44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
- Oct/16/23 4:50:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Calgary Nose Hill on Thursday, October 5, with a further intervention on Friday, October 6, respecting the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 1417 and Question No. 1582.
The member alleges that the government's response to these questions represents a willful misrepresentation of the facts, based on a CBC story reported on October 5 that produced a different amount for the trip that was the subject of the two Order Paper questions.
I submit that there was no intention to mislead the House or its members in the government's response to these questions. In fact, it is the government's view that the responses addressed the questions that were asked. This matter amounts to a debate as to the facts and does not, in any way, represent a wilful misrepresentation of the facts to the House.
The crux of the questions posed is based on the notion of “total costs incurred by the government”. The government takes the view that “the government” includes all core departments of the public service and not independent arm's-length agencies, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The fact is that neither of these questions specifically asked for that information. It is not for the government to make assumptions about what the member means to ask when submitting an Order Paper question. The government simply responds to the precise question that was asked.
The questions did not specifically ask for the costs incurred by the RCMP for the trip in question, and the government responded to the question that was actually asked. In no way can this constitute a willful intent to mislead the House.
Precedence has clearly established that the Speaker's role is not to judge the quality of the answers given to the questions posed, whether during Oral Questions, during question and comment period sessions in debate or through the process for responding to Order Paper questions. A long-standing adjacent principle that has been upheld by all speakers is the practice that members are taken at their word. The question of privilege being responded to seeks to contradict these two important practices of this House. I therefore submit that this matter amounts to debate as to the facts and does not represent a valid prima facie determination of a question of privilege.
The government takes seriously its responsibility to respond accurately to questions asked through the Order Paper process, but it can never put itself in a position to assume what the member meant to ask. That is the responsibility of the member when asking a question for which they desire a very specific response.
460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this past weekend marked a significant milestone for many of us in this House. It has been 15 years since the class of 2008 began its journey of service to Canadians. I still have the picture on my refrigerator of my brothers and my father celebrating that special evening.
My first duty as an MP in this House was the spectacle of the multi-vote Speaker selection, which was particularly significant to me.
During the first break, I crossed the floor to speak to a hockey idol, or nemesis, of mine, the hon. Ken Dryden. I relayed to him how, as an eight-year-old, I had been told by my aunt that we had this relative who may even make it to the NHL some time. She was an Orr. We had a lot to discuss.
During the second vote break, I noticed the Right Hon. Stephen Harper doing paperwork at his desk in the House, so I went over to chat and enjoyed a fantastic one-on-one discussion with him. I proudly relayed those two experiences to my father while he lay in his hospital bed just a week before he passed away. It was the last smile we shared.
I am happy to speak to this legislation today, as it fits well into the responsibilities that I have been engaged in over this past decade and a half. The committees that I have served on that have touched this file include international trade, science innovation and technology, indigenous affairs, environment and, most recently, natural resources.
I have also advocated for Canadian resources on the global stage through the OSCE, ParlAmericas and Asia-Pacific. Most specifically, this advocacy has been on food security, energy security and addressing global conflict with rogue states, as well as international terrorism.
On the international front, when the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, get the opportunity to grandstand, it is a bewildering sight. Whether it be disruptive trade irritants with our trusted allies, ill-conceived and anti-natural resource eco-activist proclamations or unprofessional statements to global leaders, sadly, we now have a global reputation where we are showing others just how unreliable we are.
When it comes to the actions of the Prime Minister and his numerous environment ministers, the effects on both the energy industry and the global environment, as well as the lost revenue that could have kept our economy strong, could not be more dire.
This bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board by adding offshore renewables to their mandates. It would also create a regulatory regime for offshore wind and other renewable energy projects similar to those that currently exist for petroleum operations.
It would also allow the federal government to rely on regulators for indigenous consultation. Unfortunately, this might result in court challenges and detrimental judicial decisions. This bill would add more red tape and uncertainty to an already overburdened bureaucratic framework.
The Atlantic offshore drilling ban could end offshore petroleum drilling in the Atlantic provinces in any designated region deemed to be a prohibited development area. Again, this would be done by political decree.
Let me express my admiration for the thousands of Maritimers who shared my home province of Alberta and became experts in oil and gas extraction. As with any job so far from home, it was a true family commitment. It has also helped enhance the energy expertise needed to explore and extract oil and gas in the Atlantic offshore. Sadly, the government views any criticism of its lauded legislative goals as being anti-Atlantic. That could be no further from the truth.
The energy industry knows far too well the effects of Liberal policy on its Canadian assets. The industry does not need even more investors turning their backs on ethically produced and carbon-reduced energy, as well as strong workers rights, to satisfy the ideological fantasies of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.
