SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 307

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
  • May/2/24 4:49:32 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, before going any further, I want to acknowledge that I am sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. It is a pleasure to rise to join in the debate tonight on 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. The bill will enable the development of offshore renewable energy by expanding the federal-provincial offshore regulatory regimes in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. This is really critical because it will not only create an incredible opportunity in the clean economy by enabling offshore wind electricity as well as the massive opportunity in green hydrogen Atlantic Canada has at its feet, but it will also allow us to take important steps in decarbonizing our economy and fighting climate change. The imperative to act has never been clearer on fighting climate change. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record and each of the last eight months were the hottest such months we have ever seen recorded. Last year was the worst wildfire season that Canada has ever had, with wildfires from coast to coast to coast, some of which were never extinguished over the winter. We are already seeing the makings of what could be a very bad year for droughts. In my home province of B.C., we had the lowest snowpack ever recorded, and next week we are going to see water restrictions come in. Over the last few years, we have seen some of the most devastating natural disasters, fuelled by climate change, such as hurricanes in Atlantic Canada, atmospheric rivers in British Columbia and much more. Therefore, we need to act to ensure that we prevent the worst outcomes of climate change from occurring, because Canada is one of the top 10 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and because, in acting, there are incredible opportunities for investments, the economy and jobs. Just last year, the International Energy Agency noted that clean energy added $320 billion to the world's economy in just one year and that, by 2030, we are going to require $4.5 trillion in global investments to meet our climate targets. In the offshore wind industry alone we know there is an opportunity for $1 trillion by 2040. This really represents the greatest economic opportunity of our lifetime. Canada has a huge potential to seize an outsized share of these investments and jobs. We have the critical minerals, whether copper in British Columbia or lithium in Quebec. We have the manufacturing know-how in Ontario so that we can build a full value chain for battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing. We are the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other G7 country. We have a world-class potential for clean electricity that would allow us to leverage our legacy of hydroelectric power and supplement it with the cheapest electricity in the world right now, which is solar and wind energy, provided we do what we can to ensure the infrastructure can be built. We are also seeing a massive interest in Canadian green hydrogen, which is hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. We need to be able to meet that demand. Bill C-49, along with the 150 measures in Canada's emissions reduction program, are helping Canada seize these generational economic opportunities. Just in the last year, we became the number one per capita recipient of foreign direct investment and the third country overall behind the U.S. and Brazil. We have seen massive investments in electric vehicle manufacturing from Stellantis, Volkswagen and most recently Honda, which is the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. There are also multi-billion dollar opportunities in the hydrogen sector in Atlantic Canada alone. We are helping to attract this investment through targeted incentives, including through investment tax credits in clean technologies, clean manufacturing, clean hydrogen and clean electricity. It is clear that these measures are not only creating jobs and growing the economy, but having a material impact on reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier today, Canada tabled its greenhouse gas inventory, which shows what greenhouse gases were in 2022 and that they have been reduced by 44 million tonnes since 2019. This is the equivalent of taking 13 million cars off the road, and it is the lowest that Canada's emissions have been since the O.J. Simpson trial or the year Connor McDavid was born. The Canadian Climate Institute says that this shows “clear evidence that Canada continues to decouple emissions from economic growth”, but we still need to do more. This includes by finalizing some important regulations that would advance climate action, including the regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, the electric vehicle availability standard and the clean electricity standard. However, despite having the longest coastlines and some of the best wind speeds in the world, Canada does not have a single offshore wind project to date. This is due, in part, to the lack of a comprehensive lifestyle regulatory regime, which has led to uncertainty and impeded the pace of development. That is where today's bill comes into the spotlight, because Atlantic Canada is well positioned to be a leader in offshore wind energy and in green hydrogen. The Public Policy Forum says, “Offshore wind could be for Atlantic Canada what oil was to Texas or hydro power to Quebec. We are talking here not of something incremental, but monumental.” To help address this gap, the Government of Canada introduced amendments to the accord acts to expand the existing joint management regimes established