44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
- May/2/24 1:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. I find it intriguing that the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois is raising a concern about how we are standing up to reflect the concerns that stakeholders and provinces have raised.
These concerns are regarding way too much power being granted to a federal minister. They could come in to stamp out some provincial industries and the areas that impact provinces and regions within their jurisdiction. It takes way too much power away from the provinces and puts way too much into the hands of an overreaching, over-encroaching federal government. In particular, a federal minister could have veto power over energy development and resource development.
As our western friends in Alberta and Saskatchewan know very well, the over-encroachment of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction is stifling and hampering. It hurts business and industry. I am sure my colleague from Quebec would be very concerned if federal ministers started overreaching into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We share that concern, and I hope the member would be onside with our concern regarding that.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 1:06:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a prairie girl, this is a little outside of my zone, but I do come from Alberta. The member, in answering the question of my colleague from the Bloc, brought up the example of the oil and gas sector in Alberta and the need for the federal government not to overreach.
One of the problems I have is that, on occasion, provincial governments, and I would use the example of the Alberta provincial government, do not do a particularly good job of promoting renewables or promoting forward-looking industry. As members know, Danielle Smith paused renewables in Alberta, and $33 billion dollars' worth of investment was chased from our province.
From the member's perspective, is there a place for the federal government to ensure strings are attached?
Another example would be when money came from the federal government for orphan wells to be cleaned up in Alberta. There were no strings attached, despite the fact the NDP asked for them, and the wells in Alberta have still not been cleaned up.
Does he not see the federal government has to have some role to play in developing our resources and in making sure that resources are being developed adequately?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can speak with the same passion as my colleague, but I have to admit that I am not an oil and gas enthusiast, far from it.
I want to begin by saying that Bill C-49 was introduced to us as a bill that seeks to promote renewable energy, but such is not the case. Before I explain why I do not think that is the case, I would like to give a bit of background. It feels like groundhog day to me, because I am often repeating the same thing here in the House, that Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold.
We could take that one step further and say that Canada is an oil monarchy and wants to stay that way. We are among the four biggest polluters in the world, and we share that enviable position with Russia and Iraq. I do not know whether the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources planned to become a “petromonarch”, but unfortunately, that is what he is. Today, with the Trans Mountain pipeline in place, Canada is going to be producing an additional 600,000 barrels a day, when Alberta is already producing a record number of nearly 4 million barrels per day.
From an environmental perspective, we can all agree that that is awful. If we look at the government’s actions in recent months, we again see the same thing, a willingness to financially support the oil and gas sector. I remember that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he wanted to put an end to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, but he did not know what an ineffective subsidy was. How can we put an end to something we do not know about? That is rather difficult. I would simply point out to him that, in 2023, the federal government invested $18.5 billion in the oil and gas industry. We are a long way from ending fossil fuel subsidies.
I would also point out that he should put a cap on emissions by 2026. Of note, the emissions cap prosed by the federal government is a limit on emissions but not on production. Canada will therefore produce more oil but reduce carbon intensity. Basically, I see this as a person on a diet eating poutine. If someone goes on a diet, they should not eat poutine. If the government wants to reduce carbon intensity, it should not help produce more oil.
It is a bit of a pipe dream to say we will reduce the carbon intensity of the oil sector by investing huge amounts of public money in technologies that are questionable and unsound, technologies that are assessed by several experts as doomed to fail. Nevertheless, the government’s big strategy in its budget is to invest no less than $83 billion by 2035 to promote this pipe dream of lower carbon intensity oil. That is not counting the $65 billion that have been invested in the oil and gas sector in recent years.
I see that all these numbers are making your head spin, Mr. Speaker. I could not agree with you more. I too find it alarming. I am saying that because this is the context in which Bill C-49 is being proposed.
I am a well-intentioned guy. My mother always says that about me and she is right. I am a person who means well. At first reading we told ourselves we should give it the benefit of the doubt. The first stumbling block we saw was the possibility that Bill C-49 interfered with provincial jurisdiction. From a constitutional perspective, management of offshore energy is a federal jurisdiction, but previous agreements were signed to manage the oil and gas sector with Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. New agreements were presented to us as agreements aiming to include renewable energies.
