Bill C-49

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

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

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

moved that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to have the opportunity to commence debate on Bill C-49 to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

I am here today to deliver on the Government of Canada's commitment to working in close collaboration with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia to establish firm foundations for a thriving offshore renewable energy sector in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. This legislation is an important part of our country's future as we work to fight climate change by reducing carbon emissions and seizing the economic opportunities that can come from a transition to a low-carbon future.

Around the world, businesses large and small, and governments, are in a race to reduce carbon emissions and to seize the extraordinary economic opportunities associated with a low-carbon transition and, of course, to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Global financial markets are playing a key role in this investment shift through their investment decisions. Successful businesses interpret and adapt to changes in the environment in which they operate. It is what their shareholders expect; it is what their employees depend upon.

The science of climate change is clear. The major cause of increasingly severe and frequent weather events and wildfires is, of course, climate change. Similarly, the science is clear about what must be done to avert the worst impacts of climate change. As a global community, we need to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and we need to make meaningful progress by 2030. We cannot get to net zero by 2050 if we begin our journey in 2040.

In 2019, Canada was one of the first countries to commit to achieving net zero by 2050, and we subsequently committed to meeting ambitious interim targets along the way.

That was just four years ago. Today, 80 countries are committed to achieving net zero. Progress has been made both here in Canada and around the world, but we all need to do more. Commitments are meaningless unless they are backed up by plans and actions. That is why Canada has developed one of the most detailed and, I would even say, one of the most comprehensive climate plans in the world.

Increasingly, governments are not the only ones taking action. Global financial markets are playing a crucial role in the transition to a low-carbon future through their investment decisions. The smart money, looking for long-term gains, is moving away from assets that will underperform in a low-carbon world.

Governments are certainly no different. To effectively serve their citizens, they must also respond to changing circumstances and then take decisive actions. The economic future of Canadians depends on our making the right choices to ensure that Canada will thrive in a low-carbon world. The good news is that Canada is very well positioned to take advantage of these opportunities. It is up to us as a country to make the smartest possible choices. Canada can choose to be a leader in this global economic shift or to let it pass us by. Going slowly and just hoping for the best is a choice, and a much riskier one; in fact, I believe it is a terrible gamble.

There are really two paths we can take. The first path accepts that climate change is a scientific reality that we can and must address. It understands that the world at large is moving in that direction, creating a shift in investment and innovation. The first path calls for a thoughtful plan for the future that acknowledges where the world is and must be headed and that seeks to take full advantage of the economic opportunities that are available through the transition to a low-carbon economy.

The second path starts with shrugging off the damage that climate change has already caused: the dramatic floods in our towns and cities, dried-up rivers, melting glaciers and the wildfires in our forests that folks here and across the country know very well. It pretends that climate concern is a fad that will fade and that we do not really need to do anything to keep our economy healthy for the long term. The second path presents, as I said, a terrible gamble that is effectively betting against the environmental imperatives that are all around us. It is one that would thus lead to both environmental and economic devastation.

This federal government has chosen the first path. There are five key things that we must prioritize if we are to seize the historic opportunities and go down this path. First is identifying and seizing key economic opportunities in every region of the country, which are made available via the global shift to a net-zero economy. These opportunities are in areas from critical minerals to batteries and EV manufacturing, from hydrogen to biofuels, and from small modular reactors to renewable sources of energy and a wide range of clean technologies. Second is a thoughtful approach to Canada's oil and gas sector and its resources, for which there will continue to be demand, albeit less demand, in a net-zero world. Third is building out a clean, reliable and affordable electricity grid. Fourth is advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Finally, we must make more efficient and effective our regulatory and permitting processes.

Bill C-49 is about creating a clean electricity grid, seizing the economic opportunities of a low-carbon future and about the opportunities this entails for economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples.

As part of our broader plan, we need to build more clean power, certainly a lot more. While we are focused on deploying clean energy to reduce electricity-sector emissions, we must also expand the total amount of power on the grid. As we electrify much of the transportation and building sectors with electric vehicles, heat pumps and other technologies, we will need new clean power to meet this rising demand.

An abundant supply of clean energy is also at the core of accessing critical economic opportunities, like we have seen with Air Products in Alberta, Volkswagen in Ontario or Ford's new battery cathode facility in Bécancour. This all demands a decarbonized grid, but also a much larger grid. In fact, we will need to double, or increase by more, the size of our existing grid by 2050. Offshore wind offers opportunity for Atlantic Canada to not only feed the need for significant additional renewable energy for the electricity grid, but also would provide a major export opportunity associated with the production of zero-carbon hydrogen.

Bill C-49 is a critical piece of legislation to enable our offshore power potential to be realized, not only to meet federal climate targets, but also to achieve provincial power and economic plans. Last fall, Nova Scotia set an offshore wind target with a goal of providing seabed land leases of up to five gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030, with the intention of using most of that power to support the production of hydrogen that will be used in Canada or exported. That is enough energy to power 3,750,000 homes.

Newfoundland and Labrador has high ambitions as well. During my last visit to St. John's for the Energy NL Conference, there was extensive interest from the private sector, workers and local levels of government in the opportunities presented by offshore renewables, including hydrogen production.

With regard to the hydrogen opportunity, it is an economic opportunity for Canada. It is also an opportunity to help our friends in Europe in their efforts to enhance energy security and to accelerate the move toward a low-carbon future. It is something that we discussed when Chancellor Scholz and Vice-Chancellor Habeck visited us last year, and it is something on which we continue to work actively with our friends in Germany.

Newfoundland's energy minister, Andrew Parsons, has said of Bill C-49 that he is “pleased that the federal government is moving forward legislative amendments to modernize the Accord Acts to enable new clean energy opportunities, grow the economy and protect the environment. This is consistent with [his] government's commitment to achieving net zero by 2050.”

Nova Scotia's ministers Halman and Rushton said that we need “modern, forward-looking solutions to achieve [climate goals].” They stated that “Amending the federal Accord Act is an important step so that we can safely and responsibly pursue renewable energy projects like offshore wind.”

Today, we are here to talk about a potential $1-trillion global industry, offshore wind. Canada must move rapidly to seize our share in this global economic opportunity. We know that we are in a race for investment, and that is why, in partnership with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, we have been working on this legislation while concurrently preparing for its implementation.

The proposed amendments to the accord acts are key factors in unlocking this potential. As we all know, the development of major projects requires a stable, predictable and credible legislative and regulatory framework, as well as oversight provided by a predictable and credible regulatory authority. We have both.

We have the accord acts, and we have the offshore regulators that are the result of enduring federal and provincial partnerships that have existed for more than three decades. The two historic Atlantic accords were signed in the mid-1980s, first between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, then between Canada and Nova Scotia. These are historic accords that laid the foundations for the current system of joint management of the offshore accords. Under these historic accords, both provinces became equal partners with Canada in managing offshore energy, with revenues going to the provinces.

They also established two autonomous boards that were tasked with regulating offshore oil and gas projects. Through this bill we would expand their mandate to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy. The boards are already well accustomed to interpreting offshore energy legislation and enforcing standards that each project will be expected to meet.

It is time to look to the future and move forward with these important amendments. The accord acts are informed by years of engagement and collaboration with our joint management partners, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are several things these amendments would do. First, they would modernize parts of the land tenure process for existing offshore activities to better align with the international best practices and keep pace with emerging technologies. Second, they would leverage the boards wealth of expertise and modernize the accord acts so that the boards can take on the important responsibility of regulating Nova Scotia's and Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore renewable energy projects, very much including wind projects. This would allow the boards to implement and administer the proposed legislative frameworks around offshore renewables and ensure that best practices around land rights management are adopted specifically around land use planning, bidding processes, issuing licences for seabed use and providing authorizations for the development of offshore renewable projects.

The amendments would ensure that the accord acts align with the Impact Assessment Act, ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of regulators and the Impact Assessment Agency are further clarified for all parties and stakeholders. Also, with regard to the government's duty to consult with indigenous peoples, the amendments specify that the government would be able to rely on the offshore energy boards to consult with indigenous peoples and make accommodations to mitigate any adverse impacts to treaty rights and aboriginal rights.

This legislation is a critical part of Canada's ongoing work in the fight against climate change and it aligns with the actions taken by some of our peer countries. Several countries have taken the step of creating or broadening the authorities of existing offshore energy regulators. This is true for the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway and Australia.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are working to fight climate change and to seize the economic opportunities that can come from a transition to a low-carbon future. They are promoting the use of low-cost and low-carbon electric heat by the installation of heat pumps. They have joined with the Government of Canada on the Regional Energy and Resource Tables to ensure they are well placed to capitalize on economic opportunities, and they are initiating new, innovative, renewable energy projects. They are part of a push that is happening across the country to encourage renewable energy and clean fuels as well as create a thriving energy economy.

