SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:11:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would be inclined to apologize if in fact the leader of the Conservative Party would stop the jellyfish attitude and actually apologize to Canadians for his attitudes in dealing with—

34 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

May/2/24 5:12:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How is this relevant?

13 words

Rise
Point

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/24 5:12:04 p.m.
Watch

There is a lot of room for latitude but, in this case, that is an appropriate question. Let us bring it back to the subject at hand.

27 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:12:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process. We are talking about Bill C-49, substantial legislation that would enable the potential development in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in things such as wind energy. I was quoting two premiers who want the House of Commons to pass the legislation, and talking about the frustration members no doubt have because the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers of the provinces, has chosen to listen to far right-wing organizations, extremists, and not allow the legislation to pass. To demonstrate that, let us talk about what Conservative Party has done. The legislation has been on hold in committee. Bill C-50 was just ahead of it, and the Conservatives used AI to come up with 20,000-plus amendments on Bill C-50, which delayed the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49. When we finally got it through the committee stage, they attempted to bring in amendments at report stage, which were accurately ruled by the Speaker as being out of order. Then the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that would kill the legislation, while at the same time—

193 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/24 5:13:57 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is rising on a point of order.

17 words

Mr. Brad Vis

May/2/24 5:14:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is a simple question of relevancy. He is talking about another bill processed through the House of Commons, and not about Bill C-49.

27 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/24 5:14:09 p.m.
Watch

However, it is a bill that was processed through the House of Commons that may have a certain link to the current bill. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

30 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:14:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the sensitivity of the member, since 99.5% of everything I said is absolutely relevant to the legislation. The Conservative Party of Canada is so determined to prevent the legislation from passing, and the question that needs to be asked of the Conservatives is what they have against Atlantic Canada that they are preventing legislation from passing that would enable the region to achieve a much higher potential. The Conservatives do not have to believe the government. All they need to do is listen to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and, in particular, the provincial leadership. They are calling upon the Conservative Party of Canada not only to recognize that the bill is positive legislation but also, at the very least, to allow the legislation to pass. The Conservative Party is doing whatever it can to prevent that from happening, and I find that disrespectful to the people of those provinces. I suggest that, at the end of the day, economic development is important. Economic development in Atlantic Canada is good for all of Canada. When we look at the behaviour of the Conservative Party today, the attitude of Joe Clark, Kim Campbell and Brian Mulroney about it is right, which is that the Conservative Party today has amputated the progressive nature of the party. It is not me who is saying that; it was former prime ministers of Canada who were real progressive Conservatives. The current leadership of the Conservative Party has fallen so far to the right that they have amputated the progressive nature—

266 words

Newfoundland

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/24 5:16:05 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

19 words

Mr. Marty Morantz

May/2/24 5:16:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, the debate is about Bill C-49. The member has been going on for a couple of minutes now about Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell—

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/2/24 5:16:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Members know there is a lot of leeway, and the member has been debating Bill C-49 too. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

25 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:16:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I should get some bonus time for the interruptions from across the way. It is 100% relevant. I do not quite understand how the Conservatives do not see the relevance to the issue. Members opposite need to recognize the damage they are causing to Atlantic Canada because of their filibustering. It means MOUs could be signed that are not being signed, because the provinces need the legislation to pass. If the Conservatives want to support economic activity and Atlantic Canada, they need to at least get out of the way. If they do not want to vote for the legislation, they should not vote for it, but they should allow the legislation to pass. That is what is in the interests of Atlantic Canada and all Canadians. Conservatives are standing in the way because they are listening to the far right as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canada, specifically Atlantic Canada. I would encourage members opposite to think about what they are doing, to think about their Atlantic colleagues who sit in the Conservative caucus and will, ultimately, have to go to the polls in 2025 when they are going to be asked why they filibustered and stalled Bill C-49, a bill that has been encouraged by two premiers, the government and New Democrats. Ideally, Conservatives should support the legislation, but if they are not going to, they should step aside and allow it to pass. This way, the potential of the legislation's impact on economic development could be realized.

