Bill C-49

An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I especially liked the part about the tidal energy industry in the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world. As for the bill before us, we supported Bill C‑49 at second reading because we expected a collegial approach, and we thought we would be able to discuss it and improve it in committee. However, the government rejected all of our amendments.

In the hon. member's opinion, is that how this government operates, even with a minority of seats? Is that not the same way it behaves toward its provincial counterparts?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wealth of knowledge of history, not only in his province but also in this country.

It is probably not in the Standing Orders for me to do this, so I want to be careful, but I will make a bet or a wager. Several Conservative members have consistently stood up and made a case based on the government's history, based on Bill C-69 and based on many of the same provisions that are in Bill C-49, which we are dealing with. There is an amendment that would send the bill back to committee to fix some of what I think is going to be deemed unconstitutional, dragging the process out and creating an investment climate in this country that is going to go in the wrong direction.

I want to make sure one more time that my colleague can get on the record again, as the Liberals and the NDP seem to be blind to the idea that this could even happen. Can the member talk about what he predicts would happen in the future if the bill passes in its current form and does not go back to committee?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise tonight with respect to Bill C-49, which would amend, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the offshore petroleum board's mandate from petroleum to regulating overall energy. We have proposed an amendment at this stage to deal with the fact that parts of this bill would implement elements of the Impact Assessment Act, IAA, that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I would like to start by addressing some of the concerns that I have heard over the last few weeks from Liberal members from my part of the world in Atlantic Canada. One of them, the member for Kings—Hants, has an agriculture riding, so he is expert at spreading manure. He has very much pushed the envelope on what this bill is about. It almost makes us believe that maybe he had not read it.

I am going to talk a bit about the issue of tidal energy to start, which was mentioned a little earlier by one of my NDP colleagues. The good news is that the first North American tidal project that was able to produce actual electricity without being destroyed by the tides of the Bay of Fundy worked. The bad news is the project is dead. Why is that project dead? It is dead because of the natural virtue-signalling tendencies of the current Liberal government; the Liberal government killed it, if members can believe it.

Sustainable Marine Energy started developing the alternative energy project in the Bay of Fundy. If members do not know, I will tell them that the Bay of Fundy's tides, every day, push more water in and out of the Bay of Fundy than all other rivers in the world combined in their flow in one day. That is the power of the Bay of Fundy. Many attempts have been made to put turbines at the bottom of the ocean, millions and millions of dollars in the Bay of Fundy, and within about 48 hours they are blown apart by the actual power of the sea and those tides that rise 48 feet and drop 48 feet every day. They are the highest tides in the world.

Sustainable Marine Energy developed a different approach, basically put the turbines on the top of the water, and that energy project in the Bay of Fundy was licensed in 2012. Who was the government in 2012? I think it was the Conservatives. The first energy tidal project producing clean, renewable energy was approved by the Conservative government in 2012. That is when the green energy bonanza, which could have been a bonanza, was started in Atlantic Canada. What happened? The tidal project would have provided nine megawatts of clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is the equivalent of taking 3,700 cars off the road. It sounds pretty good to me and it sounded pretty good to the Harper government, and that is why it was approved to go ahead with the experiment.

If the Liberal government really cared as much about combatting climate change and about green energy as the Liberals claimed to, one would think that they would have continued to license this project, to develop it and to draft this offshore power that we have. However, they did not; one would be wrong.

For its trail-blazing efforts, this is what happened to Sustainable Marine Energy. It was awarded, I would say, a red tide. In the ocean, a red tide kills everything. A blue tide, everything lives in; and the red tide in the ocean actually kills all fish. The company was awarded a red tide of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. For those familiar with the energy projects out west and the power of DFO in preventing energy projects in western Canada, the government of course decided to use this in the ocean as well when it came to Sustainable Marine Energy. The government repeatedly delayed the permits and rejected permits, even after being provided reams and reams of science about how the fisheries were not impacted by this project.