At first reading, we decided to give it the benefit of the doubt because there were no jurisdictional issues. We therefore voted in favour of sending the bill to committee. I was prepared to participate in committee discussions and to try to improve it. This was the goal of the Bloc Québécois and its approach to studying the bill.
However, the main problem soon became clear. Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. The government refused every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I will present some of them shortly, since I am sure I will have time. We proposed possible solutions while remaining totally open. All were dismissed outright.
Here is why I say Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. In committee, we heard from Normand Mousseau, Scientific Director of the Trottier Energy Institute. No one is more qualified to talk about energy and energy transition. Mr. Mousseau said that there is a fundamental principle when it comes to engaging in energy transition. This fundamental principle is quite simple: Renewable energy must be given priority over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. We decided to use this as the starting point for our amendments. The idea was to determine how Bill C 49 could favour renewable energy over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. Unfortunately, the government was completely against this approach. This is why I say the bill is not about renewable energy.
I talked about Normand Mousseau, but we heard from another very interesting witness, Ches Crosbie, who was invited by my Conservative colleagues. Mr. Crosbie came to talk to us about his vision of energy in Canada. What is interesting about Mr. Crosbie is that he does not believe in climate change. The Conservatives invited a witness who does not believe in climate change and who is convinced that all the money invested in new technologies is a waste of time and a scam. I am translating freely. He told us that it was bogus, and his testimony, along with the questions I asked him when he appeared before us, was picked up by the CBC. I am not a big fan of the CBC; not being anglophone, it is a bit more difficult for me. In any case, the leader of the Conservatives in Newfoundland was forced to defend himself. Tony Wakeham was forced to say that he believed in climate change and that the witness who had appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was a bit off base. I wonder on what basis my Conservative friends chose to invite someone who is prepared to deny the reality of climate change, which is accepted by everyone. It is a bit like deciding to invite to the Standing Committee on Health someone who defends the idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer and are actually good for athletes. We would say that is completely far-fetched. However, Ches Crosbie, the Conservative witness, shamelessly said before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that we should stop talking about this bogus climate change theory and stop investing money in new technologies because that would not do any good. I think we all get the picture.
I said our goal from the outset was to improve Bill C‑49 to better govern offshore energy activities and better plan the energy transition. Everything we proposed was roundly rejected by our Conservative friends.
I would like to review some of our amendments. This will clarify why we will vote against Bill C‑49. We have said this already, but we will vote against Bill C‑49 because it is incompatible with the energy transition.
The first type of amendment we submitted aimed to foster the Bloc Québécois's general vision, which is energy transition and fighting climate change. Earlier, I talked about Normand Mousseau. We wrote our amendments based on his words, stressing, among other things, the need for the federal government to follow the example of Quebec and of other countries, which have halted new oil and gas development projects.
We thought that if we could change the bill to prevent new oil and gas projects and instead focus on renewable energy, we would have done our job, and we could vote in favour of Bill C‑49. However, the Liberal government responded that, while Bill C‑49 deals with renewable energy, there would be no prioritization of other types of energy, as Normand Mousseau recommended in his testimony. We felt this undermined transition.
With the amendments we proposed, the government could have built the regulatory foundations to gradually phase out oil and gas by voting, among other things, to reform the system governing them. Our goal was to ensure that adequate regulation of current oil and gas projects would end the approval process for new ones. The government dismissed this outright. We also wanted to help create a new offshore renewable energy regulatory system that would have allowed effective planning that considered the needs of all users of the sea and required a proper environmental assessment.
For example, we proposed that the regulator be responsible for preparing a strategic plan for gradually reducing petroleum-related activities, consistent with Canada's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2025 levels by 2030. These are commitments the government itself made. If it had taken this direction, it might not be in the situation it is in today, when it was announced that our emissions increased by 10 megatonnes between 2021 and 2022. How are we supposed to reduce our carbon emissions when our main economic sector is still oil and gas? It is completely impossible. We suggested in good faith that the government focus on renewable energy, but it refused.
