SoVote

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

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

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

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

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

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

May/27/24 8:07:27 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-55 Bill C-49

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

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

Mr. Ted Falk

May/27/24 8:28:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what thrills me the most about the member's asking me the question is that he actually listened to my speech. He was actually impacted by what I said and he actually conceded that Canada contributes only 1.5% to global emissions. He went further to say that we are one of the highest per capita contributors to emissions. However, what he fails to take into consideration is the vastness of our country and how much distance we all need to travel to drive our economy, to move our goods and services across the country and to move our food. He also never talks about the carbon capture of our many forests and our grasslands, which is something that is woefully missing from any discussion on that side.

130 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/27/24 8:29:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him at the Standing Committee on Finance a while ago. My question is on the process during the study of a bill. The Bloc Québécois voted in good faith in favour of the bill at second reading stage. We hoped to be able to study this bill in committee to improve it so that it would meet our needs. We proposed several amendments to the bill, but the representatives from the party that forms the government systematically rejected every one of them to prevent things from moving forward. Does my colleague think this is a good approach to take when studying a bill in committee, especially when the government is in a minority situation?

134 words

Mr. Ted Falk

May/27/24 8:30:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we, including the Conservatives, in good faith sent the bill to committee for study. In good faith we brought in witnesses, and we listened to witnesses provided by the government and by the other opposition parties, expecting that at the end of the day, based on witness testimony, the government would consider amendments brought forward to improve the piece of legislation, because we did all want to see it move forward. We think it needs to move forward. There needs to be a regime that allows for renewable energies, and so in good faith we brought forward amendments. The member is right. The member across the way for Vaughan—Woodbridge before in effect said, “Oh, we allowed for amendments to come forward and to be part of this bill”. However, the only amendments the Liberal Party passed and added to the legislation were amendments from the Liberal Party. It is a little disingenuous for the member across the way to insinuate that the Liberals were open to amendments, because the Bloc member in our committee brought forward many good recommendations, and we brought forward good recommendations—

192 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/27/24 8:31:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

8 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

May/27/24 8:31:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, and it was interesting because it reminded me of other times when we have had bills in the House for which Conservative after Conservative got up and spoke against and then somehow all voted for. What kind of jolted me awake midway through the member's speech was when he said that he supported the bill, because everything he had said prior to that gave me the indication that he would not be supporting it. However, that is not my question. Partway through his speech, the member raised the concern about importing oil from jurisdictions like Saudi Arabia, and he said that really we should be able to use our own oil for domestic use and not have to import oil from jurisdictions that we do not support for one reason or another, which is actually a premise that I support. However, my question, and the reason I think it gets raised time and time again as a red herring, is on why the former Conservative government and the current Conservative Party has never brought forward a single proposal to ban or add tariffs to the importing of oil from countries like Saudi Arabia. Why is that?

210 words

Mr. Ted Falk

May/27/24 8:32:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was right. Almost all of my speech was critical of Bill C-49. It was intentionally that way because there is a lot to criticize. At the end of the day, I made it very clear that we would be supporting the legislation, but there is a lot of opportunity to improve it. I wish that the Liberal government would listen to and accept the amendments that were presented not only at committee but also here on the floor. Therefore, absolutely, my speech was focused on the criticisms of the bill, because it is deeply flawed. However, in principle we support it.

111 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/27/24 8:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the conversation taking place when it comes to the constitutionality of legislation and ensuring that we are not perhaps having unnecessary conversations. I really do appreciate the work that was done at committee. My question concerns his regard and respect for the independence of the judicial system and the important work that it does. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada did uphold a woman's right to choose, so would he reaffirm his commitment of respecting that decision and the constitutionality that every woman should have the right to choose?

97 words

Mr. Ted Falk

May/27/24 8:34:23 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, I was delighted when I heard the member for Waterloo express her jubilation on the floor of the House that we would be supporting this bill. I thought it was very appropriate for her to do that. On the issue of constitutionality, Bill C-69 has been found wanting. There is a term “mene, mene, tekel, upharsin”, which means “numbered, numbered, weighed, divided”. The Supreme Court of Canada has studied Bill C-69 very carefully and determined that it is not constitutionally compliant. The Supreme Court of Canada has made a decision on Bill C-69.

102 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

May/27/24 8:35:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my former deskmate talked a lot about what is going on in Newfoundland. Tonight there was a by-election in Newfoundland, in Baie Verte-Green Bay. I want to congratulate the winner, Conservative Lin Paddock. The Liberal vote dropped from 52% down to 24%, and the Conservative vote went from 48% up to 79%, which is a number we do not even see in Alberta. It is an overwhelming change. I wonder if my colleague would comment on the Liberal Party collapsing in Newfoundland, and if he perhaps sees it as a sign of what is to come.