The last project, which is the straw that broke the camel's back, was last year. After five years of the regulatory challenges by DFO, the project in Digby county, and I know the Speaker is very familiar with it since Digby county is in his constituency, that would have gone a long way to fighting against climate change was cancelled by DFO.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

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.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

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.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

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.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I have some time this evening, as the spouse of a U.S. Army combat veteran and as the stepmother of someone who is currently active within the U.S. Army, I would like to extend my gratitude to the United States of America for its strong allyship towards our country. I do so as the United States observes Memorial Day today.

It is about to get technical in here. Are members ready?

My colleague from Provencher just noted that we are debating an amendment to Bill C-69. I want to read the amendment and then make arguments to colleagues in here, as well as potentially any legislative staff from affected departments who might be listening to this, on why I think the House should avail itself of the opportunity to accept this amendment and do what the amendment says it should do. The amendment reads:

Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 61, 62, 169, and 170 with the view to prevent uncertainty and a lack of clarity caused by the inclusion of similar provisions contained in Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which would insert unanticipated conditions and requirements beyond existing legislation and regulations...

The reason Conservative members have put the amendment forward is that a substantive part of Bill C-49, which this amendment refers to, contains sections of Bill C-69, which were deemed largely unconstitutional.

There is something I do not think anyone has raised in debate in this place, as to why this amendment should go forward. Bill C-49, the substantive bill, was tabled on May 30, 2023. The Supreme Court ruling on the relevant sections in Bill C-49, which could be impacted by the relevant sections in Bill C-69, happened in October of last year.

Something else happened since this was put forward. The government tabled the budget implementation act, which we have been debating. In the budget implementation act, on page 552 through page 577, there are amendments to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, that the government says are in response to the Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to bring that piece of legislation into alignment with the Supreme Court's decision. The district I represent is in Alberta. The Government of Alberta does not think that the amendments will be constitutional.

However, there is a problem. Everyone needs to consider supporting the amendment for this reason: Although the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act are in the budget implementation act, I cannot find any coordinating or harmonizing amendments between those amendments and what is in Bill C-49. There is a problem with that. Let us put all the debate on the topic aside for a minute. If the budget implementation act is rammed through without our going back and reconsidering the clauses that are in Bill C-49, what is going to happen to the bill? Everybody should do the math on this. It is going to be unconstitutional.

What happens in that circumstance, where there has not been a harmonization of one set of amendments to another? What happens to anybody who is looking at potentially investing in these projects? What would they say? They would say that this is a huge risk and that it is going to be held up in litigation. Therefore, this is the reason the House should support the amendment.

Everybody should put their feelings on the topic of the bill aside and think about House procedure for a second. Unless the bill goes back to committee to consider harmonizing two things, we are going to be in a battle. These things are, first, whether the bill actually captures the spirit of what is in the budget implementation act and, second, whether the provinces deem it constitutional. The government is going to be in a battle over this, and that is antithetical to what the bill is supposed to do, which is to attract investment in these projects.

What has happened here, I think, is that the government members did not think that the Supreme Court was going to rule against the government; that is why they tabled Bill C-49 in May 2023 with the same type of language that was deemed unconstitutional in the original bill, Bill C-69. However, the Liberals are now trying to fast-track the bill through the House of Commons without its going back to committee to consider that harmonization, and that is a huge problem. At the very least, the government members should be doing a technical briefing to show how the amendments they have proposed in the budget implementation bill would impact the relevant sections that are mentioned in the amendment. That is the bare minimum that they should be doing. I am not sure about anyone else in here, but I did not get the invitation to that briefing. I do not think it happened, because I do not think that the Liberals have actually done this work.

Therefore, the rationale that I just set out here is poor planning on the part of the minister. Beyond that, the reason I would like to implore some of my colleagues from the Bloc, perhaps the NDP and perhaps even members of the Liberal Party is that the minister and their parliamentary secretary should never have let it get to this stage. This is a failure in their parliamentary affairs component. Beyond that, there is another component, which is that now we are going to gear up for another fight with the provinces. This is not just about Alberta; we know that all the provinces had concerns with Bill C-69.