We also made certain proposals because what most surprised me about Bill C‑49, which would amend the two acts governing offshore energy, namely the one for Newfoundland and the one for Prince Edward Island, is that the regulators have no expertise in renewable energy. Witnesses told us straight out that they know how to develop and analyze fossil fuel projects, but they have no idea how to develop renewable energy projects. We therefore moved amendments aimed at developing the appropriate expertise for planning and assessment processes, but these amendments were also rejected out of hand by the government. Our amendments were consistent with the briefs and testimony that numerous environmental groups and energy sector specialists provided to the government during the study in committee, but the government obviously did not listen. The government turned a deaf ear and refused to listen to the people who have the expertise needed to develop this type of renewable energy project.
Lastly, we submitted amendments aimed at ensuring that, if one or more energy projects are commenced in an area where no other projects are under way, low-carbon energy projects should automatically get priority. For example, in an offshore area, if there is a choice between a wind power project and an oil project, the analysis should be based on the carbon intensity of each project. That would have been essential, but the government did not agree to our amendment. It dismissed it out of hand. This proves what I have been trying to say all along, which is that Bill C‑49 is not a renewable energy bill. It is just greenwashing, an attempt by the government to ease its conscience by saying that it is working on implementing wind power projects, but without actually making them a priority.
In fact, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island currently have no infrastructure to distribute the electricity that the wind turbines will produce. Developing this kind of infrastructure requires resources, and the construction costs involved are astronomical.
The federal government, however, continues to invest heavily in the pipe dream that I talked about earlier, which calls for lowering the carbon intensity of the oil and gas sector. However, the government is not investing in clean technology the way it was supposed to. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑49, and it will never lose sight of the fact that the energy transition cannot be carried out while the oil and gas industry are receiving support.
2062 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 1:33:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very interesting, and I listened with agreement regarding much of what he said.
One of the concerns that I have is that we are seeing a lack of actual, meaningful action by the current government to make sure that Canada can be leading on renewable energy. The member will have heard me say many times in the House how disappointed I am with the Province of Alberta and with the premier, Danielle Smith, for pausing renewables in my province.
However, I am also concerned when I see things like the Liberals promising investment tax credits to kick-start a clean energy economy. They promised that in 2023, and we still have seen nothing. Instead, companies are looking to the south, where there are those credits and that investment. I wonder if the member could comment on how that would be helpful for making sure that Canada can be a leader in a new economy.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 1:34:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.
If we look at the federal government's strategies in the past three or four years, clean energy has never been at the centre of those strategies.
In the latest budget, we saw tax credits pop up for clean electricity. Those will apply this year. We shall see what that looks like. However, the bulk of the federal government's strategy, the bulk of the financial support—earlier I was talking about $83 billion by 2035—is being offered to the oil and gas sector to support a pipe dream, the low-carbon oil pipe dream.
Environmentalists all agree that we need to cut oil production. Meanwhile, the federal government is investing in increasing production and trying to reduce carbon intensity. It defies all logic. The oil being produced is going to be burned somewhere. It is going to generate greenhouse gases.
Canada is one of the countries that invests the least in renewable energy, and we are also one of the countries most heavily tied to the oil and gas sector. In the next 15, 20 or 30 years, much to Alberta's chagrin, it will be a disaster. Other countries are moving forward; they no longer even want to consume products that are made in Canada because of the disproportionately high carbon footprint.
Somehow the Liberal government and the Conservative government do not seem to see it.
240 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the member for Timmins—James Bay for all the work he has put into Bill C‑49. He pushed hard for a transition to clean energy. I think that his work should be recognized by the House.
We support Bill C‑49 because we finally see the Liberals taking the first small steps toward clean energy. Anyone who travels outside Canada can see how other countries around the world are investing in clean energy. They see that things are beginning to change in Asia. They see things are beginning to change in Africa. All anyone has to do is fly over Europe and the North Sea to see all of the wind power projects making a huge difference.
I visited the island of Samsoe in Denmark. The government of Denmark is making the necessary investments in clean energy. The island of Samsoe has converted all of its heating and electricity, and has almost finished converting its transportation system. Everything works on clean energy.
