44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 6, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/6/23 10:13:33 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that implementing an agreement for managing offshore renewable energy with Newfoundland and Labrador means that there will be a labour issue, perhaps even a labour shortage. Plus, where there are workers, there needs to be housing. How lucky we are to have the minister responsible for housing here with us.
I have a question for him. If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were willing to match the federal government's contribution and put in something along the lines of, say, another $900 million for the construction of social and affordable housing over the next five years, would the minister be rushing to meet with government officials to start building these units as quickly as possible?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 10:29:00 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned about where we are heading in this country and in our society, but I know we have to take those first steps in the right direction. We have listened to indigenous knowledge from indigenous elders and indigenous leaders; they have told us that we need to do more for our environment and that we need to look out for future generations. This is why I believe that the heart of this bill is looking at renewable energies, the power of hydrogen energy and what we can do to make sure we have a sustainable future for our children. While we know there are still fossil fuels that we burn and there are still cars out there being driven, we have to step in that direction, so that is what I remain committed to doing.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 11:39:24 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think many Canadians are wondering why the Conservative Party of Canada is supporting Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has put a moratorium on renewable energy projects in Alberta.
That decision is putting $30 billion at risk, while the Conservatives say they are in favour of clean technologies and the free market. Will they do the same in Quebec? Will the Conservative Party oppose renewable energy development in Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario?
I think Canadians want to know.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:02:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand how it is common sense to impose a moratorium on renewable energy projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs and generate tens of billions of dollars. That is what the Conservative Party of Canada supports. That is what the Premier of Alberta is doing.
My question for the Conservatives is this. Will they block renewable energy projects in Quebec? Will they block renewable energy projects in Ontario? Will they block renewable energy projects in the Atlantic provinces? That is my question for them.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:53:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our mutual friend, the late Hon. Pat Carney, did negotiate those deals, and from our perspective, I appreciate that the member thinks this was an unusual year. This was an El Niño year in North America, where we got less rain in the spring than we did last year or the year before. I expect, when we do not have an El Niño year again, that will change.
With regard to the issue of where wind power generation goes, of course we believe in tidal power and wind power. That is why I spoke for a great deal in my speech about the only project that has ever worked, which was the tidal power by Sustainable Marine Energy, which the government shut down. It, without damage, continued to return power to the Nova Scotia power grid, and they did not get paid for it, yet the government used this as an excuse to shut it down. DFO had given it four approvals and would not give it the fifth.
That approach to shutting down all energy projects, whether they be in oil and gas or on the renewable side of things, is the problem with the bill. It would put in place the terrible provisions of the IAA and Bill C-69 into this process.
221 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech with some compliments and then move on to the criticisms.
This bill seeks to amend the 1986 agreement, which was not bad, because, even though the Supreme Court said that the federal government has jurisdiction over offshore issues, the federal government entered into an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador to work together in that regard. That is a good thing, and I want to point it out, because there are not many good things.
At that time, wind energy did not exist. Bill C‑49 will tie the federal government to all parliaments affected once they have entered into the new agreement, which affects the management of offshore wind projects. This bill could pave the way to real action in the area of renewable energy for the east coast. It makes improvements, such as the joint management of renewable offshore energy resources and the option of cancelling seabed oil concessions. It also promotes relations with indigenous peoples and their active involvement in the use of renewable energy. Those were the compliments.
Now, here are the criticisms. Bill C‑49 continues to maintain exploration and development mechanisms that lead to oil drilling. The government may have missed an opportunity here. It could have taken advantage of this opportunity to do something about that.
I want to start by reiterating one thing. When Canada makes international commitments about the environment, protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change, and the whole world sees the political decisions that have been made, it seems to me that at some point, action should follow. An emergency requires immediate action. Even young children understand that word. Given that we are in a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis, every decision made should align with Canada's commitments to fight climate change. We shall see about that.
In April 2019, the government announced a total ban on oil and gas work as well as mining, waste dumping and bottom trawling in all of Canada's marine protected areas. It was also urging other countries to do the same because, as we know, the government likes to lecture. It was telling other countries to do more to protect the environment. Marine refuges, however, were not included in that commitment. I like to say that words matter, and here is an example. Marine refuges were overlooked.
A little later, in 2020, Canada introduced new regulations that exempted future drilling from environmental assessment. The government's intention was to accelerate underwater oil drilling, and this after having lectured other countries.
The bill does not give more teeth to the regional assessments that, by the admission of the individuals in charge, are inadequate. Again, the government could have used Bill C‑49 to address that. I could talk about assessments at length because there are so many irregularities, but again the industry comes out ahead. There are no societal gains here.
In November 2020, the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board agreed to provide Building Product of Canada, or BP Canada, access to 264,500 hectares of ocean in exchange for a commitment to do exploration work worth $27 million. They say one thing and do another. This area is essential to marine biodiversity. It contains coral and sponges that other marine species use as spawning grounds or nurseries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said so itself.
Meanwhile, with his customary emotional delivery, the Prime Minister promised to reaffirm Canada's commitment to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025 and to reach 30% by 2030. While BP Canada is making its little deals with the board, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has already started watering down his discourse. Regarding offshore drilling projects, he said at a committee meeting that the regulation will guarantee that all drilling projects comply with the strict standards of environmental protection and that the regulation establishes a clear and efficient process for assessing exploratory drilling projects.
In other words, the government supports such projects. Offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.
The lighting on the oil platforms and infrastructure is harmful to birds because it causes confusion about places for them to rest, find food and so on.
The Liberal government is committing to marine conservation and claiming it is possible to accomplish that goal while promoting the development of the offshore oil industry. One can see why The Guardian and Oil Change International are saying that Canada is a climate hypocrite.
I would like to remind members that the purpose of exploration is extraction and development.
I want to briefly mention Bay du Nord. Many countries were shocked when the government made that announcement as it was preparing for the COP15 on biodiversity in Montreal. Perhaps that explains the comments of The Guardian and Oil Change International.
Equinor, the company that spearheaded the project, was the one that decided not to move forward with it, at least for the time being. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change who approved the Bay du Nord project used to be a committed environmental activist.
Regardless of the outcome of Bay du Nord, this first deep-water project, with the government's about-face, doublespeak, selective terminology and broken policy and climate commitments, Canada is being two-faced, acting like a good participant when, let us face it, under the changes set out in Bill C‑49 it is still quite likely that permits will be granted and offshore oil activities will be promoted.
Just days after introducing Bill C‑49, the government announced new drilling permits to double offshore oil production.
The Bloc Québécois believes that the devil is in the details. If the government wanted us to oppose this then it went about it the right way, in other words introduce a good bill and the next day announce more drilling. One might say it is sabotaging its own legislation. The government had an opportunity to show that it could let go of fossil fuel. There is still time for that. We are used to the greenwashing language that the Prime Minister has mastered.
That said, legislation paving the way for renewable energy in this region of Canada would be good. I repeat: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is imperative. Just like western Canada, the Maritimes need a helping hand to do that. In both regions, the environment and biodiversity are under attack.
Our caucus has serious doubts about the probity of the commitments set out in Bill C‑49. What better ruse could there be than to slip poison into an innocent-looking treat that everyone likes? We will be watchful.
1150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
