any other government in our history. We're helping communities right across Canada be able to transition from diesel generation to clean energy technologies and alternatives. We're continuing to do that.

    What we've also found in this case is a huge reception by companies, especially companies that are working in rural and remote regions across Canada. We've particularly had a tremendous rapport with mining companies that want to get to a place where they're promoting green minerals and green products in the market. They take this very seriously, because they know that we live in a world today that we know to be competitive. To get the best market value for our products, we have to have green products. We have to be able to enter a supply chain that is delivering what the world will be demanding. That's what we're doing in Canada.

    I don't expect my colleagues to completely understand the pace at which we are moving towards a clean environment, the way we're launching incentives to ensure that we are a country that is not going to be a follower but a leader in what the world markets are going to need. In fact, Mr. Chair, in Canada today, we have more mining development and interests in growing the resource economy than we've probably had in a very long time. That is because they see the opportunity to work with a government that is making concrete investments and that has a vision for where we want to go in Canada and in the world in bringing commodities to those markets. Also, it's because they know it's creating jobs, good jobs, in communities. I think that's critical when you look at the layout of Canada today and the fact that, no matter where you live, you should have those opportunities and should be able to have options for change. I think that, as a government, we are certainly giving people that right across the north.

    Mr. Chair, I would like to move that we adjourn debate on the motion that has been brought forward, because I know I could spend at least the next two hours just talking about the great initiatives that we have launched around alternate energy development and the plans that we have to continue to grow that.

    The Atlantic accords that we're dealing with today are just a small fraction of that. The fact that the Conservatives have not been supportive at all of what the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and the people in Nova Scotia want to do is absolutely shameful. They talk about creating a new economy, and when those provinces are willing to step up to do just that, they launch ways to put impediments and challenges in their paths so that they can't achieve the visions and goals they have for their provinces.

    I'd just like to say that, Mr. Chair, and adjourn—

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Hold on one second. I have a point of order from Mr. Small.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I find it extremely rich to hear these comments from my colleague from Labrador, given the fact that she advocates for bottom trawling for northern cod. Bottom trawling releases enormous amounts of carbon, and it's been proven—

    I have a point of order.

    Mr. Small, I'm going to ask you to hold. I'm going to go to Mr. Angus on a point of order.

    Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

    Is she asking to adjourn debate? If she is, then there's no debate about that.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    I think she moved to adjourn debate.

    Thank you.

    I'm going to go to you, Mr. Patzer, on a point of order. Was your point of order on Mr. Angus's point of order?

    Yes, my point of order is on Mr. Angus's point of order. Ms. Jones obviously did not say that.

    Mr. Small merely wanted to defend the fact that Conservatives are being gaslit on this point, because the entire point—

    Okay.

    —of the debate on this bill has been to do what's right by the provinces.

     I'll ask everybody to hold. I've heard all the points of order.

    Ms. Jones did ask for adjournment, but she was finishing up. Then a point of order was called by Mr. Small.

    Procedurally, I did not hear anything from you, Mr. Small. You were debating, and I've heard further debate as well.

    Ms. Jones did have the floor, and she was wrapping up her debate. She did ask for a motion to adjourn. I think she was just about to reference that again, but there was a point of order.

     I have a point of order.

    Is it a procedural issue, Mr. Falk?

    It is.

    I'm going to ask you to procedurally be succinct, so we can proceed.

    Yes, I'll be very succinct.

    You indicated, Mr. Chair, that Ms. Jones had asked to adjourn the debate, but then you allowed her to continue to debate, so she hadn't technically asked to adjourn the debate yet. She said she was going to ask to adjourn the debate, and then she kept debating.

    She gave up the floor.

    She hasn't completely asked the question of adjourning the debate. She indicated she was going to, but she kept on talking, so she hasn't asked for it. That's why we're still debating.

    Thank you, Mr. Falk.

    She still has the floor.

    Thank you. I appreciate your providing extra clarification on what's happening today at committee.

    Ms. Jones, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was clewing up my comments, as you know, and I do move to adjourn debate on the motion.

    We will call the roll.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

    (On clause 220)

    The Chair: Debate is adjourned. We will now go to clause 220 and amendment G-24.

    Ms. Dabrusin.

    This is one of the amendments for consistency, dealing with coming into force dates. I propose that we support it.

    We will call the vote.

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

    (Clause 220 as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    (On clause 221)

    The Chair: We are on new G-25.

    Ms. Dabrusin.

    I will not be moving this one.

    Okay.

    We will call the vote on clause 221.

    On a point of order, I'm confused, because you jumped to it, but there's already an amendment. I was trying to figure out.... There's G-25.1, which has not been called. Sorry. That's why I'm having a moment.

