SoVote

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

May/27/24 9:27:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not acceptable, and that is why I supported the Bloc's motion on provincial jurisdiction this week. The other point that my colleague made is about the enormity of the budget implementation bill. The budget implementation bill, and I am not sure if he would agree, has become the government's magic erase marker. When its members realize that they have done something wrong, they try to ram it into a budget implementation bill, hoping it is not going to get any scrutiny, and then oftentimes they make it worse, particularly on the issue of provincial jurisdiction. That is why this amendment is common sense. It is not even partisan. We might have a major problem here with provincial jurisdiction and with a Supreme Court ruling. Let us walk it back. Let us look at these specific clauses and then proceed forward.

146 words

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

May/27/24 9:28:18 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for a pretty novel critique of the bill that we have in front of us and the amendment that has been put forward by her party. I have not followed this as closely as some, but it would seem that, if there were infringements into provincial jurisdiction, that premiers, such as the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland, would be concerned about that. I would also note that my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling ruled that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional as far as it infringes into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and that offshore, of course, is clearly a federal jurisdiction. When we talk about offshore projects, they do fall under federal jurisdiction. However, my question is really around the timing, and the member noted the timing. The Supreme Court ruling came out in October of last year, and the bill before us was in committee starting in January. I did not follow the committee hearings as I have two other committees I have to track. I am curious if these arguments came up at committee, and if so, what the response was, particularly by government witnesses or department officials who appeared at committee. This is out of honest curiosity.

215 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/27/24 9:29:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, my understanding, and I would have asked my colleague to avail himself of the opportunity to look through the committee evidence from those meetings, is that this concern did come up. I also want to say to him that this is all fresh. This is actually what debate should be about in the House of Commons. The government's tabling of its amendments to respond to the Supreme Court ruling did not come out until the budget implementation act was tabled, which we are all in the middle of reviewing. I am not even sure. I am looking at my colleagues from the finance committee. I do not think they are in the middle of that yet. The fact is that at finance committee, the BIA amendments on the Impact Assessment Act have not been debated yet, so when the member is saying he is sure that other provincial governments would have raised this, how would they have? This is super fresh, and I am not sure because the government has not made a statement. I do not think it has thought of this. I do not think that its members have said how the Impact Assessment Act could harmonize with the relevant sections of Bill C-49. My colleague is right. It is not every part of Bill C-49 that is impacted by this, but there are material sections that are, so because the amendment is tight in scope to those relevant sections, he should be able to support it.

254 words

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

May/27/24 9:31:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50. The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire. I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.

222 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/27/24 9:32:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be partisan for a minute. To me, and I think to any observer, this looks like a government that is chasing one issue. I would hate to be the PMO issues manager. That must be a heck of a job these days, but the government is so focused on this that they do not have the intellectual or physical capacity to think about how to properly structure bills so that they do not have a path that careens towards an obvious Supreme Court ruling. This is where the legal community, the investment community and the natural resources community just say no, and we cannot afford that. We cannot afford, as a country, that type of instability on investment right now, so it does behoove Parliament, when the government is getting it right, to do our job, hold the government to account and ask to walk it back and do everything in the right order so that we are not having another unconstitutional ruling and chasing away investment.

171 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/27/24 9:33:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, members will be familiar with the expression “casting pearls before swine.” Looking across the way, I wonder if it was more casting pearls before an empty pen tonight. I do want to recognize the points the member made about how this bill would make it more difficult for greener projects to proceed as well. This bill is bad for energy development, for traditional energy and for green energy. The government likes to talk about green energy, but when one piles red tape on new development, it affects all sectors. I wonder if the member wants to comment further on that.

104 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/27/24 9:33:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity at this late hour to commend my colleague for his wonderful turn of phrase. He always has a nice quip. He is right, at the end of the day when a government tinkers with regulation, it naturally creates uncertainty in the investment community. The job of Parliament is to ensure when the government is proposing regulations, that risk is diminished so we do not have the effects he talked about. Again, speaking narrowly to this amendment, this bill absolutely needs to go back to committee in the tight scope, at the very least. I have my objections on the overall content of the bill, but if there is agreement that some parts of this might be good, then it behooves the government and Parliament to get it right.

