44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 12:36:18 p.m.
- Watch
I request a recorded vote, please.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 12:36:24 p.m.
- Watch
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Do we have unanimous consent to change the vote of the member for Thérèse-De Blainville?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
24 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 1:27:48 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the hon. member for the intervention. Of course, no decision has been made on this matter. We are continuing to look at it and taking the information in. It has been passed on to the Deputy Speaker, myself, at this point. It was the decision of the Speaker to do that. I would be more than happy to listen to any further information to come before us as well.
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks a couple of days ago, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord, desperately needs amendments. As with all Liberal legislation, the devil is in the details, or, in this case, the lack thereof.
Bill C-49, as it stands, would end all future expansion of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry. In addition, the entire fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is fearful of the mass installation of wind turbines on its fishing grounds.
The fishing industry is not against the development of offshore wind energy; however, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations, from its point of view. That industry has a history of a lack of meaningful consultation with the Liberal government, especially when it comes to the setting up of marine protected areas, otherwise known as MPAs. MPAs have been arbitrarily created, oftentimes on prime fishing grounds, even though objections have been raised by fishermen. Their concerns are never taken into account, but the Liberal government goes ahead and forces fishers off their lucrative fishing grounds, endangering their livelihoods.
Why am I talking so much about fishermen and their experience with MPAs? It is because they fear that the exact same thing will happen in the designation and development of offshore wind farms. Bill C-49 is far too inadequate in relieving those fears. The process of consultation, negotiation and, in some cases, compensation needs to be clearly defined in this legislation. Fishermen are sick and tired of attacks by the Liberal government on their livelihoods, and they tell me that it is time for them to have an effective seat at the table. The bill before us needs to address this.
The fishing industry is not the only industry concerned with the arbitrary implementation of MPAs. The oil and gas industry has similar concerns. Bill C-49 would effectively kill all offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Any significant petroleum discovery or renewable energy project not yet developed would be governed by amendments to the Atlantic accord.
I see my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon, looking across at me. I am sure he has read the bill inside and out. However, I will read from the summary of the bill. It says:
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
That is an area that may be identified as an MPA. Also, item (h) would give out the power to decide whether or not to compensate for the cancellation of such projects.
We all know that the Liberal government and its extreme environmental restraints have one goal in mind when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry, and that is to shut it down. The stakeholders I have talked to say that Bill C-49 puts the long-held fears of their industry on paper in black and white.
The Liberal government destroyed the Bay du Nord project by delaying approval after the longest environmental assessment in Canadian history. It used Bill C-69 as its tool to do that, and it can still do that in the future because that part of the bill was not destroyed by the court, unfortunately. Bill C-49 would be another tool in the anti-oil tool box, and Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador, should be ashamed to support the bill as it stands.
What oil and gas company would want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore the offshore in Atlantic Canada and have a significant find, only to be told that it cannot develop because the area may become a future MPA? The answer is none. This bill would drive much-needed investment dollars out of our offshore, which is already protected by the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and would send that investment into jurisdictions with not only a poor environmental record but also a poor human rights record.
I cannot, as the lone supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry in the House of Commons, vote for a bill aimed at killing that industry. Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada should feel the same way, but they do not. They tell me that I need to vote with them to support this bill for the good of my province. I ask if they are cracked. How can a bill that has the potential to kill all new oil and gas production off our shores be good for my province? This bill was created to wedge Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, and our propaganda machine, the CBC, even said it itself.
The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl said that the Conservatives should not be meddling in the Atlantic accord, that we should support their amendments. If he is in this place, where he should be, he can get on his feet when I am done speaking and explain how members on my side of the House are meddling in the Atlantic accord when it is his party, under his ineffective guidance, that brought these amendments forward. How can Conservatives be meddling when we did not bring these amendments forward?
Then there is the Liberal member from Nova Scotia, whom I chatted with not that long ago. He said that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen was looking for trouble. It is unbelievable. If he wants to stand and clarify what he said when I am finished, he can do so as well. The fishing industry is all ears.
Trying to use this Liberal legislation to wedge Conservatives, the only party in this House that supports the oil and gas industry in Canada, is just a distraction. It is a distraction from the eight-year record of the current NDP-Liberal government, which sees Canadians reeling from the effects of the carbon tax on everything they buy and from food bank usage at the highest rate in 42 years. However, we will not be distracted. Not only do we support the oil and gas industry, but we support the mining industry.
Guess what else supports the mining industry. It is the wind power industry. To produce a single gigawatt of wind power, it takes 44 million pounds of copper, 150,000 tonnes of steel, 24,000 tonnes of iron, 1,000 tonnes of aluminum, 700,000 tonnes of concrete and a whopping 12,000 tonnes of fibreglass. That is what is required to produce one gigawatt. Where does fibreglass come from? It will not come from oil produced on the Grand Banks if the Liberals have their way; I can say that.
1170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it was quite remarkable to sit in this place for that, and it is fortunate for the member opposite that we are protected by parliamentary privilege because of the level of misinformation that his speech contained and the level of fearmongering. This is the government that approved Bay du Nord and this is the government that supports energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed across Atlantic Canada.
The member talks about his stakeholders. Is Energy NL against this? I do not think so. Is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador against this? I do not think so. Are the proponents of the projects being contemplated in Atlantic Canada against this? Absolutely not. Is the Premier of Nova Scotia?
Who is he talking to? He is not talking to everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who want to see this. Clip this to the voice of the common people and let him tell them why he is against progress in Atlantic Canada. It is simply astonishing. I cannot believe it sitting here in this place.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
179 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 1:37:36 p.m.
- Watch
I hear voices on both sides other than those of the hon. members I have recognized, and I would ask members to please wait until it is their time and they are recognized.
The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I challenge the member for Kings—Hants. He knows that what I said earlier today when debating closure on this bill was that there are real deficiencies in it. He heard me read proposed section 56, and he even complimented me on studying the bill and knowing what is in it.
I sat next to a former political figure in Newfoundland and Labrador, who all members have lots of respect for today. I showed him that and he was shocked. Many are shocked in the oil and gas industry. I have spoken to many fishing organizations from Nova Scotia that are now banding together to make sure they are adequately consulted and not steamrolled in this process, as they were when MPAs were thrown on their fishing grounds.
An hon. member: Table them.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 1:38:54 p.m.
- Watch
I want to remind the hon. member that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and he should take the time to listen to the answer. If he has further questions, he should wait until he is recognized during questions and comments.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
