Debates of May 2nd, 2024

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot wait to vote against those amendments, in the same way I could not wait to say no to 20,000 amendments that that party put forward to try to block this piece of legislation. That is not practical investing. That is not investing in the future. That is hoodwinking. This member has accused the premiers of those two provinces of being hoodwinked by us. He has accused us of hoodwinking the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think so.

Conservatives have done everything they can to get in the way of this.

The Progressive Conservative Party, which I have spoken very highly of, and John Crosbie, whom I would consider a mentor to me, built this industry, but we know what the Conservative Party has done with this industry. For goodness' sake, when it took 300 days for an environmental assessment for just an exploratory well, Conservatives found a way to make it 900 days. They are the kings of red tape when it comes to our offshore industry. We have reduced it to 90 days.

They think I am going to pay attention to their amendments because, clutch my pearls, we are being partisan. I do not think so. Get out of the way of investment. Get out of the way of jobs. Get out of the way of the future. This is happening and we are leading.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise again in the people's House and to address this important bill that is before our consideration here today.

Bill C-49 shows a continued lack of true consultation by the current government with stakeholders and on-the-ground industry workers, who have continuously come out to speak out against this bill with fervour. This is the furthest thing from bottom-up legislation, legislation based on feedback given by the people who would be most affected by these decisions. Good legislation would have taken that into consideration and made sure the voices of those who are most impacted by a certain piece of legislation are truly considered and implemented into the government's approach. That is clearly not the case here.

Industry stakeholders, fish harvesters, those in the offshore industry and residents of those provinces are raising legitimate concerns. What we, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, are doing is bringing those concerns to the fore. We are using every tool available to us to make sure that those concerns are heard, whether that is through amendments or through making sure that due diligence is done at committee and in this chamber. Those voices have a right to be heard, and our job is to make sure those voices are brought to the fore. That is how we get to better legislation. Our aim is to fix the bill. Our aim is to help the legislation become what it should be.

The Liberals have ignored those legitimate, absolutely positive amendments that were brought forward. They are not considering those things that the stakeholders themselves and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are bringing forward. I think it is so important that the government take the time to consider those very legitimate concerns.

I am a proud member from the region of Atlantic Canada. I am excited to represent a region in New Brunswick. One thing that has frustrated me and, I know, other colleagues from Atlantic Canada on this side of the House is the fact that we have so much potential that has yet to be realized. There is so much potential that has yet to be fully tapped into. Those in the industry and those whose livelihoods depend upon this are clearly saying there are a lot of things that we could do.

Our provinces could take advantage of a lot of the resources that are literally under our feet and in our waters, if we only had a government that would listen to our concerns, get off our backs, get out of the way and allow us to do what we do best. Instead, we are putting up more roadblocks and we are putting undue power in the hands of one minister who, with the strike of a pen, could veto a lot of tremendous potential development that could take place in our region.

Atlantic Canada, like other parts of this country, many times has felt ignored, isolated and marginalized by the current federal government. Atlantic Canadians are speaking loudly and clearly. They want the government to hear that they have concerns with this bill as it is written: “Fix the bill. Make the bill better. Make sure it reflects the legitimate concerns of those whose opportunities and future livelihoods truly depend upon it.” We have heard it from fish harvesters, we have heard it from oil and gas workers and we have heard it from various stakeholders.

Mr. Scott Tessier, chief executive officer for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, said that the petroleum sector and the fishing sector “are absolutely critical to our province and the economy of Canada, so it is absolutely critical to have an effective consultation and engagement framework in which fisheries interests are at the table with a meaningful say and a full voice.” We need to make sure that people's voices from those sectors are being considered and reflected in this type of legislation that is brought forward.

Mr. Michael Barron, the president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said that “a more involved in-depth consultation needs to be had with other primary users of this space moving forward.”

What will accompany this bill will strain the energy sector and give the minister the ability to veto energy projects brought forth by industry workers. We are hearing this coming from across sectors. They are raising concerns, and the real, legitimate problems, as has now been borne out by a federal court saying that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, are once again being raised in regard to Bill C-49.

