SoVote

Mr. Jaime Battiste (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.)

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

Mr. Rick Perkins

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

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

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

Mr. Rick Perkins

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

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

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

Mr. Rick Perkins

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

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/6/23 12:52:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, let us just distinguish on the last point that was being made between who started a fire, whether it was a lightening strike or somebody who threw a cigarette butt out a window, and the fuel load in place that causes the wildfires. He knows this perfectly well because we have talked about this. We share many things, including a history in Nova Scotia. The month of May in Nova Scotia is historically wet and cold. One could not start a forest fire there if one tried most years for many years. However, year after year, recently, and very recently because of climate change and global warming, the month of May in Nova Scotia has been hot and dry. This year, for the first time, we had extensive wildfires because of climate change. Regardless of who lit the match that hit the fuel load, it was hot and dry and ready to catch fire because of climate change. As to the earlier points, the bill we are debating right now, Bill C-49, I am sure he will recall that it was our mutual friend, the late Pat Carney, who negotiated the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. The difference between tidal power and offshore wind is that offshore wind is a fully developed technology and ready to implement. We are still working to try to develop tidal power as it is not yet fully formed. It has not yet solved the threats to fisheries.

270 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Oct/6/23 12:53:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, our mutual friend, the late Hon. Pat Carney, did negotiate those deals, and from our perspective, I appreciate that the member thinks this was an unusual year. This was an El Niño year in North America, where we got less rain in the spring than we did last year or the year before. I expect, when we do not have an El Niño year again, that will change. With regard to the issue of where wind power generation goes, of course we believe in tidal power and wind power. That is why I spoke for a great deal in my speech about the only project that has ever worked, which was the tidal power by Sustainable Marine Energy, which the government shut down. It, without damage, continued to return power to the Nova Scotia power grid, and they did not get paid for it, yet the government used this as an excuse to shut it down. DFO had given it four approvals and would not give it the fifth. That approach to shutting down all energy projects, whether they be in oil and gas or on the renewable side of things, is the problem with the bill. It would put in place the terrible provisions of the IAA and Bill C-69 into this process.

221 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

Oct/6/23 12:54:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets is a very kind person. As the member for Sydney—Victoria stands in the House and lectures Conservatives on our record, I would not even dignify it with an answer or acknowledge him until he stands in the House to apologize for his past comments toward indigenous women, which I find offensive, and I think many Canadians find them offensive. I would still like to hear an apology in the House from the member for Sydney—Victoria. I would like to ask my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets a question. In British Columbia we have had a carbon tax for over a decade, yet we have seen increasing wildfires, incredible drought situations and increased emissions. Greenhouse gases have not gone down. How high does the carbon tax have to be before we see the end to the climate events we are seeing and stop punishing Canadians?

161 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Oct/6/23 12:56:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sydney—Victoria, with his past comments, speaks for himself and his attitude toward women. That it is tolerated and has been rewarded with a parliamentary secretary spot is just a mystery to me. That aside, on how high the carbon tax can go, I do not think there is any limit to how high the Liberals can put a tax, especially when it is ineffective. Their plan is to go to at least $270 a tonne. That means, in the short term, at least 61¢ a litre on gasoline, and in my riding, and in the hon. member's riding, there is no public transit. My constituents do not have public transit. They have to drive everywhere. They have to drive to grocery stores. They have to drive their kids to school. They have to drive to hockey games. They have to drive to see their family and parents. That is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and it is caused by a tax that has no impact on the actual reduction of climate emissions.

