44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
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 3:14:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, even for the Liberals, this is really something. It is a hat trick: three times, three different platform promises broken in one omnibus budget bill. First up, they broke the commitment to have UNDRIP honoured and consult with indigenous people. Second, they used their omnibus budget bill to change environmental legislation. Third, once again, they failed to fix the Environmental Assessment Act.
Let us make it simple: Environmental assessment under Mulroney's law worked. Harper repealed it. It still does not work. This draft, in this ways and means bill, will go down to defeat at the Supreme Court once again.
Fix it, once and for all, and use the environmental expert panel to guide the government's actions.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am highly critical of the Conservative approach under the party's new leader, the member for Carleton.
The reality is that there used to be this ability in the House of Commons, particularly in minority governments, and the NDP, in minority governments, has pushed hard to make a difference. We have seen the results in universal health care, and are now looking forward to the results of dental care and of pharmacare for people with diabetes. Six million people across the country, 17,000 in each and every riding, would finally have their diabetes medication, which costs over $1,000 a month in many cases, being paid for. All of those things, as well as anti-scab legislation and affordable housing, were all blocked by the Conservatives.
The Conservatives seem to have taken an approach of blocking everything that comes before the House. It is almost like they do not want to see any benefits going to their constituents. I find it surprising. I find it tragic that parliamentarians elected with the commitment, as we all make during election campaigns, to come to the House of Commons and do the best for their constituents, would do the exact opposite.
Then we come back to Bill C-49, where there is a notable benefit to start moving forward with clean energy projects. There are 1.5 million new jobs in the United States, and in Canada, we are talking about tens of thousands of new well-paying jobs that could come from those good investments. We did not see any under the Harper regime.
Tragically, we have not seen any from the Liberal government. However, at least with Bill C-49, we are seeing the foundation that would allow for the investments to be made, so we would be able to create those jobs.
In the end, Conservatives will have to defend their record when they go back to their ridings when the next election happens.
328 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will try this again. It is great to be here in the House. It is always a privilege to be able to bring the voice and perspective of my constituents from Kings—Hants, from rural Nova Scotia, to the floor of the House of Commons. Today, we are debating a piece of legislation that really matters to the region I represent in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada: Bill C-49.
Over the next 20 minutes, I have a great opportunity to highlight the importance of the bill and where it is coming from. It is also a great opportunity to perhaps address some of the misconceptions that might be held within the House by some of the members I have heard speak to the passage of this bill and to talk about why it really matters and draw a contrast. That is part of what we do here. We present, to Canadians, different options about the pathway forward, and I hope to be able to draw some of those points out.
Before I get too far, I will mention that it is Gaelic Nova Scotia Month. I am proudly wearing my Nova Scotia tartan tie, and I have a Canada Scotland pin on to show the connection between Canada and Scotland, and our Gaelic culture and history. Nova Scotia is the jurisdiction with the most Gaelic speakers outside of Scotland itself. It is a great pride.
[Member spoke in Gaelic]
[English]
It is Gaelic history month and Gaelic awareness month in Nova Scotia, and I am very proud to be able to say just a couple words in Gaelic here in the House.
What are the Atlantic accords? I mentioned Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accords. Let us go back into history and understand the jurisdictional dynamic. It would have been begun in the late seventies, early eighties, with the discovery of offshore oil in Atlantic Canada. There was some uncertainty about the constitutional dynamic of who was responsible for managing that resource. This was a period of uncertainty. Brian Mulroney was the prime minister at the time. There was an idea that there should be a comanagement of that resource in the Atlantic offshore.
The Minister of Labour and Seniors has talked about the Atlantic accords and the importance to his province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Although it was actually before my time, I will say, in Nova Scotia, it carries the same level of reverence in terms of what it means for our region. Ultimately, two things came of the Atlantic accords. One was shared management in how the offshore activity took place and how permitting would go forward, and the other was the revenue sharing of the resource development in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it has been extremely important for our region, for our communities and for our workers, and it is a program that has worked.
We have tremendous opportunity in Atlantic Canada. It is often windy in our part of the country. We have an opportunity in the development of offshore wind, which goes toward green hydrogen and toward renewable electricity. These are the types of technologies that are becoming available, that are becoming cost affordable and can help drive our transition toward a lower-carbon economy. For offshore wind to be approved, we actually need to give the legislative licence for that to happen. There are existing bodies: the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.