If a bill is being built on the back of a bill that has already been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court, the Liberals may want to go back to the drawing board to reconsider it, and see that this may be a little bit of a stretch and they had better address the concerns so they do not run into the same legal problems of implementation they are having with Bill C-69.

It is worthy of consideration, and it is worthy of going back to the drawing board to make sure we get this right. It is more important to get a piece of legislation through that is good and right than it is to just get a piece of legislation through for the sake of saying that we got it through. These concerns need to be heard and need to be brought forward.

There is so much potential. This is an area of passion for me, whether it was when I was spending my time on the natural resources committee or on the fisheries committee. One thing I hear from industry stakeholders in both sectors is how much potential there is within each of their sectors that is unrealized and untapped. They feel like, every time they go ahead to take advantage of the opportunities within those sectors, there is a big, heavy hand of government and bureaucracy that comes down on their backs, saying that they cannot do this, go there or expand in this area, and the only way they could grow and develop is the government's way, as old Frank Sinatra famously used to sing, do it My Way, and if they do not, then it is the highway. Quite frankly, we need to get them at the table so they have the opportunity to expand, grow, develop, and realize the potential that is theirs.

When I was preparing my remarks today, I could not help myself, and I had to go to this famous old story. It is one I heard years ago as a young man. I hope the House will indulge me. Members may recognize it as I read it. There is a reason why this old story came back to me today, and maybe members can relate to it somewhat. When I think of Atlantic Canada and our potential, and I think of the frustrations that we have felt as Atlantic Canadians, oftentimes being overlooked, this story comes to mind. It says:

In a world of hills, so steep and high,
Lived a little blue engine, reaching for the sky.
With a heart so bold and wheels that could,
The Little Engine faced a challenge understood.
On a sunny day, with a load so grand,
A shiny new train was stuck in the sand.
The passengers fretted, their spirits so low,
They needed help to make their journey go.
The shiny trains, big and strong,
Said, “We can't help, the hill's too long.”
But the Little Engine, with a gleam in its eye,
Stepped forward, ready to give it a try.
“I think I can, I think I can,” it said,
Climbing the hill with hope widespread.
Coal-fired determination, puffing and chugging,
The Little Engine's spirit was truly tugging.
The hill was steep, the challenge immense,
Yet the Little Engine, with confidence,
Chanted its mantra, clear and loud,
“I think I can, I'm strong and proud.”
Up the hill, the Little Engine strained,
Raindrops falling, courage gained.
“I think I can, I think I can,” it cried,
As it chugged along with a sense of pride.
Passing others who doubted its might,
The Little Engine pressed on with all its might.
“I thought I could, I thought I could,” it sang,
As over the mountains, its triumph rang.
A tale of courage, resilience so true,
For the Little Engine, and for me and you.
A journey of belief, where dreams unfold,
“I knew I could,” a story retold.
To the little ones, with dreams so wide,
The Little Engine whispers, right by your side,
With “I think I can” echoing through the air,
You'll conquer any hill, if only you dare.

What is the lesson of the little engine that could, and how does it relate to Atlantic Canada and Bill C-49? It is that we have so much potential and so much we can do. We have so much we want to do. The last thing the little locomotives of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador need is a great, big locomotive called the federal government saying “No, you can't. No, you can't. No, you can't.”

What we need is someone to stand on the side of the little provinces to say, “Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. There is hope. Yes, it can get better.” Let us tap into our potential, utilize our resources and climb the hills of challenge that face us by utilizing all of the above, as well as the renewable energy and existing energy resources, to expand, grow and do all that we can.

With this, I must introduce an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 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 through these clauses.

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

The amendment is in order.

We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting story. I would say to the member that, yes, he can. He can realize the potential by passing Bill C-49, which has the premiers of the provinces that are most affected recognizing the true value of it, as it is. I would ask the member to reflect on the great potential Atlantic Canada, in particular the two provinces in question, would have through the passage of this legislation.

I saw the passion in the speeches of the minister and others, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, when they talked about the future and how wonderful the future is, as well as the potential of this legislation. They are joined by the premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why does he not say that, yes, he can convince his Atlantic caucus colleagues, at the very least, to get behind Bill C-49 and do the right thing by supporting it? By supporting it, he would be supporting Atlantic Canada.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what we can do. We can do our jobs as His Majesty's loyal opposition to make sure that what gets passed through the House is actually reflective of those whose livelihoods are most dependant upon the very industries that are most affected by the impacts of this bill. We have heard overwhelmingly from those industry stakeholders that this is a flawed bill that needs to be amended and corrected.

