44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 16, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, we have debated this bill on a number of occasions at second reading, and we will debate it again this afternoon. It is important that this bill move to committee where it can be thoroughly examined and MPs can hear from experts on this bill. It is extremely important that we move expeditiously to capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that are associated with offshore wind.
Public Policy Forum released a report yesterday that showed just how important this is for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage my hon. colleague to perhaps have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, who has worked collaboratively on this and wants to see it move quickly.
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, right now, we are facing a huge climate crisis, and we need to move quickly. This is about moving the bill onto committee. We know that the Conservative leadership of Nova Scotia wants to move aggressively in having more of a power supply from offshore wind power. I would ask the member why he thinks the Conservatives are blocking this.
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very glad to see that there is a motion for closure today because we are in a global race to help drive Canada's offshore future and Canada's clean energy future. I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues for not getting on board.
Ultimately, we will have a vote on this, and they will be able to lay out their position and rationale on why they are against it, but we are in a global race right now. Every day matters. If we had not moved for closure, the Conservatives would still be here trying to debate the talking points from the leader of the official opposition's office. This is the challenge.
Can the minister highlight to the House how important this bill is for the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the clean energy industry?
The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, this legislation can move forward because it is a joint agreement between federal and provincial authorities. Notwithstanding what the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, which was that there is no experience, this is exactly how the Atlantic accords have operated for almost 40 years now.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an extremely positive and constructive example of collaborative federalism. This bill was developed in concert with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something they will be putting in place in their own legislation as this bill moves through Canada's Parliament. It is extremely important for enabling the economic future of those two provinces. It would create good jobs and economic opportunity.
Again, it astonishes me that members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are opposing what is one of the great economic opportunities going forward. It is truly astonishing. They are standing against the premiers of their respective provinces, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia.
119 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I am very proud to have worked for a distinguished premier such as Premier Romanow, who was somebody who did enormously positive things for the Province of Saskatchewan after the previous Conservative premier, Grant Devine, virtually bankrupted the province.
However, I would also say that it is extremely important that we are moving forward rapidly to fight carbon emissions and to build an economy that can be strong and create good jobs and economic opportunities for Canada and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This bill is about creating such opportunity in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important that we have a plan to fight climate change and that we have a plan for the economy; the Conservative Party has neither.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as we fight the existential threat that is climate change, we must have an economic plan for the future that is going to create good jobs and economic opportunity in every province of this country. This bill is an important part of doing that, particularly with respect to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he sit down and have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia about those issues.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was speaking with the hon. member for Kings—Hants, who has sat in this chamber and listened to the debate on this bill over the course of the past number of days. No real suggestions have come from the opposition as to things it would like to see changed. If it does, it will have that opportunity at committee, where it can have a fulsome discussion and hear from witnesses.
We certainly think it is important to have that kind of transparency, but it is also important for us to seize the economic opportunity. Canada is not the only country that is focused on it. This is a global race. We must move quickly. I would again suggest that the opposition have a chat with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister likes to talk about listening and consulting with Atlantic Canadians, and he has talked about the premier of Nova Scotia. I would add the premiers of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the carbon tax and the opposition that the government faces.
Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada found its legislation, Bill C-69, to be unconstitutional. I would think this would give the government and the minister pause when it comes to invoking closure. We should look at these bills properly as parliamentarians and debate them, so the government does not make the same mistake and ram another bill through Parliament that is poorly written and will face challenges down the road.
Your record is awful on bills such as this one. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you rushed it. Why are you now rushing it again?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is a global race. The Public Policy Forum document that was published just yesterday or today shows the magnitude of the opportunity that is here. It is a very significant economic opportunity for Nova Scotia and for Newfoundland and Labrador.
As I said before, I am astounded that the Conservative Party is actively campaigning against the economic future of Atlantic Canada. It is astonishing to me that it will sit in this chamber and, simply for the purpose of opposing this government, act against the interests of Atlantic Canadians.
92 words
All Topics
- 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
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the folks from Cumberland—Colchester, especially when it is to speak to a bill that would negatively affect potential development in Nova Scotia. We have heard from many people in the House, Atlantic members of Parliament specifically, wanting to now portray themselves as the saviours of Nova Scotia. They are going on, touting how many people really want to be a part of the bill, which we know is utter hogwash.
We know that Bill C-49 would create uncertainty and control. By that, I mean it would create uncertainty and control related to the cabinet members of the NDP-Liberal coalition government. The difficulty we see there is that they are the ones who would assume the ultimate decision-making process when looking at the development of the offshore industries in Nova Scotia. We know very clearly that they would want to stop projects in the ocean to have ultimate control of their fiefdom, as they have had on land now for many years, and to effectively kill the oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia. It is really quite shocking.
We know that representatives from Germany came to specifically Nova Scotia in Canada and said that they would like to have our natural gas. The Prime Minister said that there is no case for natural gas. He asked who would need natural gas and why anyone would want natural gas. We also know that the NDP-Liberal government has killed 17 natural gas projects in this country, which obviously shows its true colours. Those members not only want to control it, but also to control the destiny of people in Atlantic Canada.