What this legislation proposes to do is quite simple. It would allow those boards to have the authority to approve offshore wind projects, and the opportunity to harness wind to drive renewable energy. I have to be honest, I remember when this bill was being tabled in the House, I actually thought we would get unanimous consent, that we would find all members of Parliament from all corners saying that this makes sense and we do not want to duplicate the regulators.
The Conservatives often talk about reducing red tape. I do not know what their plan is to permit this type of activity, but they do not want to see this type of initiative move forward. I guess they want a secondary body. We are of the view that we already have an entity that works, that has permitted in the offshore. Let us allow that to be the entity to also move forward. It also has buy-in from the provinces.
Some of our western colleagues will talk about tension between federal and provincial relations around resource development. That is not at play here because, as has been mentioned in the debate, two provincial governments and two legislatures are in support of this piece of legislation. We have the Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey, and the Premier of Nova Scotia, Tim Houston. Andrew Furey is a Liberal and Tim Houston is a Progressive Conservative. They are both calling on all parliamentarians in Ottawa to help pass this legislation.
Perhaps not to my surprise, there has been fierce opposition from the Conservative Party. I had the privilege of sitting in on the natural resources committee during the appearances of two natural resources ministers, and I listened to the arguments put forward by the Conservatives. To say it best, they have been weak. They have essentially been non-existent about why this legislation is bad.
I have said it before; I will say it again. The Conservatives are standing against Atlantic Canada today by continuing to oppose this legislation. When there are two provincial governments begging parliamentarians here to move this as quickly as possible, they have delayed the piece of legislation. They have stood in its way. In fact, the amendment to Bill C-49 we are debating right now would send it back to committee.
Is it not ironic? I believe the amendment is not even from a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. They want to actually send it back. A member of Parliament who is not from our region, who has no connection, thinks they know better than two duly elected premiers from Atlantic Canada. It is disgraceful what this represents.
Thankfully, we have the NDP who, in this case, believes in jobs, believes in clean energy and believes in investment in Atlantic Canada. There are billions of dollars of potential investment, and the Conservatives want to stand against that.
Technology, not taxes, my rear end. I hope that is not unparliamentary. I will withdraw if it is.
An hon. member: Come on. You know it is.
Mr. Kody Blois: Okay, I withdraw.
Madam Speaker, they say, “Technology, not taxes.” I am disappointed the Conservatives put out those slogans and do not actually have a credible plan on how to bring it forward. This is technology. This is the ability to leverage billions of dollars of clean energy investment, and they are gatekeeping it. They are gatekeeping against Atlantic Canada.
I am one of the younger members of Parliament in the House. About 10 years ago, when I was coming through university, there was frankly a large exodus of young people who were going elsewhere in the country, and they were going out to western Canada. I have great affinity for the resource economy in western Canada. It matters to the entire country. There are people I went to high school with who went, and it helped them to build their early careers. They either still live in western Canada or have been able to come back and start a family.
I have nothing against western Canada, but if there were an opportunity to have good-paying jobs in the trades in this sector, why would we not want to make sure people have an opportunity to stay home in Atlantic Canada and have a good job in a good industry? That would a difference, not only at home, but also around the world.
First and foremost, this is about jobs. Second, it is about important investment in our region. Third, it is also about the environment. We want to reduce emissions. We know climate change is real and that companies around the world are driving the technology that is needed. We need to make sure they have the legislative runway to do this. That is why I stand here proudly to say the government, and thankfully a majority of parliamentarians in the House, are going to see this piece of legislation through.
I anticipate that at some point I will listen to the member from central Newfoundland, who will stand up and suggest he is against this and talk about the fisheries. The fisheries are an important component of Atlantic Canada. It is a crucial backbone to our economy and our rural communities. I heard suggestions from the Bloc that the reason its members may not be supporting this is because somehow there is not enough protection for the fisheries.
I want all colleagues in the House to know there is an ongoing process right now with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada working with fishing groups to identify ocean parcels that are appropriate for offshore wind development. We will not be able to move forward and undermine a traditional industry. That is not what is on the table.
Notwithstanding some of the fearmongering that might be going on, there are processes in place. Allowing this legislation to move forward would give further authorities for that consultation to continue to happen if we are serious about creating the energy opportunity that exists for Atlantic Canada.
This is not just for Atlantic Canada, by the way. I stood here proudly and talked about what western Canada resource looks like. Potash in Saskatchewan and oil and gas in Alberta and Saskatchewan matter to our country, so this is not just about Atlantic Canada. Yes, I stand here proudly, and this will matter for our region, but this matters for the whole country. This matters for everyone in that the investment matters to this country. Again, the Conservatives stand here and stand in the way.