137 words

Objections

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

May/27/24 9:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, not to be outdone by my colleague, I would say that given the numbers on the other side, the member for Calgary Nose Hill who might be tilting at windmills in terms of having members listen. This bill would bring, as the member pointed out, four sections from the Impact Assessment Act into it. I wonder if the member could comment on how effective those have been at getting capital projects done in western Canada, because it would bring that same speed, I expect, and same diligence to getting things done to Atlantic energy projects.

97 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner

May/27/24 9:35:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, woe betide Atlantic Canada having to face the impact assessment woes of western Canada. It has not been easy over the last nine years. Provinces should have the right to develop projects within their jurisdiction. The federal government should not stand in the way. There is the whole constitutional and federal structure issue we need to discuss, but when the government stands in the way, it also puts a chill on investment. It says that if different levels of government cannot sort their things out and act civilly, then there is no point in investing. Again, we cannot afford that. Canada is now seen as a jurisdiction of high political risk. Can members believe that? It is because of problems like this, so I implore everyone in the House to support the amendment and to do due diligence so we do not see that investment chased away.

149 words

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

May/27/24 9:36:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask everyone up front to excuse my west coast tired brain, but I am happy to stand on this important issue. First and foremost, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. We know this bill provides a framework for regulatory approvals of offshore wind energy projects and updates the current legislation to help facilitate the development of offshore renewable wind power, which will, in turn, greatly enhance the ability to decarbonize the electrical grid in Atlantic Canada. It is much needed. We also know that this necessary regulatory framework will kick-start the development of a significant green hydrogen industry in Atlantic Canada. As we know, Atlantic Canada has enormous potential to develop a renewable offshore wind industry that will create good, local jobs, lower energy bills and fight the climate crisis, three issues that we know are vitally important to people across Canada and on the east coast. We know that offshore winds are generally stronger and more consistent than onshore winds and offshore turbines tend to be larger as well. That means that offshore wind projects generally have a greater overall power output than onshore equivalents, while also providing a more consistent stream of energy. This is good news for East Coasters. We know that updating the Atlantic accord is an important step toward the development of offshore renewable energy. I know members are very aware that my roots are in the east coast, St. John's, Newfoundland, in particular. I am certain anybody who has been to Newfoundland knows first-hand that there is no shortage of wind. I spoke a little earlier about my experience there. It is funny because I remember hearing my parents talking about having to walk to school with snow up to their armpits in a blizzard, the stories about the hardships of childhood. In fact, I had to walk to school with tremendous wind blowing. I remember having to lean into the wind as a kid and grab onto items not to get blown backward. There is an incredible resource in wind, and we need to utilize that resource. We know there are incredible opportunities with wind-powered energy. We also know that we need to do this right. As somebody who lived in Newfoundland, I know first-hand how important the fishing industry is. We know that right now there are many working in this vitally important industry who are already struggling to make ends meet, so it is paramount that, as we move forward in this work to provide renewable energy, with good jobs for Newfoundlanders, we are also looking at potential implications for fishers that may come from wind turbines. My hope is that we will see a clear, real jobs plan for any fishers who may be impacted. This is so important for coastal communities. I will make one last point about myself. This is far from being about me, but it is my frame of reference, I guess I could say. When I grew up in Newfoundland, the cod moratorium had happened and my family owned a small business in St. John's, Newfoundland. We were not fishers, but the economy and community that we depended on were very much impacted by this cod moratorium. This cod moratorium, along with a few other factors, is the reason my family sold everything, packed up our vehicle and drove from the east coast to the west coast to start our new lives in Nanaimo, which is, of course, where we call home today. My point to this is that it is vitally important that we are supporting coastal communities. If there are industries that need supports and people whose livelihoods depend on it, who require supports to transition through these changes, the government needs to be stepping up and providing the leadership to ensure that this is happening. We definitely do not want people to have to leave their homes, leave their home provinces or leave the country to find that economic stability. We have a wealth of opportunities right here in Canada, particularly on the east coast. This is another example of an opportunity that can be provided. Another piece that I wanted to mention is around the importance of us moving forward in a way that considers potential environmental implications, in particular when we look at marine protected areas. This is a concern that has been brought to my attention around ensuring that we are looking at continuing to protect marine protected areas. Biodiversity in our marine ecosystems is dwindling, and we know that our marine ecosystems need to remain diverse. We need to see species flourishing in order for our marine ecosystems to thrive. These are the same marine ecosystems that fishers depend on for their livelihoods, and the same marine ecosystems that we rely on for our planet to function and to capture carbon. We know that Canada, unfortunately, is failing to meet targets to combat the climate crisis. The Liberal government has failed to meet any of the commitments or targets it has made since first getting elected in 2015. It is sad to know. CO2 emissions have only recently flatlined after many years of rising under the government's tenure, and we still do not have an emissions cap on the oil and gas industry, as promised by the Prime Minister two years ago at COP26. We are in a climate crisis and we need to see actions being taken at a much faster rate than this. Canadians are experiencing first-hand the devastating effects of the climate crisis. We have had days upon days of air quality warnings in cities across the country due to smoke. I know in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, people with asthma struggled tremendously. People without asthma questioned whether to take their kids outside and play. The impacts are horrendous. We know people in Fort Nelson, for example, are just returning home today, which is the last update I received, after being evacuated from their homes for two weeks due to wildfire concerns. We are only in May. We are not in June yet. It is not just me saying this issue needs to move forward, but those who live in Newfoundland and Labrador are saying it too. We know, for example, that the Newfoundland premier, Andrew Furey, said, “The significance of these amendments to the Atlantic Accord cannot be understated. This will echo loudly now and be heard for years and years to come. Much like the original Atlantic Accord, we again take stewardship of our natural resources. What we can aptly describe as the winds of change are upon us all here today. Today, we start towards a new frontier for future generations. This is a gigantic win for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.” It goes on from here. We know that Tim Holman, the Nova Scotia environment minister said, “If you've ever visited us or Newfoundland, you know we have lots of water, you know we have lots of wind, and we're gearing up to take advantage of those natural resources in a clean, sustainable way. We're paving the way for projects such as offshore wind and green hydrogen production,” It is time that we support the provinces in moving forward with clean energy and with real jobs for people who live in these Atlantic provinces, and have the resources in place that would help lower the greenhouse gas emissions that we so desperately need to see happen.

