SoVote

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

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

Oct/16/23 12:25:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I too have listened to the debate and to many Conservatives standing up and speaking to it. I think we need to be really clear on this. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada has no intention whatsoever of seeing this bill pass. The reason we need to bring in time allocation, as before, is that the Conservative Party of Canada plays a role as a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Its idea of success is causing the frustration of legislation, preventing legislation from passing. If we did not bring in time allocation, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party would be very happy; it would continue to talk and debate indefinitely. This legislation is an economic tool that would make a very real difference for Atlantic Canada; by filibustering this legislation, the Conservative Party is doing a disservice to the Atlantic region of our country. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to that?

167 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:26:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, this is a global race. The Public Policy Forum document that was published just yesterday or today shows the magnitude of the opportunity that is here. It is a very significant economic opportunity for Nova Scotia and for Newfoundland and Labrador. As I said before, I am astounded that the Conservative Party is actively campaigning against the economic future of Atlantic Canada. It is astonishing to me that it will sit in this chamber and, simply for the purpose of opposing this government, act against the interests of Atlantic Canadians.

92 words

All Topics

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Oct/16/23 12:27:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we know that there is enormous potential for a thriving offshore renewable energy industry in Atlantic Canada and that we need to make sure that those benefits are felt by local communities and local fishers. Will the government guarantee that the benefits from offshore wind projects will flow directly to local workers and that the local fishing communities will be supported?

63 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:27:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, certainly, provisions are in place to ensure that there are conversations with fishers and fish harvesters. There are a lot of examples around the world of how a thriving fish industry can coexist with an offshore wind industry, for example, in the United Kingdom. The whole point of this exercise, in terms of economic development, is to ensure that long-term, sustainable benefits flow to communities in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is exactly why the premiers of both of those provinces are extremely anxious to see this move through Parliament, so they can move it through their legislatures and we can get going with respect to having a regulatory structure in place that will enable projects to move forward.

125 words

All Topics

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

Oct/16/23 12:28:15 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister again. I will read clause (g) from the summary. The enactment would amend the Atlantic accord to, among other things: provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection... This is otherwise known as a future MPA. The oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has come to me; these stakeholders have said that clause 56 in this legislation would put in black and white what they have long feared. Would the minister be willing to delete clause 56 from this legislation?

138 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:29:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, as I said, this legislation was developed collaboratively with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. The actions taken under the accord acts will actually be done jointly between Canada and each of those respective provinces. I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he may want to have a conversation with his premier about all these issues. To be honest, it is exactly the fact that they are not even willing to engage in a conversation about how the environment fits relative to economic development that shows the problem with the Conservative Party. It is willing to simply throw out the environment, to trample on the environment, in pursuit of only the economic opportunities. There has to be a balance. Economic opportunities have to be pursued in a manner that is environmentally sustainable. Canadians simply cannot trust the Conservative Party on the environment.

152 words

All Topics

Mr. Warren Steinley

Oct/16/23 12:30:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the minister must have been a heck of a dodge ball player in his day, because he totally dodged that question about time allocation and his deep NDP roots. I wonder if the member would advise former premier Romanow to actually do time allocation 35 times in one Parliament, if he was still the premier in Saskatchewan. However, that is beside the point. When the member talks about “no plan for the environment”, I would invite him to come to the PTRC in Regina, where they have a number that says that Saskatchewan has lowered the emissions, per capita, more than any other province in the country, and has the highest GDP increase over the last year. That is combining the environment and economic growth. Why can the Liberals not do that?

136 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:31:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is important to move this legislation to committee expeditiously and eventually out of Parliament in order to seize the economic opportunities that are there but will not be there forever. There are other countries that are looking at seizing those. I would say to my hon. colleague that, in terms of climate change, absolute emissions in Saskatchewan have gone up. They have not gone down. Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces in this country that has no climate target, in terms of actually reducing emissions by 2030. We would love to see Saskatchewan join the ranks of many provinces and territories in this country that have a fulsome climate plan that includes a climate target.

122 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo

Oct/16/23 12:32:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. This minister keeps on talking about how, perhaps, the member opposite, should have a conversation with the provincial premier, and speaks about climate plans. Let us face the facts here. If we want to talk in facts, this is a government that has missed every single climate projection possible. The minister talks about the fact that we need to think about the environment. The world's biggest polluter is China, and his colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to China. What did we hear about the environment? We get lectured domestically, constantly. What did we hear about their interactions? Crickets. How can the minister stand here today and say that we need to start talking about this with everybody, when his own government does not have the guts to take a stand against large-scale emitters?