I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will understand the importance of this bill. I hear a lot of talk in the House about the importance of renewable energy, clean energy, clean electricity and a transition away from fossil fuels and the oil and gas industry.
This bill is the very important foundation of our economy in Atlantic Canada, but it is also an opportunity to work with Quebec.
I really hope that this will be something that the Bloc reconsiders, because at the end of the day, Bloc members do stand up in the House to talk about the importance of green transition. I heard questions about that in question period today.
I really hope that at the end of the day, they can take a harder look at what is on the table and understand that it will not be a threat to coastal communities. It will be an opportunity to leverage economic opportunities for our coastal communities, for the Atlantic region but also for the region of Quebec and east of Quebec.
I certainly understand the importance of the fishing industry and our fishers.
The Impact Assessment Agency will work with fishers and with industries and organizations to ensure that the approach that is taken strikes a balance between the wind industry and the fishery. The traditional fishing industry is more important and vital for our communities, for Nova Scotians, for Newfoundlanders and also for Quebeckers.
Again, I want to fundamentally talk about the work on the environment and how the environment and energy go together. It does not have to be one or the other. In fact, smart parliamentarians need to say that we have to tackle both at the same time.
It is vital that the Conservatives see how important progress is for the environment but also for the clean energy industry and our communities across Canada.
They are not really identifying this.
I mentioned the Progressive Conservatives. Premier Houston is a Conservative, but he is a moderate Conservative and believes in the opportunities that are available in Nova Scotia for a clean energy future. The Conservatives here in Ottawa want to stand in his way of creating those economic opportunities. They are going to reference, I expect, during questions, the former Bill C-69, which was the Impact Assessment Act. As part of the ways and means motion, and I give a compliment to the government, there are actually provisions to address the constitutionality of that particular piece of legislation. We do need to be able to make major projects happen in this country more quickly.
Conservatives will often reference that and say that this is why they do not believe in the bill before us, but there is something fundamentally different between Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords and the tension I mentioned between the jurisdictions where provinces are responsible for resource development on land, and what we are talking about here today. The difference in what we are talking about here today is that the provinces would be in the driver's seat. They have worked the legislation with the Government of Canada. They are in full support, and yet the Conservatives want to stand in the way.
I just want to draw the attention of Canadians and maybe the attention of some of my newer colleagues in this place back to the history of the last Conservative government in the country, the Harper government.
The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time was a guy named Bill Casey, who was a Conservative. One will note that he withdrew from the Conservative Party, sat as an independent and then ultimately joined the Liberal Party. For those who might ask themselves why, it was because Harper did two things. The last Conservative government actually tried to amend the Atlantic accords to reduce the revenue available to our provinces, and Casey fundamentally disagreed and voted against it. He was then subsequently booted out of caucus.
Harper and the Conservative Party also said that Atlantic Canadians have a “culture of defeat”. Think about that for a second. The Conservative Party of Canada, in its current form, has told Atlantic Canadians that they have a culture of defeat. Here we have an opportunity with billions of dollars attached to it that can create good jobs and a clean energy future, and allow Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed the entire region to export clean energy across the world. That is extremely important. That does not sound like a culture of defeat to me. That sounds like progress. Guess what? The Conservatives are standing in the way of it. What would they say then? Would they say they know better than Atlantic Canadians? That is amazing to me.
We do our work here in the House. Canadians are going about living their lives every day. They are worried about getting by. They are taking their kids to sports tonight. They are going to see a loved one. I will make sure that I remind my constituents, indeed every Atlantic Canadian I can, that the Conservative Party has stood against progress in Atlantic Canada. Conservatives have stood against two elected governments, and they have not been willing to actually see them go forward.
That begs the question: What is the Conservative environmental plan? It is lacking, non-existent frankly. For the last two elections that I have been a part of, when I went door to door in my riding and my constituents raised the prospect of needing to do more on the environment and to be a part of the global solution, one of the things that was a constant was that they highlighted the fact that the Conservatives did not have an environmental plan. I see some disagreement, perhaps, on the opposition benches. We will see; time will tell. That is ironic because, of course, the Conservatives have disavowed carbon pricing but all ran on a price on carbon. Each of the 121 Conservative members in the House actually ran on that platform in order to be here.
In conclusion, I have a couple more points. We have to talk about indigenous reconciliation at the same time. I have the privilege of representing three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Annapolis Valley and Glooscap first nations. One of the best examples of how the potential offshore and the wind to hydrogen play in Atlantic Canada is the way in which companies have been working and partnering with indigenous communities, creating important revenue opportunities for those communities, important economic opportunities.