179 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Oct/6/23 12:57:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech with some compliments and then move on to the criticisms. This bill seeks to amend the 1986 agreement, which was not bad, because, even though the Supreme Court said that the federal government has jurisdiction over offshore issues, the federal government entered into an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador to work together in that regard. That is a good thing, and I want to point it out, because there are not many good things. At that time, wind energy did not exist. Bill C‑49 will tie the federal government to all parliaments affected once they have entered into the new agreement, which affects the management of offshore wind projects. This bill could pave the way to real action in the area of renewable energy for the east coast. It makes improvements, such as the joint management of renewable offshore energy resources and the option of cancelling seabed oil concessions. It also promotes relations with indigenous peoples and their active involvement in the use of renewable energy. Those were the compliments. Now, here are the criticisms. Bill C‑49 continues to maintain exploration and development mechanisms that lead to oil drilling. The government may have missed an opportunity here. It could have taken advantage of this opportunity to do something about that. I want to start by reiterating one thing. When Canada makes international commitments about the environment, protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change, and the whole world sees the political decisions that have been made, it seems to me that at some point, action should follow. An emergency requires immediate action. Even young children understand that word. Given that we are in a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis, every decision made should align with Canada's commitments to fight climate change. We shall see about that. In April 2019, the government announced a total ban on oil and gas work as well as mining, waste dumping and bottom trawling in all of Canada's marine protected areas. It was also urging other countries to do the same because, as we know, the government likes to lecture. It was telling other countries to do more to protect the environment. Marine refuges, however, were not included in that commitment. I like to say that words matter, and here is an example. Marine refuges were overlooked. A little later, in 2020, Canada introduced new regulations that exempted future drilling from environmental assessment. The government's intention was to accelerate underwater oil drilling, and this after having lectured other countries. The bill does not give more teeth to the regional assessments that, by the admission of the individuals in charge, are inadequate. Again, the government could have used Bill C‑49 to address that. I could talk about assessments at length because there are so many irregularities, but again the industry comes out ahead. There are no societal gains here. In November 2020, the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board agreed to provide Building Product of Canada, or BP Canada, access to 264,500 hectares of ocean in exchange for a commitment to do exploration work worth $27 million. They say one thing and do another. This area is essential to marine biodiversity. It contains coral and sponges that other marine species use as spawning grounds or nurseries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said so itself. Meanwhile, with his customary emotional delivery, the Prime Minister promised to reaffirm Canada's commitment to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025 and to reach 30% by 2030. While BP Canada is making its little deals with the board, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has already started watering down his discourse. Regarding offshore drilling projects, he said at a committee meeting that the regulation will guarantee that all drilling projects comply with the strict standards of environmental protection and that the regulation establishes a clear and efficient process for assessing exploratory drilling projects. In other words, the government supports such projects. Offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada. The lighting on the oil platforms and infrastructure is harmful to birds because it causes confusion about places for them to rest, find food and so on. The Liberal government is committing to marine conservation and claiming it is possible to accomplish that goal while promoting the development of the offshore oil industry. One can see why The Guardian and Oil Change International are saying that Canada is a climate hypocrite. I would like to remind members that the purpose of exploration is extraction and development. I want to briefly mention Bay du Nord. Many countries were shocked when the government made that announcement as it was preparing for the COP15 on biodiversity in Montreal. Perhaps that explains the comments of The Guardian and Oil Change International. Equinor, the company that spearheaded the project, was the one that decided not to move forward with it, at least for the time being. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change who approved the Bay du Nord project used to be a committed environmental activist. Regardless of the outcome of Bay du Nord, this first deep-water project, with the government's about-face, doublespeak, selective terminology and broken policy and climate commitments, Canada is being two-faced, acting like a good participant when, let us face it, under the changes set out in Bill C‑49 it is still quite likely that permits will be granted and offshore oil activities will be promoted. Just days after introducing Bill C‑49, the government announced new drilling permits to double offshore oil production. The Bloc Québécois believes that the devil is in the details. If the government wanted us to oppose this then it went about it the right way, in other words introduce a good bill and the next day announce more drilling. One might say it is sabotaging its own legislation. The government had an opportunity to show that it could let go of fossil fuel. There is still time for that. We are used to the greenwashing language that the Prime Minister has mastered. That said, legislation paving the way for renewable energy in this region of Canada would be good. I repeat: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is imperative. Just like western Canada, the Maritimes need a helping hand to do that. In both regions, the environment and biodiversity are under attack. Our caucus has serious doubts about the probity of the commitments set out in Bill C‑49. What better ruse could there be than to slip poison into an innocent-looking treat that everyone likes? We will be watchful.

1150 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/6/23 1:05:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-1

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to. When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.” We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?

151 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

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

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

136 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Oct/6/23 1:07:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was entirely too charitable to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, because I heard him say that this year was just an unusual year and we will go back to normal soon. What we have is an example of a Conservative front-bencher, who obviously enjoys the favour of the Conservative leader, denying climate change in this very chamber, denying the evidence of fires and denying the evidence of the floods that took place in Nova Scotia. I wonder if the member would like to revise her evaluation of the climate-denying Conservatives.

100 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Oct/6/23 1:07:54 p.m.
Watch

Before moving on to the answer, the hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

25 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Oct/6/23 1:08:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member who just spoke to provide what he is speaking about. I think he is reiterating a false narrative. There is no—

28 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Oct/6/23 1:08:16 p.m.
Watch

I must respectfully interrupt my hon. colleague. In the Speaker's opinion, the member for Calgary Centre's remarks are a point of debate in the House. He will have an opportunity to take part in the debate and ask his questions. Did I misunderstand? Does the hon. member for Calgary Centre want to clarify his remarks?

57 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Oct/6/23 1:08:52 p.m.
Watch

I interrupted, Mr. Speaker, because what the member was saying is a gross misstatement about those in the front row of this party. If the member is going to put that out there and is going to state it in Hansard, it had better show up, as opposed to being complete deceit to the House. Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to respect the rules of the House and check into the facts of what the member is stating.

79 words

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie)

Oct/6/23 1:09:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank my hon. colleague for his comments. After verifying with the table officer, this is a point of debate. The hon. member or his colleagues will have the opportunity to participate in the debate. Without further delay, the hon. member for Repentigny has the floor to answer the question.

50 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé

Oct/6/23 1:09:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois often finds that, when either the Conservatives or the government members open their mouths, all we hear are speeches from oil companies. When I think about Bill C‑49, what comes to mind is an image of oil wells with wind turbines on top them. The content of this bill looks a little bit like that. This bill could be worthwhile, but some of the decisions go completely against combatting climate change and keeping Canada's international commitments.

88 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 231