SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 318 - May/27/24

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 12:01:39 p.m.
Watch

The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

51 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

May/27/24 12:02:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 12:02:27 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

23 words

Hon. Steven MacKinnon (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/27/24 12:02:51 p.m.
Watch

moved: That in relation to 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

125 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 12:03:57 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places or use the “raise hand” function so that the Chair can have some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

67 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/27/24 12:05:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate just how critically important the legislation is to Atlantic Canada in many different ways. It is about economic opportunities. I know my Atlantic colleagues are very anxious to see the legislation pass. I also understand that there are provinces that are waiting for the legislation to pass because of the mere necessity of seeing the provincial legislation ultimately pass. Could the minister amplify how important it is that the legislation get through sooner, as opposed to later, because we have provincial governments, and even different political parties, that want to see the legislation pass quickly?

100 words

Critically

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

May/27/24 12:06:38 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that the legislation move forward. As folks who understand how the Atlantic accords work would know, we worked on this in lockstep with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador: every word, every period and every comma. It requires mirror legislation to be introduced in both legislatures after it actually goes through the parliamentary process here in Ottawa. I will quote the two premiers, in terms of their anticipation of this act. Premier Furey said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.” Premier Houston of Nova Scotia said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary...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.”

178 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

May/27/24 12:07:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have heard a lot of concern from Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, over the fact that the offshore industry is taking off and could leave Canada behind. We are the only Atlantic nation that does not have an offshore wind industry. We know the United States is moving ahead with substantive investments. It is essential to get the legislation through, which is why New Democrats have agreed to support this extraordinary move. Throughout the committee hearings, the Conservatives said again and again that they were going to oppose this because it is about clean energy, even though, in Nova Scotia, there is no offshore oil work being done at all. The communities have asked us to get the bill through. However, without the tax credit incentives to get these projects off the ground, we are not any further ahead. We see that Biden has managed to get the offshore industry up and running and is putting the tax credits in place. The states are going to leave us in the dust if we do not move quickly on this. Could my colleague speak about the ITCs?

192 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:08:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, for all the reasons that my hon. colleague articulated, it is certainly important that we move forward. Other countries are moving, and Canada also needs to move. We do not have a regulatory structure to enable offshore wind at the present time. We need to get that in place to enable the development of a hydrogen industry that will help our friends and allies in Europe to decarbonize and improve their energy security. I was recently in Germany and met with the vice-chancellor. We are very hopeful that we will be able to move forward with Germany, but we certainly need to have the regulatory structure in place. We also need the investment tax credits, and we are certainly anxious to move the relevant bills through the House to ensure that they are, in fact, in place.

140 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

May/27/24 12:09:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, FFAW-Unifor representatives were at committee, representing 14,000 fishing industry stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador and a number of stakeholder organizations from the Maritimes. They wanted a framework built into the bill for meaningful consultation and for compensation where spatial requirements just do not work for the wind energy industry, where it competes against the fishing industry. We worked directly in consultation with Unifor's lawyers and created nine amendments, which put forward exactly what the fishing industry wanted. Could the minister tell us how many of the amendments made it into the legislation that we are going to be voting on?

105 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:10:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleague knows, the legislation was drafted in collaboration with both provincial governments. Obviously, they are very concerned about the perspectives of fish harvesters, as are we. Fishing activities can coexist alongside the development of an offshore wind industry. We just need to look at the example of the United Kingdom and many other countries around the world. Proposed projects will have to go through a regional assessment that is ongoing now. That will certainly include significant input from fish harvesters as part of that process. In the development of the legislation, officials have engaged along the way with One Ocean, which I believe includes the FFAW, as well as the CNSOPB Fisheries Advisory Committee. The views of fish harvesters are and will continue to be very important, but it is certainly within the bounds of what is being done in many countries around the world that a healthy fishing industry and healthy renewable energy can coexist.

161 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/27/24 12:12:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in the riding of Waterloo, there are a lot of connections to people in all provinces and territories, including the Maritimes, the east coast and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would like to hear from the minister about how the legislation would actually connect to the economic prosperity of Canada today and leading into the future. This is something that is on the minds of constituents. They would like the legislation to go forward, but it is also important for them to understand how it would actually work when it comes to the economic abilities and prosperity for the country. How would this work with the government's plan?

110 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:12:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly this is integral as part of building an economy that is going to create jobs and economic prosperity in the future. That starts with actually accepting the scientific reality of climate change, which is something the folks across the way seem to have great difficulty doing. At the end of the day, climate change is real; it is a scientific reality. One needs to actually found our economic strategy on looking to seize the economic opportunities that will be enabled through the transition to a low-carbon future. That is net-zero petrochemical facilities in Alberta. That is ultra-low-carbon potash facilities in Saskatchewan. That is nuclear development in Ontario. That very much is the development of an offshore hydrogen industry that would help to ship hydrogen to our friends and allies in Europe. It would be an enormous economic enabler for Nova Scotia and for Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been strongly endorsed by both provincial governments, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. It is time the Conservative Party simply got out of the way and let us build the economy of the future.

