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.

Business of the House

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Carbon Pricing

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I have 75,000 masters who live in northern Nova Scotia. They are telling me that they want the government to come up with a plan that is going to reduce emissions, so we can protect the environment for future generations. They are telling me that they want me to stand up and support Bill C-49, which is actually going to establish an offshore energy industry in the province where we have the resource.

We have the ability to do the right thing for our planet and create well-paying jobs at home. I will defend well-paying jobs at home, I will defend affordability and I will not compromise the need to protect our environment as that member would.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I stand today in the House to strongly encourage my Conservative colleagues to support Bill C-49, an important bill for Nova Scotia's future. The proposed amendments in the Atlantic accord would create a framework for the offshore renewable energy sector under the act for the province of Nova Scotia.

With an estimated $1 trillion to be invested in the sector globally by 2040, it is crucial that Canada position itself to attract investment and become world leaders in clean energy. Despite having the longest coastline and best wind speed in the world, Canada does not have one commissioned offshore wind project to show today.

Passing Bill C-49 would go a long way towards meeting our emission targets and decarbonizing the power grid, and it would bring great jobs to Nova Scotians.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the subject of the debate, which is Bill C‑50 and not Bill C‑49.

First, I want to say that what I just heard made my skin crawl and it proves that the Conservatives are speaking for the private oil sector, which is made up of billionaires. A recent poll revealed that two-thirds of Albertans polled on the moratorium on solar and wind development disagree with their premier.

Do the Conservatives know that there are other sources of energy other than oil, gas and coal?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.

Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.

I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to start our debate on Bill C-50, an act respecting federal accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

By introducing legislation for sustainable jobs, the Government of Canada is providing strong leadership through good governance, strong accountability and effective engagement. We would take action through five key elements.

The first element is to introduce guiding principles that ensure a cohesive approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help to create sustainable jobs, all while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to lead in an emerging clean-growth industry world.

The second element is to create a sustainable jobs partnership council tasked with providing independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and engaging with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts including workers, indigenous leaders, industry and young people are at the table to guide governmental actions.

The third element is a requirement to publish action plans every five years, informed by input from stakeholders and partners, as well as expert advice from the partnership council.

The fourth element is to create a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action on the implementation of the act across the federal government.

The fifth and final element is to designate responsible and specified ministers to carry out this legislation.

Much like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, this legislation would help to ensure that the Government of Canada has every region of Canada and every Canadian worker at the centre of its policy and decision-making with respect to sustainable jobs. The Canadian sustainable jobs act would respect Canada’s workers, regardless of the industry they work in, and would be inclusive of Canadians of all stripes, no matter what their background or where they live.

This legislation builds on the progress we have made over several years, as the government encouraged significant growth in our clean energy industries and other sectors that help us achieve net-zero emissions.

Since 2015, we have invested more than $120 billion in clean growth initiatives and pledged more than $80 billion in tax incentives.

If we had followed the path advocated by some Conservatives—one of austerity and inaction—our constituents and their communities would be at a considerable disadvantage. This head-in-the-sand approach fails to take into account the areas where investments are being made, namely, natural resources, energy, buildings, transportation, manufacturing and many others.

An approach of inaction would let competing nations take leadership roles in the sectors and industries where Canada is a natural leader, letting them innovate and attract global investments, while we wait and simply hope for the best. Such a reckless approach of inaction would put our economic well-being and our environmental stability at risk, but we are not going to let that happen. Instead we are acting decisively.

Whether it is this bill to ensure Canadian workers can seize the economic opportunity in front of us, or Bill C-49, which is helping to deploy an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada, or our historic budget investments that allowed us to compete with the U.S. IRA and attract new job-creating sustainable investments, initiatives that support the creation of sustainable jobs are happening across government.

Canadians have an opportunity to take the lead in many fields in jobs that play a key role in reducing energy consumption like developing new green housing plans, retrofitting existing homes and buildings, or innovating in cutting-edge low-carbon technology.

These activities will all create sustainable jobs from coast to coast for our people, whether we are talking about a skilled worker at the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas, another who installs heat pumps in Nova Scotia or yet another who builds the batteries of the future at the new Northvolt plant we announced yesterday in Quebec.

We know that such investments are essential if we want to grow the Canadian economy and, consequently, create sustainable jobs.

