44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 27, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time.
I am glad to have the chance to rise to share more about why Greens cannot support this amendment, but we will continue to support Bill C-59, the fall economic statement, despite its imperfections.
Let us be clear: The amendment is essentially saying not to move forward with Bill C-59 at all in its entirety and, instead, to just repeal the carbon tax under the guise that this would help people across the country deal with issues with respect to the unaffordability of day-to-day life. Well, we cannot support the amendment, because repealing the carbon tax will not do any good for the vast majority of Canadians who are having a difficult time with the cost of living. There is a reason for that.
There is a lot of talk of food banks in this place, but has any parliamentarian taken a look at what food banks are actually calling for? For example, what was the Daily Bread Food Bank calling for in its pre-budget submission? It actually has three recommendations, and all three call for increasing and moving quickly to put in place the Canada disability benefit. This would provide support to people with disabilities, who are disproportionately living in poverty across the country. Forty per cent of people living in poverty are people with disabilities. Groups such as the Daily Bread Food Bank have been joining in solidarity with the disability community to call on the government to put in place a Canada disability benefit that would bring people with disabilities above the poverty line. There is no mention of that in the amendment, which would just get rid of everything else that is in the fall economic statement. Not only that, but repealing the carbon tax would mean removing the rebates that go with it, which leave lower-income Canadians in my community better off; it is true.
The carbon tax went up two cents a litre last year, and rebates went up along with it. The pure profits of the oil and gas industry in the same period of time went up 18¢ a litre. There were no rebates for any Canadian on that gouging, and that is not just the total profits, it is only the increase. It went up from around 26¢ a litre to around 42¢ a litre or so. This gouging of Canadians is leading to the $38 billion a year in profits in 2022 alone for the five largest oil and gas companies operating in Canada. This is after share repurchases and dividends are all issued. It is why folks such as myself and others have been calling to put in place a windfall profit tax on the excess profits of the oil and gas industry, the way many other jurisdictions already have all around the world.
In fact, the government put in place a windfall profit tax on another sector already. In the midst of the pandemic, banks and life insurance companies had an extra 15% tax on profits over a billion dollars. It has been done before in this country. We could do the same when it comes to the oil and gas industry, and if we did, we could use those dollars to invest in real solutions to help address the unaffordability of day-to-day life for Canadians who need this the most. For example, we could increase service and reduce fares for public transit across the country; we could make it cheaper and provide more incentives for Canadians who want to retrofit their homes. These are the kinds of measures that would actually help address affordability. Repealing the carbon tax will not do anything to help Canadians who are struggling with day-to-day life.
On the subject of the fall economic statement itself, while it is imperfect, Greens have been supporting it; it includes many measures that will help folks in my community and others across the country. The first I would like to talk about is when it comes to making psychotherapy and counselling services more affordable. There was a long-held promise and commitment that was followed through on in Bill C-59 to remove GST and HST from those services. It is a small measure that would make it more affordable for Canadians across the country to access mental health services.
I would expect all parliamentarians in this place to agree that we need to do more to make mental health services available. Admittedly, the government actually committed $4.5 billion in the last election campaign for mental health transfers. The Liberals have not followed through on that, but they did put in place this measure to remove GST and HST from psychotherapy services. It is an important, good measure that, as Greens, we want to see made available to Canadians as soon as possible.
There are also really important tax credits that would help bring along support for renewable energy across the country. There are tax credits that would benefit companies in my community, such as VCT Group, which is designing and building the future of solar energy. In fact, in conversations I have had with VCT Group executives over the last year, they have shared with me directly how contracts that they would like to see move ahead are being held back because these tax credits are not yet in place; prospective customers of theirs do not have the business case to move ahead unless they see them in place. Even with the tax credits, the payback period for certain projects is still particularly long, but there are far more potential customers of theirs who would be open to moving ahead should we see Bill C-59 and the clean manufacturing tax credit included in it move ahead. This is one reason Greens have been so keen to finally get to the end of the day when it comes to getting Bill C-59 passed.