1267 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/27/24 9:46:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks. It is a pity the benches across the way are so devoid of activity. The member talked about this bill and the impact on green energy. Does the member think that some provisions of this bill are actually an impediment for the development of green projects?

55 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

May/27/24 9:46:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, what I do know is that we cannot be stalling on real solutions to the climate crisis and on moving forward with renewable energy. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me an article put out by CBC News quoting the Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey. It says, “Newfoundland and Labrador is positioning itself as the primary benefactor and regulator when it comes to offshore wind developments in the province—but the deal hinges on federal legislation passing in Ottawa.” The federal legislation that is pending is the bill that we are debating this evening, Bill C-49. It is time that we see this go through so that we can see these projects move forward.

124 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

May/27/24 9:47:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about common sense in opposition to this bill from the Conservatives. Meanwhile, I see a lack of common sense. We know that there are places in B.C. that are being evacuated. I know that in northern Manitoba, there are places that are being evacuated as a result of catastrophic climate change. Every time there is a bill put forward that even attempts to address the climate crisis, the Conservatives violently oppose it. I am wondering if my hon. colleague thinks that the Conservatives are offering any common sense. I find that their analysis is complete nonsense.

104 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

May/27/24 9:48:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's question, I was reflecting on, if I could be frank this evening, the deep sadness that I feel, sitting in the chamber and hearing the Conservatives continually deny that we are in a climate crisis, continually try to stall any legislation that will move us forward in the direction that our children need, the direction that we need today, to see a sustainable future for Canadians and for people around the world. I feel sad to see that. My hope is that with legislation like this, with the support of premiers and with the support of people in provinces across Canada, we will see the changes necessary to have renewable energy, to see our greenhouse gas emissions reduced, to see caps finally placed on big oil and gas, and to see a future that my children and all of our children can be proud of, moving forward.

157 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

May/27/24 9:50:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith, with whom I serve on the fisheries committee. I know that she has a deep understanding of the region, since she was born in Newfoundland and raised in Newfoundland. I would like to ask her if she is aware of the projects that are going through the IAA process in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia right now, and the fact that most have taken more than seven years and still have no end in sight, and how she thinks applying that process to offshore wind is going to get any offshore wind built in any timely manner in the next decade or two in Atlantic Canada.