As I mentioned off the top, there is an alternative to our plan for the future. This is what I referred to earlier as the “second path”, which is one of hoping for the best. In my mind, this path ignores the very clear evidence as to how climate change is undermining the health and safety of people and of the planet. Burying one's head in the sand will lead to environmental devastation and economic stagnation as the world, very much including global investors, simply looks elsewhere.

Some in this country will try to tell us that one can fight climate change by simply relying on technology. I know that the Conservative leader is often fond of using the tag line “technology, not taxes”, by which he seems to imply that we can simply hope on technology to save us. However, I will tell members that is not a plan. That is a blind hope that comes from someone who has no background in technology, no background in energy and no background in climate issues.

I certainly am very well aware, given the time I spent in the technology industry, of the power of technology, but technology is not a climate plan nor is it a plan for the economy. A true plan requires thoughtful regulation, thoughtful investments and, yes, a price on carbon pollution.

This “hope for the best” approach will lead the Canadian economy down a path to obsolescence and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada's energy sector. Such an approach would create uncertainty and dissuade investment from coming to Canada, which is, of course, the opposite of what we need. Simple tag lines in place of serious policy do not serve Canadians well, which is why we are here today with serious policy that would create good jobs, fight climate change and unlock the full economic potential of the offshore.

Certainly, passing Bill C-49 would allow Canada to compete with our peer countries to seize our share of a massive global market opportunity. On the other hand, opposition to this bill would hold back our potential, prevent job creation in Atlantic Canada and send the wrong message to Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we act in the best interests of the economic and environmental well-being of Atlantic Canadians by supporting Bill C-49. I sincerely hope that no one in this House will decide to go down the wrong path instead of working together to pass this legislation to bring our offshore into being.

In conclusion, all of these changes make sense. Offshore wind energy can and will contribute to this government's goal of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. It is a key part of decarbonizing the electricity sector and transitioning our economy towards electrical power, establishing our hydrogen sector and providing new, sustainable jobs in the offshore energy sector. I am confident that this bill is and will be a critical element and a key driver to achieving the future we all envision in this House, one that is sustainable, affordable and prosperous for all Canadians.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a great liking for my colleague, the minister, and I hold him in high esteem.

However, when I read Bill C-49, there was something that jumped out at me, and that is the name change. It incorporates the concept of clean energy. However, a careful reading shows that this bill applies mainly to offshore oil drilling. I hardly think offshore oil drilling qualifies as clean energy.

I know that the minister criticized our Conservative colleague in the context of the devastating wildfires we went through this summer. We must listen to science. Sometimes, however, I get the impression that my colleagues in the Liberal Party are spinning the science and doing some greenwashing.

I would like the minister to explain to us how exactly this bill applies to clean energy.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 does indeed focus on renewable energy. It will allow us to launch a new offshore wind industry and foster a strong economy in Nova Scotia as well as in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is at the heart of this bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, obviously, Conservatives support expanded development of offshore petroleum resources and the development of innovative, green and new technology development. Conservatives have, for years, highlighted concerns around permitting timelines and gatekeeping roadblocks of uncertain conditions.

Could the minister clarify how many of the details around the scope, mandate and requirements of the additional responsibilities of the new boards and regulators will be clarified before this bill passes the Senate? How much of that will be left to regulations such as what was done in Bill C-69, creating the disaster that Canada now finds itself in?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is actually a fair bit of detail in the bill. The hon. member will know the ways in which offshore accord acts work. They are actually jointly done and must be agreed upon.

There has to be mirror legislation introduced in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. The bulk of it will be laid out in the bill. There will obviously be some in the legislation but that will be, of course, something that must be agreed upon between the provincial governments and the federal government.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, we know that the clean energy tax credits of the Biden administration have created an explosive growth in clean energy opportunities, $110 billion in new projects. On offshore wind, the vineyard project will create energy for 400,000 homes; off Rhode Island, 250,000 homes, so it is a huge opportunity.

At the same time, we see the Danielle Smith government shutting down and walking away on $33 billion in opportunities. Atlantic Canada has a huge opportunity here, but the urgency here is getting the tax credits moved from promises to reality so that we do not lose opportunities stateside like poor Alberta is doing from Danielle Smith's actions.

I would like to ask the minister this. When does he see the clean energy tax credits coming into force so that we can take full advantage and compete with the United States?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am in agreement with the member that we certainly want to advance the final definition of the investment tax credits so that there is certainty with respect to investment. Right now we are waiting to see what that will be.

I would also say that it is really important that we have a regulatory structure that companies can rely upon. That is exactly what this bill is intending to do, to put in place that regulatory structure in collaboration with Newfoundland and Labrador and with Nova Scotia.

With respect to the investment tax credits, we are working on that very actively. As members would know, the Department of Finance leads on that, but we are working to have that done expeditiously. We all recognize the need to have that in place.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 is welcome. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have long had embedded within the legislation aspects of the Atlantic accord that make it a duty of these offshore boards to increase offshore petroleum production. I do not see those sections being removed. It is certainly welcome to see a focus that allows the offshore petroleum boards to actually promote and regulate offshore wind energy production, which is truly green.

Meanwhile, we still see subsidies pouring into fossil fuels. We still see that the government is intent on completing a pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, which we own, and it is a horror and a scandal to waste $31 billion on a project intended to produce more greenhouse gases out of the oil sands. We still are putting money into the proven failure of carbon capture and storage, which is yet another disguised subsidy to fossil fuels.

Would the government be open to amending Bill C-49 when it gets to committee to ensure that it takes away the embedded preference of petroleum over renewables?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the hon. member will appreciate, the role of the House and committees is to discuss and to look to find ways to improve upon bills. It would be irresponsible for any minister to say that he or she is not willing to engage a conversation about how bills can be improved. However, the focus of this bill is on enabling the offshore renewable sector, and that is something we are very intent on moving forward on as expeditiously as is possible.

I would correct a couple of the things that the hon. member said. A few months ago, the government brought forward a framework for the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. We are the first G7 country to do that. We are two years ahead of all the other countries with respect to their commitment. We have been very focused on that, as well as the international financing of fossil fuel projects.

With respect to the member's comments on carbon capture and sequestration, she is wrong. Many carbon capture and sequestration projects are in process of being developed or are already operating. It is a technology that is not that novel. It is scaling the technology and making it economic that is most important. I would suggest that perhaps she do a bit more homework on that.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear the minister endorse the idea of carbon capture and have that on the record.

I am wondering about liquefied natural gas. He did not mention it in his speech. Mr. Putin is largely funding his war on the back of selling natural gas in Europe. Canada is one of the largest producers of natural gas. Is his government now behind the idea of building liquefied natural gas terminals and supplying clean Canadian natural gas to the world?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

No, Madam Speaker, this bill is about enabling offshore wind. It has nothing to do with liquid natural gas, but there certainly are opportunities for liquid natural gas. LNG Canada phase one will be coming on stream in 2025 and the Woodfibre project probably not that long afterward. There are a number of other projects, including some that have been approved, like Cedar LNG.

However, for liquid natural gas to make sense in the context of moving forward, it has to be done in a manner that is consistent with Canada's climate obligations and it has to be in a situation where it actually displaces heavier fossil fuels that are used in other countries. We have been working with the sector on that and we will continue working within the sector, but it is simply not appropriate to ignore our climate obligations. Canada has to meet its own climate targets and therefore it has to be done with that frame.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, this is a historic day, the modernization of the Atlantic accords between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government, as we try to decarbonize our grids in the face of the increasing demand on electrification for home energy and transportation.

I wonder if the minister could comment briefly on the connection between the offshore accord modernization and the ability to decarbonize the Atlantic Canadian grid.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick still rely significantly on coal, and there is a need to move away from coal. The Government of Nova Scotia has its own requirement to be off coal by 2030. One of the ways in which we can enable that is through the development of more renewables, and offshore wind offers the opportunity for large scale renewables to feed the grid.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Lakeland, and Canadians everywhere, who want life to be more affordable, and also want energy and food security, which is the most important economic and geopolitical question facing the free world.

Unfortunately, Bill C-49 is another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.

Hopefully, this time the Liberals will actually listen to cautions and analysis during debate and committee consideration to prevent the rather ridiculous current spectacle they are now caught in, claiming to want to reduce permitting and regulatory timelines even though they have been in government for eight years, and are actually talking about the extra red tape, confusion and potentially endless timelines they themselves imposed through Bill C-69, which Conservatives and then municipalities, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents, and all provinces and territories did warn about at the time. As always, the Liberals figured they knew best, and they sure did create a heck of a broken mess.

Ostensibly, the bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to become the regulators and add offshore renewables to their mandates, while creating a regulatory regime for offshore, wind and other renewable energy projects that currently exist for offshore petroleum operations.