We are doing our job and, yes, we can, and, yes, we will. We will keep fighting to make it a better piece of legislation, so that the concerns of all Canadians, including Atlantic Canadians, are heard.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to provide some clarification. He gave a rather eloquent speech, but I would like to understand why the Conservatives are opposing a bill that promotes greenwashing and that does absolutely nothing to reduce offshore petroleum operations. I would like to understand the Conservatives' position, because, from what I understand, the goal of the Conservative MPs is to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry and ensure that there is as much oil and gas development as possible, which is something this bill allows for. That is why I do not understand the Conservatives' position.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. I find it intriguing that the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois is raising a concern about how we are standing up to reflect the concerns that stakeholders and provinces have raised.

These concerns are regarding way too much power being granted to a federal minister. They could come in to stamp out some provincial industries and the areas that impact provinces and regions within their jurisdiction. It takes way too much power away from the provinces and puts way too much into the hands of an overreaching, over-encroaching federal government. In particular, a federal minister could have veto power over energy development and resource development.

As our western friends in Alberta and Saskatchewan know very well, the over-encroachment of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction is stifling and hampering. It hurts business and industry. I am sure my colleague from Quebec would be very concerned if federal ministers started overreaching into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We share that concern, and I hope the member would be onside with our concern regarding that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a prairie girl, this is a little outside of my zone, but I do come from Alberta. The member, in answering the question of my colleague from the Bloc, brought up the example of the oil and gas sector in Alberta and the need for the federal government not to overreach.

One of the problems I have is that, on occasion, provincial governments, and I would use the example of the Alberta provincial government, do not do a particularly good job of promoting renewables or promoting forward-looking industry. As members know, Danielle Smith paused renewables in Alberta, and $33 billion dollars' worth of investment was chased from our province.

From the member's perspective, is there a place for the federal government to ensure strings are attached?

Another example would be when money came from the federal government for orphan wells to be cleaned up in Alberta. There were no strings attached, despite the fact the NDP asked for them, and the wells in Alberta have still not been cleaned up.

Does he not see the federal government has to have some role to play in developing our resources and in making sure that resources are being developed adequately?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that my concern, as it relates to the federal government's jurisdiction and the role we can play as a federal government, is this: I believe that the federal government should become the biggest cheerleader for Canadian energy on the planet.

Canada's energy is the best-sourced energy in the world, and it has the strictest environmental regulations in the world for development and extraction. Instead, the government is talking down our energy sector, putting the boot on our energy producers and taking on provinces that are responsibly extracting and developing their energy resources. Frankly, those are helping the rest of our country have the social programs that we so desperately need and want, whether it is our health care or our education. I know we, in the east, greatly appreciate the transfer payments that have come from our western colleagues.

I think it is time that the federal government appreciate how dynamic our energy-producing provinces are in bringing economic vitality to this country, so we have a good country. It needs to start cheerleading our energy development and start cheerleading the good advancements that have happened in improving technology and extraction practices. The government needs to get stop getting on the backs of our provinces about them developing their resources for the good of the country as a whole. Let us stand up for Canada's energy.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his passionate speech. He should look at joining a theatre group somewhere along the way.

Why can we not do them all? Could we not do wind energy, oil energy and tidal energy? We have got an ideal spot to start it right in the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces, to do just that.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the absolute belief in all-of-the-above approach when it comes to energy. Any country that is going to be secure going forward in the geopolitical climate we are in internationally better have solid energy security, reliable energy resources and solid food security. If we do not get those three things right, we are in a lot of trouble. Part of that is all of the above. A big part of that, too, in improving and cleaning not only our atmosphere but the world's, is ensuring we are doing all we can to get great, clean, good, solid Canadian liquefied natural gas on the world markets, displacing dictator oil from dictator regimes.