Again, this is the fall economic statement. We are in the late spring months now and have yet to see it move through. We are keen to see measures like this moved ahead. In fact, it was at committee where Greens even tried to improve on this to have that tax credit. As it stands right now, these tax credits are only available if both the manufacturing happens in Canada and the equipment is exclusively used in Canada. As Greens, we attempted to amend the bill at committee to allow for solar-powered lawnmowers, for example. A company in my community called Swap Robotics manufactures those. However, they are used in Canada only half the year, and they are used in Florida half the year. Because they are used outside Canada half the year, companies such as Swap Robotics would not be eligible for that tax credit. As Greens, we would have liked to see that expanded further. We were not successful with that at committee. However, what is in the fall economic statement is still an important and good measure; we are still going to support it.
I would like to close, though, with the one piece of Bill C-59 that we are most concerned about, and that is another fossil fuel subsidy. It is a massive tax credit for a false climate solution called “carbon capture and storage”. The tax credits in Bill C-59, which have been rolled out for the last three years, amount to $5.7 billion. All this could be redirected, for example, to actually funding the Canada disability benefit and to building public transit infrastructure; instead, it is being wasted on this false solution technology that, more often than not, emits more carbon than it captures around the world. In closing, I will read a quote from Environmental Defence back in 2021. These are the words of Julia Levin, warning the government not to create the tax credits it did create, including in Bill C-59. She said:
Carbon capture is being used as a Trojan horse by oil and gas executives to continue, and even expand, fossil fuel production. It’s a dangerous distraction driven by the same polluters who created the climate emergency. The Government of Canada should not use any kind of financial support or tax incentive to prop up false climate solutions that only serve to delay the necessary transition off of fossil fuels.
I could not agree more with Ms. Levin. Climate scientists around the world have been warning us to get our dollars focused on the most efficient use of funds. There is certainly not such as focus with this subsidy to carbon capture and storage. However, on balance, Bill C-59 has measures that we need to see move ahead, and Greens will be supporting it.
1475 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:42:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member referenced at the end that there are many benefits within the legislation and that those benefits would help Canadians, yet we have seen the discussions and the debates through second reading, now third reading, and at committee stage. In third reading alone, we are actually debating an amendment to third reading of the bill. There is no reason we should not have been able to get the bill passed long ago; until the legislation passes, the delay is denying people the benefits and supports that would be there. Could the member provide his thoughts regarding the fact that we are actually debating an amendment to the legislation at third reading, which again is meant to postpone its ultimate passage, and it is the fall economic statement?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:43:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary knows, the amendment in front of us is, of course, not a substantive amendment. It is one of the tactics that is available to parties in this place, in this case, to delay legislation.
I would also point out that it is the governing side that has the legislative power and calendar to set the agenda of the House. Greens' view is that we would have liked to see the fall economic statement move along more quickly and earlier. We can empathize with the fact that there are various delay tactics being put in place to slow the legislation down. However, we would also encourage the governing side to ensure that, when they have the legislative calendar available to them, they do what they can to move ahead important pieces of legislation. This is of course one of them. It certainly is a bit odd that we are this late into the spring and still talking about the fall economic statement. Our interest would be for parties to come together, agree on legislation that could move ahead and ensure that this happens.
188 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:44:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoy working with him. We often see each other in committee meetings. I thank him for his work.
He said some different things, but I agree with him on the fact that carbon capture is not really a way to fight climate change.
Canada has a bad track record, as members have mentioned today. One member referred to a study by Carbon Brief that shows that Canada has been the worst polluter in the world per capita since 1850. That is a big deal. The Liberals continue to make investments. According to an International Monetary Fund study, the government has directly and indirectly invested $38 billion U.S. in support to the oil industry.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Carbon capture is not effective. The government needs to stop investing in the oil industry. That is for certain. The carbon tax is one worthwhile measure. What are two or three other measures that a Green Party government would put in place to fight climate change?
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:45:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first of all, we agree with the Bloc Québécois on the fact that the government needs to eliminate all oil subsidies, including those pertaining to carbon capture and storage.