It is a reasonable and necessary initiative, and Conservatives are glad to see the inclusion of the provincial governments as required partners in final decisions on this joint jurisdiction. I might note that is a principle the Liberals often abandon when it comes to other provincial governments with which they disagree. However, it is both unfortunately and unsurprisingly clear that Bill C-49 would also subject offshore renewable energy to the same web of uncertain regulations, long and costly timelines and political decision-making that has driven hundreds of billions of dollars in private sector energy investment, hundreds of businesses and hundreds of thousands of energy jobs out of Canada and into other jurisdictions around the world.

Bill C-49 also includes provisions that could impose a full shutdown and ban on offshore oil and gas development at any time. That is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland's key industries, risks undermining the rights of indigenous communities and local communities to meaningful consultation, and ignores the work and aspirations of other locally impacted communities and residents.

The Liberals have already threatened offshore activity in Newfoundland and Labrador with a minister saying that the decision on Baie du Nord was the most difficult one they had ever made. Baie du Nord would have provided more than 13,000 jobs overall; $97.6 billion in national GDP; $82 billion in provincial GDP, more than 8,900 jobs, $11 billion in taxes and $12.8 billion in royalty revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador; $7.2 billion in GDP and more than 2,200 jobs for Ontario; $2.6 billion and more than 900 jobs for Quebec; $3.1 billion in GDP and almost 700 jobs for Albertan. Like the usual pattern under the government, the private sector proponent has put that project on hold for three years because of uncertainty.

As written, the bill has many gaps. The Liberals must clarify, sooner than later, a number of practical implications.

For example, will the offshore boards need more resources for technical expertise or personnel, or more funding to fulfill the additional responsibilities? If so, who will pay for it? What is a realistic expectation of when the regulators would be fully ready for the work outside of their current scope? What about the responsibility for health and safety regulations for renewable energy projects at sea, which are currently the job of the respective offshore boards on offshore rigs and under the department of labour on land? These obligations should be clearly defined jurisdictionally in the bill.

What about environmental considerations relating to offshore renewable projects? The boards, the truth is, currently have no experience in activities around wind, tidal and other sea-based energies that may disrupt ecosystems and seaweed growth; harm sea birds, whales, fish stock, lobster stock; or interfere with organisms that live on the sea bed, like anemones, corals, crabs, sea urchins and sponges. What provisions are needed for the regulators to adequately assess risks to key habitat and vulnerable species?

I cannot imagine, nor would I ever suggest, that the NDP-Liberals will add upstream emission requirements as a condition for such approvals, like it did, along with downstream emissions, in a double standard deliberately designed to kill the west to east pipeline that could have created energy self-security and self-sufficiency for Canada, by refining and exporting western resources on the Atlantic Canadian coast for export. European allies and Ukrainians definitely would appreciate that. However, it would certainly be a significant hurdle if they did, given what is really involved in the manufacturing of steel and concrete for offshore renewable projects, which create a lot of hazardous waste on the back end, for example. If the Liberals actually cared about the cumulative impacts, like they always say they do, they would clarify all of that in this bill also.

The Liberals must account for these considerations. At this point, after eight years, Canadians should be skeptical if the government says that it will work out the details later or in regulations after the fact. That has always been a disaster under those guys, no matter the issue.

On top of these unanswered questions, the reality is that the bill would triple the timeline for a final decision on alternative energy projects and would give political decision-makers the ability to extend that timeline potentially indefinitely.

If this all sounds familiar, a lack of details on crucial issues, uncertainty around roles, responsibilities or requirement, and timelines that actually have so many loopholes for interference that no concrete timelines really exist at all, that is because it is. This is what the Liberals did in Bill C-69, which the Conservatives warned would help prevent any major pipeline projects from being approved or even proposed in Canada since it passed in 2019. It has become a gatekeeping roadblock to private sector proponents in all areas of resource development and the pursuit of major projects in Canada.

The reality is that companies will not invest billions in building energy infrastructure in Canada's uncertain fiscal and regulatory framework, where excessive and duplicative red tape means there is no consistency or certainty in the assessment process, no clear rules or a path to completion, and no guaranteed return on investment, which can all be lost at the whim of a government minister's unilateral decision.

As much as the Liberals wish it were true, alternative energy projects are not in a separate magical category from oil and gas, where they are somehow immune from these basic economic and fiscal considerations, except for those publicly funded through subsidies or paid for by utility ratepayers, definitely a significant proportion of renewable and alternative energy to date, especially outside of Alberta, where it is done by the private sector primarily. The fiscal and regulatory framework is a crucial and definitive aspect of what private sector proponents politely call the “lack of a business case” every time a major project is halted or abandoned after years and millions of dollars of working toward it, usually moving their focus and tragically their money, jobs, innovation, initiative, creativity and expertise to other countries. The Liberals have already created these same adverse conditions for wind, solar and tidal as well.

Let us take the Pempa'q tidal energy project in the Bay of Fundy. It would have provided clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in investment and significantly reducing emissions. However, after repeated delays, a tide of Liberal red tape and “Five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges” the proponent withdrew, and it folded.

Sustainable Marine was not the only victim of multiple layers of red tape that involved departments. Other renewable projects, like a pulp mill that would have created biodegradable plastics from their waste stream, left Canada because the Liberals told the proponents that the approval phase under their gatekeepers would take 20 years.

The bottom line is that energy companies, like any company, need certainty to invest, whether in the oil sands, natural gas, critical minerals, pipelines, hydrogen, petrochemicals, wind or solar farms or hydroelectricity. Proponents need concrete timelines, consistent, well-defined and predictable regulatory measures. They need to be confident that a government will respect jurisdictional responsibilities, be willing to enforce the rule of law and take action if necessary for projects after approval so proponents can know that if they follow the rules, meet the conditions and act in good faith, they will be successful.

Companies and the regulators also need to account for possible risks posed to local activities, most notably the impacts of offshore wind development and other technologies on the livelihoods of Atlantic fishers and lobstermen.

In this case, all impacted parties need to be involved in the consultation process from the get-go. Unfortunately, the Liberal's Bill C-49 creates the opposite for both alternative energy sources and offshore oil and gas. When it comes to crafting anti-energy legislation, the Liberals, with their NDP power broking coalition, just cannot seem to help themselves. Sections 28 and 137 of this bill give the government the power, as I mentioned before, to completely end any current offshore drilling for oil and gas, as well as any offshore alternative energy development. Obviously, that is an immediate threat to the sector because of the uncertainty, even for existing operations, and it risks any future projects in these provinces by designating prohibited development areas.

Notably, the bill states that any activity may be suspended in those areas. That obviously includes offshore petroleum drilling and exploration, but the language could also include offshore wind and other alternative energy development. One thing that is predictable is this pattern because it is similar to a previous Liberal bill, Bill C-55, which allowed a government minister to unilaterally designate any marine area in Canada as a prohibited development zone.

The Liberals must answer whether their increasing targets and the language in Bill C-49 would cancel and/or prohibit both traditional and renewable energy projects if located in those areas. What are the restrictions? How could developers make investment decisions if the areas where they operate may suddenly be declared prohibited?

The Liberals are so comfortable with their nearly decade-long pattern of piling on layers of anti-energy, anti-development and anti-private sector laws, policies and taxes on Canada's key sectors that they hinder both traditional sources of energy, which they recklessly want to phase out prematurely, and stand in the way of the renewable and new technologies they purport to want.

This discussion cannot be removed from the context of Canada still operating, or rather more accurately not operating, under the rules and red tape the NDP-Liberal government imported into this bill.

Bill C-69 completely erased the concept of having any timelines for approving energy infrastructure, and instead allowed for limitless and indefinite extensions of regulatory timelines, as we warned. Unfortunately, this just creates a swath of potential maybes on project applications because of the potential for suspensions and delays, and the uncertainty about measures for applications and outcomes.

With Bill C-69, as many Canadians said at the time, the Liberals might as well have hung a sign in the window that said, “Canada is closed for business”. What is clear, and should be stunningly and frankly, through this total travesty, clear to all Canadians by now, is that clear timelines and requirements, as well as predictable rules and responsibilities, provide certainty for private sector proponents, which benefits the whole country.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada ranks 31st among peers in the burden of regulations, as of 2018, and is less than half as competitive as the OECD average in administrative burdens on energy project start-ups. Canada is second-last in the OECD for construction permits, only ahead of Slovakia, and 64th in the world for building permits.

The Liberals touted creating certainty and predictability for energy companies with clear rules and regulations to follow, but the actual bill created a massive new web of poorly defined criteria for companies and gave cabinet ministers the power to add any criteria to the list that they wanted at any time. There is no predictability or consistency. Bill C-49 is an extension of that pattern.

Another concerning part is the provisions that specify the regulators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as the parties responsible for indigenous consultation for offshore oil and gas and affordable energy projects. I must say that Conservatives believe in greater authority and autonomy for provinces to govern their own affairs. We want less Ottawa. Conservatives believe in smaller governments and a shift of power to individuals and local communities. The many indigenous communities where I am from, and those from across the country, who are reliant on and depend upon traditional and alternative energy development, all say the same thing.

