SoVote

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

May/27/24 11:00:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is from the area of the heartland in Alberta. He knows it well and knows how development can happen there. What has the member seen when development works? What could happen elsewhere in this country? What optimism does he have for what our country could be if it was developed like the heartland in his constituency?

60 words

Mr. Garnett Genuis

May/27/24 11:01:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands has to be loud to make up for the absence of other colleagues who are able to say anything in the House. I want to credit the member. He speaks when nobody else is here, and he is carrying more water than some. In response to my colleague, absolutely the industrial heartland is a critical example of the benefits of energy-related manufacturing, and my riding is a real hub of that. Of course, it covers some parts of other ridings. I am very proud of the industrial heartland, what it has been, and I can only see the growth in potential when we finally have a federal government that is actually supportive of our energy sector.

126 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

May/27/24 11:02:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this time of the night, and I do want to congratulate Lin Paddock, who won the Baie Verte—Green Bay by-election in Newfoundland. Kudos to him, a progressive Conservative, as he won with an almost 80% victory. Actually, two years ago, in a by-election, he had 48%. The Liberals went from 52% to 24%. So that is Newfoundland, the Maritimes, but there has been a plethora of polls the past year that have the Liberals trailing. I know that we do not count our chickens before they hatch, but this one did hatch this evening. I think that the Liberals and the NDP should get this message that they are out of touch with Newfoundlanders, Maritimers, British Columbians and everyone in between. What is the problem? Is it just because people like the change of colour? No, the issue is that the Liberals' policies are hurting Newfoundlanders, Maritimers and all Canadians. They are putting a squeeze on Canadians. Now, the member for Kingston and the Islands just finished talking about bringing down inflation. Well, he fails to recognize that all those past number of years when inflation was extremely high have not gone away, and Canadians are struggling to pay for the increases that have been happening because of the out-of-control spending. I have been in Newfoundland. I was in Labrador once in Goose Bay in 2016. I was very impressed. I went to St. John's, rented a car, went down the Avalon Peninsula, and I was surprised at the wealth. I saw a lot of construction, a lot of nice houses and it is a beautiful part of the country. It has been transformed from a have-not to a have province. However, that was in 2016, and already there were starting to be some problems. With the anti-energy policies of the Liberals, the Newfoundlanders and the Maritimers had a lot of flights going directly to Fort McMurray, but their policies squeezed that and those direct flights and that income were cut off, which has hurt. So, a tip for the government is that it should listen to the Conservatives, which might help it a little bit, because we are listening to the people of Canada. However, the problem that we have with Bill C-49 is that it is essentially just going to be adding more regulations and more red tape to an already cumbersome, if not impossible, process. Yes, it is pretty much impossible to get projects approved in Canada, and that is very unfortunate. I think the comments from the member from Nova Scotia a little earlier bear repeating, about the tidal project in the Bay of Fundy that was ready to roll. It was tested, they were bringing electricity into Nova Scotia, and then it got cut off. It got cancelled by the Liberal Department of Fisheries. This is a prime, and incredible, example of a potential project that could have been a reality with green energy, yet the Liberals cancelled it. It is just contrary. Looking at this bill, the Liberals are saying that it is pro-renewable energy. They had something right in their hands that could have gone forward and would have supplied hundreds of megawatts, and it was just cancelled. This is what the Liberals will also be doing with these other projects. I am from British Columbia. We saw similar things happen for energy that is clean, for example, the LNG. The presidents of Germany and Japan wanted LNG and wanted production because of the invasion of Ukraine and their source of energy from Russia being cut off. They said that they needed it. The Prime Minister's response was to see if there was a business case. That was basically flipping the bird. Then they went to Qatar, which is a sponsor of many terrorist organizations. This is something that we could have gotten. These are jobs. The biggest private project in history is happening right now in Prince Rupert, the LNG. That was approved under the Harper Conservative government. It reduces global emissions worldwide. However, the Liberals have blocked everything else from happening. They talk about consultation with indigenous people. The northern gateway project was supported by all the different first nations along the route. The Liberals thought about it and asked what they were going to do there. The first nations wanted it, but what were they going to do? They decided to find a few elders who were not even part of the leadership and put everything upon them. Then the Liberals cancelled the project because those elders were against it, even though the first nations, the Wet'suwet'en First Nations and everyone else, wanted it. The Liberals blocked it. This is just a sham, as far as what the Liberals say toward the first nations, that they really want to consult and work with them. This is just a way to block and not allow first nations and Métis people to really benefit. As far as the energy projects, it seems what the Liberals are really just building more regulations, more red tape and more bureaucracy. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development worked with the Auditor General to do a study on the net-zero accelerator initiative, a $7.4-billion project. Their conclusion was that there was no due diligence happening. They could not even determine if emissions would go down. The contracts were not clear. It is just a mess. It is the same thing with the $1-billion green slush fund. The Liberals appointed Liberals to a board, and those Liberals directed hundreds of millions of dollars to their own personal companies. This is the type of mess that we are facing here in Canada. It is all about what is in it for me, or what is in it for the Liberals. We saw that with the WE Charity, where the Prime Minister's family got significant money for contracts. We saw that with former Liberal MP Frank Baylis with the COVID contracts. We see it all the way through. We just have to question if that is the Liberal objective, to build bureaucracy and build more opportunities to give money to their friends and family.

