44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have just said in my speech that that is the thing. It is not just about traditional development of our resources or energy streams. This bill is also going to affect any type of green energy being produced. That is the problem.
We need to make sure that we have the proper scrutiny in place. There is too much burdensome regulation in this bill. There are many times the minister could just step in, arbitrarily, for whatever decision they want. The government can say that in the future we may have this kind of potential problem, so therefore we need to stop it right now or hold back on the process. I am talking about green energy development.
That is the concern with Bill C-49. It does not allow for proper procedures to follow through and for proper scrutiny.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, what I appreciate about the bill is that it would impact or create opportunities for marine infrastructure, creating jobs and a transition toward renewable energy.
I heard a lot of concerns about balance needed in this bill. I wonder if the member would agree that included in this bill there needs to be clarity in marine protected areas so we can make sure the fishers are protected.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is the whole point of our concern with the bill, the fact that it does not provide clarity, it does not provide proper consultation, even with the fisheries in Canada.
There are a lot of issues this bill does not address. That is what we need to be looking at. Sure, we could take it to committee, but the point is that even if we take it to committee, we are still going to have the same issues. Is the NDP going to support the fact that we need to change the bill or not?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.
We are all painfully aware of the Liberal government's track record when it comes to tabling confusing legislation: more gatekeepers, more red tape, longer delays and the politicization of decision-making.
Canadians everywhere are tired of the Prime Minister, who scares businesses away from investing in our country. They are tired of stifling bureaucracy and costly Liberal bills. This bill is full of this.
The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been in power for eight long years. They have nothing to show on the renewable energy front and have made no progress on attracting investment to Canada's energy sector. It is quite the contrary, so forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the state of this current legislation as it is written.
We have seen this dog-and-pony show over the last eight years, over and over again. We had Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, to name just a few. The Liberals consult, they equivocate and they blur the lines. They do everything they can to muddy the water, except get the job done.
Bill C-49 proposes to make the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulators. At the same time, it would create a regulatory framework for offshore wind and renewable energy, the regulation of which would be added to their mandates.
As my colleagues have stated before on this subject, the Liberals have finally decided to include the provincial governments as partners in decisions affecting their jurisdiction. Of course, they did not do this with Bill C-69, and we all know where that unconstitutional legislation stands.
Bill C-49 would triple the current regulatory timeline for project approval. Currently, the provincial review boards have the final say on the approval or rejection of a project, at which point the relevant provincial or federal ministers are given a 30-day period to respond before the decision is finalized.
Under Bill C-49, ministers would be given 60 days to respond, with the possibility of a further 30-day extension and a further possibility of an indefinite extension.
Thanks to nearly a decade of the Prime Minister, Canada is a country that is characterized by a strict and stifling red tape regime. We are now among the most costly and regulated business environments in the world.
Liberals continue to attack traditional energy development, trying to recklessly phase it out, to the detriment of all.
I will remind the House that the first thing the Prime Minister did after his election in 2015 was to publicly apologize for Canada's natural resources, saying that he wanted Canadians to be known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources under his government.
It does not get much more out of touch than that. Liberals say they want to boost alternative energy, yet they use a bill like this to suffocate it in regulation and red tape. The proposed framework is not only one that creates more bureaucracy and red tape, but one that politicizes each and every step of the decision-making process. By giving final authority to federal and provincial ministers, the regulators are reduced to the position of giving recommendations only to the government.
To be clear, Canada's Conservatives support the responsible exploration and development of offshore resources, but we also believe it should be done responsibly, through an arm's-length regulatory process, not political decision-making.
An even more disturbing aspect of this legislation is its potential to be used to impose a complete shutdown on offshore oil and gas development projects at any time. I will say this again. This bill could end offshore petroleum extraction in Atlantic provinces for good at the whim of a minister.
This bill is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's key industries, one that generates billions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs. Section 28 and section 137 would allow the federal cabinet to halt an offshore drilling or renewable energy project if the area “may be identified” as a marine protected area in the opinion of cabinet.
I bring us back to Bill C-55, a bill Conservatives staunchly opposed. It allows the fisheries minister to unilaterally declare an area to be a marine protected area, essentially using the precautionary principle to shut down projects in the absence of any scientific proof.