While we attract industrial development, we are also focused on building out the backbone of Canada's economy, namely, Canada's electrical grid. The federal government is proud to support growing, sustainable industries, like renewable energy, hydrogen and nuclear energy. They are helping us to scale new technologies while delivering clean, reliable and affordable power to Canadian homes and industry.

Canada's clean electricity advantage has helped us to land international investors like Northvolt, Umicore, Ford and many others. We need to keep expanding our electricity system to attract investment, create sustainable jobs and fight climate change. That is why we have invested to deploy job-creating clean energy projects, like the 47-megawatt wind farm we announced yesterday near Medicine Hat, Alberta, or the 45-megawatt Burchill wind project in New Brunswick. These projects are helping to deploy more clean power to our grid every day.

The Government of Canada is also investing to deliver clean power storage, like the 250-megawatt Oneida project being built in the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario.

All of these projects include indigenous leaders. This kind of work is critical to advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, an important commitment in this legislation is to create more meaningful, ongoing, respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. We need more indigenous peoples to lead business as directors, managers and workers. Their skills, knowledge and leadership are helping accelerate the fight against climate change, the modernization of our energy sector and the development of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers, including in the energy space.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a connected, affordable, reliable and non-emitting grid to supply more electrical energy than ever before. Not only will it power our emerging sources of new energy, it will also become a standard part of heating our homes, powering our vehicles and driving all types of industry.

There are lots of jobs associated with this new era of clean-power development. It is no wonder that the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, endorsed our sustainable job plan and this bill. Its vice-president endorsed our plan and said, “The IBEW's almost 70,000 members in Canada are ready to help build the next generation of Canada's vital energy infrastructure to help us reach our net-zero goals.”

The work being done to build out our grid, a job that is so massive that it must be tackled jointly by every level of government, will facilitate the growth of our nation's economy and our jobs, thanks to its status as a multi-trillion dollar market.

The eight years of investments made by our entire government have put us on the road to a strong economy that supports workers and job creation.

As a government, we have made informed choices aimed at supporting and growing our economy and modernizing our industrial sectors so we can succeed in the global race to invest in the clean economy.

The legislation we are debating today complements the billions of dollars in job-creating investments we have released so far, as well as our climate action policies, including pollution pricing and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

That act requires us to set greenhouse gas emissions targets, encourages transparency and accountability, and calls on us to take immediate and ambitious action to reach these targets.

Bill C‑50 builds on that act and on the clean industries strategy described in budget 2023. Thanks to this solid base, Canada and its workforce are in an enviable position compared to most countries of the world.

We are privileged, because we live in a peaceful country that has a wealth of sustainable resources, resources that demand a central role in whether we will be able to reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, resources that are abundant and diverse and that provide our workers and communities with opportunities that only come with concerted, determined shifts toward a low-carbon future.

As we focus on driving down the emissions that are fuelling the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure our young people have a bright future ahead of them in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy. Both are possible and they go hand in hand.

As Sean Strickland, the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions said, “If you take climate change seriously, you must, by definition, be pro-worker.”

If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made by cleaner manufacturing processes, let us attract the business that helps our workers fill that gap.

The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required. Some of these are because of action we are taking to partner with industry, communities and others, to pair talent with training.

Last Monday, in Edmonton, we announced support for over 20,000 new green jobs being supported by ESDC. Of the 400,000 jobs that require upskilling, a good percentage of those jobs are thanks to the sustainable development of our natural resources, which includes clean energy and hydrogen.

There is no question we are blessed with an abundance of resources, but to access the potential they provide, we must also ensure our workforce is well equipped. That is exactly what this legislation would do.

During the many discussions we had in the lead-up to this legislation, many of Canada's indigenous leaders, provinces, territories and local leaders identified tangible opportunities to pursue the development of new industries. They are taking concrete steps to realize their economic future. They are facing what much of the world sees as an enviable task of narrowing those options down to the top few that will create good-paying jobs and prosperity in their communities.

Our existing resources and initiatives created an ideal footing for our interim sustainable jobs plan. The strengths of the plan are the concrete actions it contains; notably, this legislation. There is also the start of a lot of work on nine other federal actions that will have a positive impact on the number of good, sustainable jobs in every part of this country.

