SoVote

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

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

Ms. Kristina Michaud

May/27/24 8:51:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, robust, effective and transparent environmental impact assessments should be conducted for every offshore renewable energy project. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Environment are refusing to include these types of environmental assessments in this bill. For us, it is quite simple. We cannot support such a bill.

59 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/27/24 8:52:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, 275 years ago, humankind went from using primarily wood-, peat- and coal-based energy to using steam energy, though it was often still produced using coal. That enabled first England and then other countries to enter the industrial age. The steam was mainly produced using coal. Oil was discovered and mainly used by industry. Today, other energy sources are available, thanks to the ever-changing state of knowledge. Bill C-49 seeks to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. We are talking here not only about offshore oil and gas development but also about the implementation of offshore energy sources that could accelerate the energy transition. The second part has the potential to be useful. Nonetheless, it is disappointing too. Our role in Parliament is to study bills, improve them in committee and pass them at various stages. I hope I am not telling anyone here anything new. The purpose of studying bills is to hear different points of view on how to improve the bills so that they meet the needs and realities experienced by our constituents. We represent all the constituents in our ridings, not just those who voted for us. As much as possible, the ideas that are heard have to help in reaching a consensus. A minority government is wonderful because it is the most democratic of governments. Under such a government, everyone must sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith, and that is what we did. We negotiated in good faith. We voted for Bill C‑49 at second reading so we could improve it to create a vision for the future, a gateway to the future. Unfortunately, during the study in committee, the supposed benefits of a minority government did not pan out. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading, but all our amendments were rejected in committee. Admittedly, the bill puts forward some interesting energy transition ideas. However, the oil and gas elements remain problematic for us. Some say that Canada is just a tiny drop in the world's ocean of greenhouse gas emissions, but our oil and gas are intended for export. They are intended to encourage the rest of the world to waste even more resources and further pollute the atmosphere. That is not how we envision the future, and that is one of the problems. I would like to point out some other problems. Some examples include clause 4, which changes section 2.1 in the original act, and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b), which give powers to the Governor in Council, including “amending the definition offshore renewable energy project” and “prescribing lines enclosing areas adjacent to the Province”. This can be done without consulting the elected representatives of these provinces, particularly if they are not part of the government of the day. These decisions can be made by the Governor in Council without any democratic consultation, either with parliamentarians or with the provinces concerned. That lacks transparency. How can anyone believe that this is going to be done transparently? The government can tell me that this process will be transparent, but during the pandemic, drilling permits were issued in protected areas without consultation. What is more, the government said that it was going to resolve that problem by changing the boundaries of the protected area. From what we have seen in the past and from what we can read in the bill, we know that we will be seeing the same things today. There are also some consistency issues. Perhaps I can expand on the answer that my colleague gave earlier. This government claims to be green. It says that it will plant two billion trees and that it is encouraging the country to make the transition, and yet it continues to invest heavily in petroleum development and open the doors to that industry. I think that we can all agree that we will continue to need petroleum because hospitals, especially, cannot do without it. It is used to create plastics that have helped us to save a tremendous amount of time when it comes to sterilization and safety in hospitals. However, just because we still need petroleum does not mean that we have to continue with large-scale oil development until we are down to the last drop, just so we can make a pile of money. The day when we can eat money instead of food, then we can talk about it. Perhaps money will become more important than everything else, but that is a long way off. Quebec, on the other hand, was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. It was a societal choice. Was it an easy choice to make? Of course not. Every government wants royalties and more money, but at some point, being a statesperson means protecting the dignity of the weak. There is no one weaker than a fetus, than an unborn child, than the future generation or generations to come. There is no one weaker than that. We must ensure they are protected. We must ensure they have a future. If we develop every last drop without consideration for the next two, three, four and five generations, we are no longer worthy of being called statesmen and stateswomen. I am still talking about consistency. On the one hand, the government wants to implement slightly greener energies. On the other, it wants to continue developing oil and gas. Developing oil and gas to send to international markets will cancel out any transition efforts. If the government want to be consistent, it needs to invest in the transition first and in oil and gas if necessary. It is of the utmost importance, but I am not sure that people understand that. Speaking of inconsistency, Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double oil and gas production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. That is nearly one million barrels a day. That takes 100 new wells. How many offshore wind turbines will it take to make up for that? It simply boggles the mind. I could point to Bay du Nord, Trans Mountain and so on. Offshore wind turbines, yes, but not just anywhere or any which way. There needs to be impact assessments and those assessments need to be done by independent organizations that are free from influence. Where is the promise to protect 30% of the oceans? How are we going to protect them, by drilling wells? How are we going to protect them when the definitions can be changed depending on which influences are being exerted on the governor in council or according to ideologies that are not based in facts? Our role is to prepare and protect the future for future generations. Bill C‑49 could have lined up with our role of preparing and protecting the future, but it is unfortunately rooted in the past. It is a flying Dutchman that will cripple future generations and their quality of life.

1209 words

Hon. Bardish Chagger (Waterloo, Lib.)

May/27/24 9:01:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments that were made. I agree that the energy transition is very important. I agree that we need to fight climate change, and I understand that the amendments have been rejected. As I said a little earlier, we know that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador supports this bill. Should we respect its will and its ability to promote its economic prosperity? Should we respect its jurisdiction? I get a lot of feedback from my constituents in my riding of Waterloo. They ask me what the Bloc Québécois's position is. Is it the same for all the provinces and territories or does it just apply to Quebec? Newfoundland and Labrador supports this bill.

123 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

May/27/24 9:02:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every province has the right to grow its economic prosperity. Every province has the right to see to what it believes to be best for the future. We are talking about a future of five years, 10 years, or two, three, four or five generations. It is also a question that every parliamentarian needs to ask, either here in the House or in another legislature. That being said, it is the river that feeds the waters of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. One needs to have basic knowledge of oceanography and coastal geography to understand that if there is a disaster in Newfoundland and Labrador, then the tidal waters and the currents will bring that disaster to Quebec. We want to avoid that too. Despite our independence, we are interdependent through this river.

134 words