44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 6, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:10:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleagues, Conservatives believe in climate change. We just do not believe that this carbon tax is doing anything to fight the climate crisis we are facing. It is punishing Canadians.
If the Liberals do not want to believe me, perhaps they will believe a Liberal MP from Newfoundland, the member for Avalon, who stood up, finally, and said:
I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “We're losing faith in the Liberal Party.”
...They can’t afford to heat their homes and that’s hard to hear from especially seniors who live alone and tell me that they go around their house in the spring and winter time with a blanket wrapped around them....
Would our hon. colleague please comment on that? A Liberal MP is finally standing up and saying the carbon tax is punishing Canadians.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:11:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are back to debating the carbon tax. I would just like to remind everyone that it does not apply in Quebec.
In fact, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was a minister in Jean Charest's Quebec government when the carbon exchange was created. She knows full well that it does not apply in Quebec.
I guess the member does not have enough influence in her caucus.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair today.
I appreciate having the chance to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-49. I would like to mention that as I deliver my comments I do so on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.
I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the other side likes to downplay and ignore climate change. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I can tell members that my constituents have faced some of the worst impacts of fires and floods, which have been exacerbated by climate change. From winter storms taking down power lines in Quebec to storms battering our coasts, the fact is that the climate crisis is a serious issue that requires serious responses. Today, we are here to talk about a plan to help expand job-creating climate action in Atlantic Canada, which is certainly a region that has seen no shortage of climate impacts.
Let us take Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia’s workers and their families have been through not one, not two, but three climate disasters in the last 13 months: hurricane Fiona, the wildfires in the Halifax Regional Municipality and Shelburne County, and the flash flooding that tragically led to the deaths of four Nova Scotians, including three children. It is time to stand behind the people of Nova Scotia and all of Atlantic Canada as we move forward with opportunities that will support the fight against climate change and benefit the region’s long-term economic future.
Developing the offshore renewable energy industry should be a priority for all members of Parliament, which is precisely why I am here today as a member of Parliament from British Columbia. Enabling the offshore renewables industry to move forward will not only help the people who live and work in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but also help Canada as a whole in the effort to do the following: help reduce emissions and meet emissions targets; create a clean, reliable and affordable grid; create good-paying sustainable jobs; enhance Canada's ability to compete in the global low-carbon economy across all sectors; and, further grow our economy today.
It is clear that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforces are ready to move forward with these offshore opportunities. The citizens of these provinces have the skills we need, and they bring generations of experience in a range of marine industries to the table. Like British Columbians, our east coast colleagues are talented in other areas that are expected to benefit the offshore renewable energy industry, including shipbuilding, aquaculture, defence, research and ocean technology.
My Atlantic colleagues have been clear when they have spoken in this chamber. These provinces, and the livelihoods of all who call them home, have been shaped by the sea, providing rich maritime heritage and a passion for the environment, both of which make offshore wind and other renewable energy projects a natural fit for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Of course, they also benefit from the geography and energy context that makes these projects so attractive. Nova Scotia’s current energy mix means that affordable and reliable offshore wind power will support lowering prices for ratepayers, and as Newfoundland and Labrador uses its hydro capacity to support the electrification of buildings, industry and transportation, more and more power will be needed in the future. This is true across the country, yet the offshore potential of Atlantic Canada is one of the greatest on earth. Unlocking this potential is a critical part of achieving our commitments to the global fight against climate change.
Members on the other side like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the climate crisis, as we see time and again in this place. Our side knows that ambitious action provides us with an opportunity to show the world that Canada is a reliable partner and leader in solving the great challenge of our era in a manner that supports the creation of sustainable jobs. To ensure we honour our commitments to Canadians and the world, and to ensure our economy does not surrender opportunity to our competitors as the rest of the world races towards net zero, we need to move quickly. That urgency brings us to the business before us today, and our provincial counterparts agree that we must move quickly.
Nova Scotia, for instance, has stated that coal-fired power plants are going to become a thing of the past by 2030, and that 80% of the province’s power will, by then, come from clean energy. That is only six years away. Nova Scotia’s Progressive Conservative government and citizens are asking for this House to get this bill passed so they can start building the renewable energy they need.
Atlantic Canadians, in particular, are calling on the Conservative Party to end its campaign of climate action obstruction and join us in passing this bill. Everyone is asking the Conservative Party to stop blocking jobs, investments and the renewable energy that will power their homes and businesses. The question is whether or not the leader of the Conservative Party will take his head out of the sand and heed this call.
