SoVote

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

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

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:21:57 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, fish harvesters, and the views of fish harvesters, are obviously extremely important. I would say to my hon. colleague that these kinds of industries coexist in many countries around the world. This is not rocket science. However, it is important to listen. It is important to ensure that we are addressing the concerns that are raised, which is exactly what the regional assessment and environmental assessment is for. It is to hear those questions. Fish harvesters will absolutely be directly engaged in those conversations. However, it is rich for the Conservatives to actually stand up after filibustering this bill for seven weeks in committee, talking about muscle cars and a range of things that had nothing to do with the bill, simply to try to block its progress. It is a shame. If the member wants to actually listen to Atlantic Canadians, let me read for him some of the comments from Nova Scotia Conservative Party, Minister of Natural Resources, Tory Rushton, who said: Offshore wind is Nova Scotia's greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail. There are tremendous opportunities for our coastal communities, for our province and for our country. We cannot afford to wait. He also said: In years to come, I think people are going to look back at this. Once this gets moving along, once Bill C-49 is passed, people will look at this decades from now and say, “Here was a move that made Nova Scotia a capital of renewable energy in the world.”

256 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his intervention. My NDP colleague asked him a highly pertinent question about Newfoundland's wind power potential. Since we are talking about the Maritimes, Nova Scotia in particular, could the minister comment on the potential of tidal energy, which involves harnessing tides, the ocean, the power of the ocean and water, to generate energy? Could it create good jobs in the future?

69 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:23:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the provinces and territories, and especially in Nova Scotia, tidal power offers many opportunities. It is something very significant. A few Nova Scotia-based technology companies are active in this field, particularly in the Bay of Fundy. Of course, this could give us clean energy in the future. It is something that will gain momentum, just like our work with wind turbines offshore.

66 words

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

May/27/24 12:24:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. minister talk about the experience with wind energy in the oceans all over the world and how well it is working out. Those fishing industry stakeholders who came to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans pleaded with us to allow them to be part of the process, to make sure they did not get left out and to make sure wind energy did not push them off their prime fishing grounds. If that minister knew what he was talking and about the experience the rest of the world has had in the conflict between wind energy and the fishery, he would know there are thousands of fishermen who have been displaced from their prime fishing. The same thing is going to happen in Canada. The big fear in Atlantic Canada is that the livelihoods of harvesters and the onshore jobs are all going to be destroyed if wind energy is allowed to set up on the same fishing banks the halibut and lobster fishermen depend so heavily on. The question is whether the minister will listen. Will he listen to the 14,000 Unifor members who came to us with amendments, which we submitted and his party voted against? Will he have a change of heart and let those amendments go through?

219 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:25:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I have said before, this legislation was drafted alongside the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia, which also have a strong interest in and engagement with the fishing industry. Certainly, I know the FFAW very well. I spent two years as fisheries minister and had a highly constructive relationship with the FFAW. It is very important to me the concerns of fish harvesters are heard and are addressed in the context of moving forward. As I said, the fishery can very well and healthily exist alongside a healthy and robust offshore wind industry. This happens in the United Kingdom and many countries around the world. There is a regional environmental assessment that will look at all of these issues and ensure we are addressing these in a thoughtful and engaged way. There is an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador and for Nova Scotia to have a robust and healthy fishery, which is very important for coastal communities, alongside a robust and prosperous offshore wind and hydrogen sector that will enable jobs and economic opportunity and will enable us to help our friends and allies in Europe to decarbonize and to improve energy security.

201 words

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

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

Madam Speaker, it was pretty dismal to sit and watch the Conservatives make it clear they are going to oppose this legislation because it was about clean energy, just like Danielle Smith chased out $33 billion of clean energy on ideological grounds in Alberta. Through it all I was thinking of my grandfather, Joe MacNeil, a Cape Bretoner. Timmins was the Fort Mac in the thirties, forties and fifties, and all the Cape Bretoners worked in the mines. My grandfather would have gone home in a second if there was a job, but there were no jobs back home so they lived as exiles, bringing their culture, their language and their songs. They all wanted to go home. We have a proposition, where we are hearing from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia about sustainable jobs, and that not only we could have people back home but that they could export this and create a new economy, and yet the Conservatives are here to say they will stop that by any means necessary through all the filibusters and the amendments they keep bringing. I want to ask the hon. minister about the need to tell people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia that we are committed, through this program, to get clean energy jobs in the offshore.

218 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, it is important to talk to folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. It is important for the federal government. It is important for federal political parties to be engaging this conversation about the opportunities of the future. It is also the case that the governments of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador have been talking about this very actively. I was in Nova Scotia just six weeks ago to celebrate the conclusion of the FEED study for EverWind Fuels, one of the leading developers of offshore wind. This is the first FEED study that has actually been completed anywhere in North America with respect to hydrogen from wind and offshore wind. Some 300 business leaders came to celebrate this in a restaurant in Halifax; it is extremely important. However, as I said before, it requires that the parties to this House, and the Conservative Party in particular, actually have a belief in the reality of climate change and have a view about the economic opportunities that would be enabled through this transition to a low-carbon future. When the Conservatives brought a climate denier, Ches Crosbie, a friend and adviser of the Leader of the Opposition to the committee to actually say that climate change is not real truly reflected the view of the folks who sit across the way. It is a shame.

230 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

May/27/24 12:29:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I am so happy. I have been listening to the minister's reasoning for pushing this bill forward and bringing in time allocation. It is because the premiers of two provinces agree with his position. I am so glad that the Liberals support premiers when premiers have the same position as other premiers. I would love the minister to apply that lens to the seven out of 10 premiers who are against a carbon tax. Will he apply the same lens to that as he is applying to Bill C-49, or is that only for special occasions when the Liberals agree with some provinces, while other provinces continue to fight tooth and nail?

116 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:30:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, there is a bit of tortured logic there. This debate is supposed to be about Bill C-49, not about the price on pollution. My hon. colleague might want to read the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a specific mechanism requiring that a province and the federal government agree on everything and that provinces introduce legislation that is exactly the same as what is going through the federal House. It is something on which we must collaborate. It is something that was attacked by Stephen Harper. It is extremely important for the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. With respect to the price on pollution, we have had this conversation many times. Provinces and territories are very capable of coming up with pricing systems that they can put in place in their jurisdictions if they think they can do it better, as Alberta does with the industrial pricing system and as British Columbia does with the retail pricing system. Provinces have flexibility. My hon. colleague may deny the reality of climate change. He may continue to put his head in the sand and pretend that he is an ostrich. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, climate change is real. We have to take steps to address it. We have to work in a manner that will enable us to seize economic opportunities, as countries around the world are doing. The Luddite-type behaviour on that side of the House is shameful.

253 words