Instead of being on the backs of that development and expanding that development, and standing and impeding the progress in those sectors, the government needs to get on the side of Canadian energy and say yes to all the of the above. Let us expand our nuclear capacity; let us expand wind and solar; and, yes, let us expand liquefied natural gas. Let us utilize it and ensure more Canadian petroleum products are on the world market not less. Every bit more of Canadian petroleum and energy we get into the world the world is much better off. Our people get paid good wages and the resources are utilized to improve the overall environment of the planet.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are debating Bill C-49 on offshore wind, but for my hon. friend for Tobique—Mactaquac, I am surprised to see a Conservative MP wanting to go to bat for SNC-Lavalin getting more work with its shady practices.

SNC-Lavalin bought Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for the bargain basement price of $15 million back in, I think, 2013. It is behind Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, and if there ever is a small modular reactor built in the member's home province, it will be built by that same corporation and not Moltex, which has never built a reactor and does not plan doing one. It will leave it to its partner, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, kind greetings to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. On this, I simply would say that it is important that we do an all-the-above approach and not be locked in to just renewables or just one avenue, whether it is solar, wind or nuclear. We need all of the above and move with everyone together. A rising tide will lift all boats. An absolutely all-encompassing energy policy will lift not only all Canadians, but it will lift the entire world to a better place.

Let us get Canadian energy on the world market and improve the world's environment and improve Canada's economy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can speak with the same passion as my colleague, but I have to admit that I am not an oil and gas enthusiast, far from it.

I want to begin by saying that Bill C-49 was introduced to us as a bill that seeks to promote renewable energy, but such is not the case. Before I explain why I do not think that is the case, I would like to give a bit of background. It feels like groundhog day to me, because I am often repeating the same thing here in the House, that Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold.

We could take that one step further and say that Canada is an oil monarchy and wants to stay that way. We are among the four biggest polluters in the world, and we share that enviable position with Russia and Iraq. I do not know whether the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources planned to become a “petromonarch”, but unfortunately, that is what he is. Today, with the Trans Mountain pipeline in place, Canada is going to be producing an additional 600,000 barrels a day, when Alberta is already producing a record number of nearly 4 million barrels per day.

From an environmental perspective, we can all agree that that is awful. If we look at the government’s actions in recent months, we again see the same thing, a willingness to financially support the oil and gas sector. I remember that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he wanted to put an end to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, but he did not know what an ineffective subsidy was. How can we put an end to something we do not know about? That is rather difficult. I would simply point out to him that, in 2023, the federal government invested $18.5 billion in the oil and gas industry. We are a long way from ending fossil fuel subsidies.

I would also point out that he should put a cap on emissions by 2026. Of note, the emissions cap prosed by the federal government is a limit on emissions but not on production. Canada will therefore produce more oil but reduce carbon intensity. Basically, I see this as a person on a diet eating poutine. If someone goes on a diet, they should not eat poutine. If the government wants to reduce carbon intensity, it should not help produce more oil.

It is a bit of a pipe dream to say we will reduce the carbon intensity of the oil sector by investing huge amounts of public money in technologies that are questionable and unsound, technologies that are assessed by several experts as doomed to fail. Nevertheless, the government’s big strategy in its budget is to invest no less than $83 billion by 2035 to promote this pipe dream of lower carbon intensity oil. That is not counting the $65 billion that have been invested in the oil and gas sector in recent years.

I see that all these numbers are making your head spin, Mr. Speaker. I could not agree with you more. I too find it alarming. I am saying that because this is the context in which Bill C-49 is being proposed.

I am a well-intentioned guy. My mother always says that about me and she is right. I am a person who means well. At first reading we told ourselves we should give it the benefit of the doubt. The first stumbling block we saw was the possibility that Bill C-49 interfered with provincial jurisdiction. From a constitutional perspective, management of offshore energy is a federal jurisdiction, but previous agreements were signed to manage the oil and gas sector with Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. New agreements were presented to us as agreements aiming to include renewable energies.

At first reading, we decided to give it the benefit of the doubt because there were no jurisdictional issues. We therefore voted in favour of sending the bill to committee. I was prepared to participate in committee discussions and to try to improve it. This was the goal of the Bloc Québécois and its approach to studying the bill.

However, the main problem soon became clear. Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. The government refused every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I will present some of them shortly, since I am sure I will have time. We proposed possible solutions while remaining totally open. All were dismissed outright.