As a Green Party government, we would be much more ambitious. We would move more quickly and take this issue more seriously. We are in a climate crisis. That means that we need to make significant investments in public transportation. We need to electrify our grid across the country and we need to eliminate all oil subsidies.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:46:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have to believe that my hon. colleague is sincere when he talks about false climate solutions. I mostly agree with him, but there is an issue I have to bring up. The Auditor General, through her office, has the commissioner of the environment. One of his most recent reports commented that about $7.4 billion of government money was spent on the net zero accelerator initiative with no oversight, no due diligence before the money was given out and no ability to track if any carbon emissions were reduced with this spending.
If he is sincere about his belief in ending the false climate solutions, will he commit to voting against future initiatives such as this instead of voting for them, as he has in the past?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:47:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I can start by saying that I appreciate the member for Edmonton West's bringing up something we agree on, which is how poorly rolled out the net zero accelerator fund is. I raised that at committee. What is a qualitative GHG reduction? It does not make any sense at all. That $7 billion could have gone towards true climate solutions. It is disappointing that it has not.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:47:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, because this bill is time allocated, I will use my time to dedicate my opposition to this hot mess of inflationary and ineffective spending to Kelly Pascoe, who was the subject of a Calgary Herald article four days ago with the headline, “'You just can’t afford to be a single parent anymore': Working mom struggles to afford necessities”. In the article, Kelly talks about how her rent has almost doubled and she cannot afford to pay for groceries anymore.
Everybody here is talking in academic terms, but Kelly is living the reality of irresponsible deficit, hot mess, inflationary spending and we have to oppose this. Whenever the Prime Minister and the Liberals get up and talk about actual solutions to Kelly's problems, they talk in academic terms. They do not talk about getting food for her kids, the music lessons she cannot afford anymore or the fact she is trying to find a roommate to potentially live in a basement suite.
This mess that people are actually considering voting for is making the lives of people like Kelly a million times worse. The fact the government has not done anything at all to address their out-of-control waste on things like the arrive scam app, the We Charity scandal and the billions on consultants, and it does not even know how much it is spending on consultants, means that Kelly has to pay for that. I want to say this. The Prime Minister said years ago that the government was taking on all of the spending so that Canadians did not have to. Now Kelly has pay for this.
I think it is atrocious that my time has been curtailed by the Liberals and the NDP on this speech. However, I would say to Kelly that I see her, that everybody on this side of the House sees her and that we will stand up, oppose and do everything we can to ensure that people like her who work hard, and she works hard with her own small business cleaning houses, have that dream of affordability and are able to live a life free and full of prosperity once again. I have hope that we can get there, but this one is for Kelly and I will oppose this bill.
388 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:50:35 p.m.
- Watch
It being 7:50 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, May 9, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:52:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 7:52:31 p.m.
- Watch
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 28, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful and an honour to rise in this most honourable House to speak on various pieces of legislation. I am honoured to stand in the House tonight, on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, to emphasize the importance of Bill C-49 and the offshore wind industry.
The global industry is rapidly expanding, and it is crucial that the government seize the opportunity it presents to Canada, including in the provinces of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
Last fall, the executive director of the International Energy Agency said that “of all the power plants built in the world, more than 80% is renewable electricity. And this is not coming only from Europe, it is coming from China, India, Latin America, United States. It is a big move. So it is feasible to have a tripling of renewable capacity in the next seven years.” Investors around the world are racing to develop clean energy sources, including in the offshore wind industry. This represents a $1-trillion economic opportunity globally.
That brings us to Bill C-49. With this legislation, Canada has a chance to demonstrate to domestic and international investors that we are completely committed to the growth of the low-carbon economy, and to ensure it is Canadian workers who can seize this opportunity. When putting together this bill, the government worked closely with its provincial partners in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, who fully support Bill C-49.
In collaboration with the provinces and their respective premiers, the government worked collaboratively with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and found consensus and moved forward with Bill C-49.
Andrew Furey, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is on record talking about his support for this particular piece of legislation, said, “The possibilities for renewable energy are endless in our province, and I look forward to this significant step forward in achieving our shared goals and diversifying the economy.”
Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative government has also vocally supported this legislation, calling it necessary. It is therefore shocking that the federal regressive Conservatives are holding back this vital piece of legislation that would benefit Nova Scotian communities, and that includes benefiting indigenous communities.
Attending a committee hearing on this legislation, Chief Terry Paul of the Membertou Development Corporation of Nova Scotia stated, “Traditionally, indigenous Canadians were not invited to participate in major industry projects. I am proud to say that is changing. When we all work together, great things happen. We truly believe that an offshore wind industry can coexist with other industries in a sustainable manner.”
Outside of our provincial partners, this legislation was also influenced by meaningful engagements that were carried out with many stakeholders who contribute to Canada's success every day, such as fishers, the energy industry and environmental groups. We will continue this engagement and seek feedback as we work toward the implementation of the legislation.
During the committee process, we worked across the aisle and strengthened the legislation in consultation with both provincial governments that need to pass identical, mirror legislation. I would like to speak briefly to those amendments right now.
The amendments strengthen this legislation. The amendments enable specific clauses related to the Impact Assessment Act in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's October 2023 decision. The amendments also reaffirm federal and provincial governments' joint commitments to considering the impacts of offshore energy projects on fisheries.
I can assure members that, unlike the official opposition party, the Conservatives, who mismanaged the offshore and tried to rip up major investments, this Liberal government has great respect for the fishing industry and it is our intention to continue to support this sector as Canada's renewable energy industries continue to grow.
More specifically, the fishing industry-related amendments would add a new paragraph to the two Atlantic accord implementation acts, reaffirming the need to consider the effects on fishing activities during the land tenure process. These amendments recognize the potential impacts that offshore renewable energy projects could have on fishing, and we take this very seriously.
Lastly, on the amendments, the government made a few administrative adjustments, in consultation with our provincial partners, which would improve general consistency and clarify agreements with regard to boundaries.
The amendments made at committee stage have the full support of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time for us to move forward with this legislation and unlock the potential of the Canadian offshore wind energy industry. The longer that Parliament waits to designate a new regulatory body for permitting offshore wind, the more opportunities Canadian workers will miss out on.
Major offshore wind projects are already being developed in the North Sea and on the American east coast, attracting significant investment. Countries like the U.S., Taiwan and several European nations, including Poland, are making significant progress in the offshore wind industry. France recently increased its goals for deploying offshore wind farms, while Ireland has published its national plan for offshore renewable energy. The global scenario is evolving rapidly, and Canada cannot afford to wait.
Costs are coming down. The price of electricity generated by offshore wind has dropped significantly. The cost curve, as we say in economics, is broken, making it more affordable. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have all expressed interest in buying clean energy, including hydrogen, from Canada. Germany and the Netherlands have put their interest in writing, including through the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, an exciting alliance.
Canadian businesses are more than ready to get involved when Canada is ready to launch this industry. They are already investing in offshore wind projects abroad and are eager to participate in the industry domestically. One Canadian company, Northland Power, is currently building offshore wind off Poland.
To be clear, this bill is about establishing the legislative and regulatory framework so that an offshore wind industry can be developed in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the catalyst. Central to this bill is the establishment of regulatory bodies for this industry using boards that are already in place to oversee oil and gas activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore areas. They have both indicated they are ready to change their name and enact a broadened mandate. They are more than ready to get the job done, as both have decades of experience in offshore energy regulation to ensure all legal and regulatory criteria are met.
Other allied nations such as the U.K., Denmark, Norway and the U.S. have gone before us in this type of strategy and have incorporated offshore wind into the authorities held by existing offshore petroleum bodies. Unfortunately, the climate deniers in the Conservative caucus are willfully ignoring the opportunity for communities across Atlantic Canada. Their tactics are aimed at delaying the passage of this bill, which means risking a greater portion of the trillion-dollar industry that is at stake.
