SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/16/23 11:59:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would suggest that we suspend until Government Orders.

16 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 11:59:55 a.m.
Watch

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

10 words

Hon. Karina Gould (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:03:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

moved: That, in relation to 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, not more that one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

132 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 12:04:20 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question-and-answer period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has an idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for La Prairie.

71 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Oct/16/23 12:05:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the government, which already has a rather light legislative agenda, is once again showing a complete lack of respect for democracy by imposing time allocation. This bill has been debated for only eight hours, last Tuesday and Friday. There has been eight hours of debate. Where is the urgency? Clearly, the NDP is going to support the time allocation for the 32nd time. Why is the NDP supporting the Liberals so strongly? It is for an extremely flawed dental insurance program—probably the most flawed in history—and a very dubious promise for pharmacare. The NDP is being submissive to the Liberals. It is being submissive to the party that subsidizes fossil fuel energy. Polls show that the NDP is paying dearly for being so submissive. My question is simple: Are the Liberals pleased to have a friend as docile as the NDP?

147 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:06:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we have discussed this bill at length. We want to ensure that the Standing Committee on Natural Resources can have the necessary conversations. It is important to refer this bill to the committee.

35 words

All Topics

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Oct/16/23 12:07:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, once again we are seeing the Liberals shutting down debate, something they said they would never do. Here, they are doing it again and on a bill that is worth debating. They are talking about taking the oil and gas board in the Atlantic area and making it responsible as a regulatory board for all electric and other technologies, which it has no experience in. Really, this is something we cannot leave to committee. We need to have voices heard up front so that we can get a fulsome debate on it, but once again, they are ramming things through the House with the help from the NDP. I am not sure why NDP members are still supporting the Liberals. They have gotten nothing they asked for, and they had an opportunity at their convention to say that they did not get pharmacare and dental care is a vague promise for 2025, after the next election. They should just give it up and quit propping up a government that continually shuts down debate. Can the member opposite explain why they do not want to hear fulsome debate?

189 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:08:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we have debated this bill on a number of occasions at second reading, and we will debate it again this afternoon. It is important that this bill move to committee where it can be thoroughly examined and MPs can hear from experts on this bill. It is extremely important that we move expeditiously to capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that are associated with offshore wind. Public Policy Forum released a report yesterday that showed just how important this is for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage my hon. colleague to perhaps have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, who has worked collaboratively on this and wants to see it move quickly.

123 words

All Topics

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP)

Oct/16/23 12:08:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, right now, we are facing a huge climate crisis, and we need to move quickly. This is about moving the bill onto committee. We know that the Conservative leadership of Nova Scotia wants to move aggressively in having more of a power supply from offshore wind power. I would ask the member why he thinks the Conservatives are blocking this.

62 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:09:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a very good question. I have to say that I was astonished the Conservative opposition would be in opposition to a bill that was developed with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is about enabling new economic opportunities and good jobs for the people who live in those provinces. It is part of the ongoing transition with respect to energy around the world. It is an opportunity not just about electricity, but also about hydrogen and helping our friends in Europe. It is astonishing to me that the MPs who come from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, are opposing this bill.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Oct/16/23 12:10:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to see that there is a motion for closure today because we are in a global race to help drive Canada's offshore future and Canada's clean energy future. I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues for not getting on board. Ultimately, we will have a vote on this, and they will be able to lay out their position and rationale on why they are against it, but we are in a global race right now. Every day matters. If we had not moved for closure, the Conservatives would still be here trying to debate the talking points from the leader of the official opposition's office. This is the challenge. Can the minister highlight to the House how important this bill is for the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the clean energy industry? The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, this legislation can move forward because it is a joint agreement between federal and provincial authorities. Notwithstanding what the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, which was that there is no experience, this is exactly how the Atlantic accords have operated for almost 40 years now.

205 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:11:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely positive and constructive example of collaborative federalism. This bill was developed in concert with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something they will be putting in place in their own legislation as this bill moves through Canada's Parliament. It is extremely important for enabling the economic future of those two provinces. It would create good jobs and economic opportunity. Again, it astonishes me that members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are opposing what is one of the great economic opportunities going forward. It is truly astonishing. They are standing against the premiers of their respective provinces, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia.

119 words

All Topics

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Oct/16/23 12:12:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces? I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.” If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.

137 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:13:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I would say a few things. The first is that the legislation was developed in concert with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The mechanisms under that are joint mechanisms that would require the federal government and the province to agree on a range of different things moving forward. That is the essence of collaborative, co-operative federalism. That is the essence of how the offshore accord acts have worked for a long time. I would say to my hon. colleague that it is amazing to me that he would oppose something that is so important for the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, if he is interested in discussing amendments, he should let this go to committee to have that conversation.

128 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Oct/16/23 12:14:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we all know that we are in the middle of a global crisis. We are seeing more and more extreme weather events and natural disasters. We are also seeing a government that continues to argue otherwise, but agrees with the Conservatives that Canada should keep sinking deeper into oil and gas. Anyway, that seems to be the direction the government is taking for now when we look at its public policies. I would like to ask the minister opposite a simple question because it would be really enlightening for us to understand how he sees things. Does he consider oil and gas to be clean energy?

109 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:14:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's speech a bit odd. This bill provides for an offshore wind farm, a clean energy source that will, of course, be very important for the future of Nova Scotia's and Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

44 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Oct/16/23 12:15:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, this is a debate about time allocation. Ironically, the minister used to be a senior aide for the NDP premier in Saskatchewan, so the tie that binds is pretty deep for him. In 17 parliaments, from Tommy Douglas to Tom Mulcair, the NDP only supported time allocation 14 times. The current iteration of the NDP has supported time allocation 35 times in this Parliament. As a former senior aide to Premier Roy Romanow, would the minister advise the current NDP government partner to continue to support a government that is falling in the polls? With all his experience with the NDP, would the member counsel the current government to perhaps try to stand on its own two feet?

120 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:16:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I am very proud to have worked for a distinguished premier such as Premier Romanow, who was somebody who did enormously positive things for the Province of Saskatchewan after the previous Conservative premier, Grant Devine, virtually bankrupted the province. However, I would also say that it is extremely important that we are moving forward rapidly to fight carbon emissions and to build an economy that can be strong and create good jobs and economic opportunities for Canada and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This bill is about creating such opportunity in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important that we have a plan to fight climate change and that we have a plan for the economy; the Conservative Party has neither.

136 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Oct/16/23 12:17:07 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I want to build on my colleague's question around the marine protected areas. I am hearing concerns about the lack of clarity around what this means in marine protected areas. Could the minister provide some clarification for those who are concerned about next steps, moving forward?

49 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:17:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, in terms of protected spaces, Canada committed to protecting 30% of lands and waters by 2030. When the government came to power in 2015, below 1% of marine areas were protected. Now it is close to 15%, and we are on a pathway to protect 30%. The hon. member will know that there are different types of protection, including marine protected areas, marine refuges and other effective area-based measures. There are different rules that apply to each one of those. Canada follows all the international guidelines and, in fact, is a leader in protection around the world.

100 words

All Topics