I think about companies like EverWind. I think about World Energy GH2 in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think about companies like Bear Head. There are tremendous opportunities. There is DP Energy and SBM, which are world-known companies in terms of their involvement. They want to invest in Atlantic Canada. They want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, on projects, but we have to get the legislation through. Every day that the Conservatives continue to delay hurts Canada's global competitiveness. We hear the Conservatives talk about competitiveness in other contexts, but I guess in clean energy and I guess for Atlantic Canada, that need not apply. Why not support the bill?
For fisheries, we have a plan to make sure that there is constant engagement and that turbines will not happen in crucial fishing zones without there being proper scientific belief in terms of what is possible and what is not. There are premiers who have helped to develop the legislation. The bill would not be opposing the premiers; it is actually something that would make a difference and that the premiers want.
The Conservatives suggest that the bill would be somehow a backdoor way for the government to stop oil and gas development, the same government that approved Bay du Nord and actually built the Trans Mountain pipeline. Now I will go completely in another way. Renewable energy is important, but we are the fourth-largest oil producing nation in the world. How many pipelines did the Conservatives build in their time? Zero.
Despite the distaste for the Prime Minister and the government that the Conservative opposition members may have, they should at least be applauding the pipeline because we have actually made sure there is a crucial piece of infrastructure to get our resources to market. We will do it on that side. We will also focus on this transition as well. We are focused on energy across the board, and the Conservatives want to stand in our way.
I look forward to questions. I know that the member from central Newfoundland is chomping at the bit and I cannot wait to be able to take his question and engage. Here we go.
3161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:14:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and I have never compared notes, but we went to the same law school. I am drawing on my experience as a proud graduate of the Dalhousie University school of law to say that the current government has completely bungled impact assessment and has bungled repairing the impact assessment law. He referenced it in his speech. Therefore, I want to put to him that we had extremely effective federal environmental assessment laws, starting in 1975, concretized in 1993 in a statute brought in by Brian Mulroney, and they were destroyed by Stephen Harper in the spring of 2012 in a budget implementation act.
The current Liberal government promised to repair the law to what it was before 2012, and instead, it continued with Harper's approach, which is why the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The designated project list approach was far too discretionary and untethered from the federal jurisdictional, clear guidance that existed under Mulroney.
I would ask my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants if he could exert his influence over the people who were not trained at law school, such as the Minister of the Environment, to fix the Impact Assessment Act, but not through this quick, dirty and flawed approach in the ways and means bill.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:16:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too have a law degree from Dalhousie University. It is a wonderful institution. When I was in law school, not too long ago, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands came and gave a presentation, so it is nice to be able to join her in this place now, debating the laws of the country.
The member referenced Brian Mulroney. I want to say a couple of things. He was a Progressive Conservative, and there was a moderate Conservative vision for what this country could be. I would encourage any member who sits in the Conservative Party to take inspiration from Mr. Mulroney and what he brought to this country.
The member is right about how Stephen Harper's approach was undermining credibility and the belief of Canadians in the due diligence of the process. We have sought to make sure there are proper channels in place to balance the really important need to drive major projects in this country, including those that help with decarbonization. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain elements of the government's approach were unconstitutional. That is exactly why the ways and means motion in the budget includes some measures that would try to address those particular points.
The last thing I would say is this. I know the hon. member across the way, and I tip my cap to her for her advocacy for environmental action. She knows the urgency of the work that needs to happen. Whether with respect to critical minerals or major projects to decarbonize, we need to make sure these projects can happen. We need to balance, of course, not only the environmental protections, but also the ability to action those projects that would help reduce emissions in this country and indeed globally. I think that is the balance the government is seeking to bring forward in this debate and in the budget ways and means motion.
321 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 5:20:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first, the Liberals have been woefully weak when it comes to actually making the investments around clean energy so we can do the transition. Look at the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. We can see that 1.5 million jobs have been created from President Joe Biden's investments in clean energy. When is the Canadian government going to step up on those kinds of investments?
Second, I found it a little rich to hear a Conservative colleague talking about scrutiny, when the Conservatives, during the dismal decade of the Harper regime, gave $116 billion in liquidity supports to banks. They gave $30 billion each and every year, $300 billion total, a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens through the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, and then, of course, massive subsidies to oil and gas CEOs.