Bill C-49 would do exactly the same, and this should scare every Atlantic Canadian. There could be a unilateral decision by a minister that is not based on science, leading to an arbitrary opinion from the cabinet that leads to the shutdown of a vital offshore resource development project our country desperately needs.
This is not the way to govern if Canada ever hopes to attract business investment in our energy sector. Furthermore, this cancellation process for new or currently operating projects provides no meaningful consultation with indigenous or community interests whatsoever. There is zero responsibility for any stakeholder consultation. This abdication of responsibility, this failure to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous interests, may also invite extensive court challenges, leading to further delays as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle.
As I alluded to before, there are also a number of practicalities with the bill that beg for clarification. For instance, the bill requires some degree of federal funding to cover the expansion of mapping by the regulators, as well as the expansion of offshore activities generally. As for these financial implications, there is no specific funding allocated. We must also question whether the regulators will need additional personnel for technical expertise, along with additional funding to allow them to properly fulfill their new responsibilities under their new mandate. If so, where is this money coming from? Is it even realistic to expect the regulators to be prepared in a timely fashion to deal with this new work that is currently outside their scope? Bill C-49 leaves much to be desired in the way of clarity.
After eight long years of this Prime Minister, Canadians should be very wary of a government that says, “Don't worry about the details; we'll deal with them later.” They need answers now and they deserve answers now, answers this government must be prepared to provide the House.
I was hoping the government would learn from its failure with Bill C-69, which had the same lack of detail on crucial issues, uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and vague timelines, but this legislation shows that they have learned absolutely nothing, which comes as no surprise.
We see the same inefficiencies of Bill C-69 imported into Bill C-49. Not only does the Impact Assessment Act have provisions to allow the federal minister to interfere in any given project if they deem that it is “in the public interest”, but it would also allow them to create any arbitrary conditions to which a project proponent must comply. How does that create confidence or certainty for investors? Is it not the responsibility of government to create an environment in which businesses want to invest, and in which businesses want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? This Prime Minister seems to have forgotten this part of his very own mandate.
These provisions go further and would allow the minister, again, to impose arbitrary conditions during project review, which would serve to further delay timelines for an unspecified amount of time, potentially even years. This will only drive industry away from Canada. It provides absolutely no certainty to these businesses that want to invest potentially billions and billions of dollars in our country.
It cannot be overstated how detrimental the consequences of more Liberal uncertainty are. Shamefully, this has been the effect of taking Canada out of the global competition for energy development, both traditional and alternative, when instead we should be a global leader.
Going back to my earlier comments, perhaps this is exactly what the Prime Minister meant. Not once has he championed the Canadian energy sector on the world stage. Instead, he apologized for our existence, which only drives investment to other countries and squanders opportunities for Canadian workers. We have the resources and we have the workforce and industry leaders. We can be a global leader in the energy sector. Instead, the Prime Minister prefers to cede market share to overseas dictators whose environmental human rights standards are non-existent.
It is time to put Canadian energy first, it is time to put Canadian jobs first and it is time to put Canadians first. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques. We need a Conservative prime minister who will green-light new technologies, reduce approval timelines and remove the Liberal gatekeepers so that major energy infrastructure projects can finally be built in this country once again.
With that, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Lakeland, that the bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:
the House decline to give second reading 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, since sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those same sections are embedded in Bill C-49.
1641 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am going to get more into detail shortly, but I just wanted to get the member's thoughts in terms of a specific quote.
This comes from an individual, and I will give the name right away. It is in regard to this particular bill. It says that “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with the federal's government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act” and looks forward to seeing them pass.
This comes from Premier Andrew Furey. There are so many other quotes that I will hold back right now but that I hope to get onto the record shortly.
I am wondering if the member has any thoughts in regard to the consensus that has been built on this legislation to see it passed into the committee stage. Does he support any of those stakeholders?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. Premier Furey has stated that he wants this bill and needs this bill to pass, for clarity, for his own well-being.
It is our job in this House to clear up any confusion. The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional. Over a third of Bill C-49 includes policy from Bill C-69. We need to fix this bill now, before it goes further.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with regard to this, there is a consensus on the bill with regard to the provincial elements. If this is not going to be something they support, what would they offer as an alternative? It would be interesting to hear their response. If not this, then what is the next step?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to be on record, the Conservatives 100% believe that provincial ministers have a say in what goes on in their neck of the woods. What drives us crazy and creates cause for concern is that there is no responsibility built into Bill C-49 for the government and the regulators to do any stakeholder consultation.
