44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, if it was me, I would not be bragging about approving a project like Bay du Nord. The Liberals are clearly talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Still, we think that Bill C‑49 is worthwhile. It provides for the development of offshore wind farms, which is compatible with the energy transition. Compared to the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries, Canada lags behind a bit when it comes to offshore wind farms. I think this is a step in the right direction. Wind farms can coexist with the fishing industry and fisheries. I think we can draw from the European models and do both things at once: respect fishers and operate wind farms in maritime zones.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:14:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree that this bill and the wind farm industry are important.
Of course, other jurisdictions such as those in the European Union and the United Kingdom are ahead of Canada in this area. That is precisely why we have this bill, which seeks to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord and ensure that companies and businesses have some certainty about future investments.
I am very pleased to know that the NDP will support this bill for jobs, investment and the environment.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:14:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and I have never compared notes, but we went to the same law school. I am drawing on my experience as a proud graduate of the Dalhousie University school of law to say that the current government has completely bungled impact assessment and has bungled repairing the impact assessment law. He referenced it in his speech. Therefore, I want to put to him that we had extremely effective federal environmental assessment laws, starting in 1975, concretized in 1993 in a statute brought in by Brian Mulroney, and they were destroyed by Stephen Harper in the spring of 2012 in a budget implementation act.
The current Liberal government promised to repair the law to what it was before 2012, and instead, it continued with Harper's approach, which is why the legislation was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The designated project list approach was far too discretionary and untethered from the federal jurisdictional, clear guidance that existed under Mulroney.
I would ask my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants if he could exert his influence over the people who were not trained at law school, such as the Minister of the Environment, to fix the Impact Assessment Act, but not through this quick, dirty and flawed approach in the ways and means bill.
224 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:16:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I too have a law degree from Dalhousie University. It is a wonderful institution. When I was in law school, not too long ago, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands came and gave a presentation, so it is nice to be able to join her in this place now, debating the laws of the country.
The member referenced Brian Mulroney. I want to say a couple of things. He was a Progressive Conservative, and there was a moderate Conservative vision for what this country could be. I would encourage any member who sits in the Conservative Party to take inspiration from Mr. Mulroney and what he brought to this country.
The member is right about how Stephen Harper's approach was undermining credibility and the belief of Canadians in the due diligence of the process. We have sought to make sure there are proper channels in place to balance the really important need to drive major projects in this country, including those that help with decarbonization. The Supreme Court has ruled that certain elements of the government's approach were unconstitutional. That is exactly why the ways and means motion in the budget includes some measures that would try to address those particular points.
The last thing I would say is this. I know the hon. member across the way, and I tip my cap to her for her advocacy for environmental action. She knows the urgency of the work that needs to happen. Whether with respect to critical minerals or major projects to decarbonize, we need to make sure these projects can happen. We need to balance, of course, not only the environmental protections, but also the ability to action those projects that would help reduce emissions in this country and indeed globally. I think that is the balance the government is seeking to bring forward in this debate and in the budget ways and means motion.
321 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Atlantic accord has delivered powerful things to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia. I heard the member for Kings—Hants reference the late prime minister Brian Mulroney, who said that he was not afraid to inflict prosperity upon Newfoundlanders. The NDP-Liberal coalition has a completely different stance toward the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and toward those who make their livings in the fishing industry and in the offshore petroleum industry.
It is a privilege to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-49, which would destroy the original intent of the Atlantic accord. It would make changes to laws surrounding the offshore oil and gas exploration off Nova Scotia and off Newfoundland and Labrador, and the development of the same. At the same time, it sets out a necessary framework for the development of an offshore wind industry.
We are way behind the rest of the world. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition, we are in last place in renewable green energy in the G7. That is where we are sitting. The government has quite the record on greenhouse gas emission reductions. We are almost at the bottom of the countries that were laid out in COP28.
At the same time, while laying out a framework for the development of offshore oil and gas, Bill C-49 attacks our offshore oil and gas industry.
Common-sense Conservatives are going to push back against the proposed legislation. We have been doing it ever since it was tabled. We have been in contact with the stakeholders in the fishing industry and in the offshore petroleum industry from day one, and these stakeholders have voiced their concerns. They have come to committee, and they have submitted written briefs. We have been there for them.
Contrary to what the member for Kings—Hants just said in debate, that we are weak and disgraceful, standing up for the largest industry in that member's province of Nova Scotia—
336 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:21:19 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kings—Hants is rising on a point of order.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:21:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is important, when we are in this place, to make sure of the facts in what is being said about what another member has said. I just want to be very clear, so it is in Hansard, and it can be checked by the table staff. I said that their position was weak and disgraceful, not the Conservatives themselves nor the hon. member.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:21:38 p.m.