However, I want to caution the NDP-Liberals that this section may invite court challenges if it is not clarified, which would create even more costly delays in an already drawn-out and unpredictable process. Through years of extensive legal challenges, precedent and judicial decisions on major energy infrastructure, courts have emphasized that it is the Crown's duty to consult indigenous people and that a failure on the part of the government to ensure a two-way dialogue, and that actual decision-makers are at the table during the consultation process, is what has overturned approval decisions.

That was the case with the Liberals' approval of the Trans Mountain expansion under their own process. Indigenous consultation was overturned and the minister had to spend months meeting with indigenous communities to redo it. Of course, they could have also done that with the northern gateway pipeline before that, and they would have saved everyone time and money later on with TMX. Instead, the Prime Minister vetoed northern gateway, blocking exports from the west coast to countries in Asia that desperately need our energy and killing all of the equity and mutual benefit agreements for the 31 indigenous communities along the pipeline that supported it, but I digress.

As currently drafted, this bill explicitly delegates the regulators as responsible for indigenous consultation. It is silent on the Crown's particular duty to consult, and it also shifts the power of final decision-making to federal and provincial government ministers.

On top of the fact that indigenous leaders often consider a federal minister specifically as the appropriate decision-maker to engage with them, if current or future governments rely too much or exclusively on the regulators for all assessments not captured by the Impact Assessment Act's consultation process, as is suggested in this bill, this section risks court challenges to proposed and approved projects in the long run and jeopardizes future offshore renewable and petroleum projects.

The impact of the uncertainty created by the Liberal government cannot be overstated. It takes Canada out of the global competition for energy development, punishing the best in class, and cedes market shares to dictators and regimes with far lower environmental and human rights standards. It costs Canada billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it robs Canadians and Canada's free and democratic allies of many irreplaceable opportunities, of energy security and of hope for the future.

I believe the impact on provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia deserves special attention. Anyone who has worked in Alberta's oil patch has no doubt worked together with many Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians. Certainly, that is where my own family came from.

My mother was from Newfoundland. My father was from Nova Scotia. My grandmother was the first female mayor of Dartmouth, and I am a first generation Albertan.

My own constituents have been hit hard by the hostile, divisive NDP-Liberal government. Other than the people of Saskatchewan, our neighbours who are often interchangeable citizens based on the free enterprise policies of our respective provincial governments at any given time, the people most concerned about the damage done to Alberta are consistently Atlantic Canadians.

I wish that more of our neighbours could hear directly from Atlantic Canadians, who are always effusive in their reverence for Alberta and our main industries. Atlantic Canadians share with Albertans a feeling of distance and neglect from Ottawa. They are concerned about the exact same consequences of NDP-Liberal policies, and the skyrocketing costs of living, as well as those of fuel and food prices. They are being forced to choose between heating and eating, and they are concerned about a reliance on energy sources, for which there are few affordable or immediate options. They are worried about how to make ends meet and are wanting to hope for the future.

Thousands of people from Atlantic Canada, every year, come to Alberta to support their families and communities through the array of diverse opportunities offered by Alberta's globally renowned energy and renewable energy sectors. Alberta has steady work and high-paying, quality jobs that contribute revenue to all three levels of government for the public services and programs that Canadians rely on.

That impact was unprecedented. In 2014, for example, nine out of every 10 full-time jobs created in Canada were created in Alberta, and every job in the oil sands creates two indirect and three induced jobs at home and in other regions and provinces.

While public enemy number one for the NDP-Liberal anti-energy and anti-private sector policies during the last eight years has been Alberta, the truth is that the costly coalition's approach hurts the whole country, especially Atlantic Canadians.

While Albertans and Atlantic Canadians are inextricably linked and have helped to build each other's provinces, there is always a human cost to having to move away for work. Generations of parents, grandparents and great-grandparents spent a hundred years working hard to build lives, businesses, farms and futures for their kids. Now their children and their grandchildren are being forced to seek out opportunities elsewhere.

Legacies left behind is the very real generational impact of anti-development and anti-resource policies. Conservatives, in conclusion, want to see the same opportunities. We want to see the same high-paying, quality jobs for people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as there are for those in Alberta and for every Canadian.

Conservatives want families to be able to stay together, parents to be able to see their kids, cousins to know each other and people to be able to build upon legacies secured by generations before them.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the work she's done on natural resources over the years, and I am looking forward to working with her more closely in the coming years.

The member talked at great length about other bills and other issues not related to Bill C-49. This bill is looking at creating jobs and attracting investment. That has been the federal government's approach. Could the member explain why both provincial premiers, Premier Furey and Premier Houston, are supporting this bill? Could the member explain if the Conservative Party will be supporting this bill, supporting the premiers, supporting investment and supporting jobs with Bill C-49?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sure did enjoy our time together on the natural resources committee in my first term.

I spent a lot of time talking about Bill C-49. Aspects of this Bill C-49 are imported from bills such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-55. I talked about them to give context for policymakers, elected representatives in this debate and all Canadians.

I suspect the provinces of Nova Scotia and of Newfoundland and Labrador are supportive of the intent of this bill because they also want to have effective, efficient regulatory frameworks for both petroleum and alternative energy offshore development. A crucial thing that we support in this bill is that this does include the requirements of provincial ministers to be consulted in the case of any of the decision-making around development areas, regulations and the framework for development offshore.

Obviously, those provincial governments should be partners. I suspect that is why they support it. Of course, that does stand in contrast to the provincial governments the Liberals attack on energy when they disagree with them.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question is quite simple.

The bill we are looking at appears to continue the Liberal trend. In other words, it claims to promote renewable energy, but, in reality, it makes no changes to the status quo and continues to encourage the development of the oil industry.

We think that the government needs to start gradually reducing the size of that industry. My question is going to focus on two aspects.

First, does the member think we need to start taking action to slow the effects of climate change?

Second, during the study of this bill, is my colleague ready to start talking seriously about gradually, sensibly and intelligently reducing the size of the oil industry? Of course, the transition to renewable energy will include support for those who work in the oil industry.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, this the key philosophical dividing point between Conservatives and every other party in the House of Commons, which Canadians should know. Conservatives recognize the reality that multipronged, private sector energy companies are involved in the development of innovation and technology across the entire expanse of the different kinds of oil and gas production, as well as all kinds of different sources of energy production. Certainly in Alberta's case, that stands as an example with the oldest and largest-scale commercialized solar and wind farm. That has been going on for decades, funded mainly by oil sands and pipeline companies.

Here is where Conservatives stand: Global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for the foreseeable future. Conservatives believe that Canada should be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas products and technologies, which would help lower global emissions and are produced under the highest standards in the world. It is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have to allow for other questions.

Continuing with questions and comments is the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague. I love being on committee with her, and we have lots of great discussions.

I am really fascinated by my colleague's concern about driving investment out of Canada. Exhibit one is Danielle Smith. There is no place on the planet that has more opportunity for clean energy than Alberta, but it has a premier who believes that the world is 5,000 years old and that dinosaurs existed at the same time as Fred Flintstone. She has shut down huge opportunities in clean energy.

Alberta has lost 91 projects, worth $33 billion, at a time when the Biden administration is moving ahead with $110 billion in opportunities. We have huge opportunity in Alberta being shut down and driven out of the country by the bizarre talk of Danielle Smith.

Is my hon. colleague's leader willing to tie himself to Danielle Smith's stagecoach to nowhere, or will the Conservatives be willing to compete for clean energy in Alberta?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I too enjoy working with my colleague on the natural resources committee and have gotten to know him over the past couple of years. I also enjoy his CDs, even though we give each other the gears on a very regular basis because of our divergent world views.

Quite frankly, I am confused as to why the member does not see the wisdom in having a world-renowned renewable energy development jurisdiction, starting on the front end to implement clear requirements, clear conditions and clear accountability to Albertans through the entire process, as well as remediation and reclamation. This would help set attractive investment conditions for alternative energy development and build confidence among Albertans in the long term for the development of those projects. That is an important, responsible tactic that a provincial government must take. It should not be surprising since the province has always led in regulatory standards for all kinds of energy development.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Lakeland is probably the only one in the House who will not be surprised by what I am going to say, which is that Bill C-69 was not in the interests of environmental assessments in Canada. It was so poorly designed. It was all discretionary. There were no timelines.

The only thing that made environmentalists think it was a good bill was that Jason Kenney called it the anti-pipeline act. It could just as easily have been called the pro-pipeline act because it is discretionary and lacks the basics that have been in our environmental assessment law since the mid-1970s through to the early 1990s, when former prime minister Brian Mulroney brought forward a very good environmental assessment act.

