44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, the opposition is applauding the government, and I think there are a lot of similarities between the two governments. I think Canada is still an oil country, unfortunately. That seems clear. It is not just the Conservatives. Canada recently earned a title I would not be very proud of. It joined the ranks of climate hypocrites, countries that are known to engage in greenwashing at the international level. That is clear.
Setting a target to protect 30% of lands and waters is nice and all, but, as I said in my speech, when the habitats of protected species such as right whales and blue whales are opened up, I have to wonder how that can be achieved.
Seriously, we just witnessed yet another prime example of how both Liberals and Conservatives engage in mutual backslapping and keep promoting fossil fuels instead of making meaningful investments in a true green transition, in jobs and science that will actually enable us to make the ecological and environmental transition.
168 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages.
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted.
Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49.
Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we want the bill to go to committee because we want to have this kind of discussion on the clauses. We still have too many questions. We would like to present amendments and proposals.
My colleague mentioned Quebec, but as I said in my speech, Quebec made a clear choice to get away from oil and gas. What we are talking about is Bill C-49. While we are still talking about possible investments in oil and gas, Quebec has decided to make a much greener choice and to truly get away from oil and gas and ban these projects.
I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. They will no doubt deliver a great presentation in committee, putting forward proposals and defending Quebec's environmental interests.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her very informative intervention.
I wonder if the member agrees, based on the information that she has shared with us, that a good portion of the discussion at committee will need to be to seek clarity for creating stronger provisions for marine protected areas.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague.
My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is the fisheries critic, surely has something to say about protecting marine species. She has already made a presentation explaining the importance of enhancing protections for these protected species. She is lobbying for greater protection.
We in the Bloc Québécois really believe that we will need to think about these marine protected areas and create much more robust provisions, particularly in committee. If not, it means we are not serious about meeting this 30% target.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country.
I rise today to speak on the government's latest attempt at over-regulating, bureaucracy-building legislation, Bill C-49.
I have noted in this debate that several speakers on the government side have scarcely spoken about the details in their own legislation. They have spoken solely on the offshore renewable revenue they believe this bill would potentially offer to applicable provinces. I say “potentially” because if the government members had taken more time to study their own bill in greater detail, they would have found that Bill C-49 features such a mess of new red tape, it would be surprising if anyone could complete an offshore project of any kind, let alone have it generate revenue.
This is symptomatic of the government's approach to Canada's resource sector. For every talking point, there are miles of new regulations, new levers for federal bureaucracies to kill jobs and projects, and endless delays. Shovel-ready projects that start with Liberal photo ops are left to be strangled by bureaucratic Liberal laws and regulations.
After eight years, the Liberal government has continued to drop the ball on project after project. We would think the government might act with some humility after last Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government's previous pipeline-killing legislation, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional.
Conservatives warned the Liberals repeatedly that their no-more-pipelines act, Bill C-69, did not respect provincial jurisdiction, and was a power grab by the Prime Minister and his career activist environment minister to phase out these key sectors.
Liberals were called out by energy workers who wanted to keep their livelihoods; by indigenous communities wanting to sustainably develop their lands; by stakeholders in multiple sectors, including wind, hydro and critical minerals; by nine out of 10 provincial governments and every territorial government; and now by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I could speak for hours on the comments made by provincial and business leaders on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the unconstitutionality of the Liberal bill, Bill C-69, but I will mention just a few.
The Premier of Alberta said, “The ruling today represents an opportunity for all provinces to stop that bleeding and begin the process of re-attracting those investments and jobs into our economies.” The premier also said, “And we will continue to fight against Ottawa’s unfair overreach”.
The economies of British Columbia and Alberta have been closely intertwined, especially with the resource sector. Many residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country have worked in the resource sector in Alberta in the past.
The president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. said in an interview on Bill C-69 that there is complexity, confusion and cost, and as a result, investors did not know if they were going to be investing in Canada, and whether or not they could get projects to “yes”. That was causing investors to pause and look at other countries rather than Canada.
The World Bank came out a few years ago and ranked Canada number 64 in the world in the length of time it takes to approve a project. That is a very embarrassing statistic for the country.
A 2019 C.D. Howe Institute report titled “A Crisis of Our Own Making: Prospects for Major Natural Resource Projects in Canada”, stated:
With investment in Canada’s resources sector already depressed, the federal government’s proposed Bill C-69 would further discourage investment in the sector by congesting the assessment process with wider public policy concerns and exacerbating the political uncertainty facing proponents with a highly subjective standard for approval.
That is exactly what happened. The cost of the Liberals' refusal to reverse course was billions of dollars in potential investment that was taken out of Canada. Energy projects that would have been built in Canada were instead built in countries with lower environmental standards and fewer labour protections.
This new bill, Bill C-49, should be removed by the government and completely revised because it applies provisions from that now unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, to Canada's Atlantic offshore sector.