    I withdrew G-25, but there's a G-25.1.

    We will suspend for a moment.

     Colleagues, there was an error. Ms. Dabrusin would like to move that amendment.

    Is there consent to allow Ms. Dabrusin to move her amendment?

    There was an error in her package, I believe, in terms of what she thought the clause was or wasn't, so I'm asking colleagues—

    I have a point of order.

    Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

    Thanks, Chair.

    I believe it would be helpful if Ms. Dabrusin explained what happened and what is now going on here.

    I think she can ask for unanimous consent through you—not you doing it for her.

    Sure.

    Thank you, Mr. Patzer.

    Ms. Dabrusin, I will turn it over to you.

    In short, the former G-25, which was the one I thought to withdraw, was missing a word in it. There has been new wording, which is what I have as G-25.1, but it appears as “new G-25”. It includes that one word. It's a one-word discrepancy between the two. My thought on withdrawing it was that I was allowing space for the new one to be moved, G-25.1. Instead, there is a discrepancy: In the package, it's called “new G-25”. If that's as clear as mud....

    Basically, one had the word “not” and one didn't have the word “not”. It needs the word “not”. There's just a discrepancy between them. I'm seeking consent to move “new G-25”, or what I have as G-25.1, which has the word “not”.

    Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

    I'll go to you, Mr. Dreeshen.

    Going back to what you indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, you said that if there are any subamendments—whether or not it's a one-word situation—they have to be in writing. We would have to see that and, of course, we would need to have this in both official languages.

     Are you prepared, in a situation like this, to allow subamendments to be presented on an amendment that comes from the floor? Technically, it is coming from the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for asking for clarification. I'll clarify.

    No, the rules still stand and apply as they were stated earlier. What Ms. Dabrusin stated was that she had an error in her amendment. It was written in the package as “new G-25” and she had it as “G-25.1”.

    She's not moving a subamendment; she's moving an amendment. What she asked for was consent to move the amendment that was presented in the package.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wasn't suggesting that she was doing a subamendment. I was trying to get clarification based on what you said earlier in the day: If there is to be a subamendment to an amendment, it has to be in writing. It makes it very difficult for anyone—whether or not it's this amendment—to come up with a subamendment when it is presented in this fashion.

     I want to know, if there happens to be another amendment that comes up, whether or not we would be restricted as far as applying a subamendment is concerned, based on what you said earlier.

    What I said earlier stands. This was an amendment that was put in writing, which is here.

    I believe, from what Ms. Dabrusin said, that there was a miscommunication with the numbering of this. The amendment is the same. Her numbering and the numbering that was presented were different. She misinterpreted.

     I don't want to speak on Ms. Dabrusin's behalf, but I hope that clarifies what her intent was. She wants to move the amendment that was provided. It's not a new amendment. It's not a subamendment. It's the same amendment. She just had an error that she overlooked on the numbering of it. That's what it was. It was a technical issue on her end.

    Once again, I'm sorry, Ms. Dabrusin. I think that's what your intent was, and I hope that clarifies things.

    Go ahead, Mr. Patzer.

    What I heard Ms. Dabrusin say was that there was the word “not” included in the original package that was sent out, which she wanted to have either removed or added. I think that's where part of the uncertainty comes from. That's why Mr. Dreeshen is saying it would be a subamendment to the amendment that was given to us here. It's changing a word in it. She mentioned that she had G-25.1, but it was the difference of a word that was or wasn't in there.

    Now, if you're seeking unanimous consent to move the amendment, I'm sure we'd be fine to have you do that. You said you weren't going to move it. I think we'd be fine to have you move that amendment.

    If there's a difference in the wording, I would like to see that, because I don't have it, but if it's just a numbering thing that was causing the confusion, if that's all it was.... It's just that I heard you say the word “not” was not there, but maybe that was something else.

     Thank you.

    I'm going to you next, Ms. Dabrusin. You can clarify everything that was said, so our colleagues clearly know what your intent was and what's going on.

    What you have is “new G-25”, which I had numbered as G-25.1. It's the same. The difference is that when we put in the new one, I had a different numbering in mind.

    The wording you have is the one that I want to move. It's just called “new G-25” in your package and it's G-25.1 in mine.

    Why don't we kick off the next meeting with this amendment she's seeking? That would be a great way to start our next meeting, Mr. Chair.

    Can we get consent before we get to that?

    Yes.

    We consent to her moving the amendment at the start of the next meeting.

    Ms. Dabrusin, as we start the next meeting, you will be able to present your new amendment, which is new G-25.

    Colleagues, I think we're saying that this is a point to end today's meeting. Thank you so much for your hard work today and for being collaborative, working together and getting a lot accomplished.

    We'll see you on Thursday.

    The meeting is adjourned.