SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 307

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 2, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
Mr. Kody Blois
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24
Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border