Looking at the core details of Bill C-49, it is very clear in the needless political roadblocks it seeks to create that it would stall projects in our offshore industries.
It triples the approvals timeline from the current framework and takes the final authority in the decision-making away from on-the-ground regulators to ministers in Ottawa. This is once again the Liberal philosophy of “Ottawa knows best”. What would be the result of handing the final approval of offshore energy projects to our Greenpeace activist environment minister? The answer is obvious: no good-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians and instead, political decision-making. We know this from other legislation, like the government's just transition bill, which is seeking to take away jobs from energy workers in exchange for employment that cannot guarantee the same levels of benefits or pay.
Why is the government seeking to hand operational control of the Atlantic offshore industry to a Liberal environment minister who the Newfoundland Liberal member for Avalon said did not understand the “issues of the region”? It is a question only the Liberals can answer.
Regulators who have worked in this sector and this region for years are better placed to make these decisions on a timeline that already works for both regulators and industry. Adding more red tape, which often does nothing more than repeat pre-existing environmental reviews, will do nothing to create good-paying jobs, particularly in renewables. We know this because of the unmitigated disaster the government made of a viable tidal energy power project in Nova Scotia.
Sustainable Marine Energy's Bay of Fundy tidal energy project had enormous potential to deliver clean energy for Canadians. Had it been built, it could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of taking nearly 3,700 cars off the road. The project was proceeding at pace under the Harper government, but after the Liberal government's election, Sustainable Marine Energy was snagged in a forest of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
After eight years, that company withdrew the project completely last spring. Despite $28.5 million of taxpayer money having been invested into the project, the government refused to release this clean green project from a regulatory trap of its design. The result: taxpayers are out $28 million, Canada loses out on a powerful source of green energy, and the people of Nova Scotia, who had this environmentally friendly project killed in front of them in Ottawa by bureaucrats, are forced to pay Ottawa's carbon tax now.
Bill C-49 will never deliver a dime of renewable revenue to provinces so long as the Liberal government regulates renewable projects like tidal energy out of existence. It will also not deliver revenue from vital offshore drilling projects when the now unconstitutional Bill C-69 enforces impact assessment reviews that last for more than 1,600 days, or when Bill C-55 allows the fisheries minister to select prohibited development areas solely on her call, the power which the legislation today also reaffirms.
The Prime Minister, in the aftermath of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, said there was no business case for LNG exports to be shipped out through Atlantic Canadian ports to our European allies. The United States became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2021, as projects ramped up production and deliveries surged to Europe to alleviate the energy crisis there.
Just last week, one of Canada's closest and historic allies, France, signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for its LNG production. A 27-year deal would have been a fantastic way to generate revenue for Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Albertans, British Columbians and Canadians. Instead, the Liberal government has no clue about the value of Canada's resources. Instead, it is focused on gaining more political control and its ideological job-killing agenda. It is not even a green agenda because, as I mentioned earlier, the government is happy to kill green projects just as slowly.
A Conservative government will support Canadians in every region by responsibly building energy projects of every variety that bring home jobs for Canadians. We will build green projects to sustain our environment, not just regulate them out of existence. We will champion Canada's world-class resources to our allies and we will deliver results.
The Liberal government only creates more red tape, regulates projects out of existence, drives away investment and brings more control to Ottawa. The Liberal government is just not worth the cost.
1508 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to the House why she chooses not to believe that a Progressive Conservative premier and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada fully support this bill and want to see it go to committee. The bill is all about greener energy. When she says that we have failed Canadians, she is not talking about the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party of Canada; it goes far deeper than that. How does she justify this in such a solid way, while not respecting what it is that Atlantic Canada premiers would like to see?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member has been speaking for a long time in here, and just recently, before I spoke, he spoke about the official opposition filibustering indefinitely and delaying this legislation. That is pretty rich, because this member wastes more time than anyone in this House and maybe in parliamentary history. I am not sure.
He spoke twice on this legislation, which moved everything ahead tonight. I had to cancel a phone call with a constituent, since everything was moved ahead because this member had to speak again and bumped everyone else. He is actually the one who is delaying his own legislation.
As we move forward, we are going to speak to this legislation. We are going to bring comments forth from our ridings and our constituents, which I have done.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on how it is possibly the case that we are in this House of Commons, debating a bill that imports sections from a law that was supported by the NDP and the Liberals, that has been in place for the last five years and that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Friday, when specific sections, such as section 61, section 62 and section 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49?
Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we want to expand the Canadian oil and gas sector so that the world and all Canadians can have energy security and energy self-sufficiency.
The NDP-Liberals warned expert witnesses and warned every province and territory that was against Bill C-69 at the time or called for major overhauls, but this bill contains sections that, as of Friday, the Supreme Court said were unconstitutional. Could my colleague comment on how it can possibly be that the NDP-Liberals are now trying to ram through a bill containing these sections?