My hon. colleague from Lakeland knows that we will disagree on the notion that we want to expand oil and gas demand across the world and that there is any such thing as responsible oil and gas. There are only fossil fuels, and burning them destroys our future.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do recall finding interesting points of agreement on Bill C-69 around the arbitrary, unilateral and unclear impacts of that bill, but as she noted, we had wildly diverging world views and aspirations for the energy sector in Canada.

Since we are debating this federally, let me just emphasize what Conservatives believe. We believe in lower taxes and less red tape, and the elimination of duplicative and onerous regulations so businesses can thrive. Conservatives want Canada to be the supplier of choice for our responsible oil and gas development, for our own energy affordability and security and for our allies.

As prime minister, our Conservative leader would green light green technologies so brilliant engineers can advance more affordable electricity. We would reduce approval timelines for all energy projects, and remove unnecessary, duplicative red tape and punishing taxes so that entrepreneurs and companies can invest in Canada and so that major energy and infrastructure projects can actually get built in this country. This is unlike the NDP-Liberals, who gatekeep, roadblock and make traditional energy more expensive while delaying and driving out new energy opportunities.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had to go back and reread what I heard because I am pretty sure I heard the member say that this Liberal government was interested in phasing out the oil and gas sector. Then she said the word “prematurely”. That would suggest to me that she agrees that the phase-out is inevitable or happening, and I just want clarification on that. Does she agree that this is inevitable, despite the fact that she might think it is premature?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is what has been wild about the Liberals over the past eight years: They have tried to speak out of all sides of their mouths. There are NDP and Green voters who fell for the Liberals' empty words on the environment in 2015, although I should not say they fell for it. In good faith, they trusted the Prime Minister and the government to keep their promises. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did point out the very reasonable concerns that those voters should have with the government.

The Liberal government tries to say it supports pipelines on the one hand, but it brings in anti-energy legislation on the other. It will block renewable energies just the same as traditional energies. The Canadian energy sector should be able to thrive long into the future so we can provide energy affordability, security and self-sufficiency, as well as offer emissions-reducing technologies and products to displace higher-emitting sources around the world.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in the House this morning because I am feeling confident. My party whip complimented me on my perfect hair before I rose to speak, so I am feeling really good about speaking to Bill C-49 this morning.

The Bloc Québécois will take a careful look at the principles of Bill C‑49. It goes without saying that we will want to examine this bill more closely in committee. However, before I get into the nitty-gritty of the bill, I want to mention a few problems that I noticed with it.

The first has to do with provincial jurisdictions. Personally, I would not want the federal government to have control over the management of Canada's natural resources. We know that natural resource management is a provincial responsibility. However, when we look carefully at this bill, we see that, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have agreed that offshore waters fall under federal jurisdiction. There is therefore no breach.

I think it is important to point that out, because the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill on environmental assessments that states that such assessments should fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that what happens within Quebec's borders should be specifically assessed by Quebec. That is one thing.

I do not think there is any dispute about areas of jurisdiction in this bill. That is also important because my riding is home to the Saguenay waterway, and the federal government published a study that said that traffic on the Saguenay waterway should be restricted. I did not want to end up in a situation where I had to defend something that would go against the legitimate right of Quebec and the provinces to have their jurisdictions respected.

Before moving on to Bill C-49 itself, I would like to go over the context. That is a bit like what the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources did earlier in his speech. He went over the context. This summer, we experienced the worst wildfires in the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and Abitibi regions. I have colleagues from Abitibi who were affected all summer by this awful situation. They had to support many people in their community.

Wildfires are a symptom of climate change. Droughts are getting longer and more intense and starting earlier. This makes forest conditions ripe for wildfires. To deny that would be heresy, in my view. I say this because I believe public decision-makers have a duty to act responsibly, particularly in the context of the climate crisis. That is the theme that the Bloc Québécois has adopted for this new parliamentary session.

What does acting responsibly in the context of the climate crisis mean? For one thing, it means listening to the science. If someone cannot listen to the science, then at the very least, they should not lie. Politicians should not lie to the population. The people of Alberta should not be led to believe that things can go on as before and that they can keep extracting oil from the oil sands forever. Albertans should not be lied to. Most importantly, Quebeckers should not be lied to.

There is a lie that is being perpetuated. I hear it here every day. It is about the infamous carbon tax. Let me repeat, there is no carbon tax that applies to Quebec. Quebec has its own carbon pricing. The only carbon tax applies to the rest of Canada, and what my Conservative colleagues are referring to is actually a fuel standard. The Conservatives themselves once tried to implement a similar clean fuel standard.

Going back to the context, it should be obvious that we are facing a climate crisis. That climate crisis must be addressed by respecting science and, above all, by not lying. I can promise you, Madam Speaker, that I will not lie.

To give a slightly more detailed picture of the current context, let me remind members how reliant Canada is on fossil fuels. For me, the first thing that comes to mind is that over $30 billion was spent on a pipeline. That is a lot. That is over $30 billion for a piece of infrastructure that will serve the greedy oil and gas industry. I will come back to that later.

Since 2015, I have often heard the Liberal government cite the fight against climate change as an excuse to spend billions of dollars of public money on the pipe dream of making oil sands development cleaner. The government hopes to extend the lifespan of the oil sands.

Now it is telling us that low-carbon oil is on the way. The government is sparing no effort to make it happen. I would simply remind my colleagues of the emissions reduction fund that was created during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was anything but what its name suggested. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that the fund had not reduced emissions after all. I would also refer my colleagues to the emissions reduction fund's $675‑million onshore program, especially with respect to the case at hand.

According to conservative figures from 2022, the federal government provided no less than $20 billion in support to the oil and gas sector, that is, the fossil fuel sector. Subsidies for bogus solutions are being perpetuated in the pursuit of the new fantasy of carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The most recent budget included tax credits for the production of blue hydrogen, which is hydrogen derived from natural gas with carbon sequestration. Several experts have indicated that it is unattainable in these volumes, and yet huge subsidies are still being paid out to the oil and gas sector.

Meanwhile, looking at 2022, since 2023 is not yet over, the figures show that the oil and gas sector posted record profits. In 2022, Exxon recorded record profits of $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion, TotalEnergies made $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion, and BP made $27 billion, for a total of $220 billion. Why am I sharing those figures? It is because it seems clear to me, and I think it is clear to all my colleagues, that when it comes to energy, Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and cannot escape the idea of it. No one seems capable of thinking outside the box.

Let us come back to Bill C‑49. I am not saying that the Bloc Québécois is not going to support this bill, but there is still a lot of work to be done. If the government wants to convince us of the merits of Bill C‑49, then it needs to demonstrate that the bill is truly for the benefit of the energy transition. Perhaps we will talk a bit later about the name of the bill we are trying to change. Slogans and changes to the names of organizations are not going to convince the public, who no longer trusts the government to fight climate change. The bill needs to set out a plan to gradually reduce offshore oil and gas production and set an end date to the issuing of permits for new drilling projects.

Generally speaking, if we go back to what is in Bill C‑49, we see that it aims to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. I understand that there are no contentious aspects from a jurisdictional management perspective, but I would say that even though the bill refers to future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely offshore wind energy off Canada's coasts, which is what I was saying to the minister this morning, the fact remains that the primary objective is oil and gas development, which our party has consistently denounced.

It is a bill that talks about clean energy, but what is hidden under this clean energy is still oil and gas development projects. It is not all doom and gloom, however. There are some interesting elements in this bill. However, many issues remain unresolved, particularly with respect to meeting conservation requirements for marine biodiversity, which we can see when we look at the part of the bill that deals the renewable energy development in eastern Canada. The same goes with respect to tightening the rules governing oil and gas development activities, although they should simply no longer exist.

I see that the stated purpose of offshore wind power development is to produce hydrogen for export. Is that an attempt to soften the current narrative around hydrogen? The fact remains that the Government of Canada's strategy on hydrogen is to produce gas-based hydrogen. At the end of the day, the amount that would be produced from wind power is negligible compared to the targeted production amounts for blue hydrogen.

I know that the minister does not like talking about colours when it comes to hydrogen. However, blue hydrogen requires a carbon capture technology that is not quite ready and the government is investing a lot of money in that.

My party and I believe that, in the context of the energy transition, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector should decline quickly. The non-renewable energy sector's decline may well be an area that requires further clarification in the bill.

We therefore do not think that any new offshore oil and gas export or development project should be permitted, regardless of the specific conditions associated with it. As a friendly reminder to my friends in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, the path that Quebec is currently taking could quite possibly start a trend in the maritime provinces and Canada. We all know that Quebec put a firm and definite stop to oil and gas exploration and development in its territory by passing an act ending exploration for petroleum and production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities.

Within the limits of its jurisdiction and in light of the current climate crisis, a responsible government could therefore decide to end oil and gas development. It has been done before. A nation did it before, and that nation was Quebec. The federal government followed our example on child care. I would urge it to do the same thing today on this file—and 20 years down the road maybe it could follow Quebec's example again, but on secularism. I digress. Still, Quebec deserves special mention as the first North American state to ban oil and gas exploration in its territory.

