44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 6, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I was just informed today that my vote yesterday on Bill S-12, after receiving confirmation from IT that I voted yea, was not recorded. I have contacted IT and they are looking into the matter, and I would like my vote to count.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:18:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are inclined to be supportive of this, but it would have been really nice if the member had reached out to us to let us know in advance that she would be doing this, requesting what I imagine is unanimous consent to have that recorded. Perhaps she could endeavour to do that, so that when this UC motion, which is obviously important to the member, comes up, we can treat it very seriously. Maybe she could just hold off and have her whip's office talk to our whip's office so we can coordinate and bring this up at the next opportunity.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what I understood from my colleague is that she wants this checked. It is not a request for consent. It is about checking with IT, because she has confirmed that her vote was not properly recorded. I think her request is more along those lines.
I invite the Chair to reflect on this and take it under advisement.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:19:57 p.m.
- Watch
Quickly, let us go back to the history of this. Yesterday, after the vote, the system did not log the vote for the hon. member for King—Vaughan. Therefore, it put a little tag on her vote. It was brought up by the Bloc members that the picture was not there. We did make the call that day as to whether the hon. member was online, and she was not online to be able to vote one way or another. Therefore, I would probably suggest that we have her people talk to your people, and then she can come back and maybe do a unanimous consent motion just to make it as clean as we possibly can. That is good.
The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:20:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, I want to bring to the attention of the House that yesterday, the Conservative deputy whip, after the vote, opposed members' being able to register their vote in this fashion. It was the Conservative deputy whip who opposed others, so I believe the members of the Conservative Party should have a conversation.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:21:14 p.m.
- Watch
Again, I will say that these people should talk to those people and then come back to the floor, rather than taking more time with this issue as we go.
I apologize to the member for King—Vaughan, but some chat has to take place in the back stage.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:21:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports from the delegation of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF.
The first concerns its participation at the meeting of the Bureau of the APF held in France from January 28 to February 2, 2023. The second concerns its participation in a parliamentary mission to the United Nations held in New York on March 14 and 15, 2023. The last report concerns its participation at the meeting of the APF Political Committee and the Working Group on Reforming the APF Constitution, held in France, from April 17 to 20, 2023.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:22:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present four more petitions from concerned citizens of North Okanagan—Shuswap. These petitions call on the Minister of Health to work with the national health products industry and adjust Health Canada's cost recovery rates to accurately reflect the size and scope of the industry, implementing changes only once the self-care framework is adjusted.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:23:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition that was put forward by the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment.
As we all know, the effects of climate change are upon us, which are costly to the environment, but there are also costs to human health. The organization notes that one in seven, or up to 34,000, premature deaths in Canada is related to fossil fuel air pollution. This petition calls for a ban on all advertising related to fossil fuels in Canada.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to present a petition of great concern to the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The petitioners put to the House that indigenous peoples have, from time immemorial, shown stewardship for the lands and waters of what we now call Canada, and that indigenous knowledge is an important, critical component in responding to the climate crisis. They also point out that the lands and territories of first nations are where the old-growth forests, the original forests, are still found, but in dwindling percentage of the original forest cover.
Therefore, in pointing out that the long-term needs of responding to the climate crisis include protecting old-growth forests, the petitioners call on the federal government to work with indigenous governments and indigenous peoples for the shared stewardship and conservation, and the immediate halt of all logging of ancient forests in this country for climate biodiversity and for indigenous reconciliation.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:24:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by many in regard to our growing retiree population in Canada. Retirees are increasingly becoming the target of fraud, given that they have built up wealth over a lifetime to help them support their retirement years, and are vulnerable due to the lack of controls and protections through the transmission of money within the Canadian banking system.