with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to include offshore renewable energy. These amendments would also modernize the existing petroleum land tenure regime, align the accord acts with the Impact Assessment Act, further support Canada's marine conservation goals and allow for increased consultation with indigenous peoples. This would help us to seize this tremendous opportunity. It is hard to understand why any party would be against such a measure. Why would anyone not want to create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, attract investment in wind energy and help meet Europe's demand for hydrogen as it rapidly decarbonizes? However, we see that the Conservatives are opposed to this investment in jobs. In fact, they have filibustered this legislation for seven weeks, blocking it from even being discussed at committee. We see this with the amendment they have tabled today that would simply send it back to committee, where they would continue filibustering again. When I ask why, the only reason I can see is that the Conservative Party is diametrically opposed to any measures that would reduce Canada's reliance on the fossil fuel sector. Its members want Canadians to be subject to the commodity roller coaster of prices and to deny Canadians the benefits of lower and more stable heating bills from clean electricity. They will not even admit that climate change is happening or that it is caused by humans. While filibustering the bill, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires as a “narrative”. He said that this narrative leads people to believe in climate change, but the “facts don't bear it out.” The Conservatives even invited the leader of the official opposition's close ally and adviser, Ches Crosbie, to tell the committee that human-caused climate change was “bogus”. Let us call it like it is: The Conservatives do not believe in climate change or in the benefits of climate action, and their obstructionism is holding us back, not just in Parliament and not just in Atlantic Canada, but right across the country. In Alberta, we recently saw Danielle Smith imposing a hard stop on renewable energy projects, jeopardizing $33 billion in investment and far and away the cheapest form of electricity out there. The recent proposals from the Alberta government would make it nearly impossible to get renewable energy built across the province. As such, we see what a Conservative government would do. They do not believe in climate change. Moreover, they will do anything to stop renewable energy projects from breaking the hold that the fossil fuel industry has on Canadians. They put forth that the only way Canada can contribute to reducing emissions is by producing and burning more fossil fuels. They say it is “technology, not taxes”, but this is greenwashing. Actually, just a couple of days ago at the finance committee, we passed forward some amendments that would require companies, when they make an environmental claim, to provide the evidence to back it up. I just wish the same measure would apply to the Conservatives, because then we could have an honest debate.
1507 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 4:59:41 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I really want to correct some of the facts in my colleague's speech. He is saying that Alberta has made it impossible to develop renewable energy. In my riding in southern Alberta, there are three solar projects and close to 600 wind turbines. We are very proud of our renewable projects. To ensure my colleague has his facts straight, we put a pause, which has now been lifted. Why we did so is that 75% of the renewable projects that have been built in Canada over the last few years have actually been built in Alberta. However, close to 25% to 30% of the agriculture land in Alberta was identified for wind turbine or solar projects, which would put food production at risk. Does he not think there has to be a balance between building renewable energy projects and ensuring that we protect agriculture land and arable land for food production?
154 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:00:35 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, quite frankly, Alberta has the greatest potential for renewable electricity in the entire country. It was having a massive boom in renewable energy production and investment until this moratorium came into place. I know there are these projects there. The problem here is that this moratorium put a hard stop on it. To put forward these false arguments that somehow renewable energy is going to kill food supply in Canada is just beyond the pale.
77 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:01:12 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, just because they write “renewable energy” in a bill and greenwash the title, it does not mean that it is an environmental bill. As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois voted in good faith at second reading. I would like my colleague to explain to me why they rejected all the amendments that were reasonable, well researched and based on the testimony of the people we heard in committee, including people from coastal communities, people from the fishery. How can we accept such things as environmental assessments being optional? That is outrageous.
102 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:02:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I was not there for the committee study, so I cannot say why certain amendments were or were not adopted. However, I know that this bill will promote the renewable energy sector in Atlantic Canada, particularly wind energy, and I think that is an important step we must take. I also know that fishers did testify and that this bill was drafted with the Atlantic provinces to address these issues.