1055 words

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

May/27/24 11:12:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have asked the member this question a number of times, and he neglects to ever really answer it. It is about the fact that he was an MLA in British Columbia when the carbon tax was introduced, and he voted in favour of it. He is on the record having voted for it. Now, he will not answer the question. I have asked it of him many times before. What I really want to know is, is it awkward? Is it awkward to have voted in favour of it, and then to come here and pretend to be against it? Does the member sleep well at night knowing that he is such a giant hypocrite? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

123 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:09 p.m.
Watch

I think the hon. member will have to withdraw that hypocrite statement. Would the hon. member mind retracting that one?

20 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/27/24 11:13:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will retract “hypocrite” and replace it with ”the hypocrisy of it”. Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

23 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:28 p.m.
Watch

Why does this happen every time? The hon. member starts and creates his problem in the late night on this one. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

36 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

May/27/24 11:13:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if you deem the name “hypocrite” to be offensive, I appreciate that, and I withdraw it, but I just want to know this: Does the hypocrisy really bother him? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

38 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:13:49 p.m.
Watch

Order. I said to retract it, and that was all I needed, but the hon. member wanted to replace it. The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is rising on a point of order.

34 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

May/27/24 11:14:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the chair occupant has made a precedent on this, and it is incumbent on you to restore order in this place and to name the member.

28 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:14:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge is rising on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

May/27/24 11:14:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member has still not been brought to order. Bring him to order. Name him. If he will not— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

27 words

The Deputy Speaker

May/27/24 11:14:24 p.m.
Watch

I am standing right now, and I hope that I am the only one standing right now. Will the hon. member come to order? Are we calmed down? Will everybody be calmed down for a second? I am not going to do this again because it is getting too late in the night. The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

62 words

Mr. Marc Dalton

May/27/24 11:14:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have actually addressed this to the member a number of times. Members can see the light and have a change when they understand that this has been going on for a number of years, this carbon tax, and it does not work. Even former premier Christy Clark has come out against it. I am an example of something that can happen on that side if they would come to the truth and would just accept it. There could be change there, but I do not have high hopes.

91 words

Carbon
Light

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

May/27/24 11:15:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems like he may be confused about a few of the facts. I am just wondering if he might want to correct the record. First of all, he stated somewhat erroneously that all first nations along the corridor wanted the northern gateway pipeline. As someone who lives along the corridor of what was proposed to be the northern gateway pipeline, I can assure him that this is not true. It is a fact that is more usually ascribed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which is a totally different project. Most of the bands located along the pipeline route did sign agreements with the company, but not all of them. In fact, the Hagwilget band did not sign an agreement with that company, but that is fair enough. He also referred to the largest private sector project in Canadian history as being the LNG Canada project, which is indeed true. It is a project I had a chance to tour a couple of weeks ago. However, he mentioned that it is in Prince Rupert, when actually it is in Kitimat. I just wonder if he would like to rise as a British Columbian and correct the record.

201 words

Mr. Marc Dalton

May/27/24 11:16:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his correction as far as Kitimat, but Prince Rupert will benefit also. That entire riding will benefit, and it will also benefit from a new government, hopefully sooner rather than later.