We know that the bill is rife with difficulties, red tape, long delays, stifling unproductivity and an unfriendly business environment. That part of this really hearkens to the words of a friend whom I had an opportunity to see during the break week, who said that, for people who build houses, the red tape, delays, bureaucracy and cost that the NDP-Liberal coalition has created really make it absolutely unpleasant, unpalatable, unfair and unpredictable for someone to even want to build simple housing in this country. Going forward, why would Canadians want to continue to have the voice of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and cabinet members in particular, making those decisions?
We know that, as my colleague spoke to before, at the discretion of a cabinet member, it could possibly create marine protected areas for anything that could possibly, at any time in the future, be examined or have difficulties. With any of the ambiguous language put forward, they would create marine protected areas that, of course, would stymie development.
We also know that the track record of the government, when it comes to offshore projects, is absolutely atrocious. We know that Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project, offshore in Nova Scotia, partly in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, was effectively stopped by the government. We know that Sustainable Marine simply asked for direction going forward from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it got absolutely nothing from the department.
This was the first time a project in the development of tidal energy had put energy back into the grid, and it was measurable. It also had significant abilities to monitor for fish strikes. Even the government arm of monitoring, called FORCE, on the tidal energy project, readily admitted, when I met with those folks and Sustainable Marine energy, that there were no worrisome signals or fish strikes. There was one fish that swam through one of the turbines, but other than that, no fish were harmed in this process.
The scope of Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project is really related to the fact that, if it were able to harness a significant amount of the energy off the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, there would be potential there to power all of Atlantic Canada in perpetuity with minimal cost. When we look at that kind of a project, which the Liberal government has absolutely no ability to support or go forward with, then I ask again why Canadians would want to say that we should allow the cabinet minister to have the opportunity to decide when projects should or should not go forward.
The difficulty, and my colleague, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned this, is that there are many sections of overlap from Bill C-69 embedded in Bill C-49. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional.
Just a few things, if I may. Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 of Bill C-49 invoke section 64 of Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, where the minister finds that a given project's adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and its adverse direct or incidental effects are in public interest, section 64 allows, and in fact requires, the minister to create any conditions which they deem appropriate in relation to those effects and with which the project proponent must comply.
In Bill C-69, the Liberals forced all offshore drilling to be subject to a review panel, increasing the timeline from 300 to 600-plus days for offshore reviews. Conservatives raised this as a major point of concern with Bill C-69. The impact assessment by the agency can take 1,605 days, which, sadly, is four and a half years, if all aspects of the process are followed.
This bill specifies section 64 of IAA, which allows the minister to create any condition they wish, based on an impact assessment report, which could add another 330 days to the process, if it was stated in clause 62 of Bill C-49, required by the regulator or prescribed.
What we are talking about is a country where people cannot afford to feed themselves, to put a roof over their heads and to generally look after their families. When we understand that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to put up red tape, barriers and concerns, then we know what is on the mind of Atlantic Canadians.
Those of us who went back to our ridings last week talked to people, and they talked about the carbon tax and the cost of living. We know that the Atlantic Liberals over on that side of the House have voted 24 times in favour of a carbon tax, over and over again.
There is one person on that side of the House, a Liberal, who has suddenly found religion, or perhaps he has found the Conservative common sense. I cannot exactly explain why, but we do know that he was on TV and was quoted multiple times. I think it is germane to read into the record one of the great quotes:
I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.
A gentleman on the opposite side said that. When we go back to our ridings in Atlantic Canada and hear of the difficulties, we understand very clearly that the Atlantic Liberals continue, over and over, to vote for a punishing carbon tax. What do they want to do now? They want to create further problems for Atlantic Canadians by stopping projects in the ocean.
We already know that they continue to do this on land with the statistics that I quoted previously, the delays of four and a half years on projects. Again, I will tie that to the builders we hear from to understand very clearly that they are giving up on their dreams of building houses and projects for Atlantic Canadians because it is an untenable position.
It is intolerable. It is unacceptable. It is unexplainable why the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to continue to stymie development in Atlantic Canada. That is something, on this side of the House, that we will not stand for.
1373 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for addressing this legislation and for speaking the truth about the negative impacts it would have on both offshore petroleum development and the future of renewable offshore development.
I wonder if he would expand on how disastrous it would be to proceed with Bill C-49 now, given that sections from Bill C-69, sections 61, 62 and 64, which are all embedded in Bill C-69, have now been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, on Friday, to be largely unconstitutional.
I wonder if he would expand on exactly the perils of proceeding with this legislation, which they are rushing through on time allocation, given that we would all know that we were passing a bill with significant clauses that are unconstitutional.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to stand in the House and speak in support of Bill C-49. It has had a great history behind it, with much debate that took place in the 1950s and 1960s about resources off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Typically, as we see in Canada, compromises were made, and the Atlantic accords were put in place to deal with the jurisdiction off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast and followed by Nova Scotia a year later.
The original agreement was, as Newfoundland and Labrador's then premier, Brian Peckford, stated, consistent “with a strong and united Canada”. The day the first of the two accords was signed, the agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, the prime minister at the time, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said in his speech, “It is unquestionably an historic Accord, probably the most important agreement reached between Ottawa and St. John's since Newfoundland entered Confederation”.
169 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