As the government strives for a future that is focused on generating and using increased amounts of renewable energy so that we can stand up to climate change and create thousands of jobs, there is no reason to turn down Bill C-49. The fact is that the only roadblock to unlocking massive new economic opportunity for Atlantic Canadians is the Conservative Party of Canada. Just like its ideological opposition to EV manufacturing in Ontario, solar development in Alberta or even investments in natural disaster response, it is clear that the Conservatives will always vote against any measure that is related to fighting climate change, which is a shame, even when it has a clear and significant economic benefit. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader would rather sit back and watch the planet burn while investment and opportunities pass us by. It is baffling and, yes, shameful, but not surprising.
On this side of the aisle, we are rolling our sleeves up and getting to work. It is time to pass this bill so we can get to building the Canada we know exists. It is out there.
1355 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:02:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge for what is probably his best-read speech ever written by the PMO to date.
He quoted the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey. I take this bill a bit to heart because I lived in Newfoundland for several years. I quite love the province and miss it very much. He quoted the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey, but here is a quote I would read in return. Premier Furey said, “I have asked the Prime Minister to convene a meeting to discuss alternatives to the carbon tax”. When will that meeting be?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Edmonton West, whom I consider a colleague and a friend.
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 is a lifetime opportunity because it is a catalyst for investment in an offshore wind industry to take hold off the east coast of Canada. It represents economic opportunity. It represents jobs, investments, fighting climate change and helping middle-class Canadians in that area. I am so excited to support it on this side of the House, and I ask my Conservative colleagues to join in supporting this great piece of legislation.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑49 has passed the committee stage. We now see that the government has chosen not to implement a real environmental assessment process for future energy projects. These offshore projects ought to undergo robust, effective, transparent environmental impact assessments to ensure that they are part of proper marine spatial planning to identify and prevent adverse cumulative effects and contribute to sustainability.
Does my colleague believe that the government should adopt such a measure? Why was it not done in Bill C‑49?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very important that it be done as part of this legislation in an effective and transparent manner.
I do not agree in terms of the impact of the assessment that is mandated within this piece of legislation. It does take into account, from my understanding in reading over it, and I did sit on the Natural Resources Committee for a period of time, the assessment on marine life and on the fishing industry, working in collaboration with fishing the industry.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:05:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier today we heard the minister speaking to this bill, and he was talking about the importance of having sustainable, clean, renewable energy move in that direction as well as aligning that with a thriving fishery. We have heard some concerns from local fishers that this wind energy will result in a loss of fishing areas for some of the fishers.
Can the member speak to what plans are in place to support fishers who may be impacted through this transition to have further sustainable clean energy?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for the question. It is a very beautiful part of the country that she is blessed to call home.
As an individual who grew up on the west coast of Canada, near Alaska, and who worked at a cannery during his high school years, along with my mother and a number of my aunts, those industries no longer exist. However, there needs to be transition for all industries as we move forward. We see that in many industries in Canada. In this case, there needs to be collaboration and consultation with the fishers. Obviously, we want a vibrant fishing industry on both coasts, on the west and the east coast of Canada. We must maintain that dialogue, transparency and accountability with those sectors of the Canadian economy and ensure that any workers who are injured on any contingency are obviously taken care of with proper skills retraining and compensation.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House and speak 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, which also makes consequential amendments to other acts.
One cannot say much for the government, but it sure knows how to write a catchy little title, does it not? Personally, I would have opted for something more straightforward, like “Bill C-49, the confuse, delay and deter investment in Canada act”. I agree that it is a bit too on the nose, especially for the Liberal government, plus, I think that it has already used that one several times over.
Bill C-49 would build on the existing petroleum regulatory scheme to establish a new regulatory scheme for offshore renewable energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, through their respective accord acts.
I want to be clear. As Conservatives, we are not opposed to this legislation in principle. Despite the nonsense that we so often get from others in the House, Conservatives are not opposed to renewable energy. We are actually in favour of protecting the environment. In fact, to that end, I would remind members of the House of the numerous occasions when Conservatives have called out the Liberal government over its policies regarding pollution. One of its very first acts when they formed government in 2015 was to allow the City of Montreal to dump 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. There was no price on pollution there. Conservatives have called out the government on sending our garbage overseas. There are lots of different examples. The difference here, though, is that when it comes to environmental protection, Conservatives are driven by pragmatism and not by fear.