100 words

Mr. Ted Falk

May/27/24 8:36:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton West for bringing that to the attention of the House and Canadians this evening, who are probably engrossed in watching the proceedings here tonight. I know that pretty soon they are going to be flipping over to the Edmonton game. We are going to all be cheering hard for our Canadian team, and our Canadian team is going to win. The only poll that matters is on election day. Today was election day in Newfoundland, and we saw what happened. The polls are accurately predicting what is going to happen right across Canada. The Conservatives and their common-sense approach are resonating with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

118 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

May/27/24 8:37:02 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I am very pleased to be here this evening to once again debate Bill C‑49. I already spoke to this debate during another stage of the legislative process. We have come to the end of the process in the House. It should be said that the Bloc Québécois has acted in good faith from the start. It has contributed to the debate. In any case, it tried to contribute to improving the bill, but its efforts were not fruitful. As a reminder, Bill C‑49 seeks to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. This mainly concerns oil and gas development, which the Bloc Québécois regularly denounces, but also future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely, offshore wind power off the east coast of Canada. As I was saying, we were in favour of the principle of the bill, provided that marine biodiversity conservation requirements were met. We therefore supported the part concerning the development of renewable energy in eastern Canada. We were also in favour of tightening the rules around oil and gas development, although in my humble opinion, oil and gas development should no longer exist. From an energy transition perspective, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector needs to decrease, and decrease fast. It is quite simple for the Bloc Québécois. We believe that no new offshore oil and gas exploration or development projects should be approved, regardless of any specific conditions that might accompany them. That is the approach that Quebec has chosen to take, and we believe that the other maritime provinces should follow suit. The Quebec nation has put a definitive end to oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction, notably by passing an act that puts an end to both those activities and an end to public funding for them as well. This is not the first time I have said this in the House: Quebec was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. We obviously think that Canada should follow Quebec's example; however, it is still failing in its duty to protect marine ecosystems by authorizing dozens of new drilling projects in ecologically sensitive areas, particularly drilling inside marine refuges. We know that offshore drilling can and does threaten marine life. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government continues to promote offshore oil development and authorize drilling that it knows could harm marine biodiversity. This government has a double standard when it comes to protecting marine biodiversity. There is one vision for oil and gas development and a completely different vision for the fishing industry, for example. Just last week, when a right whale was spotted off the north coast of New Brunswick, Fisheries and Oceans Canada immediately announced the closure of lobster fishing areas to Acadian lobster fishers. Understandably, this sparked complaints from lobster fishers. They threatened to demand the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. They also decided to defy the department's decision by leaving their traps where they were in the water, against Fisheries and Oceans Canada's instructions. Once the government realized what was happening, the Minister of Fisheries called an emergency meeting with the lobster fishers. Afterwards, she gave a statement that I will read, considering its bearing on our context. Following the sighting of a North Atlantic right whale in shallow waters off the northeast coast of New Brunswick last week, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) instituted a 15-day temporary fishing area closure in Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 23 C. This decision was based on DFO's sighting data at the time, and in consideration of our international commitments towards marine mammal protection, which are in place to ensure Canada's world-class seafood products continue to be recognized as sustainable and export markets remain available. Since the initial sighting, DFO has reviewed various data sources to determine the whale was in slightly deeper waters than previously thought. With this new information, I am pleased to see DFO has adjusted the closure requirements and harvesters can now set their traps up to the 10 fathom shallow water protocol management line for the remainder of the 15-day period. I have asked DFO to convene a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on North Atlantic Right Whales which includes representatives of the industry and whale experts to review the existing protocol. That decision just created an interesting precedent, because this is not the first time that right whales have been seen in the gulf or that their presence has had an impact on fishers. Usually, the result is that fishing areas are closed. However, this time, the minister appears to have backed down. Perhaps she heard the rumours that lobster fishers in New Brunswick were going to call for her resignation. Perhaps DFO made a mistake in its study and did not see the whale at the depth it thought it did. That raises questions about the process that is in place when a whale passes through fishing areas. Members of the Bloc Québécois are forward-looking. We thought about this issue well before last week. In 2022, we organized a round table on marine biodiversity and another one on fisheries and the right whale. We also made recommendations to the government. We consulted fishers, fishing industry representatives, scientists and experts like Lyne Morissette to get their recommendations. We decided to create a document setting out those recommendations and hand it to the government on a silver platter. The Liberals could do what they wanted with it, but these are worthwhile recommendations that actually come from the industry. When I see that the Minister of Fisheries is currently calling an advisory committee meeting to discuss this subject, I thought that it would be a good idea to bring up the recommendations that we made in 2022, because they are still relevant. I am going to read them. With respect to the first proposal, my colleagues will recognize our hand in this. We asked: That the Government of Canada abandon all offshore oil and gas exploration and development effective immediately, both in the North Atlantic and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and halt any such operations that are in progress or that have been announced. This relates back to what I was saying earlier. The second recommendation is as follows: That the government authorize a pilot project for the snow crab fishery to open on April 1 each year, on the understanding that, given the abundance of this resource and the certainty of meeting quotas, this measure will reduce the amount of time during which the fishery and whales in transit use the same space north of the Magdalen Islands on their way to the feeding grounds at the tip of the Gaspé Peninsula [and that icebreaking operations to open harbours in New Brunswick be studied]; I will mention it anyway, although I know that improvements have been made in this regard. The crab fishery on the Gaspé Peninsula, at Matane, opened at the end of March this year. I know that icebreaking operations took place in New Brunswick. At the same time, there was not a lot of ice in the gulf or on the St. Lawrence this year. We also have to adjust to the new climate reality. The third recommendation is the following: That the government reduce the closure period for marine sectors (quadrants) during the transit passage of right whales to the north of the Magdalene Islands, given that it has been established that the duration of the whale's presence there is roughly 24 hours and that the closure is two weeks, and that the mandatory removal of fishing gear within 48 hours be reassessed since it poses more of an increased risk of disruption than a reduction in the risk of entanglements; That is entirely true. Often, when the DFO tells fishers to remove their fishing gear, the whale has already gone by, but for two weeks, the fishers cannot continue to fish even though the whale is already gone. There is this whole question of timing that needs to be respected in this case. Unfortunately, I see that my time is up. We made other proposals in 2022 and they are still relevant. I will be sure to forward them to the Department of Fisheries for inspiration.