In the United States, with President Joe Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act, there are successful investments everywhere. The potential for Canada is enormous. When we look at the U.S. market, where states and municipalities are demanding clean energy, we can see the potential for the production of clean energy in Canada.
What we have is a grid that has not been set up, as some European grids have, to be able to include the potential of clean energies from a variety of sources. Scandinavia and Germany have already converted. Canada lags far behind.
There is work to be done. That is why the NDP and our entire caucus supports Bill C‑49. We can see the potential, and we think it is important to make these investments. This bill is a first step toward this clean energy potential. We need to see leadership on the part of the federal government in this area so that we can have clean energy projects across Canada.
When the member for Burnaby South becomes prime minister, we will have a New Democratic government and we will see the difference. We can make the transition that other countries are already engaged in.
Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic accord acts, notably by establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and their offshore areas. Currently, the Atlantic accord acts implement agreements between Canada and these two provinces on the joint management of offshore petroleum resources.
Under the proposed bill, regulatory authority for offshore wind power would be granted to the two existing jointly managed offshore boards that are currently exclusively responsible for regulating offshore oil and gas projects: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. They would effectively be put in place as regulators for offshore wind power.
This is extremely important, because we know that there is much to do in terms of putting in place all the foundations for renewable energy sources, which can be a powerful driver of Canadian prosperity in the years to come. We have unlimited potential right across the country. I think of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where we could ultimately be seeing powerhouses of solar and wind power.
The export of renewable energy could make a profound difference, particularly because so many American states and cities require renewable energy as their feedstock. They simply will not accept energy that is not renewable. We need to modernize our grid and make these investments. We have seen, both under the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government, no investments in any meaningful way to modernize our electrical grid to allow for the import of renewable energy. We have seen, quite frankly, a couple of decades of stagnation when it comes to renewable energy. New Democrats support the bill because it is a first step forward, but there is much to do.
The reality is that we are seeing investment moving into clean energy. This is vitally important. There are energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; we cannot leave them behind. We need to make sure we put in place the investments that allow for offshore wind projects for which energy workers could use their enormous skills. Having been an energy worker and having worked at the Shellburn refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which is now closed, I can say that the skills of workers in the energy sector are enormous. If we are to really capture the immense potential that comes from renewable energy, we need to make sure we pass legislation such as this, as well as making the powerful investments that are so important and that other countries have made in order to ensure incredible prosperity.
During the hearings, the member for Timmins—James Bay said very clearly that strong concerns had been heard from fishers about ensuring that any new developments respect the fragile nature of North Atlantic fisheries. New Democrats share their concerns, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said so eloquently. We urge the provinces to work with the stakeholders to ensure that any new projects are developed with the recognition of the need to protect the fisheries. This is vitally important.
We know that we need to catch up with other countries. I will give two examples. Off Rhode Island, there is a new wind farm that is going to provide energy for a quarter of a million homes. That is as a result of President Joe Biden's leadership in making the investments for clean energy. Twenty-seven other major projects in the United States are on track to be completed by next year, 2025. For example, the Vineyard Wind project is creating enough power for 400,000 homes.
Atlantic Canada, with its high energy costs, could become a world leader in low-cost energy, including wind and green hydrogen. However, the reality is that we have not seen from the Liberal government, as we did not see from the Conservative government before it, any real effort to provide the kinds of frameworks and investments that are so important for building those massive opportunities in offshore wind.
There was a promise from the Liberals to put in place investment tax credits to kick-start clean energy. That was last year, and the credits are still nowhere to be seen. Investment is still flowing south, and we see Canadian companies looking to partner in the United States now, where investment is guaranteed. The reality is that we have CAPP holding meetings with the government to continue to get subsidies for the oil and gas sector, but for energy workers who are interested in the potential for clean energy, there are no opportunities being presented to them. This is because of the fact that the government has not acted, in the same way as the Conservative government did not act before it. Therefore, what we need to see is a federal government willing to step up.