We absolutely want the provincial ministers to have a say. They know what is best in their communities and in their provinces, but Bill C-49 provides none of that.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did oppose Bill C-69. Some of the hon. member's colleagues have said that anyone who voted for it obviously did not understand environmental assessment.
I do support Bill C-49. The Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum boards need to have an expanded regulatory capacity to approve offshore wind.
I want to know if he would not agree with me that the tremendous potential for the economy in Atlantic Canada is in wind-generated hydrogen.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in June earlier this year, our leader said, “Under my government, we would green-light green technology to allow for our brilliant engineers to invent the technology that will bring about cleaner, greener and more affordable electricity.”
What stands in the way of this is duplicitous bureaucracy and the government gatekeepers. That is exactly what we are seeing with Bill C-49. It provides no certainty to those stakeholders and the communities that this bill will impact the most, and it gives arbitrary power and authority to a minister, without scientific proof, to designate an area as a marine protected area and to absolutely kill any opportunity.
That is fundamentally wrong.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague may remember that there once was a young MP from Prince George who uncovered the Liberal scandal that became known as the clam scam. I wonder if he could perhaps fill us in on what his concerns are under this bill, where a Liberal minister, without any authorization, on their own, could interfere with the goings-on in Newfoundland, where we have seen their actions.
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there was a young member of Parliament at the time, probably a few pounds lighter at the time, who did uncover or discover an issue called the clam scam, where we had a federal minister who decided to award a contract worth millions of dollars to a sitting MP's brother and a former MP, all through Liberal patronage.
Again, as to this “Wait and see. Let us deal with issues later. Just trust us” approach, trust is earned; it is not just given.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate about this particular issue. It is somewhat surprising that the Conservative Party would stand in the way of what is good, sound, solid legislation, and not, at the very least, allow it to go to committee. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of the legislation. Instead, they have chosen to filibuster. We just witnessed a member bringing forward an amendment. Thank goodness we have at least one political party that recognizes that the Conservative Party is, by filibustering this legislation, denying Atlantic provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to work with the government through this legislation to take advantage of the whole idea of renewable energy.
I do not understand why the Conservative Party would deny Atlantic Canada the opportunities within this legislation. If, in fact, the Conservatives have some legitimate rationale, they have the opportunity to allow the legislation to go to committee, which is all we are looking for right now. That is why we had to bring in time allocation. Even when this legislation passes through, we would have to see mirror legislation brought in from the provinces in question. Therefore, we have provincial jurisdictions waiting for this legislation to be able to pass.
The Conservatives try to give a false impression that we are trying to ram something through, when, in fact, a great deal of consultation has taken place. We have seen many Atlantic Liberal caucus members stand up and speak to this legislation because they have seen the value of the potential in Atlantic Canada when it comes to renewable energy. They have recognized that one does not have to be partisan to see that value.
I would like to quote a few individuals. “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with] the [federal government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and looks forward to seeing them pass.” That comes from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey.
Another quote from the same person states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the 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 the other federal parties to do the same.”
Let us go to a different province and a different political party: the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. What does Nova Scotia have to say in a couple of very selective quotes? Referring to Nova Scotia and Canada, this government states, “Both levels of government have the same goal: our aim is to balance progressive, clean energy exploration and responsible environmental stewardship.” That comes from Tim Halman, who is the minister of the environment for the Province of Nova Scotia.
Here is the minister of energy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons. He says, “This is a big deal for us. Working with the feds in terms of offshore oil has worked well, but knowing that we will have a part of our waterways available for wind development within our jurisdiction was huge.” It continues; he says, “When it comes to the resources, we are the envy of many jurisdictions. We know that there is a huge amount of interest in offshore wind opportunities, so we knew we needed to move forward.”
This is from politicians of different political stripes, and the Conservatives do not even want the bill to go to committee. They would rather filibuster it indefinitely.