Make no mistake. We will advance this legislation and deliver for Atlantic Canada either way. Doing so makes sense from both an environmental and economic perspective.
The potential for job creation and environmental benefits in renewable energy is so strong in Nova Scotia that the provincial government has already made several significant moves toward making offshore renewable energy projects a reality in preparation for this bill’s passing. Nova Scotia has joined the federal government in carrying out the regional assessment on offshore wind that is currently under way. Right now, the regional assessment committee is hosting public open houses to provide information on the process itself and get feedback on potential project locations.
Nova Scotia also released the first module of their offshore wind road map in June, which clearly delineates its vision for offshore wind energy and the regulatory pathway and timelines for project development. The road map provides certainty for businesses looking to invest, as well as giving a line of sight on what is coming for stakeholders, indigenous groups and other interested parties. The road map also outlines the seabed leasing opportunities, noting that access to seabed rights that are solely under the province’s jurisdiction could be available for commercial projects as early as next year.
For this to happen, Bill C-49 needs to pass quickly through this chamber. I again encourage my Conservative colleagues to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada, as well as both the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. I encourage them to reverse their thoughtless and ideological position and vote in favour of this common-sense bill. Bill C-49 affords the House the opportunity to deliver good sustainable jobs, good renewable energy projects and major economic opportunities for all while combatting climate change.
The two boards, the C-NLOPB and the CNSOPB, which has held the provinces’ offshore energy industry accountable for many years, are the natural choice to take on an expanded mandate for the regulation of the provinces’ offshore energy projects. It is a perfect fit. The offshore board already ensures that licensed project operators adhere to offshore regulations. It engages and consults with stakeholders, indigenous groups and the public to get feedback on potential and existing projects. It has years of experience in offshore safety and environmental protection and holds operators to account through the boards’ comprehensive compliance and enforcement activities.
The boards are also an excellent collaborator. They have put several agreements and memoranda of understanding in place with other organizations and agencies to make it easier for them to share information, expertise and resources with each other and coordinate their initiatives. This includes agreements with the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canada Energy Regulator, Natural Resources Canada, the Transportation Safety Board and more. With these many agreements already in place, the offshore boards are a clear and logical choice for overseeing the development of offshore wind projects, as well as other renewable energy projects off the shores of Nova Scotia.
Economically, this bill makes good financial sense. We have heard that it is expected that as much as $1 trillion will be invested in offshore wind globally by 2040. That investment is already starting to flow to offshore markets around the world. This is why it is so urgent that the Conservatives end their opposition to these jobs and investments so that all members of Parliament can come together to get Bill C-49 passed.
We need to seize this massive economic opportunity, not just for Atlantic Canada but for all of Canada. This bill is key to ensuring that our country is a leader in the global race to net-zero. All members of all parties of all regions should not delay this bill any further, or else we will throw away the opportunity to attract investment, the opportunity to build a world-class offshore wind industry and the opportunity to create the thousands and thousands of jobs associated with it.
Bill C-49 makes sense for Atlantic Canada’s workforce, and Canada more broadly. When Canada builds major new industries, Canadians from across the country contribute and benefit. The benefits of this economic activity help to spur waves of labour development, and that is critical to the economic well-being of Canada as a whole, along with the restoration of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.
The world needs Canadian clean energy and technologies in order to advance the fight against climate change and access long-term energy security. When Chancellor Scholz came to Newfoundland and Labrador last summer, he made it clear that Germany is looking to buy clean Canadian hydrogen made from offshore wind.
I am happy to take questions about Bill C-49, a very important piece of legislation.
1719 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:22:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City indicated that he stands behind the people of Atlantic Canada. Is he also prepared to say that he stands behind his colleague from Avalon, who represents those people in the House, when he answered a question last night?
Last night, he was asked if the Minister of Environment was “the right messenger for that part of the country on this”. The member responded, “No, he's not, because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and this whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it all overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”
Will the member stand with his colleague on behalf of the people in Canada who are struggling under the carbon tax system? Will they support us in removing it from the backs of Canadians?
174 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:23:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a very unfortunate situation that we have the official opposition still denying that climate change is upon us.
We need to take action. There is a cost to not dealing with climate—
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:23:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in no way could the question I just asked the member be interpreted as to say that I do not support climate change and the need for Canadians to—
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/6/23 1:23:48 p.m.
- Watch
That is not a point of order, but it is a good point, nonetheless.
The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