The petitioners are calling for us to undertake a serious and comprehensive review of the current transit system of Canadian citizens' money in this country, with the aim of putting more stringent procedures, protocols and safeguards in place to protect seniors in particular from losing their lifetime savings and wealth through fraud.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:25:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition that is fairly timely, from petitioners who call for the Government of Canada to follow through on the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The petitioners note that the Government of Canada has followed through on only a very small fraction of those calls to action since they were released in 2015.
The petitioners go on to note several of particular importance to them. I will call out just one: call to action number 21, recommending providing “sustainable funding for existing and new [indigenous] healing centres”.
The petitioners go on to call on the Government of Canada to follow through on all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:26:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the mandates of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord. The primary goal of this legislation is to provide for a new approval process for the development of oil and gas projects off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the mandates of these two boards.
When second reading of this bill started a week or so ago, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada thought they would use their speeches and the speeches of the official opposition to try to make this about some sort of strange “If one is not with the Liberals on Bill C-49, then one must be against Atlantic Canada” idea.
In fact, they came out of their caucus meeting and actually said that they think they could distract people after giving the Prime Minister all of this bad news about what we have been hearing in the summer. They thought they would come out of the caucus meeting and try to hold a shiny thing over here to see if their constituents would be distracted. The distraction attempt for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was from the Liberals' failure to address the primary concern they heard over the summer from their communities: the cost of living.
There have been 24 times that all of them, except for one now, have voted to increase the cost of everything. One can almost hear the Liberals in their meetings saying that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, people might forget that their home heating oil bills have more than doubled under the NDP-Liberals; that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, all the complaints they heard from people in the summer, of having lost faith in this government and forcing the cost of everything up, might be forgotten; and that, maybe, all of the damage they have done to themselves and their constituents will be forgotten.
Just so everyone knows, it is tied to Bill C-49 because they were using that as a bright, shiny object to try to distract from those failures. What are those failures they are using Bill C-49 to try to distract from? I think they are actually best captured by the words of the member for Avalon. For those watching, the member for Avalon is a Liberal member of Parliament from Newfoundland. On the show Power and Politics, he said this, and let me start with this quote, as I think it is a great one: “I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.” That affordability crisis, of course, is that which Conservatives have been talking about for the last year, and of which Liberal members of Parliament live in denial.
The Liberal member for Avalon goes on, on the program, to say, “I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit”, with “them” being his constituents. He says, “Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, ‘You know, we're losing faith in the Liberal Party.’ I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.” The Liberal member for Avalon then goes on to say, “They can't afford to heat their homes, and that's hard to hear from, especially, seniors who live alone and tell me they go around their house in the spring and wintertime with a blanket wrapped around them, because they can't afford the home heating fuel. They can't afford to buy beef or chicken.” We have been telling the Liberals that, yet they are trying to use Bill C-49 as a distraction from the day-to-day challenges they have caused Canadians.
The member for Avalon obviously had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance around this time. He said, “I told the minister, when she came to Newfoundland, about this, and she told me, she said, ‘I'm going to correct this. You're right.’” She actually said she is going to correct it. We are still waiting. Not only do they break promises to Canadians; they also break promises to their own backbenchers.
The Liberal member for Avalon goes on to say, “We can't keep adding on to expenses, and David,” which is the name of the host, “you know that everything in our province comes in by boat and truck. They burn fuel. Lots of it. That's the cost to bring it in, and it's going to be added to every item that gets on a store shelf somewhere.”
That is punishing anybody who goes to buy something, whether it is a chocolate bar or a tin of milk. It is anything. A piece of two-by-four will go up, which will make homes more expensive to build. I think our leader has been saying that for a year, and there has been nothing but deaf ears on the other side, except for one fellow who found religion after talking to his constituents for three months in the summer.
The same Liberal member went onto say, “I think they,” being the Liberals, “will lose seats not just in Newfoundland, not just in Atlantic Canada, but indeed right across the country if they don't get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. It is interesting that he is calling his own party “they” as if he is not part of them anymore and had not voted 23 times before this for the carbon tax. Now, on the 24th time, he has changed his mind and flip-flopped. It is unusual for a Liberal to flip-flop.