In Alberta, there was incredible potential. My colleagues from Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton Griesbach would agree that there was immense potential. I believe there were $33 billion in clean energy projects in line to be built. Clean energy has immense potential in Alberta. However, the premier, Danielle Smith, basically put a hold on all those projects. Why would anyone do that when there is potential for enormous growth?
Alberta could be the clean energy powerhouse of the planet. Why would the premier basically halt $33 billion in clean energy projects? It makes no sense at all.
Under the Harper government, we saw a hatred of clean energy. The one program it did put in place regarding home renovations was so oversubscribed that, basically, the government abruptly cancelled it. In the years following, when I was the energy critic, as the NDP was the official opposition at the time, I went across the country—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague says we will be so again, but we are actually going for government. We are fine to leave the Conservatives as the official opposition, which they are currently. I wish I could say they are an effective opposition, but they are not effective at all.
The reality is that we had an ability for clean energy to thrive in Alberta that was nixed by the premier of the province. I think, right across the country, people would ask why she would do that and hurt her own province. However, I will leave that debate to the Alberta legislature at another time.
Coming back to the United States, since President Biden was elected, there has been an announcement of $240 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, in new clean energy manufacturing investments. The private sector has announced $110 billion in clean energy manufacturing investments, including more than $70 billion in the electric vehicle supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing.
We certainly see the reaction from Conservatives. They do not want to see these kinds of investments taking place in Canada, but the reality is that having a quarter of a trillion dollars in private sector investments in clean energy in the United States shows the incredible potential. According to a variety of estimates, the Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to be creating 1.5 million additional jobs.
I come back to the issue of Danielle Smith cancelling and basically stopping 33 billion dollars' worth of clean energy investment in Alberta and however many hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have resulted in. Again, it is a decision that makes no sense at all; Conservatives will have to explain why anyone would want to cut on something that could have been a real path for prosperity.
As a result of President Biden's plan, the U.S. is now on a path to meet the goal of cutting emissions 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaching net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. I contrast that, of course, with the utter failures of the Harper government and the current government. Both have utterly failed in bringing down emissions. Canada has a very poor track record.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, I understand my Conservative colleagues are asking why Mr. Harper failed. I am more than pleased to talk about that.
I will start with the $30 billion Conservatives gave to overseas tax havens every year, through the Harper sweetheart tax haven treaties. That is $300 billion that Conservatives used to splurge on overseas tax havens over the course of the dismal decade when Mr. Harper was in power. Not one Conservative has ever been able to explain what good it did for Canada to give away a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens. The Harper government stopped pensions, forced seniors to work longer, slashed health care funding and cut services to veterans. It did all those bad things. It was a terrible decade, with $116 billion in liquidity supports going to Canada's big banks to maintain their profits and $300 billion, according to the PBO, given away to overseas tax havens. Conservatives' financial management is an oxymoron. They are simply not good at managing money; they are terrible at it. It is unbelievable.
If one does not believe me, one just has to look at the fiscal returns actually tabled by the Ministry of Finance, federally. It is hardly a hotbed of social democrats in the federal Ministry of Finance, but it has been saying, year over year, for the last few decades, that the worst governments, in terms of managing money and paying down debt, are the Conservative and the Liberal governments.
The governments that are best, of course only provincially, up to this time, at managing money, at paying down debt and at the same time ensuring we have effective education programs, effective health care programs and effective investments in our youth, and have better programs for seniors and for families, and this is from the fiscal returns of the federal government, are NDP governments. It should not be a surprise to anybody that we are not only the best at managing the services that Canadians need in every province that we have governed in, but also the best at managing money. That comes from the federal Ministry of Finance, no less.
I wanted to take just a few minutes to talk about, as the member for Timmins—James Bay has done so eloquently, the climate crisis that we are in.
Scientists who are monitoring the collapsing ice shelves of Greenland have noted how soot from fires, which lands on the ice shelves, draws more heat and leads to ever faster disintegration of the ice fields. This is raising water levels, causing ocean instability and leading to more storms. We are at a tipping point. It is essential that we act fast and take the magnitude of this crisis seriously.