73 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:03:04 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, speaking of renewable energy, a very worrisome report came out this morning about the success in achieving greenhouse gas reduction targets. We might be happy that we are eventually getting new offshore wind farms, but we all know that the Liberals' record is no match for the climate crisis and that although there has been a slight 7% decline in greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, most of that has to do with the economic slowdown that occurred during the COVID‑19 pandemic. Without that, the decline would not even be possible. If we managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 7% in 19 years and we want to achieve a 45% reduction by 2030, then what is the government going to do to reduce emissions by 38% in only five and a half years?
138 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:03:58 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that there is a lot we need to do to fight climate change. In the report that came out today, we can see that we are making a lot of progress. We need to do even more. That is why I said in my speech that we just need to finalize the rules that are going to make a difference with the cap in the oil sector. Our economy grew a lot in a short amount of time. Now, our emissions are starting to go down for the first time. The space that was—
99 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:04:47 p.m.
  • Watch
We have to resume debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
20 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:04:52 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 was introduced quite a while ago. I would have honestly thought that even the far right Conservative element would get behind and support this bill. I am quite surprised that the Conservative Party today, along with its friends in the Bloc, have decided to vote against Bill C-49. I have a question for each and every member, particularly those from Atlantic Canada: Whom are they listening to? I would like to provide some quotes. Maybe members can guess who said them. In regard to the bill, someone said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.” Who would have said that? An hon. member: Tell us. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: To my Conservative friends, yes, I am going to tell them. Madam Speaker, it was a Progressive, and I underline the word “progressive”, Conservative government member in Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston. He is the individual who said that. We have to wonder why the Conservative Party of Canada is not listening to what the Premier of Nova Scotia, a Progressive Conservative, is saying. There is another quote I would like to share. It states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition.... We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.” We have another premier of a province who is saying that all members should get behind and support this legislation, Bill C-49. The legislation deals with and highlights two Atlantic provinces specifically: Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Both premiers of different political stripes are saying that they want this legislation to pass. We have the NDP and Liberals trying to get the legislation passed, and we have the Bloc and Conservative coalition trying to prevent it from passing. I do not fully understand the Conservatives. They are obviously not listening to the premiers of provinces that are directly impacted and what they are saying. It does not surprise me, because they are more interested in organizations such as Diagolon. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Well, think about it—
390 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:08:37 p.m.
  • Watch
We have a point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
15 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:08:45 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, this is extremely problematic. It has been said so many times. I ask the member to reflect on that organization; I am not even going to repeat it. It said things about the spouse of the Leader of the Opposition
43 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:08:58 p.m.
  • Watch
We are not going to enter into debate, but I will remind members that it has been agreed that we are going to concentrate on the administration of government in this House. Referring to things that happen outside the House and the government has no place in the House. I remind the parliamentary secretary of that.
56 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:09:18 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, let us think about it. The member stands up on a point of order because he is upset that I mentioned a group, which the leader of the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers on this issue—
42 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:09:36 p.m.
  • Watch
I remind the hon. member that we are trying— Some hon. members: Oh, oh! The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
29 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:09:47 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the reaction from the members opposite, when there is a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to do consultations, to look at ways in which legislation is impacting Canadians. Instead of listening to premiers, he is visiting trailers and dealing with issues of Diagolon. That is the reality. The leader of the Conservative Party is more concerned about what the extreme far right has to say than what the premiers have to say on important pieces of legislation. Bill C-49
89 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:10:26 p.m.
  • Watch
The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is rising on a point of order.
16 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:10:30 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is using unparliamentary language and making unparliamentary connections. He should withdraw now, both times.
18 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:10:38 p.m.
  • Watch
I did not hear any unparliamentary language. At this point, the member was making a comparison, and I have asked the member to be very prudent in the way he uses it. He was making a comparison about people who are being listened to. The hon. parliamentary secretary.
48 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:11:00 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the member is trying to censor me because I am saying the word “Diagolon”, whereas the leader of the Conservative Party visits the association at the person's trailer. He is not upset with that, and he asks me—
44 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
  • May/2/24 5:11:19 p.m.
  • Watch
We are not going to start that debate. The member made a comparison about who is listening to whom, but let us keep it at that and continue with the speech, please, on the point in question.
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border