In fact, in debate on the Bloc opposition motion earlier this week, Bloc members talked about the fact that they wanted clarity on ensuring that the government was not going to reach into the jurisdictional area of Quebec and of other provinces. I want to read to members a statement from the government of my province of Alberta on what was in the budget implementation bill. This is the statement, titled “Impact Assessment Act remains unconstitutional: Joint Statement”:

Premier Danielle Smith, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz and Minister of Justice Mickey Amery issued the following statement on the federal government’s amendments to the Impact Assessment Act:

Alberta has completed its review of the federal government’s recently tabled amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

For colleagues who are following along, that is what is in the budget implementation bill. It starts on page 552; that is what they are referring to in the statement. The statement continues:

Even with these amendments, the act is still unconstitutional.

The [federal] Minister of Environment and Climate Change...still has the ability to meddle in projects that are within provincial jurisdiction.

That is how they are describing the amendments. They do not find that constitutionality. It continues:

This will put projects [and they list a bunch of different resource projects and highways] at risk.... This is simply unacceptable and Alberta, when it comes to intra-provincial projects, will not recognize the Impact Assessment Act as valid law.

The situation could have been avoided if, following Alberta’s Supreme Court victory, the federal government agreed to meaningfully consult with the province, rather than sending vague letters and blank templates. The federal government did not even inform Alberta when they were tabling these amendments in the House of Commons.

This failure to work collaboratively with Alberta is a choice made by [the] Prime Minister...and [the environment minister].

Choices have consequences. Alberta has won in court twice in the past year and we are ready to win again.

We are not at a point or a juncture in our nation's history where we can afford to be purposefully and knowingly picking battles with the provinces when our economy is barely sputtering along on life support.

We need investment into major natural resource projects. We need clarity in this type of legislation. We do not need more fights with the provinces.

What I see here is a hot mess that has not been adequately vetted by the parliamentary affairs people of the minister, and it has clearly not gone through cabinet with this type of scrutiny. When I was a cabinet minister, one of the things I always thought about when considering proposals for new legislation was how it would impact other areas of proposed legislation so that we would not get into harmonization issues that would create instability for investment.

That is exactly what we have here. Again, I know that people have issues with the Alberta energy sector. Members can park all of that for a second and put that aside. If this was the Government of Quebec or any other province, I would still feel the same way because it is counterproductive for the government to ram legislation forward knowing that there is going to be a fight on their hands, particularly when the province likely has a valid case.

I will just back it up to explain why this amendment to send it back to committee should be supported. If Bill C-49 is sent back to committee, it could be reviewed very quickly in coordination with the amendments that are in the budget implementation bill to ask if they harmonize. Does one equal the other?

We can argue whether or not they are good amendments, but the reality is that I do not think that exercise, in and of itself, has happened in any substantive way. Certainly, Parliament has not had the opportunity to do that, which is crazy. It is actually crazy that these are changing. If people have never sat around a board table, if they have never evaluated political risk in terms of making a major capital investment, this is the exact type of instability that people look at and say, “No, the capital is not going there.”

Number one, Parliament should have the right to scrutinize whether or not these major pieces of regulatory changes actually harmonize with one another. Number two, to the case that my colleagues from the Bloc just made, we should be discussing whether or not they are good.

The budget implementation bill is also being rammed through the House of Commons by the Liberals and the NDP. This is a major substantive piece of legislation. There are so many other pieces in here that there is no possible way that the finance committee is going to be able to get into the granular details of this component of the legislation to see if they harmonize with each other.

I am looking for colleagues that are on the finance committee here. Are they going to have time to do this? No, of course not. It is not going to happen. That is a huge problem. By not having this happen, it is basically sending a message to the entire legal community and the entire investment community that we do not know what we are doing. We need to just back it up and take it to committee.

The last reason this exercise would be good is that it would be an opportunity to do meaningful consultation with the provinces on this very topic. Here we have a very heated statement from the premier and the environment minister of one of the top grossing economies in the province, and they are saying that the government did not talk to them. Instead, they sent “vague letters and blank templates.” Do members know what vague letters and blank templates say to the investment community? They say, “Do not invest here.”