As we mentioned multiple times, the government of Canada has failed in its duty to protect ecosystems. Not a week, not even a day, goes by without my colleagues questioning the Minister of Environment about that. The minister did indeed fail in his duty: He authorized dozens of new drilling projects in environmentally sensitive areas, including marine refuges. We spoke out about this before the summer break.

Everybody knows as well as I do that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government supported the development of the offshore oil industry and authorized drilling projects in the very marine refuge it had created.

I want to talk about a double standard that I have seen emerging. There was a threat to the entire forestry sector in Quebec over the caribou issue. On numerous occasions, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that he was considering issuing a decree to ensure that caribou were better protected. At the same time, in those same weeks, he was prepared to approve offshore drilling.

That seems to me to be a double standard for two natural resource sectors. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, wildlife protection is not even on the government's radar. However, when it came to Quebec's forestry industry, the minister was ready to pounce, prepared to say he would issue a decree. In the end, the only thing that made him back down, strange as it may seem, was the forest fires. The double standards are pretty clear.

On this point, in the specific case of offshore development, the Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board was an independent body.

That is what was convenient for him, since it allowed him to justify his inaction, even though the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal government is responsible for conducting environmental impact assessments and protecting natural environments.

For years now, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been promoting the development and exploitation of marine oil and gas. Every year, the board issues a call for tenders and auctions off new exploratory drilling permits. Every year, our party speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change.

The boards and the Department of Natural Resources are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which is totally incongruous. I am sure everyone would agree that these are two contradictory goals. As indicated on the department's website, their role is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources. I hope that this problem will be corrected in this bill and that it will not prevent the development of renewable energy.

Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following. I have pointed out an inconsistency to my colleague the minister regarding the greenwashing in this bill. On reading this bill I wondered why they would add the expression “clean energy”. I asked the minister earlier which development this was referring to here. Of course there is going to be wind power projects, but the development at hand here is primarily oil and gas development. Why add the expression “clean energy”? The federal government uses that expression everywhere. Oil is not and never will be a clean energy. It is a purely Canadian fantasy.

My party—and I hope the same goes for the NDP and for all the other parties—is not fooled by the name changes in the two acts in question. To me, removing the word “petroleum” is greenwashing. They remove the word “petroleum” at the very moment that Ottawa and Newfoundland have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year, which would require 100 new drilling projects by 2030.

As we often say, the Liberals do not walk the talk. That much is obvious. If their goal is to have more clean energy projects, all I can say is that what the government is doing behind the scenes could not be further from that. By now, we are used to all this greenwashing language. The Prime Minister and his friend the Minister of Natural Resources have truly mastered that craft.

What I like about the Conservatives is that we know what to expect from them. They are proud, enthusiastic even, to act as lobbyists for the oil and gas sector.

In the Liberal ranks, however, under the guise of reducing the impact of the oil and gas sector's greenhouse gas emissions, they use other strategies: they want to produce net-zero oil using a bunch of new, extremely expensive technologies. Nevertheless, the goal remains the same: to support the oil and gas sector.

I will end on a positive note. This bill is not all bad. It contains elements to regulate the development of renewable energy, but those too will need to be looked at carefully in committee.

We also believe that environmental impact assessments should be the responsibility of independent public organizations whose mission does not include any other responsibilities or objectives. In that regard, we believe that the federal and provincial governments could be guided by Quebec's environmental legislation.

Finally, if the government wants the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C‑49, then it must show that this bill serves the energy transition.

On that point, I want to emphasize that it is futile for the government to argue that all the companies are doing is exploratory drilling because everyone knows that the purpose of such drilling is development. No company spends tens of millions of dollars to carry out exploratory drilling when they have no intention of developing the resources—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. He can continue his speech during questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech today and for his work on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I would also like to thank him for all the work he is doing on renewable energy. I would even go so far as to say that he is a clean energy champion in his riding and in Quebec.

At the start of his speech, he talked about provincial jurisdictions. We have worked and negotiated hard with Premier Houston of Nova Scotia and also with Premier Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, who support Bill C‑49.

We heard earlier that the Conservatives will not support the premiers. Further to the intervention by my Bloc Québécois colleague, I would like to know if his party will support Bill C‑49 because the premiers of both provinces support it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, respect for jurisdictions may not actually be an issue here. Given that the provincial premiers were willing parties to those discussions, I do not see this as an issue.

While I do want everyone to bear in mind that natural resource development is under provincial jurisdiction, that is not an obstacle in this case.

I would not say that the Bloc Québécois will never support this bill, but the reason we have trouble supporting it is that I get the sense that, once again, some people are trying to promote oil and gas development. They label it “clean energy”. In this particular case, the end goal is to promote the oil sector.

The thing is, the goal should actually be to cut back on development. That is the problem with Bill C‑49.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused, and maybe my hon. colleague can help me understand. It takes 80 gallons of oil to lubricate one windmill, and he spoke about the wind turbine. There are 2,212 turbines in Quebec, which require 176,960 gallons of oil. This report came in August 14 of this year from Radio Canada.

The thing that I am trying to understand is that if we are worried about the environment and we want to be environmentally friendly, what happens to those windmills? Their lifespan is 20 years, and they are not recyclable. Could he explain that to me?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in discussions about the oil and gas sector and the fact that we have to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, I always get a laugh out of Conservative members who talk about clean energy sources that rely on petroleum products.

I just want to point out that oil sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world. When we invest energy and money in those resources, which are used by Albertans and all Canadians, we cannot invest those resources in renewable energy.

We have to stop clinging to the illusion of clean oil and liberate ourselves from oil and gas. That is what every country wants to do. We have to stop talking about things that are not backed up by science and making up facts such as, say, there is a carbon tax in Quebec. That is not true; it is a lie.

Politicians who say things like that discredit themselves.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret to anyone that we are in a very serious climate emergency, and I am sure people across Canada sent thoughts and prayers to Atlantic Canadians as they experienced some of the worst environmental crises and damage as a result of the climate crisis. While all of this has gone on, although we see a bill today, the Liberals have sat on their hands while the country burns and we see record floods, and the Conservatives have not been willing to move toward a real and aggressive plan for renewable energies.

I am wondering if my colleague agrees with me that the Liberal government needs to act more quickly if we are going to tackle this climate crisis head-on.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

I would point out to my colleague that, in fact, the NDP has the ability to force the government to act quickly given the agreement it has with the Liberal government. I very much welcome the possibility of the NDP using the same proposal as the Bloc Québécois. In order to support this bill, we need to see a plan to gradually reduce fossil fuel production. It would be great to see an amendment along those lines. The NDP could support it and use its agreement with the government to push this idea of reducing our dependence on oil and, more importantly, reducing the horrific pressure we are all experiencing as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I completely agree with my colleague. I invite her to take action and move in that direction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start with a brief comment on breaking news. I know that many people are horrified and have been contacting me about the aggression we are seeing by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh. It appears it is launching an aggressive war of choice, calling it a “military operation” and taking a page out of Russia's playbook in the process. I hope Canada takes a firm stand for peace by opposing this aggression.

I want to follow up on a comment my colleague made about how allegedly we are trapped by oil. I, of course, reject that framing. I want to point out that his province, Quebec, receives transfer payments that are funded by energy production. I wonder if he wants to tell us how he feels about that and address whether Quebec should maybe reject transfer payments that owe their origin to the production of oil and gas.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I love that question; it comes up a lot.

I would simply point out to my colleague that more than $30 billion, some of it from Quebec, has been poured into infrastructure that Quebeckers will never use. In 2022, if I am not mistaken, the oil and gas industry received $20 billion from the federal government for a sector of activity that will never serve Quebec. The balance of trade between Quebec and Alberta equals a loss of approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. Just send it back to us; that would make us very happy. Once we finish with the electrification of transportation, we would be quite happy to get that money back.

Equalization gets blamed for a lot of things. Once we are sovereign, we will be even better off.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C‑49.

Staying on the topic of forest fires, I would like to point out that the northern area of my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, lost 3.6 million hectares to the fires. Until now, the impact of climate change has been constant. The forest fires caused us tremendous economic, social and workforce losses. For an idea of the scope of the fires and the losses they caused us, members should keep in mind that my riding is three times the size of France.

Can my colleague tell us whether this bill will reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment or reduce greenhouse gases from oil and gas?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work done by my colleague this summer to support her constituents in the wake of the forest fires.

I will reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. A number of stakeholders have said this summer that what we are experiencing is a symptom of climate change. It is happening right now. A number of stakeholders have told us that the effects of climate change will begin in the summer of 2023.

I cannot fathom how anyone can keep saying that they want more oil, and that anything that works against the oil and gas sector should be considered an obstacle. That is what the Conservatives do every day when they talk about the carbon tax. They are trying to tie the challenges facing the poorest people when it comes to paying for housing, clothing and food with what the Conservatives see as a disadvantage for the oil and gas sector.