120 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

May/27/24 9:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the fisheries committee with my hon. colleague, and I enjoy our work together. We may disagree sometimes, but it is important for us to have respectful dialogue, and I have that with the member, so I appreciate that. My response to that question is that I agree that there are many delays in vital projects being moved forward, and we need to see timely projects being put into place to ensure that we see this energy being delivered. My hope is that we will see all members coming together to see this legislation pass and to work alongside premiers who are asking for this work to move ahead.

115 words

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

May/27/24 9:51:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and speak to what I believe is a Conservative amendment to Bill C-49, which in turn amends two other pieces of legislation, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and makes consequential changes to other acts. I see my friend from Nova Scotia is already yawning. I promise the speech is about to get quite a bit more exciting. We are talking in part this evening about renewable energy, about this really exciting industry that is growing in leaps and bounds and is going to very quickly take over as the primary energy source, powering countries and economies around the globe. I thought I would start by first going back to my home province, to the west coast. Tonight we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If we go some 4,000 kilometres westward, we get to the islands of Haida Gwaii. I was there just a couple of weeks ago and met in Masset briefly with the folks from the Swiilawiid Sustainability Society, which is a grassroots organization on Haida Gwaii that, among other things, is working on a project called Project 0% Diesel. Being a remote archipelago, Haida Gwaii gets most of its energy from diesel generators. This, of course, produces a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions and is something that folks on Haida Gwaii want to move off through the generation of renewable energy. The folks at Swiilawiid are going to be hosting this year's renewable energy symposium on September 21-22. That is an opportunity for Haida citizens and people living on Haida Gwaii to come together and talk about the myriad options and opportunities for renewable energy generation as part of tackling the climate crisis, as well as creating economic development, jobs and innovation right on Haida Gwaii. There are two other projects I will mention. Haida Gwaii has emerged as a real leader in northern British Columbia when it comes to renewable energy. There is a really exciting tidal power pilot project that is moving ahead, I believe, with some federal funding. The village of Masset has installed what was at the time the largest solar installation in British Columbia, a two-megawatt solar farm at the Masset airport. I had a chance to see it when I flew into Masset about a month ago. This is exciting stuff on the west coast. However, the bill we are debating this evening is dealing with the east coast and the development of, among other things, offshore wind, which is a tremendous opportunity. I will just briefly review that. I know we have been debating this for some time, so people know what the bill does. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding that we have been debating it for quite a while, because there are certain people who would rather that this bill did not pass through the House in a timely manner. However, I digress. Essentially, this bill is going to update legislation and help facilitate the development of an offshore energy industry. This is something that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have been calling for. There are agreements between those provinces and the federal government to do just that. My understanding is that the premiers of those provinces want this to happen in a big way, because there is a tremendous economic opportunity at stake here, and it is something that is going to come with a huge number of benefits. That is not to say that there are not important questions to be asked. I, for one, am not a member of the natural resources committee, so I was not party to all of the discussions that have taken place there, but I have been present for some debates about offshore energy and tidal energy. The member down the way will remember when we sat together, I believe at the environment committee, where we talked about a certain tidal project in the Bay of Fundy that was withdrawn by the proponent in part because of government processes. I see that he is shaking his head, so maybe I got some of the details wrong, but at the time Conservative members were bemoaning the loss of this project and calling for the government to do more to incentivize these renewable energy resources. Here we have a bill that, at least according to those provinces and the industry in those provinces, does precisely that, yet we do not see that same call for things to move ahead. I have listened with interest to all of the speeches this evening. They have covered a bunch of ground. I listened with particular interest to the remarks made by my colleague from Provencher. Several Conservative speakers have indicated that they support this bill in principle, and I think that is admirable if, in fact, it is true. The reason I question whether that is indeed the truth is that if we go back to the vote at second reading, which is a vote on the principle of the bill and a vote to move the bill ahead to committee, where it can be studied and amended, my recollection and the information I have suggest that they voted against it at second reading. Perhaps they could correct me if that is wrong. It does seem that this is a bill that will move things ahead, and it is something that we support. There are, of course, questions that have been raised about the impact of offshore development on the marine ecosystem. This is a matter that is of utmost importance. My understanding is that the government has suggested that issues related to the impact on specific areas should be properly dealt with through the assessment process on a project-by-project basis. Similarly, there are questions about the impact on fish harvesters who rely on areas that could be developed in the offshore for wind resources, and those are very valid concerns that must be addressed in a proper way. My hope is that the government would do just that, that it would take those concerns seriously and seek to mitigate those impacts and compensate any fish harvester who is affected by the development of any offshore resources. What we are talking about is tapping into an area of economic development, an area of renewable energy generation that is burgeoning around the world. If we look at some of the statistics, in January of this year the International Energy Agency report said that wind and solar are going to generate more electricity this year than hydro power, and by 2025, renewables are going to surpass coal as “the largest source of electricity generation” around the world. By 2028, renewables are going to “account for over 42% of global electricity generation”. This is a massive opportunity. It is an energy revolution that is happening, a transition that is happening. It behooves Canada, our federal government and us as parliamentarians to ensure that the frameworks are in place so that we can take advantage of this as a country, so that provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can get good projects moving ahead as quickly as possible, can offset or reduce their reliance on fossil fuel sources of energy, and can pursue other opportunities for export, like green hydrogen. We heard about Germany's desire to have green hydrogen exported to it, and if there is a surplus of electricity beyond domestic needs, that is something that should be investigated thoroughly and delivered on. Again, we hear frequent protestations about the constitutional jurisdiction of provinces. I was at committee when several premiers were invited to attend and talk at length about the perceived infringement on provincial jurisdiction. This idea that every province has a right to determine its economic future is something that we have heard from the Bloc as well. However, in this case, we have maritime provinces that very much want to move forward in an accelerated way with renewable energy development. They want the kind of legislation that is before us to set a predictable framework so that the industry can, in an efficient way, move forward with developments, produce renewable electricity, address the climate crisis and develop the economy all at the same time. I am pleased to rise tonight and speak to this legislation. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues.