1444 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/27/24 8:46:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments that the member shared. I found them interesting. I always hear members of the Bloc Québécois talking about provincial jurisdictions. The legislative measure that we are examining will advance the work of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Today, from what I understand, the members of the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. They are always talking about provincial jurisdictions, but they are opposing this bill, which seeks to help a provincial jurisdiction to move forward. I just want to understand why.

99 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

May/27/24 8:47:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite simple, really. As I said at the beginning of my speech earlier, the Bloc Québécois worked in good faith when studying this bill. It brought forward a number of amendments. It proposed several changes to the bill. Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected them all. Consequently, we feel that the bill, as it currently stands, is unacceptable from an energy transition perspective. We want to put an end to oil and gas development. It is quite simple. This is in line with our values of defending and doing more to fight climate change. In our view, this bill does not go in that direction, unfortunately.

113 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

May/27/24 8:48:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech. This bill makes it clear that it does not end oil and gas exploration in Atlantic waters. However, fishers are being asked to do more and more to protect the right whale. My colleague had started to list some potential solutions that could be put in place. I invite her to continue with that list, for the benefit of all our colleagues.

73 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

May/27/24 8:49:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the opportunity to continue with my remarks. We also recommended that the government provide funding for research and technology transfer projects to develop and test both mechanical measures, like underwater buoys, reduced breaking-strength ropes and other operations, and IT measures such as electronic buoys, triangulation, and the tracking of individual whales by ships or radio tags in order to prevent and reduce the impact of fishing on the movement of marine mammals. This recommendation comes from the industry. It comes from the fishers themselves, who say they are ready to make the effort. They want to protect marine biodiversity too. When we talk about it, we can really see that they care more than anyone about conserving biodiversity and protecting the ocean floor. Owner-operators in the Gaspé, for example, always prioritize sustainable fisheries over big industries that simply scrape the ocean bed and endanger other species. Fishers say they are ready to do more, but they need a little help from the government. Yes, it is a good idea to invest in research. I encourage the government to do that. Otherwise, the government can send departmental administrators and marine biology researchers to the maritime regions of Quebec and Canada to analyze and make recommendations on conserving marine biodiversity. That recommendation is evidently related to the fact that people in the Gaspé always say they feel very far removed from Ottawa and its towers full of public servants. We get the impression that they do not understand the environment in which we live. We invite them to come directly to our maritime regions to see how much energy coastal communities have. I think it could have a very positive impact. Madam Speaker, I have other recommendations but I do not want to take up too much of your time.

310 words

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

May/27/24 8:51:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the member will agree with the fact that building renewable energy and electrifying Canada's energy grid is critical to meeting Canada's climate targets. We also know that the bill is a small step to facilitate renewable energy development. The member spoke a bit about the Bloc's amendments and so on. I am wondering if she could share with me today what the Bloc Québécois would like to see the government do to invest in the renewable energy economy.

89 words