Here is why I say Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. In committee, we heard from Normand Mousseau, Scientific Director of the Trottier Energy Institute. No one is more qualified to talk about energy and energy transition. Mr. Mousseau said that there is a fundamental principle when it comes to engaging in energy transition. This fundamental principle is quite simple: Renewable energy must be given priority over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. We decided to use this as the starting point for our amendments. The idea was to determine how Bill C 49 could favour renewable energy over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. Unfortunately, the government was completely against this approach. This is why I say the bill is not about renewable energy.

I talked about Normand Mousseau, but we heard from another very interesting witness, Ches Crosbie, who was invited by my Conservative colleagues. Mr. Crosbie came to talk to us about his vision of energy in Canada. What is interesting about Mr. Crosbie is that he does not believe in climate change. The Conservatives invited a witness who does not believe in climate change and who is convinced that all the money invested in new technologies is a waste of time and a scam. I am translating freely. He told us that it was bogus, and his testimony, along with the questions I asked him when he appeared before us, was picked up by the CBC. I am not a big fan of the CBC; not being anglophone, it is a bit more difficult for me. In any case, the leader of the Conservatives in Newfoundland was forced to defend himself. Tony Wakeham was forced to say that he believed in climate change and that the witness who had appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was a bit off base. I wonder on what basis my Conservative friends chose to invite someone who is prepared to deny the reality of climate change, which is accepted by everyone. It is a bit like deciding to invite to the Standing Committee on Health someone who defends the idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer and are actually good for athletes. We would say that is completely far-fetched. However, Ches Crosbie, the Conservative witness, shamelessly said before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that we should stop talking about this bogus climate change theory and stop investing money in new technologies because that would not do any good. I think we all get the picture.

I said our goal from the outset was to improve Bill C‑49 to better govern offshore energy activities and better plan the energy transition. Everything we proposed was roundly rejected by our Conservative friends.

I would like to review some of our amendments. This will clarify why we will vote against Bill C‑49. We have said this already, but we will vote against Bill C‑49 because it is incompatible with the energy transition.

The first type of amendment we submitted aimed to foster the Bloc Québécois's general vision, which is energy transition and fighting climate change. Earlier, I talked about Normand Mousseau. We wrote our amendments based on his words, stressing, among other things, the need for the federal government to follow the example of Quebec and of other countries, which have halted new oil and gas development projects.

We thought that if we could change the bill to prevent new oil and gas projects and instead focus on renewable energy, we would have done our job, and we could vote in favour of Bill C‑49. However, the Liberal government responded that, while Bill C‑49 deals with renewable energy, there would be no prioritization of other types of energy, as Normand Mousseau recommended in his testimony. We felt this undermined transition.

With the amendments we proposed, the government could have built the regulatory foundations to gradually phase out oil and gas by voting, among other things, to reform the system governing them. Our goal was to ensure that adequate regulation of current oil and gas projects would end the approval process for new ones. The government dismissed this outright. We also wanted to help create a new offshore renewable energy regulatory system that would have allowed effective planning that considered the needs of all users of the sea and required a proper environmental assessment.

For example, we proposed that the regulator be responsible for preparing a strategic plan for gradually reducing petroleum-related activities, consistent with Canada's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2025 levels by 2030. These are commitments the government itself made. If it had taken this direction, it might not be in the situation it is in today, when it was announced that our emissions increased by 10 megatonnes between 2021 and 2022. How are we supposed to reduce our carbon emissions when our main economic sector is still oil and gas? It is completely impossible. We suggested in good faith that the government focus on renewable energy, but it refused.

We also made certain proposals because what most surprised me about Bill C‑49, which would amend the two acts governing offshore energy, namely the one for Newfoundland and the one for Prince Edward Island, is that the regulators have no expertise in renewable energy. Witnesses told us straight out that they know how to develop and analyze fossil fuel projects, but they have no idea how to develop renewable energy projects. We therefore moved amendments aimed at developing the appropriate expertise for planning and assessment processes, but these amendments were also rejected out of hand by the government. Our amendments were consistent with the briefs and testimony that numerous environmental groups and energy sector specialists provided to the government during the study in committee, but the government obviously did not listen. The government turned a deaf ear and refused to listen to the people who have the expertise needed to develop this type of renewable energy project.