I would like to speak to some of those actions today with the time I have left. First and foremost, I will mention the call to establish new legislation, the one we are debating today. It offers a framework that would allow us to take sound actions to address both the opportunities and challenges in a low-carbon economy, informed by ongoing engagement between government and Canada's workers, partners and stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

This legislation would also put accountability front and centre by designating a lead minister to guide these efforts. This would be accompanied by a requirement the government publish five-year action plans Canadians can use to measure and judge our efforts, supported by regular reporting on our progress, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

The legislation would also make good on another action item from the sustainable jobs plan, which is the establishment of a sustainable jobs partnership council. This would be an independent body that would provide advice to government on how it can best support the shift to a low-carbon economy. If we really want to give workers a voice, if we sincerely intend to empower them to influence the decisions that affect their jobs and their future, then we must create this council.

Through these efforts, workers, rural and remote communities, provinces and territories, indigenous groups, industry, young people, academics and others will be able to provide the council and the federal government with invaluable advice as we continue to move ahead.

What we are talking about is real-world perspectives and information from those individuals in the workplace who are experiencing the transformation of our economy.

The council would apply its own expertise to these lived experiences to provide independent, actionable advice on how to create good-paying, skilled, sustainable jobs for Canada's workers and ensure that workers have the supports that they need to succeed. Through the council, we would have the opportunity to bring many voices to the table, working together in the process known as social dialogue, essentially bringing workers, employers and governments together to find solutions that work for real life.

Some of my colleagues will go into more detail about the other elements in this legislation, like the commitment to releasing regular action plans and the sustainable job secretariat that would be created to work across federal departments and agencies on those plans.

The Canadian sustainable jobs act will ensure that Canadian workers have a clear path to the future. The measures we are taking here will help Canada lead the competition as our economy achieves net-zero emissions.

This plan is based on the thoughts and experiences of thousands of Canadians over more than two years of engagement and consultation. I would like to express our deep gratitude for their work and for their interest in helping us develop this legislation.

It was views like these that helped build the strong bill we have before us today. We even won endorsements from groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million Canadian workers. It said that the plan in this bill would be a big win for workers. We know that when workers win, so does Canada. This legislation is needed to ensure that the interim plan can support workers today while standing up the partnership council and secretariat to ensure an ongoing process.

When I speak about endorsements from the groups that have looked at this legislation, I wanted to also include the voice of the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. The act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs for our future economy.”

Today, it is up to us to make the smartest possible choices and to put in place a framework that commits our government to supporting workers as they seek to build the sustainable economy of the future.

This bill reflects consultation with indigenous peoples, union members, new Canadians, industry leaders and community advocates from every region of the country. We owe it to them and to all Canadians to ensure that we are advancing a thoughtful plan to help them ensure that our country succeeds and that we can access great careers for generations to come.

This legislation will be used to create solidarity measures and strengthen training opportunities for all workers in Canada. It will ensure that Canadian workers can participate in discussions and enjoy equal opportunities to obtain and benefit from the jobs of the future. Like many of our government's initiatives, this bill is based on the need to tackle the existential threat of the climate crisis head-on, and to seize once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunities.

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I sincerely hope that every member of the House agrees to choose the first path, because as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure and build a sustainable future while securing abundant, sustainable jobs for future generations.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I had to take out a pen because there were about 16 interventions in that question. I hope I will get time to answer.

On the isthmus, we are there with 50%. As I said on Radio-Canada this week, if the courts indeed determine that this is a purely federal responsibility, we will be there with 100% of the cost.

I stand here asking for adjustments to the carbon price. The member opposite suggests that carbon pricing should not exist in Canada, contrary to the fact that 77 jurisdictions around the world point to this as being an effective policy. Beyond that, the Conservatives have provided no credible plan on how they are going to challenge and address the issue before us. Therefore, the member has some explaining to do as well.

On Bill C-49, so that when the member clips this and sends it home to his constituents, this is a generational opportunity for Atlantic Canada for offshore wind. The premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want it. The member stands against it. He needs to go home and explain why he is standing in the way of billions of dollars of generational opportunity, especially when the line from the Conservatives is “technology, not taxes”.