It is not just the politicians. I found another interesting quote I would like to share with members. This comes from Elisa Obermann, who is the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. It is from her press release. She says, “This is an exciting day for Canada and our marine renewable energy sector. The tabling of the amendments is an important milestone towards establishing an offshore wind industry that will play a significant role in our clean energy future”.
There are many other quotes I could actually provide to the House, and that is because I truly believe that, when we take a look at Bill C-49 and what it would do, the essence of it is to ensure ongoing economic development in the whole area of renewable energy resources while at the same time saying there is a responsibility to protect our environment.
The government brought in this legislation quite a while ago now. I know I have had the opportunity to speak to it, and I had initially thought there would be support from the Conservative Party. We would have to pull my speeches from the records to get confirmation of that, but I honestly thought the Conservatives would support this legislation, because we often hear the Conservative Party saying it will support the energy sector, which we do in a very real and tangible way. Clean energy is a part of the energy sector, so by supporting Bill C-49, we would be supporting the energy sector.
It is amazing that the Conservative party tries to say we are trying to push this thing along and no one is supporting it, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We know there is substantial support for renewable energy. I reflect on my home province of Manitoba and the important role Manitoba Hydro plays, or I look at my Quebec colleagues, whether they are members from the Bloc or the Liberal caucus, or even the member from the New Democratic Party. We have within those two provinces great potential in terms of hydro development, and at the end of the day I suspect we will see a growing industry and spinoff benefits.
We can talk about how this energy is brought to life and is ultimately healthier for our environment, but it creates both direct and indirect jobs. Coming from a province that has such a wonderful hydro development and great potential, I am very sympathetic to my Atlantic colleagues who are so passionate on this issue and are wanting to see the legislation pass. That is the reason we had to bring in the time allocation, because we know that the Conservative Party is not prepared to see this legislation and that its members would rather filibuster and put up roadblocks. What we just witnessed with the moving of an amendment reinforces that fact, but the people of Atlantic Canada can know that a majority of people in the chamber see the value of it, and that is why we are going to ensure that it passes.
1123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his compelling speech. I say that with a bit of sarcasm.
I want to congratulate the member, though, on his daughter's re-election in Manitoba, the only provincial Liberal elected west of Toronto. I would note that every single Liberal gave resounding, long applause for the announcement that the NDP won the election. All his colleagues are as happy that the Liberals are gone in Manitoba as the Manitobans themselves.
The member repeated quote after quote from Atlantic ministers and premiers on that, but I have a couple of quotes for him that I would like to mention. Sonya Savage, the former Alberta minister of energy, said that Bill C-69 takes “a wrecking ball to the Constitution”. Former premier Kenney said that Bill C-69 is a “prejudicial attack on Alberta”.
Why does the member care only about quotes from ministers who are not from Alberta?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage.
It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill.
My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his daughter's election. He is a former MLA as well, so it is important to recognize the family contribution to democracy. It is not unusual for him to stand and speak in this chamber, but it is important for us to recognize what has taken place.
With Wab Kinew and the NDP election in Manitoba, what does the member think about the fact that we have some partnerships on the east coast that are important? The Conservatives are opposed to the bill right now. I am looking for what the alternative is if we do not agree at this point in time, especially with sustainable energy on the docket, and where we go from there. I appreciate that the member has had a long history not only in this chamber but also as an MLA.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the recognition. As I said previously, I am a very proud father. Knowing her sense of commitment to not only her riding but the province; MLAs often take on that sort of role.
The passage of the legislation is a high priority of the government. We are very fortunate in the sense that we have at least one other political entity, the NDP, that has also recognized the value of the legislation. As a result, we are going to be able to ensure that this legislation gets passed. We have been working very co-operatively with the provincial jurisdictions in question so that we have a mechanism and a process that will enable the provinces and Ottawa to meet the economic opportunities going forward.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, could the member explain to the House why it is so important that we get this bill off to committee? I sit on the natural resources committee, and it is waiting for Bill C-49 to get there to be further reflected on and returned to the House.
Could my colleague make a brief statement on why it is so important to get this bill to committee and brought back?
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the primary reason is that once it gets to the committee stage, the committee is able to break it down into the different parts and see if there are any ways we can improve upon the legislation. If there are, great; if it is good as is, then it can pass through the system so that the provinces can mirror the legislation and, ultimately, Atlantic Canada and Canadians would benefit.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
