SoVote

Oct/6/23 10:28:07 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His commitment to the environment is beyond any doubt. As for Bill C-49, I have many questions. As I read this bill, it struck me as a great way to conceal malicious intentions around oil and gas development. Wind energy is great. Saying that we are going to produce green hydrogen is great. That is the positive side of the bill. However, is it not true that the bill sugar-coats a bitter pill? The bill appears to promote wind energy, but is it not true that its real intention is to allow twice as much offshore oil and gas production and development down the road, as announced soon after this bill was introduced? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the double-talk around this bill.

144 words

Context: House Hansard - 231 - Oct/6/23

Mr. Brian Masse

Oct/6/23 10:57:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it will, because now we have support for alternative energy that we did not have in the past, which needs to be brought forth. That is part of how to actually move forward on these initiatives. It is a good, legitimate concern; there is no doubt. However, we need to actually move forward where there is consensus on clean energy. For my region, there are still very much some big concerns that were expressed with regard to wind, because of the effects on soil and potential issues underneath. These are all things that need to be kept in mind. What I have been saying in the past is that there are other expenses and that we need to make sure we plan for the legacy costs. That is where the member really needs to have the focus in terms of the comments being strong, but it also needs to be on understanding that there is a cost for all of these things in the forefront that needs to be countered as well.

176 words

Context: House Hansard - 231 - Oct/6/23

Mr. Rick Perkins

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

Context: House Hansard - 231 - Oct/6/23

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/6/23 1:06:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I must say that my hon. colleague is always present and always has questions. I am always amazed. Sometimes I wonder if he ever sleeps because he must be studying every bill. Why are the Conservatives against this? Every time we talk about climate change, the Conservatives are against it. We always wonder if they believe in fighting climate change. They do not make the connection between health and climate change; they do not tie these two things together, when it is very important. However, coming back to Bill C‑49, there are rules for future offshore wind projects, but the government wants to pursue oil projects. We take issue with the government saying one thing and doing another. It is typical of the Liberal government.

136 words