Lastly, we submitted amendments aimed at ensuring that, if one or more energy projects are commenced in an area where no other projects are under way, low-carbon energy projects should automatically get priority. For example, in an offshore area, if there is a choice between a wind power project and an oil project, the analysis should be based on the carbon intensity of each project. That would have been essential, but the government did not agree to our amendment. It dismissed it out of hand. This proves what I have been trying to say all along, which is that Bill C‑49 is not a renewable energy bill. It is just greenwashing, an attempt by the government to ease its conscience by saying that it is working on implementing wind power projects, but without actually making them a priority.

In fact, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island currently have no infrastructure to distribute the electricity that the wind turbines will produce. Developing this kind of infrastructure requires resources, and the construction costs involved are astronomical.

The federal government, however, continues to invest heavily in the pipe dream that I talked about earlier, which calls for lowering the carbon intensity of the oil and gas sector. However, the government is not investing in clean technology the way it was supposed to. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑49, and it will never lose sight of the fact that the energy transition cannot be carried out while the oil and gas industry are receiving support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised the Bloc would not be supporting this legislation, when one takes into consideration that this legislation is mirror legislation. There are two other provinces with different political parties, both a Liberal premier and a Progressive Conservative premier, and this legislation mirrors their provincial legislation. All three of them ultimately need to pass. The people of two other provinces and the people here in Ottawa are working together on an important issue.

The Bloc, on the one hand, says that we should be working with provinces. This is a good example of provinces working well with Ottawa to do something of great benefit for their regions, and the Bloc is voting no. From my perspective, that is highly irresponsible given that I always thought the Bloc's mandate was to, at least, work with the provinces. That is constantly what we hear from the Bloc.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that what is irresponsible in the fight against climate change is to continue our out-of-control support for the oil and gas sector. That is irresponsible. I began by saying that one of the stumbling blocks was to determine whether offshore areas fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Constitutionally speaking, they are under federal jurisdiction. That is one thing. The federal government can of course have agreements with the provinces, but this bill is clearly not aligned with the energy transition, despite the fact that we tried to improve and enhance it.

If the government were really interested in the energy transition, most of the strategies included in its budget would not be intended to support the oil and gas industry, but rather to support the clean energy sector, which is not the case. The government would have agreed to amend the bill to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuels. They do not want to prioritize low-carbon-intensity projects over oil and gas projects, even for new and future projects. That is obviously why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill, which is bad for the environment.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources with the member for Jonquière, and he is very passionate about what he believes in. On the oil and gas issue, we would have the exact opposite views. I think we are blessed with a beautiful oil and gas resource here in this country that needs to be used responsibly. As we have seen from our oil and gas producers, they do it responsibly. We have the cleanest and most ethically produced oil and gas in the world.

On another issue, the issue of proper consultation, I wonder if the member could comment a little further on whether he thinks the Liberal government allowed proper consultation with our fishers and also our lobster harvesters.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Provencher for his question. It is true that we do not always agree, especially when it comes to straws and gas guzzlers. I do not agree with him on these matters. I do not agree with him that Canada’s oil and gas sector is one of the most ethical, either. Oil from the tar sands is probably one of the dirtiest oils in the world. However, let us set that aside for now.

On the issue of consultation, we do agree.

On the issue of the purposes of use, several groups of fishers testified that the federal government’s consultation process was botched. They feel that they were not heard and that the measures that should have been taken to help the fishery and ensure sound management of the different users were not put in place. Indeed, the consultation process was inadequate. It is not that the government did not have enough time. It had plenty of time to work on Bill C-49.

The government even planned to have the committee travel to Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island, but, because of poor management or I do not know what, the visit never happened, and we were unable to speak with the people on the ground except during committee meetings, when witnesses were called. I totally agree that it would have been better to have a much more robust consultation process than we actually did.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very interesting, and I listened with agreement regarding much of what he said.

One of the concerns that I have is that we are seeing a lack of actual, meaningful action by the current government to make sure that Canada can be leading on renewable energy. The member will have heard me say many times in the House how disappointed I am with the Province of Alberta and with the premier, Danielle Smith, for pausing renewables in my province.