1435 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/27/24 10:01:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have been struck by in the debate around the government's response to the challenges associated with climate change is the praise of intentions, as if intentions are what matters most. It has been said, “It is not enough to do your best; you must know what to do, and then do your best.” When it comes to offshore energy development, this could be a great opportunity to support European energy security, to displace dirtier forms of fuel in other parts of the world and to allow the development of green projects with less red tape. However, the government is piling red tape upon Canadian projects, the likely effect of which is actually more greenhouse gas emissions, because we are missing an opportunity to displace less secure, dirtier fuel around the world. Does the member not think that good intentions are not enough, that we have to look at the results? In this case, the development of Canadian energy with less red tape is good for the environment insofar as it displaces less environmentally friendly sources of fuel around the world.

188 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach

May/27/24 10:03:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but there are several parts to it. Of course, we need more than good intentions and hopes and dreams; we do need results. However, I think the argument that somehow Canadian energy is going to displace dirtier forms of energy around the world has not been substantially validated and, in many ways, Canadian energy has a higher GHG intensity when we are talking about oil products than many other sources of oil around the world. So, it is a bit of a problematic argument when you look at the energy mix that we are exporting as a whole, but certainly there are opportunities to export. British Columbia exports renewable energy south to the United States, and there are opportunities for exporting green hydrogen, for instance. So, we need to look at that opportunity. However, one of the biggest things we need to do is meet the targets that the federal government promised the Canadian people that Canada would meet, and doing that means reducing our domestic emissions. One way to do that is to get off diesel power, get off coal power, and ensure that renewables are powering our electricity grid. I think that offshore wind and solar are ways that we can get there. It is a huge opportunity, and it is one we should not miss.

227 words

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

May/27/24 10:04:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Bloc Québécois studied this bill in good faith. The same can be said for a lot of Canadians and organizations that made serious, carefully-considered and reasonable recommendations. Unfortunately, the Liberals rejected all of the improvements proposed by environmental groups, energy experts and lawyers specializing in environmental governance. At the end of the day, the government decided against implementing any real environmental assessment process for future energy projects. I know that New Democrats want to do more to fight climate change. They want the energy transition to move in the right direction. Does my colleague agree that new projects should not be subject to any environmental assessments?

118 words