The proposal to rely on regulators to satisfy the duty to consult with indigenous people, particularly in the proposed section 62, is of concern. It is well known that the government does not have a solid track record when it comes to serious discussions with indigenous people. The proposed section may face challenges in the future and jeopardize both offshore petroleum and renewable energy proposals on the grounds that it is the Crown's duty to consult, and this cannot be delegated elsewhere.
In the past, judicial decisions on major energy projects consistently cited the failure of a two-way dynamic and the lack of a decision-maker at the table during Crown-indigenous consultations. Is that what is being created here?
The legislation also speaks of indigenous collaboration. The history of the government's policies could leave billions of dollars of indigenous assets at risk. Will this be addressed?
The government currently formulates most of its environmental goals around the American Inflation Reduction Act, thinking that we will somehow benefit from American benevolence. Where was the government when the Biden administration's first action was to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline? There is not a chance that it was advocating for Canadian energy. It was too busy gleefully rubbing its hands, because someone else had done the dirty work. What are the consequences of these actions?
The Americans are not fools. Instead of allowing Canadian products to get to world markets, the U.S. is now flooding these same markets with their oil and gas. Indeed, we were outsmarted and outplayed, because the Americans knew the Liberals were more concerned with ideology than practicality. So much for ensuring that the energy produced in the most environmentally friendly way in the world makes it to our trading partners' shores.
However, there is a chance that our Atlantic offshore energy could help make this happen, as long as we do not put too many obstacles in the way. Many of the provisions and regulations that we see in this bill mirror the legislation that has just been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. On the issue of the recent SCC decision, there is much more to it than just this proclamation.
In September 2019, the Alberta government announced its court challenge of Bill C-69, and on May 10, 2022, Alberta's Court of Appeal deemed Bill C-69 unconstitutional. This of course prompted the Government of Canada to appeal that decision, which is its right.
Meanwhile, other provinces chimed in, stating their disapproval of the Impact Assessment Act provisions and the act's intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. I state this because the mechanism associated with Bill C-69 is mirrored in this legislation.
The jurisdictional overreach of Bill C-69 allowed for political interference in the regulatory process by the Minister of Environment and cabinet. It has been disastrous for Canada's extraction industries.
Conservatives have warned the government and its NDP enablers that this unprecedented power over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources, including wind, hydro, critical minerals, and oil and gas, would hurt Canadian workers and was unconstitutional. This was upheld in the SCC decision this past week.
One of the other features of this bill addresses the full life-cycle analysis of renewable projects. This has been one of my missions when discussing both renewable and non-renewable energies. We have to analyze the environmental impact of all forms of energy, including its transmission. We must also measure the impact associated with the machines that are powered by this energy. Only then can we fairly determine what is the best type of system available for each region of this vast nation. This is important, because we are sorely needed on the world stage.
As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken up consistently in support of Canadian resources, both for agriculture and renewable and non-renewable energy. We hear from the government how European countries are onside with Canada's aggressive carbon tax and its anti-oil strategy. It may make them feel good that other ideological governments share their vision, but that is not the reality on the ground.
On the political front, we see those governments that continue to push the global green agenda onto its electorate being laid waste. The Liberal members seem to be too blinded by their leader's aura to see that it is happening here as well. This strategy of pitting one group against another is a logical tactic for combat, but not an honourable formula for governing. This is why this legislation needs to be amended.
1435 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I cannot quite figure how the member can say what he said in his concluding remarks. I understand the Conservatives do not want this legislation to pass, but let us be very clear. Provincial premiers and many different stakeholders have seen the value of this legislation. It is a very competitive area and we want to ensure that the Atlantic provinces have the opportunity to take advantage. That is what this legislation would do. There has been work in consultations and it even has the support of a Progressive Conservative premier.
Why does the Conservative Party feel this is a bill that it can filibuster on and deny Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to see economic growth?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are opportunities for economic growth in the oil and gas industry and in renewables. This is something we expect, but it has to be done right. That is the concern we have. There are probably six or seven sections in this bill that need more scrutiny, and that is the key. As we know, when it gets to committee, these amendments are critical and important.
The point is that we have seen the effects of a federal government that takes glee in restricting and limiting energy no matter where it is or from whom. There is the experience of the rest of Canada, but when it comes to concerns about Atlantic Canada, we simply want to make sure that everyone is on the same page.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I have heard time and time again from the Conservative Party that it is interested in lowering prices for Canadians. This bill is a great opportunity to help lower prices by ensuring that we support the use of renewable energy. Not only would there be a better use of renewable energy, but it would also create employment.
Is the Conservative Party interested in supporting the creation of employment by using renewable energy or is it interested only in protecting the profits of rich oil CEOs?