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense. There was a Supreme Court of Canada ruling just a few days ago, making part of this legislation unconstitutional. Here they are reaffirming the exact parts that were called unconstitutional on Friday.
The government should be pulling this legislation. It should be going back to the drawing board, pulling out the parts that have been deemed unconstitutional and coming forth with something else. This whole process really does not make any sense. As the government tries to quickly push this legislation through by shutting down debate, it is wanting to move this legislation through even faster. It makes no sense.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, just to be clear, is the member saying that this government, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are all pushing forward unconstitutional legislation? Does she really believe that?
36 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I do not know what other jurisdictions are doing in other parts of the country. We are talking about legislation that is here in the House of Commons, and this is what we are debating today. That question does not even make any sense.
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-49. The legislation would amend the Newfoundland and Labrador accord act, as well as the Nova Scotia accord act, legislation that governs and regulates offshore petroleum management between the federal government and those provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The legislation before us, in short, would establish a single regulator with respect to conventional offshore petroleum, as well as offshore renewables.
I will say in that regard that Conservatives fully support the principle of establishing a regulator responsible for all offshore energy projects. Moreover, we recognize the need to establish a regulatory framework in order for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, to leverage the opportunity to take advantage of the shift toward offshore wind, in particular, and the opportunities that this would provide those two provinces.
That is not the issue. The issue is in the details of the bill, and a very quick review of the bill evidences that it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. It is indeed another disastrous bill from the disastrous Liberal government.
With respect to the environmental assessment process, the bill incorporates the Liberals' anti-energy Bill C-69's Impact Assessment Act. This is legislation that, last Friday, was largely determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be unconstitutional. Indeed, of the provisions of the Impact Assessment Act that have been incorporated into Bill C-49, each and every one was determined by the court to be unconstitutional.
Members can think about that for a minute. We have a bill, a substantial component of which pertains to something as significant as the environmental assessment process, and it incorporates a statutory scheme that was deemed to be unconstitutional. The environmental assessment process is a pretty big deal when it comes to offshore energy projects.
One would think that a responsible government would go back to the drawing board to get it right. One would think that a responsible government, at the very least, would reflect on the impact of that very clear repudiation of the government's disastrous Bill C-69, which was supported by its coalition partner, the NDP, against the objections of all 10 provincial premiers. However, this is not a responsible government. It is a reckless government.
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada in no uncertain terms repudiated the government. On Monday, the government's response was to shut down debate and impose time allocation to see that the bill receives as little scrutiny as possible. It is a bill that would achieve the opposite of what it is purported to do.
The bill would kill offshore renewable projects before they even got off the ground as a result of a significant amount of new red tape, delay and uncertainty. Indeed, if the Liberals were honest, they would call the bill what it actually is: “an act to kill offshore renewable energy”.
I will give you, Madam Speaker, and all hon. members examples of why that is. Pursuant to the accord acts at this time, the minister has a 30-day period to respond to a decision of the regulator as to whether to approve or reject a project. With respect specifically to renewables, not oil and gas offshore, the current government would double the time for the minister to respond from 30 days to 60 days, which is more delay. This is from a government that talks so much about championing renewable energy. However, that is just the beginning, because this bill would provide that the minister may initiate multiple 30-day extensions, so even more delay. This bill would provide the possibility of an indefinite bidding process, even where the regulator gives the green light to a project. That is an indefinite delay.
Where have we seen that before? It was none other than with the Liberals' disastrous and now largely unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, the Impact Assessment Act. That law came into effect four years ago, again, with the full support of the NDP over the objections of all the provinces. More than 25 projects have been in the queue for approval. How many projects have been approved over four years? The answer is not one, zero. Therefore, the bill has done what we said it would do, which is kill energy projects as a result of delay, uncertainty and red tape. It has also negatively impacted Atlantic Canada, with the $16-billion Bay du Nord project, which is hanging by a thread.
Therefore, they have a disastrous record of zero projects in four years, almost all of them languishing at phase two of a four-phase process. Moving ahead, in the face of that, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada have the audacity to stand up and say that the way to develop renewable offshore energy is to duplicate, copy and paste the very regulatory regime that has resulted in zero projects moving forward. It is really quite incredible.
However, it gets worse—
840 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:29:04 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, the time provided for this is over.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member present in the House wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:30:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request that the amendment be adopted on division.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:31:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
26 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:31:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:44 p.m. so we could start the take-note debate.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:31:51 p.m.
- Watch
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:44 p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 29 under Government Business.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 7:32:40 p.m.
- Watch
Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members of how proceedings will unfold.
Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.
Pursuant to an order made earlier today, members may divide their time with another member. The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will not receive any dilatory motions, quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent.
We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