258 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

May/2/24 5:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know whether I am ever going to get that time back in my life, but that was pretty bad, even for the member for Winnipeg North. I will ask a question regarding something that has been on my mind and has been talked about in conjunction with the debate about energy renewables and the need to have critical minerals. The government has spent over $50 billion recently on subsidizing environmental lawbreakers like Volkswagen in the creation of new power plants. In the opinion of the member, how much time should Parliament allot to the study of contracts, when $15 billion is going to Volkswagen, $15 billion is going to Stellantis and $2.5 billion is going to Honda? How much time should Parliament be allotted to study and review those expenditures accordingly?

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:19:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not plant that question. It is amazing; not only do Conservative Party members want to put economic development on hold and kill it in Atlantic Canada, but that question demonstrates that they also want to kill it and do what they can to stop it in the province of Ontario. Volkswagen, Honda and Stellantis are going to be creating good, solid, middle-class green jobs. What is it with today's modern Conservative Party that its members are so against economic development? They do not understand how important it is for the government to directly get involved and support these types of industries. These are the types of industries that are going to provided good-quality, middle-class jobs. With that kind of an attitude coming from Conservatives today, they are going to be lucky if they can win 50 seats in the next election.

149 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

May/2/24 5:20:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, the Liberals have been woefully weak when it comes to actually making the investments around clean energy so we can do the transition. Look at the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States. We can see that 1.5 million jobs have been created from President Joe Biden's investments in clean energy. When is the Canadian government going to step up on those kinds of investments? Second, I found it a little rich to hear a Conservative colleague talking about scrutiny, when the Conservatives, during the dismal decade of the Harper regime, gave $116 billion in liquidity supports to banks. They gave $30 billion each and every year, $300 billion total, a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens through the infamous Harper tax haven treaties, and then, of course, massive subsidies to oil and gas CEOs. I want to ask my colleague whether he finds it rich that Conservatives, after all of their fiscal mismanagement, are trying to give others lessons.

168 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:21:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we always have to take things with a grain of salt when it comes to economic development. If my colleague wants to reflect on the Harper years, one needs only to take a look at the damage that was caused in the manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario, for example, where hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were lost under Stephen Harper, not to mention the overall deficit in terms of international trade in many different ways, again under Stephen Harper. In terms of the environment, I, along with many members of the House, recognize that there is a thing called sustainable development, a universal principle held by progressive-minded people. It means working and thinking about our environment and jobs, and about how we can make the transition to providing good quality, middle-class greener jobs into the future. I see that as a positive thing. That is the reason why I see investments in Volkswagen and Honda as a good thing, contrary to the member opposite. By the way, Doug Ford seems to agree, because he is putting up a lot of money too.

189 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/2/24 5:22:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, even by the member from Winnipeg's standards that speech was something else. He did not talk about the bill at all. I listened to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame's speech. He is from Newfoundland and Labrador. There were a lot of people he consulted with, like those from the united fishermen's associations and a lot of people on the ground. He said a representative group of 14,000 fishermen had concerns with the bill, and they put forward amendment no. 56 so that it could work for both the fishing company and renewable resources. I am wondering why those peoples' voices do not matter to my colleague and he listens only to the ones in his head.

128 words

Speech

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/2/24 5:23:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I suspect that the real challenge for many Conservatives might be the back and forth going on in their own heads. For me personally, the individuals I listen to are provincial premiers and my caucus colleagues from Atlantic Canada. Contrast that to the extreme right that many Conservatives and, in particular, the leader of the Conservative Party listen to.

61 words

Listen

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

May/2/24 5:24:28 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-50 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that. I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today. There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional. It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point. The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem. When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada. Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada. That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them. I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee. I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated: To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable. FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding. This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued. I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated: The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry. I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added: Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

844 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 307