I want to ask my colleague whether he finds it rich that Conservatives, after all of their fiscal mismanagement, are trying to give others lessons.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 5:21:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we always have to take things with a grain of salt when it comes to economic development. If my colleague wants to reflect on the Harper years, one needs only to take a look at the damage that was caused in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, for example, where hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost under Stephen Harper, not to mention the overall deficit in terms of international trade in many different ways, again under Stephen Harper.
In terms of the environment, I, along with many members of the House, recognize that there is a thing called sustainable development, a universal principle held by progressive-minded people. It means working and thinking about our environment and jobs, and about how we can make the transition to providing good quality, middle-class greener jobs into the future. I see that as a positive thing. That is the reason why I see investments in Volkswagen and Honda as a good thing, contrary to the member opposite. By the way, Doug Ford seems to agree, because he is putting up a lot of money too.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:24:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for those who were around an hour ago, I was trying to draw a comparison about who the leader of the Conservative Party was listening to. I do not want them to get overly sensitive this time around, but I am going to try this.
Prime ministers have what they call legal advisers, who are there to provide advice. Stephen Harper had a legal adviser, and his name was Ben Perrin. I am sure many members of the Conservative Party recall Ben Perrin. After all, he was the legal adviser.
I want to tell the House what the legal adviser to Stephen Harper had to say. According to Ben Perrin, “MMPs are a grave policy failure”, meaning they do not work. He also called them “cheap politics.” That is what he had to say about the type of legislation that is being proposed.
Can members imagine the Conservatives playing cheap politics on the issue of crime? I can. Actually, they are developing their crime bumper stickers now. They have been doing it for the last few months.
Ben Perrin further said that the leader of the Conservative Party's “idea may actually backfire, leading to more crime in the long term.” This is not me or the Liberals saying this; this is the former legal adviser to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
It raises the question of who the Conservative Party is actually listening to today, but in an attempt to keep more order in the chamber, I will not tell members who it is. Suffice it to say, there is a far right element.
Let me try to enlighten some members. It was not that long ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, that we actually had record-high numbers of automobile thefts in the province of Manitoba. It was a very serious issue. I was actually an MLA at the time. I had raised the issue, and we found that, on a per capita basis, no province even came close to Manitoba in terms of automobile thefts. In fact, we could double the number of automobiles that were being stolen in the province of Manitoba and, on a per capita basis, we still had more than any other jurisdiction.
We found that the best way to resolve the issue was to work with the different stakeholders. That meant the province at the time brought in MPI, Manitoba Public Insurance, and it worked with the federal government; we were very successful at dramatically decreasing automobile thefts. We are talking about thousands of vehicles.
I put it in that fashion because I ask myself what the government is doing. We are not waiting for provinces; we are actually taking a very proactive approach, in terms of having a summit, taking a look at all the different stakeholders and hearing what they have to say. We will find that there have been actions by the government to deal with this very important issue. There were pre-budget initiatives, and even things within the budget, that support law enforcement agencies, non-profits and the provincial governments, in terms of trying to deal with this issue.
We have to take a look at it. It is not necessarily from an individual, per se; even though it is an individual in the vehicle, it is often crime gang-related. That was the case in Winnipeg. We found out that it was like a gang initiation. They had to steal a certain number of vehicles, and we had serious issues with gang problems at the time. That was helping drive up the automobile theft in the province of Manitoba. It was relatively unique.
In Ontario, the number of stolen vehicles being exported through ports is a very serious concern. We are actually investing in Canada border control. I contrast that with what the previous government did, which was to make cuts in that area. I know some people might question that, but that is the reality, and we know that. We have been hearing that for years now.
At the end of the day, we are talking about tens of millions of dollars allocated through this particular budget, the very same budget that the Conservatives are committed to voting against. On the one hand, the Conservatives would bring in a policy that the former prime minister's legal adviser said would not work, and on the other hand, they are voting against budgetary measures to support reducing the number of automobiles being stolen.
I appreciate the fact that there are stakeholders out there who also need to step up, including the automobile industry. Given modern-day technology, there is a lot more that can be done to incorporate anti-theft protection into the make-up of the vehicle itself.
802 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 7:14:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I like the member, but quite frankly, I am concerned when he talks about what a future Conservative government will do.
We saw what the Conservatives did for veterans. They closed about 20 offices that provided services to veterans. People had to drive hundreds of kilometres to get any kind of service. The Conservatives cut services for veterans. They treated veterans with a total lack of respect. I have a lot of respect for the member, but quite frankly, we saw the contempt with which the Conservatives treated veterans under the Harper regime.
The Conservatives treated veterans terribly under the Harper regime. Can the member explain how the Conservatives will in any way treat veterans better if ever they take office?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