He said “get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. This one is hitting home to everybody I speak to and it is a grassroots issue. If an election were called today, I am not sure the Liberal Party would actually form the government. I am pretty sure that would not happen if an election were held today, and they would not be in government.
The hurt and pain that has been caused by the Liberals out there, because of their inflationary deficits and carbon tax, is causing a great deal of hardship that is not recognized by 157 Liberal members, and their cohorts in the NDP who support all of this, but the 158th member has finally got it. Maybe it will take another two years for the other Liberals to get it.
This is the counter to the bright, shiny distraction the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-49. They are trying to make some crazy accusations about who supports Atlantic Canadians. Apparently, according to the member for Avalon, Liberals do not support Atlantic Canadians. He goes on to say, “And I know the government is pushing people to switch over to heat pumps.” We hear that all the time, including today from the member for Central Nova. He says, “Many homes, especially the older homes, are not designed for that. They are not built to sustain the heat from a heat pump, so I don't think it works.”
Quite frankly, to show how out of touch the member for Central Nova is with his bright, shiny $10,000 heat pumps that he is pushing for all the companies that he knows and likes in Nova Scotia, the fact is if someone is living on CPP, disability or a fixed income, they do not have $10,000 for a heat pump.
Apparently, in the golden world the Liberals live in with $200,000 vacations for the Prime Minister and the fancy world the member for Central Nova lives in with his chauffeured car as a minister, he thinks people on CPP, OAS and GIS can afford $10,000 out of their cash flow for a heat pump. The Liberals' disconnection from reality knows no bounds.
Finally, in that interview, in response to the issue of the messenger, the messenger being the Minister of Environment who believes orange is a very nice colour to wear, the member for Avalon said, “No, he is not”, meaning he is not the right messenger. “No, he's not, and because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and his whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”
The member from Atlantic Canada's request was that they actually increase the payments to people so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which they claim, would cost more out of the treasury. The solution for cancer was to give us more cancer. It was not to say that they were going to get at the root of the disease, and the root of the disease, the cause of this inflation, is the carbon tax. That is what they should be getting rid of.
Bill C-49, which they are trying to use as a distraction from this reality, includes a process to review renewable energy projects in the ocean. I can inform this House that while the NDP-Liberal government claims to support renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada, the track record says that it actually does not do that. Over the decades, we have been trying in Nova Scotia to harness the enormous power of the Bay of Fundy tides to generate clean renewable electricity. There have been about half a dozen projects and hundreds of millions of private-sector dollars spent trying to figure out how to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. All but one project have failed. These are very large turbines. The projects that failed had these large turbines built and put on the floor of the Bay of Fundy. These turbines are about five storeys high.
For those members who do not know, the Bay of Fundy rises and falls every day by 52 feet. Twice each day, 160 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy, which is more than the combined river flows of the world. The Bay of Fundy's tides transform the shorelines and tidal flats and expose the sea bottom as they flood into the bay and its harbours and estuaries. It is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's GDP and create up to 22,000 jobs. That is almost as many people as work in our number-one industry, which is the fishery.
Besides the money, how big is that in terms of energy? Three hundred megawatts of tidal energy can power a quarter of all Nova Scotia homes. That is just a fraction of the Bay of Fundy's 2,500-megawatt potential. That means Nova Scotia could become a net exporter of clean renewable tidal power.
However, how are we doing on that? With respect to every project, as I said, that has had these turbines placed on the bottom of the ocean floor, within about 48 hours they failed. The power of the tides had blown the turbines apart. However, people at an innovative company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a different idea: What if we floated those turbines on the top of the water instead of sinking them to the ocean floor? Guess what: It worked. The first project to consistently put power into Nova Scotia's power grid and to be paid for that power by Nova Scotia Power was successful. They were the first turbines not to be destroyed by the power of the Bay of Fundy tides.