38 words

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC)

May/27/24 11:17:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69 Bill C-49

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here in the House and have many of my colleagues join to listen as I contribute some points to the debate we are having here tonight, particularly on our Conservative amendment. Many would argue it would be common sense. I look forward to getting into that tonight a little bit more. However, Mr. Speaker, you are from Nova Scotia. The legislation here impacts that province. It also impacts the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the honour to visit, a couple of weeks ago, the province. I had some great visits, travelling many miles, all the way from St. John's and Mount Pearl in the Avalon region, all the way across to Clarenville, Grand Falls, Windsor, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Stephenville, Kippens, and all points in between. I think the debate here is timely tonight, as we talk about what the priorities are for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, I want to give some breaking news here in the House tonight, if I could; breaking news that is fresh, hot off the press of some by-elections, a by-election that just took place in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals love intruding into provincial jurisdiction on issues, although they should not. They get struck down by courts and we have these prolonged problems. I am going to bring in provincial jurisdiction here because in Newfoundland and Labrador, in that by-election tonight, in the riding of Baie Verte-Green Bay, the votes are in. It was a carbon tax by-election. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, here is an interesting thing. Both of the PC and the Liberal candidates endorsed the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa. The Prime Minister has become so toxic, even Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador want nothing to do with him. The results are in tonight and it was very conclusive. The voter turnout in the by-election tonight in central Newfoundland was 57%. It was 15 points higher than it was in the last general election in that riding. It was a close riding in 2021. The Liberals got about 52%, the PCs got 47%. Tonight, the Conservative candidate who opposes the carbon tax got 80% of the vote. Congratulations to Lin Paddock from Ottawa. I am thankful to him for fighting the carbon tax, fighting and standing up against the punitive measures that the Prime Minister and the NDP are imposing on his province. That by-election followed, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a by-election that just took place about a month ago. Again, it was the same thing around central Newfoundland. There was a historically high voter turnout in that riding. It took a long-time Liberal riding and flipped it to the PCs; again, a carbon tax by-election. They are just building the momentum. If we go to Nova Scotia, in Pictou West, the minister of housing's own riding, right in that region, the PCs not only held that riding, but they drastically increased their vote share and the turnout there was very solid for a by-election. There was another example, absolutely, in Preston only a short while ago. For the first time, in a long-time Liberal or NDP back-and-forth riding for the most part, there was a Conservative victory there as well, another carbon tax by-election. I raise this point tonight because there is a theme developing in Atlantic Canada. It is going from Liberal to common-sense Conservative. Here is the thing that is interesting. It is building the momentum. The Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals know they are extremely unpopular. They know that their plan for this country is more and more unpopular, the more Canadians learn about it. The priorities that they try to address are out of touch with the realities on the ground. After giving colleagues these updates of these carbon tax by-elections in those respective provinces, I cannot wait for our carbon tax election here to take place all across Canada. Canadians are going to have their say. I think the turnout and the blue wave are going to be equal in every part of this country. I want to talk about Bill C-49 here tonight. I do listen to what the member for Kingston and the Islands says, believe it or not. I have to because both he and the member for Winnipeg North speak quite a bit here in the chamber. Just a few minutes ago, the member for Kingston and the Islands was trying to make this argument about the Constitution and how the Liberals listen to the Constitution, respect it and talking about their actions when it comes to their legislation and bills. This bill here, or more specifically, our Conservative amendment, actually just call it out for what it is, hypocrisy. It is saying one thing and doing the absolute opposite. He goes on about how they do all this. Well, Bill C-49 has a lot of very similar provisions to Bill C-69, which has garnered a lot of attention when it comes to developing our natural resources and realizing our economic potential. It has done a lot of damage in every part of the country. It has turned away, turned down and cancelled investments by the hundreds of millions of dollars in this country. The thing about Bill C-69 was that, for months and for years, Liberal ministers would go out and say, “There is nothing wrong. The bill is constitutional. It is going to be upheld.” Well, the Supreme Court had its say, and guess what. It did not uphold it. The bill was struck down. Now, moving forward, we have Bill C-49. Our Conservative amendment tonight is saying that we need to take this back to committee. There are serious flaws with what the government is trying to do because many of the same provisions that were struck down in Bill C-69 are embedded and repeated here in Bill C-49. Mark my words. I am going to put it right here, in Hansard, in the blues and on video here tonight: This piece of legislation is going to be dithered and delayed for years. It is going to be challenged. Look at what happened with respect to Bill C-69. Liberals and then the New Democrats said, “Oh, it is all fine. Do not worry about it. The Conservatives are just talking negative about it.” The government ignored it, and guess what happened. It is the chaos coming around Bill C-69. The uncertainty, the lack of answers from that side and the lack of fixing the problem the Liberals were warned about in the first place are challenging the economic environment in our country. It is turning away investment. It is turning away projects that could be completed here at home, creating great Canadian paycheques. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing. Members could look and see that there are now the same inefficiencies that are here in the Impact Assessment Act, in sections 61, 62, 169 and 170. The list goes on about how they are constantly dithering and delaying. If members do not want to take my word for it here with what I have said so far, let us just look at the number of projects already stalled under the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals are blocking projects with red tape left, right and centre. Bill C-49 would only make it worse. There is Beaver Dam gold mine in Nova Scotia. It has been nine years, and it is still not done. Fifteen Mile Stream gold project is going to be a massive $123 million investment. After six years, that project, 95 kilometres northeast of Halifax, is still being delayed, and with three years extension, it is still not done. Then we have the Joyce Lake direct shipping iron ore project, which would be a $270-million investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. After 11 years, it is still waiting and not approved. There is Cape Ray gold and silver mine in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been eight years, and it is still waiting and not going through. The list goes on and on. It is the definition of insanity. I have said it before about the budget, and I will say the same thing about the Liberals' efforts to remove red tape and unleash the economic potential of this country. We have so many natural resources. We have so many jobs that could be created in this country, and what the Liberals have done time and time again, and what they are doing with Bill C-49, is causing legal nightmares. They are going to cause red tape nightmares for years to come, and it is Canadian workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who are going to be hurt. We are putting this amendment forward. We are opposing the constant red tape of the Liberals. After nine years, Canadians have had enough, and I do not blame them.

