SoVote

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

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

Mr. Darrell Samson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Lib.)

May/27/24 12:31:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we know there are two things going on here: The Conservative Party is against clean energy and the Conservative Party is against Atlantic Canadians. It is very simple. Let me bring members back to 2007. In 2007, a Conservative member defended Atlantic Canada by voting against the budget. It was my friend Bill Casey. What happened to him? The Conservatives were going to rip apart the Atlantic Accord, so they threw him out of the party. This is about sustainable jobs for Atlantic Canadians. The premiers want it and the people want it. It is our job to deliver for them. Can the minister share his thoughts about the trillion dollars to be had in the next 16 years?

123 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:32:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is an enormous economic opportunity for both of the provinces to pursue the work being done to enable offshore wind development and onshore wind development. As I said, I was in Germany recently. We are working very proactively with the German government to ensure there is a place for this hydrogen to go, that the commercial terms will actually work, that we see investment coming to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and that jobs go to both of those provinces. My hon. colleague is exactly right about the history. The attacks by the Conservative Party on the Atlantic accords were shameful then. Given the active support of both governments under the Atlantic accords and the attacks on the Atlantic accords now, it is unbelievable that the parties across the way are willing to say they are effectively opposed to the Atlantic accords.

146 words

Mr. Todd Doherty (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC)

May/27/24 12:33:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, earlier in the debate, my hon. colleague from Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame put a question to the minister regarding the amendments brought forth by the FFAW union and the fishers and families who are going to be impacted by this. At least from the television feed, the minister did not answer that question, so I am going to give him an opportunity to answer it once again. Of the amendments that were requested by the hard-working fishers and families who are going to be impacted by this, the ones my hon. colleague says he is standing up for, how many were actually adopted by the minister?

113 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

May/27/24 12:34:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there was broad consultation with respect to this bill, and that work was done in lockstep with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. When we brought that bill forward, what we saw on the part of the Conservative Party was seven weeks of filibuster, seven weeks of wasted time, seven weeks of wasted taxpayers' money talking about muscle cars and other irrelevant things. At the end of the day, we are moving forward in a manner that addresses the concerns of fish harvesters and others in both of these provinces. There is a regional environmental assessment under way, which will ensure that the concerns and thoughts of all relevant stakeholders, very much including fish harvesters, are heard. There are many examples around the world of a robust offshore wind industry existing alongside a very robust fishery. It is shocking that folks have such a limited view about the capabilities of the people who live in the provinces they are supposed to serve.

167 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 12:35:46 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense? Some hon. members: No. [Chair read text of motion to House] 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.

88 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/27/24 12:36:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

8 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 12:36:58 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

May/27/24 1:20:18 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

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

May/27/24 1:22:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today. I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill. Having gone through it, as I had said, and I will say it again today, the Liberal government has made a mess and it continues to refuse to clean it up. It did that with its Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, and now those same Liberals are once again right on track to interfere with local industry and provincial jurisdiction. In this case, we are talking about the Atlantic fishing industry. We have heard from many fishing groups that are deeply concerned about a lack of consultation and a lack of protection for their livelihood. They do not feel that enough has been done to rule out the potential for major irreversible damage to their industry. The government is ignoring them, but we need to hear what they have to say for themselves. I am going to continue sharing what a few more witnesses told us at committee. Michael Barron, from the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said: In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia. Dr. Kris Vascotto, from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, said: Historically, members have relied on the federal government to protect the interests and viability of their enterprises. They have worked to support science and refine rules for the fishery, and they have tried to be part of the solution. In turn, they rely on the government to make good decisions. Perhaps this is why members are surprised and dismayed by the content of the bill before you. Collectively, we understand that, as a planet, we are facing profound challenges related to climate change risk, and we realize that we all have an important role in finding a viable solution. However, rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters and lacks proper safeguards to ensure a viable and resilient coastal economy is myopic. There are some important things that so many fishing groups mention consistently. They made it clear that they were absolutely not against renewable or wind energy per se, but they wanted acknowledgement that there were still many unknown factors and potentially negative impacts on ocean wildlife and their ecosystems. If that happens, it would devastate their industry and it may not be reversible. There is a witness who addressed this concern. Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology, shared his thoughts at the committee. He said: Developing the wind farms will add hard structure, thousands of small islands, throughout these areas, islands that pull energy out of the system. This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries. Some will be able to harvest within the wind farms; some will not. All will have to navigate through or around them. Right now, some wind farms are beginning to monitor the marine environment and the animals associated with them, but it is a disjointed effort. There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding. What we have heard from local witnesses in Atlantic Canada is that Bill C-49 has been rushed and lacks the necessary safeguards for the fishing industry.

697 words

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

May/27/24 1:25:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, as indicated earlier, Bill C-49 is all about economic growth and prosperity, and it provides a great deal of hope. I know that because many of my Atlantic colleagues talk about how important it is to see Bill C-49 pass. We have many people wearing barongs today on Parliament Hill, recognizing that June is Filipino Heritage Month. Part of growth is seeing how communities have been able to participate in growing in Atlantic Canada. The type of growth that Canadians want to see, I believe, is of an economic nature, providing opportunities for all people to grow and be a part of a community.

108 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/27/24 1:26:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, putting the livelihoods of tens of thousands of fishers and all the spinoff industry that comes from it at the behest of another industry is not the way we build an economy. It is not the way we get more people involved in the economy. As the witnesses, who I referenced in my speech, talked about, they are happy to see more economic development in the region. They just want to see the process done properly. They want to see proper consultation. Many fisher groups, Unifor, talked about how there was a complete lack of consultation with the fishers and the different associations in the fishing community. They are worried that their livelihood will be lost because there is a lack of certainty and clarity in this legislation.

130 words

Mr. Richard Cannings (South Okanagan—West Kootenay, NDP)

May/27/24 1:27:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my time with the member on the natural resources committee. Like the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who brought up her Newfoundland heritage, I, too, have a family heritage there. I lived there for three years while going to university. I actually lived in a lighthouse. I can attest, as well, to the vast wind resource available in Newfoundland. I was blown around quite a bit. Newfoundland and Labrador wants this. Nova Scotia wants this. Regional assessments will be done that will have full involvement of the fishing industry. Why does the Conservative Party still hold up this bill when everybody wants it? The Conservatives want to block it just because it involves sustainable energy.

119 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

May/27/24 1:28:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, our desire in committee was to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. When the bill came to us, it had over 35 direct references to the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and the government gave us no timeline as to when it would deal with that. Therefore, to us, it seemed absolutely pressing and urgent to ensure that we passed a bill that was constitutional. The Liberals and the NDP wanted none of it, so we ensured that we would set out to get a bill that would be constitutional so that investors in the wind industry would have absolute certainty and confidence when they looked to make proposals on building their industry. Also, we want to ensure that the current users of the waters, the fishers, have the certainty they need so that their industry can continue and flourish. We do not need these two industries combatting each other. There needs to be a way to figure out if they can coexist, and this bill would provide no certainty for that.

176 words