We love our planet, the good creation that God has blessed us with, and we recognize, as does, I think, any rational person, regardless of creed, that we have a responsibility to be good stewards and to preserve it for future generations. However, rather than give in to alarmism and ideologically motivated climate extremism that we see from many others in this chamber, we recognise that the role that Canada plays in overall emissions and pollution is globally very minor.
If one would take every car off the road, shut down every factory, shut down our entire energy sector, solar panel every roof, heat pump every house, “veganize” every kid and “diaperize” every cow, we would have reduced global emissions by a whopping 1.5% because 98.5% of the problem, or at least the perceived problem, would still exist in other countries. Moreover, the so-called green policies of this and other western governments do nothing to stop climate change but are, in fact, a smoke-and-mirrors job to help governments and wealthy investors get even richer. They do that off the backs of not only the shrinking middle class but also the poorest and the most vulnerable people on our planet.
That being the case, I am always shocked to see the NDP giving the government its full-throated support on these exploitive and unjust policies. Rather than giving in to climate alarmism and enacting these policies that really just make global billionaires and Liberal insiders richer and make everyone else poorer, Conservatives believe in measured, common-sense environmental protections that actually address pollution in proportion to Canada's role in creating it and that protect our beautiful planet. I think that is the common-sense approach, and I think common-sense Canadians agree.
Secondly, we do not entirely oppose this legislation in principle because the provinces are largely in favour of it. The affected premiers, Premier Furey in Newfoundland, Premier Higgs in New Brunswick and Premier Houston in Nova Scotia, of which the latter two are both Conservative, by the way, have all expressed their support for this bill's overarching aims, and we want to respect that.
Unlike the Liberal government, Conservatives respect the Constitution. We recognize that some things are provincial jurisdiction, and as much as we at times would like to meddle, it is not the federal government's job to do so: work in partnership, yes; but dictate, no. I am sure the majority of our premiers are very excited for that wonderful day next fall when that kind of relationship can and will exist again.
However, in the meantime, the question of constitutionality is where this bill falls short. Conservatives agree that there are economic, social and net environmental benefits to promoting alternative or, in some cases, transformational energy sources. We believe government should allow for arm's-length regulatory processes to ensure safe and environmentally responsible development of these resource, including in our coastal waters.
That is all good, but here is the problem. The bill makes these decisions subject to the environmental Impact Assessment Act, also known as Bill C-69. This creates two problems. Number one is that the Supreme Court has ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional; that is a problem. Number two, the fact remains that any relationship between the two bills will lead to inevitable delays because there are going to be court challenges.
Bill C-49 directly references clauses 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, which are precisely the clauses that have been ruled unconstitutional. I don't know, but maybe if the Liberals had bothered to read paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court of Canada decision, they could have avoided this type of blunder, or maybe it is intentional. However, Bill C-49 has also incorporated the Minister of Environment's proposed decision-making scheme into several clauses. Given that this decision-making power and the entirety of the designated project scheme are also unconstitutional components of Bill C-49, they are likely to be ruled, or at least challenged, as unconstitutional as well.
It is inevitable that, in its current form, Bill C-49 will be challenged in the courts, and we have said this throughout the committee study and throughout all the debates. The bill is not watertight. We have tried to amend this legislation so that we could work together on it. The Liberals have always complained that Conservatives will not work with them, yet here we have tried, but the Liberals would not hear any of it. It is part of the Liberals' agenda; they want to control.
In the meantime, while these delays are taking place, what happens to the traditional energy sector jobs in the region? Mining, oil and gas account for 31%, or approximately one-third, of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP. This bill, as it is, could end traditional petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada. What happens to those economies? We already had, in Bill C-55, a provision where a fisheries minister can unilaterally designate a section of ocean as a development-prohibited area, an MPA, a marine-protected area. Now, the government sneaks in provisions in clauses 28 and 137 of this bill, allowing for cabinet to end offshore drilling and, for that matter, even renewable projects.