The first step is to take on what the member for Timmins—James Bay has called a pathological obsession of big oil to extract as much profit as possible from the burning of the planet. Big oil has shown no interest in limiting the damages it has done and, in fact, is pushing for an increase in production.
Scientist David Archer states, “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge...longer than nuclear waste...longer than the age of human civilization so far.”
It also does not make economic sense. Last week, the International Energy Agency stated that we are at “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”, as “demand for oil, natural gas and coal” are all going to “peak” over the next few years. Therefore, we need to prepare to ensure that we are actually putting in place all those fundamental issues, programs and foundations and to ensure that we can benefit from the clean energy economy to come.
The reality is that the declines, in terms of production and emissions, are nowhere near steep enough to put the world on a path to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. We are going to have to work more steadily, and there has to be faster policy action by governments.
That is why it is so important to move on Bill C-49. I am pleased, on behalf of the NDP caucus and on behalf of the member for Timmins—James Bay, to support this legislation.
It is not a panacea. It does not get the job done, but it is a first important step that allows us to move forward for the clean energy economy to come, to allow energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to do the important work that they can do to ensure that we have growth and development of clean energy and that we have more jobs in Atlantic Canada.
It is for all those reasons that the NDP is supportive of Bill C-49.
Now, should the government be doing more? The answer is yes.
We have had two decades of inaction, first with the Harper government, then with the current government. These two governments did not make the investments other countries made. In our opinion, it is essential that we put all the tools in place, including, of course, Bill C‑49.
It is extremely important that we implement the bill, and that we invest in order to create jobs and prosperity and to lower the price of energy in Atlantic Canada, ensuring that everyone can benefit from clean energy in the future.
2658 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:16:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In question period, we repeatedly heard Conservatives from Alberta refer to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions with false titles, and I know you will be ruling on that, but this is despite that overdose deaths have gone up 319% since Conservatives got elected—
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the real slogan of the Conservatives should be “tackiness, not technology”, because we saw in Alberta Danielle Smith blocking $33 billion worth of clean energy projects, which would have meant so much for energy workers in Alberta. We know that other jurisdictions around the world are making the investments in clean energy. In Conservative-run provinces, it is an absolute lockdown on any new technology that actually provides for clean energy. Now we see their fervent opposition to clean energy in Atlantic Canada by their blocking of Bill C-49, which they have been doing now for months.
The reality is that we are talking about a party of Luddites within the Conservative caucus. They simply refuse the clean energy prosperity that comes from making the investments in clean energy. Bill C-49 is one of the first steps that need to happen.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:40:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I remember, in Alberta in the last two weeks, there was a notification of two solar projects being moved along and approved. Therefore, I am not sure where he is getting these six months. They took a period to look at not being approved on irrigated farmland, but they are approving them, two in my riding. We are talking 30 megawatts, big ones. I think he is a little incorrect in his statement.
Would he like to revise that statement about what is occurring in Alberta? I know from my riding that he is absolutely wrong.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:40:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague. I enjoyed working with him on the Canadian heritage committee.
I would certainly say that a lot of investments came from the former NDP government in Alberta under Rachel Notley, which really made a serious effort to provide for those clean energy jobs. Of course, many of those projects were ultimately approved.
Danielle Smith then did the lockdown, and $33 billion in additional clean energy projects have basically been stalled.
I know that the member knows his riding well. I think the difference between us is that he might try to attribute it to the Conservative government. I certainly attribute it to what was the best government in Alberta's history, the government under Rachel Notley, which made such a difference. It helped to reinforce the education sector and health care sector and it made a real difference in terms of good governance in Alberta. I know that for many Albertans they are hoping that day will come back again, when they can hope that there will not be the gutting of health care and education that we have seen, the stalling of clean energy projects.
The reality of farm receipts in Alberta is that they are among the worst in the country. The Danielle Smith government, the UCP government, has been devastating for Alberta.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 3:47:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it tragic that governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the wake of the opioid crisis, are seeing the highest rise in the death rate in Canada in those two provinces. In Saskatchewan it is a 23% increase. I am surprised the member is unaware of this. He represents a Saskatchewan riding, and he is unaware of the massive increase in opioid deaths—
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:10:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I find my colleague's speech manipulative and Manichaean. He is rising here to say that if we are against the oil industry in Alberta, we are against Alberta, and if we are against the oil industry in Atlantic Canada, we are against Atlantic Canada.