Last, with respect to the 50-cent difference between Maine and New Brunswick, if he goes to Maine, I am sure he will find that there is a 50-cent difference between the price of milk in Maine and in New Brunswick. There are a lot of price differentials. He is tying this exactly to what we are talking about today, which is not necessarily a true reflection of the fact that there is a price differential between Canada and the U.S. on a number of products. Maybe he is saying that he does not want to support the dairy farmers in New Brunswick and across this country and that he wants to get rid of supply management, which we have seen from the Conservative Party. It has not been strong on that policy that matters for rural Canada.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not really know, as I am not responsible for drafting opposition motions. As I said, there are many issues with this Conservative motion. I do not know the answer.

I do, however, want to raise an important question regarding Bill C‑49. The aim of this bill is to create an opportunity for offshore wind farming in the Atlantic. We know that Hydro-Québec has concerns regarding a shortage of electricity and clean energy in Quebec. Members from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a great opportunity to work together to ensure a very clean and very green energy supply for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

I am very happy to work collaboratively with my colleague.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, after I am done answering this, I am going to walk some Q-tips over to the hon. member and see whether he was able to listen to the 20-minute speech in which I provided very clear answers to where I stand on this policy.

I actually had a conversation with Premier Houston in May 2022 to say that I would hope that the provincial government would implement its own made-in-Nova Scotia carbon pricing plan. The Conservatives stand against that. I believe in the intent of the policy, but there needs to be some serious adjustments. I am on record in the House. The member can look at the record afterward, and he can read it so he can understand where I stand. I have been very clear.

However, where is the member as it relates to Bill C-49 and the great opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador? He will have to answer to the good people of his riding on that one.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, as a Nova Scotia member of Parliament, I stood in this House last week and was frankly disturbed by the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada is standing against Bill C-49, which is a piece of legislation that drives Atlantic Canada's offshore future. I was calling on the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, who are Conservative, to stand up for their constituencies to be able to make a difference. Of course, the Conservatives like to talk about the carbon price, but they refuse to talk about ways we enable renewable energy and the way that we drive innovation forward.

Can the member for Kingston and the Islands provide some reflections of his surprise about the fact that the Conservatives will not support us on this bill?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, what does not make sense is that the member voted 23 times to support the cost of living increase. What does not make sense is that the Green/NDP member, trying to make up her mind on what her belief is, is willing to actually vote for a bill that would impose a process on the development of offshore energy in Atlantic Canada using the same process exported from Bill C-69 into Bill C-49. That process has resulted in absolutely no energy projects being developed in western Canada. That same approach would have the same result on Atlantic energy development in Atlantic Canada, which is that zero projects would get approved, even the renewable energy ones that we all want.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, is my colleague talking about Bill C‑49? Yes? Okay.

I find that rather strange. The Conservatives are probably against this bill for their own reasons. What I find odd about this bill is the addition of the term “renewable energy”. To me, oil has never been renewable energy. I do not know what others think, but I do not believe that oil is a renewable energy source.

They can speak for themselves, but I would say to my colleague that we have to be very careful. The Liberal government has a tendency to greenwash the oil and gas sector. Unfortunately, it is a lot like our Conservative colleagues in that regard.

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

Thank you. I'm glad it's in the mail and not in the wind.

Thank you, Mr. Kram, for the refinement to the motion on the specific project.

With regard to why it's important, over the last few decades numerous companies have been involved. That includes a large one where Nova Scotia Power had a partnership for various technologies to try to find a way to harness the power of the Bay of Fundy. In particular, I think Nova Scotia Power had invested over $100 million in trying to get theirs.... Generally, as I said at the last meeting, these are large turbines. Just to give you some scale, some of them are almost five storeys high and sunk into the bottom of the Bay of Fundy.

The bay, of course, has the highest tides in the world: 160 billion tonnes of seawater go in and out of that bay every day. That's why it's such a powerful force. The difference with this company is that they did not place their turbines on the bottom. It was a different ship with turbines attached that was at the surface of the water. It was able to produce a significant amount of power and actually survive the power of the Bay of Fundy, which the other projects were not. Some of them got destroyed in as little as 48 hours, whereas this one continued to operate. It continued to generate electricity that was connected by a cable into Nova Scotia Power. Because it was energy generated by the private sector, Nova Scotia Power was paying the company for the power it had generated, for its capital investment.

Now, it had had four approvals so far, up to that date, from DFO to continue this project and make it happen. An enormous amount of research had been provided to DFO over the three years of this, on the plan and the precautions and the impact on the fishery, which of course we all care about. The Bay of Fundy is an important fishery area, primarily at the sea floor, for crustaceans. Lobster, as we know, is the most profitable element of what is fished in the Bay of Fundy. There are some open-net pen farms on the Bay of Fundy as well, but the primary seafood that is harvested commercially in the Bay of Fundy is lobster on both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia sides.