190 words

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

May/27/24 12:14:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise to anybody that the Conservatives are blocking, yet again, legislation that would make a difference in the lives of people. We saw them oppose dental care, even though 100,000 seniors have already had access to a dental care program that the NDP forced the government to put into place. They have opposed pharmacare. They have opposed anything that has a net benefit. It does not surprise me either that the Conservatives are opposing a bill that would provide benefits to Atlantic Canada, because the member for Carleton is on the record making disparaging, negative and derogatory comments about Atlantic Canada. It is no surprise to me either that Conservatives are opposing clean energy. That is really the wave of tomorrow, but Conservatives, because they want to drag Canada back to the 19th century, absolutely refuse to accept any portion of a clean energy strategy that would create potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs across the country. Therefore, I am not surprised. Is my colleague surprised by the Conservatives', yet again, blocking important legislation?

180 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:15:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I am not surprised. As I said a minute ago, having a thoughtful approach to an economy that will create jobs and economic prosperity in every province and territory in this country requires, in this day and age, an acceptance of the fundamental reality of climate change. It requires having a plan to address the climate crisis. It requires, then, looking to seize the opportunities that will be enabled through the transition to a low-carbon future. Unfortunately, the Conservative Party does not believe in climate change. Its plan is, effectively, to let the planet burn. It has no relevant economic plan for the future. Therefore, no, I am not surprised. Unfortunately, I am not surprised.

119 words

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

May/27/24 12:16:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the current debate deals with the fact that the House is being muzzled for the work that must be done on an important piece of legislation for the Canadian economy, particularly for the Atlantic provinces. It should be noted that this bill was tabled a year ago and that the entire process unfolded normally, particularly in committee. I note that there were 12 meetings in committee to study this bill. That means that people are taking this issue seriously, and that it is having a direct impact on thousands of workers throughout the country, especially in Atlantic Canada. Amendments had been proposed hand in hand with the Conservatives and even organized labour. To put it simply, the work was done. Nine amendments were tabled and only one made it into the bill. As parliamentarians we have a job to do, and that job was done in parliamentary committee. The bill was tabled in the House on May 2, so, about three weeks ago. We were ready to continue our work, but it was not to be. Today, the guillotine was used to shut down debate. It is unfortunate to realize that the government, which has absolute control over the list of political priorities, waited so long before calling the bill. Better still, the government granted itself the power to have the House sit late into the evening, whenever it wants. If we wanted to have a true substantive debate on this issue, the rules should have been followed. Why is the government invoking closure while the process remains under way? It is our job as parliamentarians to debate in the House instead of being muzzled.

278 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:17:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the provincial governments, industry, environmental groups and local communities have all been clear: They want this legislation to pass. The Conservatives, for their part, have done all they can to prevent Atlantic Canadians from benefiting from the huge $1-million economic opportunity associated with offshore wind energy. The Conservatives invited climate sceptics to testify in committee. They filibustered for months. They proposed amendments to kill this bill. This motion is the only way to overcome Conservative obstruction. My colleague opposite knows that full well.

86 words

Filibustered

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

May/27/24 12:18:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I want to reiterate the importance of us looking at sustainable clean energy along with a vibrant fishing industry in Newfoundland. Being from Newfoundland originally, I can speak first-hand to the incredible potential for a wind industry. I remember as a kid walking to school and my little body having to fight against the wind while trying to get myself to school. There is so much wind potential and real jobs. I am wondering if the minister could speak to why it is that the Conservatives are against a sustainable, real-jobs plan for Newfoundlanders and instead are trying to block this important work from moving forward.

113 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:19:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have had a similar experience as my hon. colleague with being knocked over by the wind in Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have some of the best wind speeds offshore of anywhere in the world. It is highly competitive moving forward for Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to compete on the international stage as we develop the offshore wind and hydrogen industry in this country. As I said before, this has the full support of the governments of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, it is truly bewildering for the Atlantic Canadian MPs on the Conservative side of the House to be opposing the development of industries that are going to create jobs, economic opportunity and prosperity for both of those provinces. It is truly bewildering, and it goes back to the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada has no view about addressing climate change. The Conservatives' view is to let the planet burn, and they simply do no have an economic strategy that recognizes the enormous economic opportunities that are before us.

183 words

Mr. Richard Bragdon (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC)

May/27/24 12:20:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad to rise today in the House to raise a question regarding the bill. There is an expression that says, “Where there is uncertainty, there will be instability”. What we have heard from those who are going to be most affected by the implementation of the bill as it stands without the amendments, and very helpful amendments that were proposed by the official opposition, means that there is going to be continuing uncertainty and instability within the sectors, especially for the fish harvesters who have raised very legitimate concerns about how this will affect their potential livelihoods for the future. Once again, this government is lending a deaf ear to the concerns of those whose livelihoods are at stake that would result from the implementation of the bill before us. If the Liberals had worked proactively with us to address the legitimate concerns of those whose livelihoods are affected, perhaps we could have gotten somewhere with the bill. However, there was no proactivity. Several of our amendments, in fact all of our proposed amendments, to my knowledge, were rejected out of hand. The consideration of those in the fishing harvest and the energy sectors in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as in Nova Scotia were ignored. Once again, people were not engaged properly, and the concerns of those most affected by these decisions were ignored. Can the minister please provide some assurance that the government will start listening to the concerns of Atlantic Canadians on this matter?

253 words