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
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 1:37:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the federal government is using this bill as environmental window dressing. The bill has nothing to do with the energy transition. The federal government could have been honest in its presentation of the bill, clearly indicating that what it wanted was continuity in the offshore energy sector. In this case, continuity refers to oil and gas projects.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that there will be no more new projects. We tried to make the federal government aware of the situation and encourage it, like Quebec, to say that there would be no more oil and gas development. That is what I am trying to explain to the parliamentary secretary. The federal government could have done that, since offshore activities fall under its jurisdiction.
However, the federal government is not as squeamish when it comes to the issue of caribou in Quebec. The Minister of Natural Resources has a lot to say about that. He knows very well that the delicate issue of the woodland caribou should be resolved in Quebec and that it could be a disaster for large numbers of small communities whose economies rely on the forestry industry. I would like him to be more conciliatory when it comes to the issue of caribou.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:26:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, every day that this radical Prime Minister dithers on the deadly experiment of legalizing hard drugs is a day that more people die. Six people a day are dying in British Columbia.
After nine years of this Prime Minister, Quebec is not immune to this crisis, which is affecting all regions of Canada. The Journal de Montréal reports that crack consumption is surging in Montreal and will increasingly start happening in public places.
Will the Prime Minister put an end to his extremist experiment in legalizing hard drugs today and say no to any possibility of expanding it to Quebec?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:27:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is not politicizing to talk about syringes on the ground, distressing situations and unacceptable behaviour a stone's throw from a school in Montreal. We now know that the Prime Minister's radical experiment to legalize hard drugs in British Columbia, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois, has been catastrophic and deadly.
The Bloc member for Joliette had this to say in the House: “The hope is that this pilot project will set a course”. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said that “the Bloc Québécois fully believes that it is a step in the right direction”.
Quebec has no interest in going down that road. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not follow the radical advice of the Bloc Québécois?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:28:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, La Presse reported today that CBC management is planning for closer ties between the English-language network and Radio-Canada.
Radio-Canada is not in crisis. CBC is in crisis. Closer ties will mean concessions made at the expense of Quebec culture and Quebec creators. Our cultural identity will be taken away and we will be assimilated into English Canada's identity. This is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Will the Prime Minister reassure francophones in Quebec and Canada that the government has no intention whatsoever of merging CBC and Radio-Canada?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:29:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for his question because we have the same concerns as all Canadians and especially all Quebeckers about the French language and Quebec culture.
I can assure all Canadians that French-language broadcasting will not be touched. That is a priority for us.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:30:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we share the concerns about the French language, francophone culture and Quebec culture in Canada. We will always work hard to support the French language, francophone culture in Canada and francophone Quebec culture. We will always support Radio‑Canada.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:42:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a historic motion:
...it denounces the refusal of the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada to uphold the principle of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions and to grant Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation...
This is the first time that the National Assembly has unanimously rebuked each of the federalist parties by name because all of them are working against Quebec.
When the government says it is working hand in hand, does it mean hand in hand with these parties against Quebec?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:43:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, going against the Bloc Québécois does not mean going against Quebec. On the contrary, we are working with Quebec on housing, seniors, young people, day care spaces and measures to ensure children go to school on a full stomach.
Bloc Québécois members oppose all that. They are doing the opposite of what they promised Quebeckers. They were elected on the promise that they would fight climate change and work for seniors and housing. However, they vote against all that. They voted against everything they promised Quebeckers. Shame on them.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:44:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec is historic. Canada's Liberals have been denounced by their Liberal allies in Quebec. The NDP has been denounced by Québec solidaire. The Conservatives have not been denounced by their ally Éric Duhaime because he has no members. Quebeckers do not vote Conservative. However, the Conservatives were also unanimously condemned by the National Assembly of Quebec.
All elected members in Quebec City see that all federalist members in Ottawa are working to undermine Quebeckers' ability to make their own societal choices.
Does the government realize the precedent it has set?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:45:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, whether it be in health care, housing, or other areas, in this budget, the federal government wants to dictate to Quebeckers how to run Quebec. By refusing to amend the budget, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, the three parties, have proven that they want to exert control over Quebec. However, the unanimous response from the Quebec National Assembly yesterday was clear: We, Quebeckers, always want to be masters in our own house.
Does the Minister of Finance realize that Quebeckers do not want the neighbouring country's elected officials to decide Quebeckers' priorities for them?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:46:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the priorities of the people in my riding is access to affordable quality dental care.
The great news is that, since yesterday, thousands of seniors in my riding, 300,000 seniors across Quebec and one million seniors across the country now have access to accessible and affordable quality dental care. For some, this is the first time in their lives that they have had this. That is great news for all Canadians. It is certainly great news for all Quebeckers.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:55:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister of Finance that 48% of Liberal voters think that their government is mismanaging public finances. That was in a Leger poll that came out recently. Worse still, the Bloc Québécois is pretending to be critical and to defend the interests of Quebec. It voted for $500 billion in additional budgetary allocations. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is certainly costly. It is the party that is propping up this country's fiscal disaster.
When will the Prime Minister, supported by the Bloc Québécois, stop his out-of-control spending and give Quebeckers a break?
114 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 4:11:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let me be crystal clear. The purpose of this bill is to create a regulatory regime for the wind energy sector in Atlantic Canada. This is not for Quebec; it is for the Atlantic, for coastal Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill is very important—crucial, even—to the development of this industry. It is also crucial to achieving our environmental goals and having a green economy.
Yes, I understand the concerns people might have. I also understand the importance of ensuring that the fisheries sector is part of the conversation. We are still consulting with that sector.
This bill is crucial for our region and for Canada's clean energy sector. The Bloc Québécois is usually in favour of this industry and proposals like this one, but it is going to vote against this bill in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, I am very disappointed because this bill is very important for Atlantic Canada and the future of clean energy.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for voting for my bill, Bill C-251, to bring in a pinniped management solution, which the NDP-Liberals all voted against.
I feel sorry for the Bloc members, with all the work they put into their amendments just for them to be all shot down, as were ours. I also feel sorry for the people in this country and from Quebec who think that we are going to have a dollar to buy something with. Chief economists say, without the petroleum industry in Canada, Canada would have a 37¢ dollar against the U.S. dollar. What would that do to inflation? What would that do to buying power? What would that do to the price of groceries?
We would be destroying the number one export that Canada has. We would destroy that industry, destroy our currency, destroy families and pocketbooks and wipe everything out here.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Canada exported so much oil and gas that the value of the Canadian dollar rose. Canada's manufacturing heartland in Quebec and Ontario was decimated as a result. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost. This has been documented by leading economists here at the University of Ottawa and elsewhere. When Canada exports too much oil, it kills the manufacturing industry in Quebec and Ontario. This is called Dutch disease, and it is taught in economics 101.
My colleague expressed nostalgia for the days when oil exports killed manufacturing jobs in Quebec. Would he like to say that again so Quebeckers can hear him?
I am not sure I understood correctly.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from la belle province. He is a great guy.
There were thousands of manufacturing jobs in Quebec that were shipping out components. The buses that used to bring people from Fort McMurray out to the oil sands were all produced in Quebec, providing jobs in Quebec. There were also royalties from the petroleum industry. Who gets the transfer payments that result from the offshore oil and gas industry, from the oil sands and from Canada's natural gas industry?
86 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