Obviously, something floating on the top isn't impacting the primary food source and the primary commercial fishery on the bottom. That was a problem for those other ones that were being sunk, but this one was not. It was confusing for the company that had managed to have such success. After the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had issued four permits, it decided not to issue a fifth permit to take it to the next level of operation. The company has said that a large amount of data and a large amount of information had been provided to DFO, and when DFO refused to issue the next permit, they were unwilling to explain why. They were unwilling to share what it was they were looking for in the impact on the ocean and the fishery that hadn't been provided in many scientific studies in the three years before and the one leading up to the permit that allowed this to happen.

In fact, it was so upsetting and baffling that the Premier of Nova Scotia, who generally doesn't intervene on fisheries issues since fisheries issues are a federal responsibility, said in an interview with CTV that he wanted to highlight what he saw as the hypocrisy. That's why I think this motion has to express the failure of the government to move forward on this project specifically, in contrast to the previous, broader motion, which talked about all tidal projects. There are other tidal projects with turbines being sunk at the bottom that are still being tried. The only successful one dealt with this project, which is why there is this refinement to the motion.

The premier was quoted as follows:

“We just need the federal government to wake up on this, it's really ridiculous what's happened here,” he says.

“If their ultimate objective is really and sincerely to protect the planet and green the grid, then it's not through a carbon tax, it's actually through generating green energy through tidal, through wind, through solar, all these mechanisms,” Houston adds.

Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition, who's a Liberal, also criticized the decision to not proceed with this green project.

While, on the one hand, we have a bill that's actually being debated in Parliament tomorrow, called Bill C-49, which gives some existing federal agencies the ability to determine where wind power and offshore energy power go, it's amending the Atlantic accord, which sets out the terms of the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board's mandate in that, and Newfoundland and Labrador's as well, and gives them not only a revised new process but also the additional responsibility to now approve ocean energy projects.

After the blowback from the company and from Nova Scotians and from the premier, the response of this government and the then fisheries minister, Minister Murray, was that we should convene a committee. That seems to be a habit of the Liberals. When faced with a problem, they say, “Let's convene a committee. Let's not actually look at understanding why DFO and the minister herself refused the permit. Let's have a committee look at this and find out what happened.”

Well, it's pretty obvious what happened. DFO was inconsistent in issuing its fifth permit to make sure that clean energy goes through. Why do we need a committee of DFO officials to figure out why DFO officials said no? Why don't the DFO officials just tell everybody why they said no rather than convening another committee to have an internal discussion to figure out how they messed this up?

Maybe it's one department that's not talking to the other. Maybe the fisheries minister wasn't talking to the environment minister. They wanted to see green projects and the DFO didn't. It doesn't seem like the government can get its act straight. That's why we need to express the disappointment of this committee about this specific project by Sustainable Marine Energy.

In that same article from CTV, just to make sure we're citing the sources, besides the premier saying, “Shame on the federal government,” the company itself said, “We have given them so much information about our system's lack of effects on marine life...as well as (pointing) them in the direction of other experts who could maybe help.” However, DFO didn't turn to any of those other experts before saying no.

What was the effect of all this? The effect of all this was that the only functioning tidal power private sector finance technology—not taxes—solution to generating green energy in Nova Scotia was shut down by DFO. The company itself had to remove the equipment from the ocean. It had to disassemble it all. It's proprietary technology that is ultimately owned by the Scottish company that did it. It then took the Canadian subsidiary, and guess what happened? I know you're anxious to know what happened to that company. That company declared bankruptcy as a result of the intervention of DFO. We lost an amazing technology that was not financed by taxpayers but financed by private sector capital to generate new technology and new ways to produce green energy from our oceans.

Remember, DFO is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, yet they decided that, apparently, generating green energy out of the ocean was not something they wanted to see happen. I'm not sure what else besides the commercial fishery they want to see happen. It's just incredible—it's still mind-boggling to this day—that on the one hand the government would be saying in Bill C-49 that we need to utilize green energy projects in the ocean, and then provocative statements are being made by Atlantic Liberal colleagues, who I guess forgot that they were part of turning down a green energy project that was functioning—