Debates of Oct. 16th, 2023

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, last week, the Supreme Court confirmed that Parliament can enact environmental assessment legislation focused on environmental effects that fall within federal jurisdiction. The offshore area is an area of federal responsibility that we jointly manage with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador under the accord acts. This is a great example of co-operative federalism that we have managed jointly for over 35 years.

We certainly work very collaboratively with all the provinces in Atlantic Canada that he cited. In fact, later today, the premier of New Brunswick and the premier of Nova Scotia will be sitting down with me to talk about exactly those issues.

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

Madam Speaker, I too have listened to the debate and to many Conservatives standing up and speaking to it. I think we need to be really clear on this. The reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada has no intention whatsoever of seeing this bill pass. The reason we need to bring in time allocation, as before, is that the Conservative Party of Canada plays a role as a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons. Its idea of success is causing the frustration of legislation, preventing legislation from passing.

If we did not bring in time allocation, let there be no doubt that the Conservative Party would be very happy; it would continue to talk and debate indefinitely.

This legislation is an economic tool that would make a very real difference for Atlantic Canada; by filibustering this legislation, the Conservative Party is doing a disservice to the Atlantic region of our country. Could the member provide his thoughts in regard to that?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is a global race. The Public Policy Forum document that was published just yesterday or today shows the magnitude of the opportunity that is here. It is a very significant economic opportunity for Nova Scotia and for Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said before, I am astounded that the Conservative Party is actively campaigning against the economic future of Atlantic Canada. It is astonishing to me that it will sit in this chamber and, simply for the purpose of opposing this government, act against the interests of Atlantic Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, we know that there is enormous potential for a thriving offshore renewable energy industry in Atlantic Canada and that we need to make sure that those benefits are felt by local communities and local fishers.

Will the government guarantee that the benefits from offshore wind projects will flow directly to local workers and that the local fishing communities will be supported?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly, provisions are in place to ensure that there are conversations with fishers and fish harvesters. There are a lot of examples around the world of how a thriving fish industry can coexist with an offshore wind industry, for example, in the United Kingdom.

The whole point of this exercise, in terms of economic development, is to ensure that long-term, sustainable benefits flow to communities in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is exactly why the premiers of both of those provinces are extremely anxious to see this move through Parliament, so they can move it through their legislatures and we can get going with respect to having a regulatory structure in place that will enable projects to move forward.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I will ask the minister again.

I will read clause (g) from the summary. The enactment would amend the Atlantic accord to, among other things:

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...

This is otherwise known as a future MPA. The oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador has come to me; these stakeholders have said that clause 56 in this legislation would put in black and white what they have long feared.

Would the minister be willing to delete clause 56 from this legislation?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, this legislation was developed collaboratively with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. The actions taken under the accord acts will actually be done jointly between Canada and each of those respective provinces.

I would suggest to my hon. colleague that he may want to have a conversation with his premier about all these issues.

To be honest, it is exactly the fact that they are not even willing to engage in a conversation about how the environment fits relative to economic development that shows the problem with the Conservative Party. It is willing to simply throw out the environment, to trample on the environment, in pursuit of only the economic opportunities. There has to be a balance. Economic opportunities have to be pursued in a manner that is environmentally sustainable.

Canadians simply cannot trust the Conservative Party on the environment.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the minister must have been a heck of a dodge ball player in his day, because he totally dodged that question about time allocation and his deep NDP roots.

I wonder if the member would advise former premier Romanow to actually do time allocation 35 times in one Parliament, if he was still the premier in Saskatchewan. However, that is beside the point.

When the member talks about “no plan for the environment”, I would invite him to come to the PTRC in Regina, where they have a number that says that Saskatchewan has lowered the emissions, per capita, more than any other province in the country, and has the highest GDP increase over the last year. That is combining the environment and economic growth. Why can the Liberals not do that?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it is important to move this legislation to committee expeditiously and eventually out of Parliament in order to seize the economic opportunities that are there but will not be there forever. There are other countries that are looking at seizing those.

I would say to my hon. colleague that, in terms of climate change, absolute emissions in Saskatchewan have gone up. They have not gone down. Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces in this country that has no climate target, in terms of actually reducing emissions by 2030. We would love to see Saskatchewan join the ranks of many provinces and territories in this country that have a fulsome climate plan that includes a climate target.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

This minister keeps on talking about how, perhaps, the member opposite, should have a conversation with the provincial premier, and speaks about climate plans. Let us face the facts here. If we want to talk in facts, this is a government that has missed every single climate projection possible.

The minister talks about the fact that we need to think about the environment. The world's biggest polluter is China, and his colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change went to China. What did we hear about the environment? We get lectured domestically, constantly. What did we hear about their interactions? Crickets.

How can the minister stand here today and say that we need to start talking about this with everybody, when his own government does not have the guts to take a stand against large-scale emitters?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that folks in this chamber are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

The only climate target that the government has ever had was a 2030 target. We actually moved to upgrade that target from a 30% below 2005, to 40% to 45%. It is a target that we will achieve. It is the only target that we have ever had.

When Conservatives stand up and talk about the fact that the Liberal government has missed a target, they are simply saying things that are not true.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to give a tip of the cap to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame. He is the first member of the Conservative Party in almost three full days of debate who has actually pulled out and referenced one provision.

I may not agree with what he is raising, but could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources at least reassure all parliamentarians in this House of two things. First, we have to move quickly to be able to drive the initiatives that have been discussed today in Atlantic Canada's offshore. Second, if there are helpful suggestions, those could be litigated and discussed at committee. There is no reason why any member of this House should not be willing to get this good initiative to committee. Hopefully that vote will take place tomorrow, and we will see where the Conservatives stand on it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, we need to move quickly on this bill. We are in a global race. It is important that Canada seize the economic opportunities and move to ensure that we are actually creating good jobs.

It is certainly very important that we move it to committee to have a robust conservation and hear from witnesses. That is essentially what we are trying to do today. Once again, this is an enormous opportunity for Atlantic Canada.

It is astounding to me that the Conservative Party is opposing this. I do suggest that they talk to their respective premiers, who support this bill and want to see it move forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #418

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The member for Salaberry—Suroît is rising on a point of order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville experienced a problem. She would like to reverse her vote. She cast her vote in favour, but she is against.

I would like unanimous consent to change her vote.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Do we have unanimous consent to change the vote of the member for Thérèse-De Blainville?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.