- Watch
I recall hearing that, so it is in Hansard.
The hon. member may resume his speech.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, let us be clear, common-sense Conservatives stand with the fishing industry and with the offshore petroleum industry, as well as with those workers and those families, and those industries that rely on the spinoffs from those powerful Atlantic Canada industries.
Stakeholders like the FFAW, Brazil Rock Lobster Association, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, just to name a few who presented at the natural resources committee a few weeks ago.
We heard from Katie Power with the FFAW, which represents 14,000 people who make their living from the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. She shared a critical perspective with the rest of the fishing industry stakeholders who appeared, who submitted briefs and who were from Atlantic Canada, which is that offshore wind energy expansion will have direct impacts on fish harvesters, who will be faced with having to compete with the offshore wind energy sector for ocean space. Space for fishers who have to harvest their catch is not unlimited space; it is a finite space.
When Dan Fleck of Nova Scotia's Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association was asked how many lobster traps could fit in a proposed 4,000 square kilometre wind farm, just east of Cape Breton, he told us thousands and thousands. Chances are there would be 50 to 60 independent owner-operators displaced, and the crews who depend on them for their livelihood, and all their families, would be impacted, as well as the local coastal communities that rely on the spinoffs. Dan simply echoed the concerns of Katie.
Very little consultation was had with the fishing industry. We heard the testimony. However, there was a bit of a difference of opinion among NDP and Liberal members on the committee. They felt that they had consulted heavily with the fishing industry, but that was shot down solidly when we had those stakeholders appear.
We took the testimony of the fishing industry stakeholders, and we set out to make amendments to try to ensure that the development of offshore wind does not destroy livelihoods in the fishery. In fact, we consulted directly with them, coming up with those nine amendments, which we tried to get votes on here today, and a number of other amendments that were shot down in by members of the natural resource committee, including NDP members who voted against amendments that were written for us by Unifor. Again, across the way, they tout their wonderful relationship that they have with organized labour.
Unifor, one of the biggest unions in Canada, provided common-sense Conservatives with amendments to support the FFAW to protect the livelihoods of those members of the FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel threatened because they are not a part of the process. They have not been a part of the process. If someone wants to get up here and challenge me on that, they can go back and look at Hansard and all those committee meetings where those fishing industry stakeholders came to committee and pleaded with the costly NDP-Liberal coalition to bring in amendments to support them and to give them peace of mind so that they would not feel that their livelihoods were threatened.
I am very saddened that the NDP and the Bloc did not support the stakeholders in these existing industries. The bird in the hand is worth two in the field. The bird in the hand is the petroleum industry offshore, and it is our fishing industry. They are proven. The fishing industry is over 400 years old in Atlantic Canada.
I am very saddened, but what saddens me the most are the six Liberal MPs across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador and the eight from Nova Scotia who did not support the amendments put forward by people in their own ridings who earn their living from the sea. They did not support amendments that would recognize and mitigate the harmful effects that wind energy can have if we do not have the right consultations with the fishing industry. These industries can coexist. Conservatives are not against wind energy. The only copper mine in Atlantic Canada is in my riding. Every wind turbine uses 1.5 tonnes of copper for every megawatt produced. My goodness, what is the world coming to?
Conservatives tried to get amendments through to support the stakeholders who pleaded with us, and the costly coalition shut it all down. Our amendments to Bill C-49 would have ensured that conflicts between the offshore wind energy and the fishing industry would be kept at a minimum. This would have increased investor confidence in the development of offshore wind and would have given the fishing industry assurance that it would have a viable seat at the table throughout the development of this future renewable resource.
Bill C-49 was void of details on compensation for fishers who could be displaced from their fishing grounds, and displacement will be inevitable without proper consultation. Our amendments aimed to address this. Common-sense Conservatives worked hard on behalf of the fishing industry and the offshore petroleum industry to amend Bill C-49 so we could support it. We do not want to have to vote against something that could be good, but if it is going to kill two industries for another one, it does not make sense. The NDP-Liberals slapped the FFAW-Unifor and its 14,000 members in Newfoundland and Labrador right in the face and did not consider the amendments they wanted.
There was great testimony from the fishing industry, but, in addition to that, there was expert witness testimony from the offshore petroleum industry. One such witness was Mr. Max Ruelokke, with a career of nearly 50 years in the offshore oil and gas industry. Mr. Ruelokke obtained a vast amount of knowledge from working in the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas industry and through his interactions worldwide. It cannot be denied that he is a pre-eminent expert in the offshore petroleum industry. Most pertinent to his experience is the fact that he served as the chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for six years.