159 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:32:58 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I would say that folks in this chamber are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The only climate target that the government has ever had was a 2030 target. We actually moved to upgrade that target from a 30% below 2005, to 40% to 45%. It is a target that we will achieve. It is the only target that we have ever had. When Conservatives stand up and talk about the fact that the Liberal government has missed a target, they are simply saying things that are not true.

100 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Oct/16/23 12:33:36 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I want to give a tip of the cap to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. He is the first member of the Conservative Party in almost three full days of debate who has actually pulled out and referenced one provision. I may not agree with what he is raising, but could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources at least reassure all parliamentarians in this House of two things. First, we have to move quickly to be able to drive the initiatives that have been discussed today in Atlantic Canada's offshore. Second, if there are helpful suggestions, those could be litigated and discussed at committee. There is no reason why any member of this House should not be willing to get this good initiative to committee. Hopefully that vote will take place tomorrow, and we will see where the Conservatives stand on it.

152 words

All Topics

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Oct/16/23 12:34:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, we need to move quickly on this bill. We are in a global race. It is important that Canada seize the economic opportunities and move to ensure that we are actually creating good jobs. It is certainly very important that we move it to committee to have a robust conservation and hear from witnesses. That is essentially what we are trying to do today. Once again, this is an enormous opportunity for Atlantic Canada. It is astounding to me that the Conservative Party is opposing this. I do suggest that they talk to their respective premiers, who support this bill and want to see it move forward.

109 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 12:35:02 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

83 words

Participating

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/16/23 12:36:18 p.m.
Watch

I request a recorded vote, please.

6 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/16/23 12:36:24 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members. And the bells having rung:

9 words

The Speaker

Oct/16/23 1:09:35 p.m.
Watch

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House]

19 words

The Speaker

Oct/16/23 1:22:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/16/23 1:22:51 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes. The member for Salaberry—Suroît is rising on a point of order.

39 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Oct/16/23 1:23:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville experienced a problem. She would like to reverse her vote. She cast her vote in favour, but she is against. I would like unanimous consent to change her vote.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Oct/16/23 1:23:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are learning to work together in the House of Commons and it is in that spirit I am rising today to discuss not only the matter of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, but also to raise concerns about how the matter has been handled since it was originally raised. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the member's question of privilege was on the subject of responses to written questions provided to her by the government. This is an area of jurisprudence that has often been raised by members and has been ruled on by many previous Speakers. What made this situation unique was the fact the responses were signed off by the Speaker in the Speaker's previous role as parliamentary secretary. It is not uncommon for unusual or complex questions to require additional resources. The House may recall that, at the time, I indicated that I wanted an opportunity to intervene at a later date. The member for Winnipeg North did exactly the same thing. We intervened in the House to say that we wanted to intervene once the research had been done. It is essential that such interventions take place before a decision is made. That is the tradition here in the House. The next day, my office confirmed that my intervention would take place after the break week, which just ended. At no time were we informed that a decision might be imminent. However, during the break week, I was informed, by way of a CC in an email from the member for Calgary Nose Hill, and subsequently confirmed by the Speaker's office, that the Speaker had made a decision to recuse himself from deliberating on this matter. This decision was confirmed in the ruling this morning. I do believe this recusal was the right decision, but I was nonetheless very surprised to hear that a decision was made without waiting for input that had been very clearly indicated from at least two parties in the House. When important precedent-setting decisions on how the House operates are made, they are traditionally made following interventions from interested parties. That could not take place here. I was also surprised at the way in which the decision was made public. Communicating a decision directly to the member involved amounts to saying that the Speaker's responsibility is to that member rather than to the House as a whole. The fact that a member of the media, in this case an unverified blogger, received confirmation of the decision before the House or even the House leaders were informed is even more frustrating. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states: The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution.... The responsibility of the Speaker is to the institution of Parliament and to the House of Commons as a whole, not to an individual member who raises a point and not to reporters who may be interested in the decisions taken by the Speaker. Providing more information to the media than to Parliament on matters that are fundamentally parliamentary in nature is really not acceptable. In discussing how Speakers' rulings are delivered, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our bible, further states: Sometimes, a ruling is delivered quickly and with a minimum of explanation. At other times, circumstances do not permit an immediate ruling. The Speaker may allow discussion of the point of order before he or she comes to a decision. The Speaker might also reserve his or her decision on a matter, returning to the House at a later time to deliver the ruling It is clear that rulings are meant to be made in the House. There is no precedent for a Speaker doing otherwise, and the rule book does not contemplate otherwise. I humbly request that, in future, these matters be treated appropriately and in accordance with House practices.

669 words

All Topics