One would think that the NDP-Liberal government would be thrilled and that the approval of such a successful green renewable-energy project would be fast-tracked, but that is not what happened. The Atlantic Liberals had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to extend the permit for further piloting of the project. They used DFO to kill the project. That is important to Bill C-49 because of the power it would give DFO over all energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Those turbines are now out of the water. They are disassembled, the technology is shelved and the company is bankrupt. I say thanks to Atlantic Liberals and their commitment to renewable energy from our oceans. They talk the talk, but walk away when it comes time to move forward. It is typical of these Liberals. It is all about the input, without any results.
Therefore, this bill is not about approving projects in renewable ocean energy and oil and gas development to get the world off coal and dirty dictator oil. No, it would formalize a process designed to make sure these projects never see the light of day. What the NDP-Liberals have done here in this bill is put more gatekeepers in place to stop energy project development in Atlantic Canada. They imported four sections from the disastrous Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, into Bill C-49. With Bill C-69, the NDP-Liberals had said that more projects would get approved when they approved that. How many have been approved? There have been none. How many have been proposed? There have been none. It magically drove all capital out of Canada for energy projects.
Now, Bill C-49 would bring that process and that incredible success rate to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy projects. It would impose the same process, and imposing the same process would yield the same result. This bill would triple the current timelines for approval of offshore energy projects. Currently, a decision by the offshore regulatory board has 30 days for cabinet to agree or disagree. The Liberals would extend that in this bill.
Sections 28 and 137 give the federal cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling and renewable energy projects and also give the Minister of Fisheries a veto to propose developments in areas that the minister said that there may be a time in the future when there might be a marine protected area, MPA. It is not that there is a marine protected area, but maybe someday, if the minister thinks there might be one, and so, no, we cannot go there. It is sort of like Whac-a-Mole, which is what DFO has been doing on land with the rivers for any energy projects, and using the passage of one shrivelled up river as a reason to stop a project. Now, that same power would be given to DFO.
Why is that possible? An MPA is a part in the ocean. Fish swim and do not know the boundaries of the parts. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a few years ago met with the fishing groups in Nova Scotia and, in effect, said, “We're going to shut down 30% of the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia using MPAs. Work with us and you can pick which fisheries we shut down. Don't work with us, and we'll pick what is on.” The department uses its excessive power for other political purposes, and that is being imposed in the bill.
The bill brings the inefficiencies of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act into the bill as well. It adds sections 61, 62, 169 and 170 of the IAA where the federal minister has the power to impose conditions on authorizations. It also invokes section 64 of the IAA, which allows a federal minister to interfere in a project if they think it is in the public interest and create any condition, without limit, they think is necessary regardless of what the regulator decides.
Adding these Bill C-69 provisions to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy process extends the process through unlimited federal delays at any time, but at a minimum it is going to be over 1,600 days, which is four and a half years. That is the process that Bill C-69 sets out. It is a minimum of four and a half years for the approval of any project. That really efficient process, which has led to no projects being approved in western Canada, is now being imposed on Atlantic Canada. It is a recipe to end all our offshore energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
There are no provisions in the bill that require commercial fishing communities to be at the table when all of these projects are being considered. There has been no consultation with the fishing industry about these projects. Why is that important? It is because, in Atlantic Canada, that is our largest industry. To not require their involvement when most of these projects impact their ability to earn a living is a betrayal by Atlantic Canada MPs to the critically important industry they supposedly represent as members of Parliament and to the tens of thousands of people who work in it.
Finally, the current Atlantic accord treats Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently. The Nova Scotia government has the ability to designate areas under provincial jurisdiction as energy projects within the bays of a province, or the “jaws of the land” as it is called. However, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have that power. I am shocked, frankly, and they should really give their heads a shake, a favourite saying of one of the MPs over there. Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MPs are okay with Nova Scotia having authorities that the Newfoundland and Labrador government does not. What else would we expect from these silent Liberals? Well, they are silent except for the member for Avalon who apparently is not comfortable in his own caucus any more.