Even if we give the government the benefit of the doubt, which we should not because it has a proven track record over the last nine years of trying to destroy everything in our energy sector, and even if we ignore the unconstitutionality of this bill, this legislation is still deeply flawed. Like with our traditional energy sector and resources, which we absolutely still need if we want to invest in our success and in our renewable sector or any other sector, there needs to be clarity and efficiency, and right now we have neither. This bill would impose uncertainty and would extend timelines that, regardless of court challenges, could and would hinder the development of that sector.
It takes 1,605 days. That is almost four and a half years, and that is about what it takes to get an approval done. That is ridiculous. Imagine someone wanting to start a small business, willing to invest millions of dollars in a community, to create jobs and to spur the economy, and the government comes along and says that it would be great, that it would love to have them do that and that they could start in four years. They would not come.
The bill also comes with royal recommendation. It would require some level of federal funding, but no specific funding has been allocated. Therefore, now, on a separate piece of legislation that will need to be tabled, debated, studied and passed before this thing can get rolling, again, we are going to see uncertainty and delays, but it is going to take another bill to actually implement this.
There are questions over the consultation requirements with indigenous peoples, and again, we have learned that this is almost a guarantee of court challenges, equalling more delays and more uncertainty. We need to have a reasonable and a responsible regulatory framework in place, but too often what the government gives us are gatekeepers, folks who just want to delay and to create confusion so that nothing ever gets done.
Ideologically motivated decisions, as more and more authority would wind up with the minister, is what we can expect from the bill. Unlike the NDP and Liberals who roadblock, make traditional energy more expensive, and drive out new opportunities, Conservatives are committed to getting rid of the gatekeepers. We will reduce approval timelines and remove unnecessary, restrictive red tape and taxes so companies can and will invest in Canada, and major energy products can actually get built in Canada again.
When we look back at how the government has handled past energy projects, we just have to shake our head. We have to look no further back than the TMX. Kinder Morgan had the wonderful idea of expanding the pipeline. We needed an additional pipeline that would run to the west coast, to bring it to tidal water, so we could export more of our energy. What happened with that? The government had its initial approval through the National Energy Board. Then, of course, it was challenged, and a further delay of two years was added. That brought up the cost by another $2 billion. The initial cost of the TMX was pegged at $5.4 billion, and the two-year delay brought it up to $7.4 billion. Then along came Bill C-69, which just put more uncertainty into the whole equation.
Kinder Morgan threw up its arms, went to the government and asked it to buy the pipeline. Kinder Morgan could not get it done because there was going to be way too much going on for the company to accomplish that. The government said it was going to be an energy hero and buy the TMX, the expanded pipeline project, and get it done. The government paid $4.5 billion to Kinder Morgan to buy the rights for the pipeline. In addition to that, the government was committed to spending another $7.4 billion in constructing the pipeline. That would have been a cost of $12 billion.
That is what the government told us at the time: “For $12 billion, we got ourselves a pipeline. The Government of Canada is going to be in the energy business. We are going to be claiming all of these royalties from energy companies. This is a good deal for Canadians.” Guess what? That was in 2019. We are in 2024. The pipeline has now cost $34 billion. From the original estimate, before there were any delays, it should have been a $10-billion project. Now it is a $34-billion project. That is an additional $24 billion of cost into the TMX pipeline.
Who else but a Liberal government could screw up things so badly as to increase construction costs by 500%? That is right. Members do not have the answer either. I cannot figure it out. Who else could do that? The government says it is due to construction costs. It says it is due to unforeseen terrain. Is the government kidding me? It did not know where the pipeline was going? Liberals should give their head a shake, because they knew all along that the pipeline would have to cross the Rockies and make its way down to the west coast, yet that is what they are blaming some of the costs on.
The government is also attributing some of the delays and cost increases to inflation in contractor expenses and construction costs. I know that. I am in the heavy construction business myself and understand that costs have gone up probably 50% in the last five years, but 500%? I would only dream of being able to charge those kinds of numbers. Who got rich in this scheme? Who got rich building the TMX pipeline? To go from $12 billion to $34 billion without explanation, there is something wonderfully wrong with that.