However, I am also concerned when I see things like the Liberals promising investment tax credits to kick-start a clean energy economy. They promised that in 2023, and we still have seen nothing. Instead, companies are looking to the south, where there are those credits and that investment. I wonder if the member could comment on how that would be helpful for making sure that Canada can be a leader in a new economy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

If we look at the federal government's strategies in the past three or four years, clean energy has never been at the centre of those strategies.

In the latest budget, we saw tax credits pop up for clean electricity. Those will apply this year. We shall see what that looks like. However, the bulk of the federal government's strategy, the bulk of the financial support—earlier I was talking about $83 billion by 2035—is being offered to the oil and gas sector to support a pipe dream, the low-carbon oil pipe dream.

Environmentalists all agree that we need to cut oil production. Meanwhile, the federal government is investing in increasing production and trying to reduce carbon intensity. It defies all logic. The oil being produced is going to be burned somewhere. It is going to generate greenhouse gases.

Canada is one of the countries that invests the least in renewable energy, and we are also one of the countries most heavily tied to the oil and gas sector. In the next 15, 20 or 30 years, much to Alberta's chagrin, it will be a disaster. Other countries are moving forward; they no longer even want to consume products that are made in Canada because of the disproportionately high carbon footprint.

Somehow the Liberal government and the Conservative government do not seem to see it.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned that the committee would have liked to fly to Newfoundland to meet with the people at the energy boards and whatnot.

Could he please inform the House what that plane burns to get Newfoundland?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many litres of fuel it takes to get to Newfoundland and Labrador. The committee did not make it there. If the aim was to have consultations, perhaps they should have made it there.

However, I can say that I have to drive for six hours every time I travel from Saguenay to Ottawa, and I do it in an electric car. I invite my colleague to do the same when he goes back home.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification from the member if I can. What the member was actually telling me in his answer was that there are conditions where Ottawa, or a political party in Ottawa, can be in opposition to what a province wants. Therefore, even though Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia want this legislation passed, because of the policy of the Bloc, its members believe that it is not in Canada's best interests to see it passed.

Would that same principle apply for all provinces?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the federal government is using this bill as environmental window dressing. The bill has nothing to do with the energy transition. The federal government could have been honest in its presentation of the bill, clearly indicating that what it wanted was continuity in the offshore energy sector. In this case, continuity refers to oil and gas projects.

Nowhere in the bill does it say that there will be no more new projects. We tried to make the federal government aware of the situation and encourage it, like Quebec, to say that there would be no more oil and gas development. That is what I am trying to explain to the parliamentary secretary. The federal government could have done that, since offshore activities fall under its jurisdiction.

However, the federal government is not as squeamish when it comes to the issue of caribou in Quebec. The Minister of Natural Resources has a lot to say about that. He knows very well that the delicate issue of the woodland caribou should be resolved in Quebec and that it could be a disaster for large numbers of small communities whose economies rely on the forestry industry. I would like him to be more conciliatory when it comes to the issue of caribou.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the member for Timmins—James Bay for all the work he has put into Bill C‑49. He pushed hard for a transition to clean energy. I think that his work should be recognized by the House.

We support Bill C‑49 because we finally see the Liberals taking the first small steps toward clean energy. Anyone who travels outside Canada can see how other countries around the world are investing in clean energy. They see that things are beginning to change in Asia. They see things are beginning to change in Africa. All anyone has to do is fly over Europe and the North Sea to see all of the wind power projects making a huge difference.

I visited the island of Samsoe in Denmark. The government of Denmark is making the necessary investments in clean energy. The island of Samsoe has converted all of its heating and electricity, and has almost finished converting its transportation system. Everything works on clean energy.

In the United States, with President Joe Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act, there are successful investments everywhere. The potential for Canada is enormous. When we look at the U.S. market, where states and municipalities are demanding clean energy, we can see the potential for the production of clean energy in Canada.

What we have is a grid that has not been set up, as some European grids have, to be able to include the potential of clean energies from a variety of sources. Scandinavia and Germany have already converted. Canada lags far behind.