The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the transition. We support the transition in the east, in the west. We agree with the fact that Quebeckers have decided not to go ahead with deepwater drilling. This bill will allow Atlantic Canada to double its oil production within six years.
What did the Liberals do? First, they removed the word “oiler” from the title and added the word “transition”, even though this is an oil-producing bill. Then what did they do? They voted against all the amendments proposed in good faith by the Bloc Québécois to include transition elements in the bill. They voted against every single one of them.
How can they then rise in the House and tell us that we are acting in bad faith and that we are against the Atlantic provinces? They torpedoed every opportunity they had to work with the opposition parties.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before going any further, I want to acknowledge that I am sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
It is a pleasure to rise to join in the debate tonight on 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.
The bill will enable the development of offshore renewable energy by expanding the federal-provincial offshore regulatory regimes in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. This is really critical because it will not only create an incredible opportunity in the clean economy by enabling offshore wind electricity as well as the massive opportunity in green hydrogen Atlantic Canada has at its feet, but it will also allow us to take important steps in decarbonizing our economy and fighting climate change.
The imperative to act has never been clearer on fighting climate change. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record and each of the last eight months were the hottest such months we have ever seen recorded. Last year was the worst wildfire season that Canada has ever had, with wildfires from coast to coast to coast, some of which were never extinguished over the winter. We are already seeing the makings of what could be a very bad year for droughts. In my home province of B.C., we had the lowest snowpack ever recorded, and next week we are going to see water restrictions come in.
Over the last few years, we have seen some of the most devastating natural disasters, fuelled by climate change, such as hurricanes in Atlantic Canada, atmospheric rivers in British Columbia and much more. Therefore, we need to act to ensure that we prevent the worst outcomes of climate change from occurring, because Canada is one of the top 10 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and because, in acting, there are incredible opportunities for investments, the economy and jobs.
Just last year, the International Energy Agency noted that clean energy added $320 billion to the world's economy in just one year and that, by 2030, we are going to require $4.5 trillion in global investments to meet our climate targets. In the offshore wind industry alone we know there is an opportunity for $1 trillion by 2040. This really represents the greatest economic opportunity of our lifetime.
Canada has a huge potential to seize an outsized share of these investments and jobs. We have the critical minerals, whether copper in British Columbia or lithium in Quebec. We have the manufacturing know-how in Ontario so that we can build a full value chain for battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing.
We are the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other G7 country. We have a world-class potential for clean electricity that would allow us to leverage our legacy of hydroelectric power and supplement it with the cheapest electricity in the world right now, which is solar and wind energy, provided we do what we can to ensure the infrastructure can be built.
We are also seeing a massive interest in Canadian green hydrogen, which is hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. We need to be able to meet that demand.
Bill C-49, along with the 150 measures in Canada's emissions reduction program, are helping Canada seize these generational economic opportunities. Just in the last year, we became the number one per capita recipient of foreign direct investment and the third country overall behind the U.S. and Brazil. We have seen massive investments in electric vehicle manufacturing from Stellantis, Volkswagen and most recently Honda, which is the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. There are also multi-billion dollar opportunities in the hydrogen sector in Atlantic Canada alone.
We are helping to attract this investment through targeted incentives, including through investment tax credits in clean technologies, clean manufacturing, clean hydrogen and clean electricity. It is clear that these measures are not only creating jobs and growing the economy, but having a material impact on reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
Earlier today, Canada tabled its greenhouse gas inventory, which shows what greenhouse gases were in 2022 and that they have been reduced by 44 million tonnes since 2019. This is the equivalent of taking 13 million cars off the road, and it is the lowest that Canada's emissions have been since the O.J. Simpson trial or the year Connor McDavid was born.