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, of course jobs are important, no matter where they are in this country. The question that has to be posed is whether renewables are going to be cheaper in the long run, because that is the major concern that we have.
There are 50-some windmills about six miles from my home that are 20-some years in. They are going to have to be disposed of soon. No one could tell us what the actual overall costs are for reclamation. We have solar projects that people are concerned about because they do not know what the reclamation costs are going to be. We should make sure we know all the facts and then we can talk about the best method of getting energy to the citizens of this country. There are so many strengths from all over this country and we should be aware of them.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the government believes that the only way to make advancements in clean energy is by taxing and hurting Canadians and federal government intervention. Canadians are rightly concerned with the Liberals' plan, as 2.7 million livelihoods have been brutally impacted and the government's economic record is nothing but disastrous.
I would ask the member to tell me what the government could do to encourage clean energy advancement without killing jobs and punishing Canadians with taxes, to have our clean capabilities meet the current world's need for clean oil and gas, but which the Liberals claim there is no business case for.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I could go on for a long time on that particular topic.
Quite frankly, the world needs Canada's oil and gas. It needs our expertise in being able to produce the most clean energy in the world. We could have gotten it to market if someone on the other side might have seen a case for this. While the U.S. is making dozens of natural gas facilities where it can transfer gas around the world, we are wondering when it would be a good idea to get our first one going. These are issues. If we had our natural gas displacing the energy in other places in the world, that would be the best step to what we are supposedly talking about, which is—
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 5:10:05 p.m.
- Watch
We have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-49 in the House today. Before I begin, I would like to note that we are standing on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.
There is immense potential for offshore renewables, including the offshore wind industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. It has the potential for new sustainable jobs and the potential for a supercharged Canadian low-carbon economy. With some of the fastest winds in the world off our east coast, with Bill C-49 we could build one of the world's greatest offshore wind industries, powering countless Canadian communities with clean, reliable and affordable electricity.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 5:11:07 p.m.
- Watch
I have to interrupt the hon. member.
When we had speeches from the opposition side, the House was quiet and people listened, so I would like the same courtesy to be accorded now to the current member.
The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleagues do not like when I say “reliable and affordable electricity” because they want to increase electricity rates for Canadians.
We are going to bring immense economic opportunity and provide the world with the hydrogen it needs. According to the Public Policy Forum's new report published today, the installation and maintenance of massive onshore wind generation will create jobs and incomes at high levels of intensity for several decades during build-out, and continuing indefinitely with ongoing maintenance and replacement activity.
It also determined that the installation of 15 gigawatts of offshore wind generation would create an average of approximately 30,000 direct jobs annually during several years of construction and installation and about 1,200 permanent jobs for ongoing operation and maintenance.
Canadian businesses know a good thing when they see it. They are more than ready to invest in offshore renewable energy. They are already doing it. Over the last several years, a number of Canadian companies have bought into international offshore wind projects according to Marine Renewables Canada. This includes Canadian financial institutions like the Bank of Montreal and CIBC, and Northland Power.
Northland Power is a Canadian company that has not waited around to invest billions in offshore wind. Headquartered in Toronto, Northland Power is already a global leader in offshore wind with three large operational offshore wind projects in the North Sea in Dutch and German waters and over 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind projects in development from Scotland to the Asia Pacific. It is a great example of how Canadian experience and ingenuity is moving offshore renewables in the global energy transition forward. That experience was most recently demonstrated in the last few weeks when Northland closed just over $10 billion of financing for two additional offshore wind projects in Poland and Taiwan, despite a challenging economic environment.
Northland is a Canadian success story. It has grown from a purely domestic business 10 years ago to having offices in eight countries; deploying more than 250 people in offshore wind; establishing a centre of excellence for offshore wind in Hamburg, Germany; investing roughly $6.5 billion into assets already in operation; and committing about $9.5 billion into developing more offshore wind projects.
Perhaps the best news of all for Canada's workers and the economy is that it has confirmed that it wants to bring its experience and expertise home. It is so important to it that it decided to come to Parliament earlier this year to be present when the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources introduced this bill. It wants to be a part of fulfilling our offshore renewable energy potential, bringing jobs to Canadians and helping to grow our low-carbon economy. As we speak, the company is exploring opportunities in the Atlantic Ocean that will support both decarbonization efforts and electrification of the burgeoning green hydrogen sector.
I am sure all members agree that Canadian companies are more than willing to invest in this industry. If this legislation goes forward, it is only a matter of time. We are bringing billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs, or even more, to Canada's offshore. This can only happen if we work urgently to pass Bill C-49. That is why I find it so disturbing that Conservative members are so against bringing these economic opportunities to Atlantic Canadians.