The greedy oil and gas companies made $220 billion last year. The Conservative Party is defending them on the pretext that this will help ordinary people who are having a hard time putting a roof over their heads and food on the table. I have never heard such deep-seated populist rhetoric in my life. Anyone who looks back on this in a decade or so will likely blush.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly proud to rise on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. It would make sure that we can finally embed the issue of getting renewables in wind energy development off of the east coast of Canada.

I want to begin by saying that I extend my deepest concern in solidarity with the people of Atlantic Canada, who have just come through the devastation of hurricane Lee. I was supposed to be in Lunenburg this past weekend. It was the second year in a row that I had attempted to be at the Lunenburg writers festival, both years with planes booked and hotels all set. Last year it was the devastation of hurricane Fiona that shut down the writers festival, with a cost of $800 million in damages for the people of the region. I was invited to come again this year, and then we had hurricane Lee.

What we are seeing is the climate crisis up close. It used to be that hurricanes were spread out over many, many years. Now we are starting to see them regularly, and they are moving further north as we are seeing an increasingly destabilized climate.

This past summer, 200,000 Canadians were displaced by climate catastrophe. Some communities were almost lost, from Kelowna to Yellowknife to Halifax to my region of Kashechewan and Fort Albany in the James Bay subarctic. Fires in the subarctic of James Bay are almost unheard of. As we were scrambling to try to get Hercules aircraft up to get people out of the fire zones, people had to put their families in canoes to stay ahead of the fire. All through this time, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party was running his tour to make pollution free across Canada. In fact, he had to cancel a number of his events because people were being chased out by the toxic fumes of a climate catastrophe.

How do the fires in James Bay, what we just saw in the Arctic and the almost toxic levels of air quality we have seen for the last number of weeks in Edmonton tie into the crisis being faced in Atlantic Canada? The scientists who are monitoring the collapse of the Greenland ice shelves have noticed a very disturbing trend. Soot from fires that is landing on the ice shelves draws heat because it is dark, and ice normally is reflective of the sun. However, the more soot that falls on the Greenland ice shelves, the quicker the disintegration of those ice shelves has become. That is causing increasingly destabilized waters in the Atlantic.

When 14 million hectares of Canadian forest burn in a single summer, we can see that we are at an environmental tipping point. It needs to be said clearly and simply that the cause of this collapse is the burning of fossil fuels. The oil industry bears responsibility. It knows that and it has known that for decades.

In the early 1980s, Exxon produced some of the best scientific evidence showing that a climate catastrophe would unfold if the diminution of the use of fossil fuels was not implemented immediately. In fact, in 1982, we had a memo from Exxon Mobil warning that if steps were not taken, the damage would not be reversible. Unfortunately, this is what our country and our planet are living through now. Exxon and the other oil players decided to suppress evidence and in fact spent millions on a disinformation campaign falsifying what was very straightforward science saying that the more carbon that is put into the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped, and the more heat that is trapped, the more the temperature changes and the more the planet destabilizes.

It is therefore really important that we address this crisis straight on. We have to address it with a sense of urgency. There is an urgent need for the government to start moving quickly on addressing this. There is a need to urgently hold the big oil companies to account.

We know that this past summer, Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, said the only urgency facing his company was to make as much money as possible. This is at a time when it is making record profits, yet he sees the urgency of burning more of our planet quicker in order to pay shareholders, most of whom live offshore.

However, there is an impact to that that is not just about this year, next year or 10 years from now. Scientist David Archer states, “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge...longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.” That is the cavalier attitude of those who are promoting the expansion of big oil to not just the world we have today, but the world that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will have to live with. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

I will refer to last week's really interesting report by the International Energy Agency, hardly a left-wing think tank, that warned we are at “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”. It says that since the war in Ukraine, there has been a massive push in Europe to increase clean energy so that they get off Russian oil and gas. The Biden administration's IRA has launched a huge clean energy transformation, something that is not being picked up in Canada. In fact, Danielle Smith has just spiked investments by $33 billion and has shut down numerous projects out of the ideology she has that clean energy is somehow a threat to oil and gas in Alberta, even though thousands of jobs would be created. In fact, Calgary Economic Development says Alberta alone stands to gain 170,000 jobs from clean energy development. Unfortunately, we have a premier who believes the world is flat. It is not flat; it is burning.

To the International Energy Agency's comment that “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era” is here, Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency says, “We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era and we have to prepare ourselves for the next era.” I am hoping that this legislation to update the accords with Atlantic Canada to increase offshore oil will be part of that process. Birol says, “Oil and gas companies may not only be misjudging public opinion...they may well be misjudging the market if they expect further growth of oil and gas demand across this decade. New large-scale fossil fuel projects carry not only major climate risks but major financial risks.”

Canada as a petrostate needs to get very serious very quickly about the diversification of energy, not just to deal with the fact that our northern boreal forest is on fire and our communities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are facing more and more climate urgency, but to deal with the fact that our economy needs to shift so that we do not lose the competitive advantage. It is a competitive advantage that is being taken very much by our colleagues and neighbours in the United States.

Why is it urgent to move on Bill C-49? Until now, the Liberal government has talked a good game on the climate crisis, but it has not really delivered. It made numerous promises in the fall economic statement and in the budget about clean energy tax credits, but those clean energy tax credits have to come into force very quickly. Again, as we have seen in the United States, there are huge opportunities and huge investments are being made.

As McCarthy Tétrault notes:

Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic Accord Acts by notably establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces and their offshore areas. Bill C-49 also expands regulation of current petroleum projects and clarifies jurisdictional rules regarding domestic and internal sea boundaries.

As this also includes petroleum, we have to get a really clear sense as New Democrats of how much the government is going to hold petroleum exploration to account. As the International Energy Agency says, we cannot allow more development of the energy that is burning our planet. The Liberals will have to be clear with us on this.

We really need to catch up with the United States. My colleagues in the Conservative Party seem to think that clean energy projects are some kind of ridiculous, outrageous attack on the 20th century, where they are very comfortable living. We have seen the Conservatives' attack on the investments in the battery plants being put in the auto sector, while huge amounts of investment are happening in the United States. We see their attacks on wind energy, relentless attacks, as though it is some kind of threat, particularly the members coming from Alberta, where we have 170,000 abandoned wells spewing toxic stuff all over farmlands.

Look at what is happening in the United States off the Atlantic coast right now. One wind farm off Rhode Island is going to create energy for 250,000 homes. There are 27 major projects on track to be completed by 2025 in the United States on the east coast. The Vineyard Wind project will create power for 400,000 homes. Canada is no where near this.

The Maritimes, with its huge energy costs, has an opportunity to step up right now, create thousands of jobs and dramatically lower the energy costs people face. This is why we need to move quickly on this.

The other huge opportunity we have is hydrogen, and getting a strong hydrogen economy off the ground is essential.

This past November, I was in Berlin. We had excellent meetings with various ministers. I met with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The question the Germans asked of us was whether we could deliver them a hydrogen economy. That is what they were interested in from Canada.

My Conservative colleagues have always gone on about how Canada should be selling its LNG to Germany and Europe. They said to us very clearly that they were not interested in Canadian LNG, because by the time we could actually build a pipeline, they would be off that energy. They wanted a hydrogen economy. However, hydrogen is something the Conservatives do not believe in because it does not burn the planet. They think it is some kind of threat.

The Germans are a major industrial economy. They want to know if Canada will partner. When I met with Chancellor Scholz, I told him about the huge potential for hydrogen in Alberta. Now that we have Danielle Smith and her stagecoach to nowhere sitting out on the dead prairie grass, the Germans will not be going to Alberta if she does not get her act together. However, they will go to Atlantic Canada, and Atlantic Canada has a huge opportunity right now.

In Alberta, we saw $33 billion in clean energy projects spiked out of ideology. Again, this is because the Conservatives believe the world is flat.

Let us compare this to the Calgary economic development study that predicted 170,000 jobs in Alberta alone from a clean energy economy. I meet with Alberta energy workers all the time. Those workers want a clean energy economy. They know what is happening in big oil.

Big oil has fired 50,000 people in the oil patch in the last 10 years. Suncor got rid of 1,500 jobs this year alone. Rich Kruger is bragging he is going after work; they are moving toward automation. There is nothing in this for workers, but where the opportunities are going to be is in clean energy. We need to move beyond ideology. We need to address the economic issues and opportunities, because this investment is going stateside in a big way.

I talk with people in energy and mining sector all the time. They are saying that they we need to get a tax credit program up quickly, that the Americans are moving forward on that. How fast are the Americans moving? Since Biden moved forward on a clean energy vision, there has been $240 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investment in the United States. The private sector in the United States has over $110 billion in the clean energy manufacturing investments, $70 billion in electric vehicle supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing.