There is work to be done. That is why the NDP and our entire caucus supports Bill C‑49. We can see the potential, and we think it is important to make these investments. This bill is a first step toward this clean energy potential. We need to see leadership on the part of the federal government in this area so that we can have clean energy projects across Canada.

When the member for Burnaby South becomes prime minister, we will have a New Democratic government and we will see the difference. We can make the transition that other countries are already engaged in.

Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic accord acts, notably by establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and their offshore areas. Currently, the Atlantic accord acts implement agreements between Canada and these two provinces on the joint management of offshore petroleum resources.

Under the proposed bill, regulatory authority for offshore wind power would be granted to the two existing jointly managed offshore boards that are currently exclusively responsible for regulating offshore oil and gas projects: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. They would effectively be put in place as regulators for offshore wind power.

This is extremely important, because we know that there is much to do in terms of putting in place all the foundations for renewable energy sources, which can be a powerful driver of Canadian prosperity in the years to come. We have unlimited potential right across the country. I think of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where we could ultimately be seeing powerhouses of solar and wind power.

The export of renewable energy could make a profound difference, particularly because so many American states and cities require renewable energy as their feedstock. They simply will not accept energy that is not renewable. We need to modernize our grid and make these investments. We have seen, both under the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government, no investments in any meaningful way to modernize our electrical grid to allow for the import of renewable energy. We have seen, quite frankly, a couple of decades of stagnation when it comes to renewable energy. New Democrats support the bill because it is a first step forward, but there is much to do.

The reality is that we are seeing investment moving into clean energy. This is vitally important. There are energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; we cannot leave them behind. We need to make sure we put in place the investments that allow for offshore wind projects for which energy workers could use their enormous skills. Having been an energy worker and having worked at the Shellburn refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which is now closed, I can say that the skills of workers in the energy sector are enormous. If we are to really capture the immense potential that comes from renewable energy, we need to make sure we pass legislation such as this, as well as making the powerful investments that are so important and that other countries have made in order to ensure incredible prosperity.

During the hearings, the member for Timmins—James Bay said very clearly that strong concerns had been heard from fishers about ensuring that any new developments respect the fragile nature of North Atlantic fisheries. New Democrats share their concerns, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said so eloquently. We urge the provinces to work with the stakeholders to ensure that any new projects are developed with the recognition of the need to protect the fisheries. This is vitally important.

We know that we need to catch up with other countries. I will give two examples. Off Rhode Island, there is a new wind farm that is going to provide energy for a quarter of a million homes. That is as a result of President Joe Biden's leadership in making the investments for clean energy. Twenty-seven other major projects in the United States are on track to be completed by next year, 2025. For example, the Vineyard Wind project is creating enough power for 400,000 homes.

Atlantic Canada, with its high energy costs, could become a world leader in low-cost energy, including wind and green hydrogen. However, the reality is that we have not seen from the Liberal government, as we did not see from the Conservative government before it, any real effort to provide the kinds of frameworks and investments that are so important for building those massive opportunities in offshore wind.

There was a promise from the Liberals to put in place investment tax credits to kick-start clean energy. That was last year, and the credits are still nowhere to be seen. Investment is still flowing south, and we see Canadian companies looking to partner in the United States now, where investment is guaranteed. The reality is that we have CAPP holding meetings with the government to continue to get subsidies for the oil and gas sector, but for energy workers who are interested in the potential for clean energy, there are no opportunities being presented to them. This is because of the fact that the government has not acted, in the same way as the Conservative government did not act before it. Therefore, what we need to see is a federal government willing to step up.

In Alberta, there was incredible potential. My colleagues from Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton Griesbach would agree that there was immense potential. I believe there were $33 billion in clean energy projects in line to be built. Clean energy has immense potential in Alberta. However, the premier, Danielle Smith, basically put a hold on all those projects. Why would anyone do that when there is potential for enormous growth?

Alberta could be the clean energy powerhouse of the planet. Why would the premier basically halt $33 billion in clean energy projects? It makes no sense at all.

Under the Harper government, we saw a hatred of clean energy. The one program it did put in place regarding home renovations was so oversubscribed that, basically, the government abruptly cancelled it. In the years following, when I was the energy critic, as the NDP was the official opposition at the time, I went across the country—