1530 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

May/27/24 11:26:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, red tape is indeed a rather serious problem. It is a problem not just with the Liberal government, but also with the Conservatives before this and the Liberals before them and so on, back almost to the beginning of time. Beyond the issue of red tape, what happens sometimes is that the government rushes to introduce botched legislation in an apparent attempt to clear its conscience. Does my colleague agree with me on that? I would like his answer to also take into account committee work.

88 words

Mr. Eric Duncan

May/27/24 11:27:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-69

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member from the Bloc a little, and I am going to disagree with her a little as well. I agree that this is a shoddy bill. The government has been warned. The Liberals and the NDP want to ram this through, and they have been reminded over and over again, including in some great speeches here tonight, of how this is going to end up in the courts, like Bill C-69. I agree with her on that. They are putting it through and they do not care. It is going to get stalled for years and they are going to blame everybody but themselves. I find that I disagree with the Bloc, though, too. I agree a little more, if I could, about simplifying the environmental assessment process: one environmental assessment, federal or provincial. We do not need the double red tape taking years. The list goes on of the number of companies and projects that have been caught up in this. The thing with the Bloc Québécois is that it wants to cancel, as an example, all offshore petroleum or the wonderful oil and gas sector, with a number of jobs in this country. The irony is that when we cancel a project here in Canada, what happens is that countries like Russia, Venezuela and other countries that do not give two hoots about emissions reductions are going to take up that limit. Trust me: They are not having the same conversations about conservation and good measures that we are having here in Canada. The Bloc Québécois is saying these projects and paycheques belong in Canada, but it wants to export them around the world.

291 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

May/27/24 11:28:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can speak to many of the countries around the world that have asked for Canadian energy and have been turned down by the Prime Minister. Most recently, there have been Germany, Poland, Japan, Greece and others as well. These really are lost opportunities. We know that five or six years ago the United States was barely exporting LNG, and now it is one of the largest exporters of LNG in the world. Really, this is a lost opportunity for Canadians, Canadian businesses and Canadian workers. I am wondering if the member can speak to that.

103 words