In his submission to the committee, he made some pretty strong statements. I will read Mr. Ruelokke's testimony into the record today in this place. It is entitled “An Informed Opinion on Certain Aspects of Bill C-49”, and it states:
I have studied Bill C-49 from the perspective of my 40+ years engagement in the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, offshore Brazil and offshore India. Details of my engagement are contained in my CV, which accompanies this document.
The offshore oil and gas industry is a very competitive business on a world-wide basis. Operators such as the major oil and gas companies decide where and when to invest in exploration and production activities based on a variety of factors. One obvious factor is the potential existence of sufficient resource to allow for production. Another is the viability of production on an economic basis. The resources offshore Newfoundland and Labrador have been proven time and time again to meet both of those tests.
Another significant factor is the existence and certainty of an appropriate regulatory regime. Up until now, we have met that test as well. However, with the potential passage of Bill C-49, this situation will change drastically. Specifically, Section 56 of this Bill puts any and all offshore areas at risk of being rendered unusable for resource development, even though such activities may already be underway, and with appropriate regulatory approval.
Corporations have to risk assess any and all potential investments to ensure that such investments made can deliver appropriate returns. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industry, these investments range into billions of dollars.
This is where it gets interesting. He says:
If Bill C-49 is enacted, it will ring the death knell for any potential future offshore oil and gas developments in Atlantic Canada.
That is pretty powerful, “the death knell”. I will talk a little bit more about what a “death knell” means for Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore petroleum industry. He says:
This will be the case since no corporation will risk investing in an area where their exploration or production activities can retroactively be banned simply because Governments believe that the area in which they are occurring may, at some point in time, require environmental protection. This is a terrible piece of legislation!
These are the very words of Mr. Max Ruelokke. He goes on to say:
If we do not continue to explore for, find and produce the relatively environmentally friendly oil under our seabed, we will have to rely on oil and gas from other, much less stable and more environmentally risky areas. The International Energy Agency's 2022 Report estimated that, in 2050, the world will still need approximately 24 million barrels of oil per day. Those of us in Atlantic Canada deserve the opportunity to provide our fair share of those 24 M BBI/day. Please remove Section 56 from Bill C-49 to make this possible!!
Respectfully submitted.
Max Ruelokke
What does a ”death knell” mean for Newfoundland's offshore petroleum industry? Let us take a look at it. The offshore petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador contributes 25% to 30% of our GDP every year, depending on the price of oil as it fluctuates. It is an industry that supports nearly 25,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, nearly $2 billion of labour income, $1.4 billion of consumer spending and $1.4 billion of tax and royalty revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am quoting 2017 figures, when oil was only about $30 a barrel. Today, it is $90, so one can imagine what that does to these figures.
It certainly is an industry that we cannot risk destroying by the amendments that Bill C-49 would make to the original Atlantic Accord.
Many in the industry feel that we are seeing the effects of this legislation already. Bill C-49 was tabled last spring and, at the time, there were about 10 companies that were looking at putting together bids to explore in our offshore. However, whatever happened, last year, with a record number of offerings, we received zero bids. Historically, there have been bids up to or even exceeding $1 billion per year to purchase land leases for exploration.
This strikes me as a little peculiar, but not for Mr. Ruelokke. He says this is because of proposed section 56 creating so much uncertainty, basically stating that if an area may be deemed as a future environmentally sensitive area, the government can pull past, current and future exploration and development permits. With the amount of uncertainty created by Bill C-49, especially with proposed section 56, it is a disaster. It is absurd.
While we received no bids in our offshore for parcels for exploration, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico had its largest auction since 2015. I will put it in Canadian dollars: $523 million of bids were taken.
We tried to get that horrible proposed section 56 out of the bill, and we were shot down completely. The uncertainty is brewing with Bill C-49, together with Bill C-50, Bill C-55 and the unconstitutional Bill C-69, for which the government has had six or seven months now to come forward with something. The bill that we are going to be voting on mentions Bill C-69 over 70 times. How can this bill be valid? How can this bill be deemed constitutional?
I challenge the members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Nova Scotia to vote with us and the Bloc—
2007 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:38:53 p.m.
- Watch
We have to go to questions and comments.
The hon. member for Kings—Hants.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:38:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want folks in Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed in Nova Scotia, to know that this government is extremely supportive of the offshore sector, and oil and gas. It was our government that actually took the permitting process from 900 days down to 90 days. It was 900 days under Harper, and it is 90 days under our government. The Conservative Party has called Atlantic Canadians a “culture of defeat”.
Here is a piece of legislation that would allow for there to continue to be a successful offshore oil and gas industry, for there to be a successful fishery, and drive new energy opportunities in clean energy, for which Newfoundland and Labrador is in a prime position.
I just want to read one quick quote:
As a major harvester in the offshore fleet, we know that any forthcoming plans for offshore wind development will be developed thoughtfully and to fully protect this and any other sensitive areas.