There needs to be meaningful consultation with the provinces. Again, it should not be one province or another. Particularly if my colleagues from the Bloc are going to argue for provincial sovereignty within the area of their jurisdiction, then the principle of meaningful consultation with every province should apply. If this went back to committee, it would give an opportunity for meaningful consultation with the provinces on the areas where there needs to be harmonization and discussion, so that we do not end up in another protracted constitutional battle. This is what our job is.

The last thing I want to emphasize is that the clauses the amendment refers to are not minor clauses. It is not like the short title of the bill. These are substantive clauses that were already found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Clause 62 deals with “The Regulator may, on application containing any information required by the Regulator or prescribed, issue an authorization with respect to each work or activity proposed to be carried out in relation to an offshore renewable energy project.” These are substantive clauses that I am not satisfied, as a parliamentarian, are harmonized.

Often when I stand here in this place and talk about stuff like this, I feel like Cassandra, that Greek myth of the woman who is doomed to know the future and nobody believes her. I want to be proven wrong on this, but if we do not walk this back to committee and sort this out, I guarantee members that there will be a constitutional challenge on both of these bills, there will be less investment, and this is going to end up in the Supreme Court anyway. Why would we not just do our job as parliamentarians and get it right to begin with? That makes a lot of sense to me.

This does not have to take a lot of time. I mean, this is what parliamentary committees are for. It should be to consider these exact things. We should be getting the officials who wrote the relevant segments in the BIA into committee to ask, “Hey, do these jive with each other? Show me how. Walk me through this.” That would also give opportunity for the provinces to have input, and then consider it in clause by clause.

Now, why is getting this right so important? It is because the bureaucrats should not run Parliament. That is our job, right? What I have seen here is a lack when ministers do not do these sorts of things. Right now, the minister should be reaching out to party leaders or House leaders and saying, “Hey, you know what? Let's go do a quick study on this. Let's get this right.” However, what is happening is the ideologically rigid idea that we have to ram this through. I think that comes up through the bureaucracy because they are just not on top of parliamentary affairs, and procedure matters. The rule matters. At the end of the day, one of our key functions as members of Parliament is holding the government to account on technical things like this. When we do not show the public that we have the capacity to do this, they do not want to invest here. They do not have faith in us as parliamentarians.

That is why this amendment is common sense. We have gotten it to a certain point of debate in the House. There's various viewpoints on the subject matter and the outcomes, but at the end of the day, there is a legitimate Supreme Court ruling that Parliament needs to consider in the implementation of this bill, which may not have been considered.

If we do not do this, and this does end up in a fight with the provinces, and this does end up in a Supreme Court fight, and we do chase investment away, what does that mean? It means that our economy continues to shrink. It means that we are not getting on top of renewable energy projects. It means that we are not developing the economy at all, and we cannot afford to do that.

Our country is broke right now, right? We cannot afford to make mistakes, or allow the government to make mistakes like this, and that is why we have to support amendments for additional legislative scrutiny, which is exactly what this amendment is calling for. It is very neutrally worded. It is not even referring to the whole bill. It is referring to the specific clauses that could be impacted by the Supreme Court ruling on Bill C-69.

I ask members to please let sanity prevail. Let us take the bill back to committee. Let us show the legal and investment community that Parliament is serious, that we can do something that resembles work, and let us get this right.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a bit of a point of order. I indicated earlier that I would be supporting Bill C-49 in my speech. I support the amendment, but I will not necessarily be supporting the bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

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.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑49 has passed the committee stage. We now see that the government has chosen not to implement a real environmental assessment process for future energy projects. These offshore projects ought to undergo robust, effective, transparent environmental impact assessments to ensure that they are part of proper marine spatial planning to identify and prevent adverse cumulative effects and contribute to sustainability.

Does my colleague believe that the government should adopt such a measure? Why was it not done in Bill C‑49?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Edmonton West, whom I consider a colleague and a friend.

Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts is a lifetime opportunity because it is a catalyst for investment in an offshore wind industry to take hold off the east coast of Canada. It represents economic opportunity. It represents jobs, investments, fighting climate change and helping middle-class Canadians in that area. I am so excited to support it on this side of the House, and I ask my Conservative colleagues to join in supporting this great piece of legislation.