The Canadian Climate Institute says that this shows “clear evidence that Canada continues to decouple emissions from economic growth”, but we still need to do more. This includes by finalizing some important regulations that would advance climate action, including the regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, the electric vehicle availability standard and the clean electricity standard.
However, despite having the longest coastlines and some of the best wind speeds in the world, Canada does not have a single offshore wind project to date. This is due, in part, to the lack of a comprehensive lifestyle regulatory regime, which has led to uncertainty and impeded the pace of development. That is where today's bill comes into the spotlight, because Atlantic Canada is well positioned to be a leader in offshore wind energy and in green hydrogen.
The Public Policy Forum says, “Offshore wind could be for Atlantic Canada what oil was to Texas or hydro power to Quebec. We are talking here not of something incremental, but monumental.”
To help address this gap, the Government of Canada introduced amendments to the accord acts to expand the existing joint management regimes established with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to include offshore renewable energy. These amendments would also modernize the existing petroleum land tenure regime, align the accord acts with the Impact Assessment Act, further support Canada's marine conservation goals and allow for increased consultation with indigenous peoples. This would help us to seize this tremendous opportunity.
It is hard to understand why any party would be against such a measure. Why would anyone not want to create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, attract investment in wind energy and help meet Europe's demand for hydrogen as it rapidly decarbonizes?
However, we see that the Conservatives are opposed to this investment in jobs. In fact, they have filibustered this legislation for seven weeks, blocking it from even being discussed at committee. We see this with the amendment they have tabled today that would simply send it back to committee, where they would continue filibustering again.
When I ask why, the only reason I can see is that the Conservative Party is diametrically opposed to any measures that would reduce Canada's reliance on the fossil fuel sector. Its members want Canadians to be subject to the commodity roller coaster of prices and to deny Canadians the benefits of lower and more stable heating bills from clean electricity. They will not even admit that climate change is happening or that it is caused by humans.
While filibustering the bill, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires as a “narrative”. He said that this narrative leads people to believe in climate change, but the “facts don't bear it out.”
The Conservatives even invited the leader of the official opposition's close ally and adviser, Ches Crosbie, to tell the committee that human-caused climate change was “bogus”.
Let us call it like it is: The Conservatives do not believe in climate change or in the benefits of climate action, and their obstructionism is holding us back, not just in Parliament and not just in Atlantic Canada, but right across the country.
In Alberta, we recently saw Danielle Smith imposing a hard stop on renewable energy projects, jeopardizing $33 billion in investment and far and away the cheapest form of electricity out there. The recent proposals from the Alberta government would make it nearly impossible to get renewable energy built across the province.
As such, we see what a Conservative government would do. They do not believe in climate change. Moreover, they will do anything to stop renewable energy projects from breaking the hold that the fossil fuel industry has on Canadians. They put forth that the only way Canada can contribute to reducing emissions is by producing and burning more fossil fuels.
They say it is “technology, not taxes”, but this is greenwashing. Actually, just a couple of days ago at the finance committee, we passed forward some amendments that would require companies, when they make an environmental claim, to provide the evidence to back it up. I just wish the same measure would apply to the Conservatives, because then we could have an honest debate.
1507 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:59:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really want to correct some of the facts in my colleague's speech. He is saying that Alberta has made it impossible to develop renewable energy. In my riding in southern Alberta, there are three solar projects and close to 600 wind turbines. We are very proud of our renewable projects.
To ensure my colleague has his facts straight, we put a pause, which has now been lifted. Why we did so is that 75% of the renewable projects that have been built in Canada over the last few years have actually been built in Alberta. However, close to 25% to 30% of the agriculture land in Alberta was identified for wind turbine or solar projects, which would put food production at risk.
Does he not think there has to be a balance between building renewable energy projects and ensuring that we protect agriculture land and arable land for food production?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 5:00:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, Alberta has the greatest potential for renewable electricity in the entire country. It was having a massive boom in renewable energy production and investment until this moratorium came into place. I know there are these projects there. The problem here is that this moratorium put a hard stop on it. To put forward these false arguments that somehow renewable energy is going to kill food supply in Canada is just beyond the pale.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