That is from Chief Terry Paul in Nova Scotia, who is part of the ownership of the largest offshore fishing company in Atlantic Canada.
I listened to the member's speech. He talked about proposed section 56, which is actually there to protect existing traditional industries, like oil and gas and the fisheries. He stands against the Government of Newfoundland, its prosperity and Atlantic Canada.
Why is the member against what the premiers, the provinces and industry want?
239 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and his costly coalition have quite the track record of destroying the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. With Bill C-49, they will continue right down that path.
This morning, I heard the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl talking about all the people who were trained in our offshore. Yes, they were trained in our offshore, but does the member know where 5,500 of them have gone since the government took power in 2015? They have become international offshore petroleum workers. They commute all over the world and use the skills they learned in our offshore petroleum industry.
I listed quite a lengthy list of industry stakeholders in his province, from the largest industry in Nova Scotia, and the member made fun of us, ridiculing us in his speech earlier. He ridiculed us for standing up for the fishing industry. I cannot believe it.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:41:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks. I explained a little earlier in the debates that the Bloc Québécois members, in good faith, voted in favour of the bill at second reading. We went to committee with an open mind to work constructively, as we always do, which should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, all of our amendments were rejected outright.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks of these amendments, which sought to improve environmental assessment and also to include language meant to reduce fossil fuel development.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for voting for my bill, Bill C-251, to bring in a pinniped management solution, which the NDP-Liberals all voted against.
I feel sorry for the Bloc members, with all the work they put into their amendments just for them to be all shot down, as were ours. I also feel sorry for the people in this country and from Quebec who think that we are going to have a dollar to buy something with. Chief economists say, without the petroleum industry in Canada, Canada would have a 37¢ dollar against the U.S. dollar. What would that do to inflation? What would that do to buying power? What would that do to the price of groceries?
We would be destroying the number one export that Canada has. We would destroy that industry, destroy our currency, destroy families and pocketbooks and wipe everything out here.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:43:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised to hear my colleague say in his speech that the oceans are not big enough. I understand that the oceans are not infinite, but they are quite large. My colleague says he is concerned about the coexistence of wind farms and fisheries, when Europe has been doing it for a long time with maritime zones that are much smaller than what we are talking about right now.
However, for the Conservatives, there is no limit to producing oil and gas, building highways, consuming or manufacturing big, gas-guzzling cars.
I would like to know, are we living on a planet with finite or infinite resources?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:44:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from the NDP misunderstood the context. The fishing industry and the offshore petroleum industry are competing for the same space in the ocean. It just so happens that fish like to hang out on the shoals and that is where wind power usually gets built. It gets built because it is cheaper where the water is more shallow. There are limited amounts of fishing ground. People fish where the fish are. If that is where they are going to put wind farms, there will be nowhere to fish.
There is lots of ocean out there that is poor fishing ground and, if the industries work together, they could put the wind farms on the poor fishing ground and not on the rich fishing ground. That is the difference.
For the record, I am not against offshore wind. I am for collaboration between industries so that we can make it work for everybody.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:45:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, and it was a wonderful speech. He did mention that a couple of years ago there were 10 applications for offshore oil in Newfoundland and Labrador in his area, but this past year there were zero. Ironically, the member for Kings—Hants ran in breathlessly and said they have lowered the application time for approvals. Well, if there is no one who applies, who cares how long the approval time is? I wonder if my colleague has a few comments on that.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lewvan makes a lot of common sense. He is exactly right. The red tape that would come in as a result of Bill C-49 is driving investment out of our offshore petroleum industry already. It was proven last year in the number of bids that were sold. I would also like to point out that the NDP-Liberals are saying that they have changed the processing time from 900 days to 90 days. I would like to let the people of Canada know that the 90 days is for exploration projects and the 900 days is still in place for development.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, Canada exported so much oil and gas that the value of the Canadian dollar rose. Canada's manufacturing heartland in Quebec and Ontario was decimated as a result. Tens of thousands of jobs were lost. This has been documented by leading economists here at the University of Ottawa and elsewhere. When Canada exports too much oil, it kills the manufacturing industry in Quebec and Ontario. This is called Dutch disease, and it is taught in economics 101.
My colleague expressed nostalgia for the days when oil exports killed manufacturing jobs in Quebec. Would he like to say that again so Quebeckers can hear him?
I am not sure I understood correctly.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 4:48:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from la belle province. He is a great guy.
There were thousands of manufacturing jobs in Quebec that were shipping out components. The buses that used to bring people from Fort McMurray out to the oil sands were all produced in Quebec, providing jobs in Quebec. There were also royalties from the petroleum industry. Who gets the transfer payments that result from the offshore oil and gas industry, from the oil sands and from Canada's natural gas industry?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