I have seen this in my home province of Alberta, where Conservatives in Alberta have put out a moratorium. It is impacting over 118 projects, up to $33 billion in potential losses of investments into our economy, impacting billions of dollars of investment and up to 24,000 jobs. Then, the premier started a misinformation campaign, spending $8 million of taxpayers' money to drive a bus around Ottawa to misinform Canadians. That is $8 million of Albertan taxpayer money being spent to misinform.
The natural environment off of our coasts makes us capable of becoming one of the strongest players in the world in the offshore renewable industry. If we look at the Global Wind Atlas, the winds off our east coast are stronger than those around the U.K. and northern Europe, where there are already wind farms. If we compare our winds to those off the upper east coast of the United States, our offshore area is simply bigger and has higher wind speeds.
According to experts, and as published in Policy Opinions, the online magazine put together by Canada's Institute for Research on Public Policy, the price of electricity generated by offshore wind has also dropped significantly, in part, due to developers backing more efficient and bigger turbines. Now is the time for Canada to board this train, and the sooner the better.
The “Global Offshore Wind Report 2023”, published by the Global Wind Energy Council, is predicting that the industry could face supply chain bottlenecks in every country that produces offshore wind energy by 2026, except for China. We have a timely opportunity here to be a part of minimizing that bottleneck and be part of the solution by developing the offshore wind industry in Canada, and encourage new investments into companies that could supply needed materials and parts to the world.
According to Marine Renewables Canada, getting this legislation passed will only help Canada expand its renewable energy industries. Perhaps this expansion of affordable, clean, renewable energy is the cause of the Conservative Party's opposition to this bill. The Conservatives have been clear that they want to make pollution free again, and now they are voting against Bill C-49 and all of the jobs it would bring to Canadians.
As I wrap up my speech, I would like to briefly remind members that we have so many things already in place that will make Canada's offshore renewable energy a resounding success. Both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are fully on board with this legislation. We created the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, so that we can supply Germany and hopefully other European allies looking for secure sources of energy.
Canadians have excelled in so many renewable energy industries. They want this chance to show the world that we can lead in the offshore renewable energy sector too. The door is wide open. We just need to walk through it.
1056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, last week, the New York State Department of Public Service denied an application from developers of energy in that state developing offshore wind resources to do exactly what this member is a proponent of. It denied the request for billions of dollars of additional subsidies and concessions. Why was that? It was because the developer said that without it, there was no business case.
I am wondering if the member across the aisle has seriously considered whether there is really a business case that is viable without costing Canadians billions of dollars in subsidies and concessions. I also want to know why that member is not supporting his home province of Alberta.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who is on the natural resources committee, for his question. However, there is, once again, misinformation on what this is about.
In my home province of Alberta, Premier Smith and the UCP government have put out a moratorium, which is preventing $33 billion in investment. Thousands of jobs will be lost. With the transition to a net-zero economy, it is estimated that it will create up 420,000 jobs across Canada.
This is about working together. That is why Premier Furey from Newfoundland supports this. I will read a quote for the hon. member: “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned—
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 5:21:53 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry. We have to have time for more questions and comments.
The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing to want to regulate the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. However, we are not talking only about future wind energy projects. For example, this bill also addresses oil and gas exploration and development.
At a time when we are in a climate emergency, and when scientists tell us that we must quickly stop using fossil fuels, does my colleague believe it makes sense that his government wants to double oil production within the next few years?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill is about working together with the governments in Atlantic Canada, with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure we are bringing forward opportunities to have more renewable energy.
The world is seeing a massive transition. There is up to $1 trillion of investment that is going to come forward with renewables and through wind energy. We want to make sure that Atlantic Canada reaps those benefits, which are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in investment. That is good for Atlantic Canada and great for Canada.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to note that the member's party does not do a really great job with its promises for reconciliation. I am glad to see that this legislation talks about engaging indigenous peoples. This is great to see in this bill.
One concern I do have is its terrible record of engaging or not engaging indigenous peoples, including recognizing collectives of peoples as indigenous when they are not. Because of that, I ask how the government will make sure that, when it is engaging with indigenous peoples, they are actually section 35 rights-holding indigenous peoples.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an important question. An important part of the work we do is working with and alongside indigenous communities across Canada. Working with the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada, it is going to be at the forefront of the work that is done to consult and work alongside indigenous communities.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I noted earlier in debate that some members incorrectly said that the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference case on the impact assessment meant that there would be overreach in this bill, Bill C-49. As a formerly practising environmental lawyer who did not think Bill C-69 was constitutional, I would like to say that Bill C-49 is absolutely constitutional. There is nothing more federal than the offshore. This is federal jurisdiction.
Is my hon. colleague aware that the race is on right now between the United States and China to see who can get more offshore wind in faster?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