The NDP has put a motion forward at the natural resource committee right now, exactly where Bill C-49 was discussed, for it to be a priority of the committee to study the TMX pipeline, to find out what went wrong and how the government could end up with a $34-billion pipeline. Only a Liberal government could do that. I think that is what the study will clearly show, that somebody has gotten rich here and that something is way offside.
Bill C-69 created the kind of uncertainty such that a company like Kinder Morgan took its $4.5 billion, marched it south of the border and used the $4.5 billion to invest in an environment that was more friendly and more conducive to energy projects.
The member for Vaughan—Woodbridge stated that the Netherlands, Germany and Japan have been begging for cleaner energy. What he neglected to say is that they have been begging for LNG, liquefied natural gas. Our government has turned them down. There was an opportunity to develop LNG projects. There were 18 of them on the drawing board when the Liberal government came into power, and not one of them has been completed to the point where it is exporting any liquefied natural gas.
In the meantime, we have turned away all kinds of opportunities for Canadians, the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian citizen, to benefit from receiving royalties from the sale of our LNG. We could have created thousands and thousands of jobs, and we could have solidified our economy and many of the communities that have suffered. However, no, we let the opportunity pass and instead are trying to convince them they can buy renewable energy from our wind turbines that hopefully will produce hydrogen gas that they can put into storage and ship over to some of the economies begging for our cleaner energy.
We will have to actually wait and see whether that happens, because so far today, we are way behind the eight ball when it comes to actually being able to export any energy. Countries have been begging for energy, and instead we actually continue to import energy from dictators and despots from the Middle East and from places like Venezuela. We keep bringing their oil here, and that is the oil fuelling our economy when it could be our own natural resources fuelling our economy. We could be keeping the wealth right here in Canada, and we have not been doing that.
Bill C-49 is another tool the government can take full advantage of to continue to stress out our existing oil and gas economies not only in Atlantic Canada but also in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and of course Alberta. We agree with Bill C-49 in principle because the premiers want it, and what the premiers think it would do for them is allow them to develop renewable energies in coastal waters.
While we were in committee, many witnesses were there, and many witnesses were not there. Most notably, the testimony we were not able to properly process as a committee was testimony from lobster harvesters and from fishers in the area who would be affected. The bill would provide the government, by decree of the minister, the ability to declare the MPAs, the marine protected areas, which would in fact sterilize fishing opportunities and lobster harvesting opportunities. A significant portion of Atlantic Canada's economic benefit, economic revenue, is from those two industries. They are closely related; they are under the fishing umbrella, I suppose, in the fisheries, but the two industries are very concerned there would not be adequate protection for their resources.
We all know that lobsters and fish like to hang around shelves. As well, we know that is where the turbines that the proponents are talking about are also going to be constructed, because that is the closest place to a solid base that they can be built. The least amount of construction is in areas where there is a shelf, and we know that is where the fishing is often very good.
Bill C-49 is a flawed piece of legislation. It references Bill C-69several times. Bill C-69 has been proven unconstitutional, and we tried to argue that at committee. We need to take Bill C-49 back to committee and fix it. We are in support of the bill, but let us fix it. Let us not have something that is not going to be constitutionally compliant. I would urge the government to continue to do that; let us fix the bill where we know it is not watertight, and let us make it right.
2957 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:27:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always get a kick out of listening to Conservatives say, “But Canada's emissions are just a tiny drop in the bucket globally.” The unfortunate reality for the member, is that despite the fact that maybe the claim helps him sleep at night, Canada has among the worst GHG emissions per capita. As a matter of fact, if we look at the average GHG per capita emissions in Europe, we see that Canada's are three times those. There is only one country in the entire world that has worse GHG emissions per capita than Canada, and that is Australia.
What I found really interesting about the member's speech is that he talked at the beginning about how Conservatives like renewable energy, but then spent just about his entire speech talking about fossil fuel extraction. I am wondering whether the member could share with the House what his favourite type of renewable energy is.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