It is time for Atlantic Liberals to get their heads out of the sand. It is time for them to speak up and recognize that the bill before us does for Atlantic energy projects what Bill C-69 did for energy projects in western Canada. Atlantic Liberal MPs need to join us in fixing these issues in committee when we propose solid and thoughtful amendments to ensure that projects get done and not stopped by Liberal gatekeepers.
It is also time for Atlantic Liberal MPs to stop voting with the NDP-Liberal government to increase the cost of everything with the carbon tax. It is about time they do that. Well, this week, they voted once again to impose a quadrupling of taxes on their own constituents. If they truly care about the economy, they will speak up for their region and axe the carbon tax and they will amend this bad bill so that projects can actually get approved.
3233 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:47:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the Conservative member from the Atlantic continue to stand up and oppose good, clean jobs in Nova Scotia.
However, over the past two years, we have seen hurricanes that cost billions in damage, and fires in the member's riding that cost millions in damage. We have seen floods that have taken people's lives. Yet, the member seems to be saying that there is nothing to see here.
I have two questions for the member. First of all, does he agree with the provincial premier of Nova Scotia who said, “Climate change is real”, it is obvious, or will that member continue to bury his head in the sand? How many more states of emergency do we need in Nova Scotia before that member agrees that climate change is real and it is time to act?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:47:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a little ironic coming from that member, who has voted 24 times to increase the cost of everything for all of his constituents.
On the issue of storms, we have had multiple storms every decade since the 1700s. He should look up the history. Yes, I had fires, man-made fires, that were started in my riding that were not started by climate change. They were started by individuals.
Perhaps he would like to explain to me why he disagrees with his colleague from Avalon and with the commitment from the minister of fisheries through the member that said she should correct the problem to make sure it is right. Will he stand up and agree with the Minister of Finance and the member for Avalon that the carbon tax needs to be fixed as it is hurting people in Atlantic Canada?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:48:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about diseases and cancer in his speech. I would like to talk to him about that. Right now pollution is causing more cancer and more respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. The increase in pollution is also causing kidney problems. People are malnourished because of lower crop yields. All insect-borne diseases are on the rise.
Why then does the official opposition always put its foot on the brake when it comes to fighting pollution?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:49:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we believe pollution should be fought. We believe that that should be through technology, not through taxes that do not work.
The carbon tax has had zero impact in this country on the rate of carbon emissions. In fact, every year under the government, except for when it shut the entire economy down during COVID, carbon emissions have gone up. There is such a lack of knowledge about what is going on in the world. If we were at net-zero today, China would make that up in 56 days with its plan on expansion of coal plants, yet the government opposes us getting liquified natural gas to China so that the real emissions, a third of the world's emissions, could be reduced.
I would like to ask the members opposite why they hate reducing the coal production of China so much?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:50:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we were in the House, and the member brought up the fact that wildfires in Canada were man-made and that storms have been hitting his region for hundreds of years, and I was shocked. The next day I was in Montreal at a climate march with young people who were asking for real action on climate change in this country. The member just double downed on that in his response to my Liberal colleague.
I have a serious question for him. Does he believe that climate change is real? Does he stand in the House and claim that climate change is not a factor in the hurricanes hitting his community, in the wildfires ravaging our communities and in the massive costs that are associated with that? Does he believe in climate change? Does he think it is real?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 12:51:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, here is another example of a Liberal-NDP coalition member who does not listen, does not listen to constituents and does not listen to what anyone in the House says. I have said many times, as has our leader and every other member, that of course climate change is real. However, the tax does not do anything to change that.
Leave it to a member of that costly coalition to not listen to what I said, which was that the fires in my riding were started by individuals. They were not started by climate change. She forgot those facts because they are inconvenient for her.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