Let us just talk about the electric vehicle supply chain for a moment. The Conservatives have been regularly attacking EV investments to keep our auto sector competitive. If we do not play in this field, it goes stateside, and the states are very willing to get this. It will have a huge impact in regions like mine, which is based on mining. They are looking at the opportunities of the base metal and clean energy critical minerals supply chain in which Canada could be a leader. We can do this, but we need to move quickly. We need to get the regulations in place to make these things happen. These are huge projects.

In Scotland, where North Sea oil is continuing to diminish, the huge offshore wind projects in Aberdeen have been transformative. We have not seen that in Canada. Therefore, we need to move on that.

As for what we see in the United States on the Inflation Reduction Act, it is expected that there will be 1.5 million additional jobs over the next decade based on clean-energy jobs. That is a huge transformation. However, here is the other element that is really fascinating. When the Biden plan came into place, there were a lot of skeptics. It was hard to tell whether this would work or not, but he brought a whole-of-government approach, something that the Liberal government has not done. At every level, the U.S. is focused on making this happen. They are saying now that with the Biden investments, the clean-energy takeoff that has happened, they are going to see 50% to 52% below current emissions by 2030.

The environment commissioner says that the Liberal government's promises to get to 40% below is still very much pie in the sky, very unrealistic, because the Liberals have missed every single climate target they have made. This is a problem with the Prime Minister going to COP26, standing on the world stage and making big, bold pronouncements, but not actually having done the work.

For example, when he announced the emissions cap, the Liberals did not talk to anybody here about what that emissions cap would look like. They went to COP26, made an announcement of an emissions cap and then did not follow through. The Liberals are going to have to follow through on the emissions cap now, because what we are seeing from the walk-away of the big oil companies in the Pathways Alliance is the lack of investment in clean tech, the fact that Suncor has walked away and divested itself through its clean energy projects and that it wants to vastly increase oil and gas production. The emissions cap has to happen and the government needs to get serious about this.

There is another interesting element for why we need to ensure that we get these regulations and tax credits and update our act so we can actually compete with the United States. In the United States, American families are projected to save between $27 billion to $38 billion on their electricity bills from 2022 to 2030 relative to a scenario if they did not have that act. The other thing we have learned about clean energy is that it is much cheaper to produce than gas or oil right now. That is why we are seeing this movement, where the International Energy Agency says that we have reached the economic tipping point. Is Canada going to continue to live in the 20th century or is it going to embrace the realities and the crises of the 21st century, not only the realities of a burning planet and destabilized weather systems that we have to address but also the opportunities to dramatically decarbonize?

The other element we need to really focus on is who is going to pay the cost for the huge damages that are being done to our planet right now, the billions in damages to communities and provinces from these unprecedented wildfires. We were so lucky and thankful that we did not lose communities this summer. We have seen a lot of damage, but we realize that we do not have the capacity anymore to deal with the kinds of fires we are seeing that easily could have taken out Kelowna, Yellowknife and communities in my region. We have to start addressing fires in a new and different way.

Growing up in northern Ontario, firefighting in the summer was a summer job before going to college or coming home from college. We need to talk at the national level. My colleague from the Kootenays has put forward a vision of the need to have a national program, but also who will fund this.

We see that Suncor made $70 billion in profits in two years. Those profits should be put into a fund for the damages that are caused by Suncor's actions. Who takes the risk when fossil fuels are burned? Ordinary Canadians and citizens around the world. If the shareholders are to make a profit, the people who really have a stake in this crisis should be able to get some recompense.

The New Democrats will be supporting this bill. We have a number of questions we want clarified at committee, and we will be more than willing to work to make this happen. We need to move quickly and decisively in the face climate crisis, but also for the opportunities we see.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given that the anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-resource development costly coalition of the left continues to mis-characterize the position of the Conservatives, let me just say this again. We support innovation and the development of new energy sources, which obviously help diversify Canada's energy mix and create new opportunities and reduce emissions globally.

Here is a crucial point, and it is relevant to the member's comments. The Conservatives want to attract private sector investment that will spur the development and the affordable and feasible adoption of alternative energy and the fuels of the future, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook or losing innovation and investment in the valley of death between invention and commercialization in Canada. It makes no difference and it is not in good faith to tell Canadians a bunch of things that are not possible.

The Conservatives recognize this reality. Oil and gas remains the top private sector investor in the Canadian economy, Canada's top export. It also counts for 75% of private sector investment in clean tech. That is why the Conservatives take an approach of the development and advancement of all kinds of energy, because all of this innovation technology fits together.

Given all of the concerns that the member has raised, since he seems more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable instead of the Prime Minister, could he just explain how he rationalizes being the power broking prop-up to the federal Liberal government despite all his complaints and crises about which he is apparently outraged?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue about private sector investment was very clearly stated. How are we going to have private sector investment in the clean tech economy when we have someone like Danielle Smith, who is part and parcel of the Conservative movement that is over there, shutting down clean energy and telling them to go to the United States?

How can the Conservatives believe that they can talk about private sector development when they are shunting billions of dollars of investment to the United States because of the ideology that if it does not burn the planet, it is not good for us?

That is a false view and we have to challenge it. Private sector investment will only come if we have the regulations and the support in place for a clean energy economy.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed some of the exchanges that I have heard from Conservatives in the last half hour.

The previous MP to speak specifically talked about the Conservatives being willing and open and saw the need for change and transition, and for growing out all sectors of the energy opportunities in Canada. However, moments before that, the member for King—Vaughan stood up and complained that it took 80 gallons of oil to lubricate a single windmill.

The red herrings that those members seem to throw up in the air, as if that is going to suddenly justify stopping all investment in renewable energy, seem to be countless.

Could the member for Timmins—James Bay comment on the hypocrisy we seem to hear from Conservatives from time to time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that there are huge opportunities. It is like my colleagues over there are defiantly against the cellphone because they believe the typewriter is going to come back. The difference is that the typewriter is not killing the planet; big oil is. They can pound on their typewriters all they want and scream at the moon. The reality is that when we meet with energy workers in Alberta, which I do all the time, they say that they get it, that they want investment, that wind power needs metals like aluminum. It actually creates jobs in the value chain.

The Conservatives are out to ridicule and undermine the creation of one of Canada's main industries, which is auto. They do not want a proper EV battery operation to get off the ground. They want us stuck in the 20th century. They want us to think the world is flat. They want us to think that vaccines do not work. Meanwhile, the planet is burning.

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

Mr. Speaker, moving toward renewable energies is a path forward that we must consider. However, we must also think about workers' rights. Sometimes the devil is in the details.

Subsection 25(4.2) on page 16 stipulates that any person employed by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is not subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Does my colleague agree with that? Is this something we should amend, or at least clarify? Why should these workers not be protected by the Canada Labour Code?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We need to make sure that, whenever we go forward on anything with respect to clean energy, the rights of workers are protected and they are fully covered. We will certainly be looking at that.

We spoke with the Liberals again and again about how the clean energy tax credits have to be tied to apprenticeships and standard wage rates, so we are not creating McJobs but actually creating well-paying union jobs. That is Biden's commitment in the United States and needs to be the commitment here, and we will continue to push. I am certainly willing to work with the Bloc on this to make sure that it is clarified in the legislation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, this summer we saw the ravages of the impacts of climate change. They were quite devastating, not just in Canada but all over the world. This means that we need to start acting now; I think this is why the NDP supports Bill C-49.

It is not that we are propping up the Liberal government on this bill; rather, we have our own sets of priorities, such as combatting the climate crisis. Could the member comment on this and clearly describe why we support Bill C-49?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are at an unprecedented moment in our history as a people. The decisions we make now will affect one, two, seven or 10 generations ahead. We cannot be cavalier about this and engage in petty politics. We need to ask what we can do to make a difference. We have to do that. We have to take seriously the fact that the planet is on fire and that fire is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The most vulnerable regions on the planet are the ones taking the biggest hit, whether it be in the South Pacific or even in the region my colleague represents. Those communities did not cause this problem, but they are living with the consequences and looking to us to make a difference.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take this member seriously. In one breath he says that we should not engage in petty politics; in another, he says that people who disagree with him are flat-earthers.

Listening to this member speak, it is also clear that he is more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable than in holding the Prime Minister of Canada accountable in this chamber. That is because New Democrats have negotiated a deal with the Liberals whereby they vote for every single significant proposal the Liberals put forward but still want to be able to criticize them for electoral reasons. However, they are here every time, voting with and supporting the agenda of the government.

I can say that these policies are not popular in the member's home riding, which is why our leader has been so warmly received in his riding. Maybe the member is preparing for a political future where he will run for the legislature in Alberta. I would certainly welcome him to come to my constituency and do that. However, he is also very clearly misstating the Conservative position. Our position is that the red tape the Liberals are constantly piling on industry is as much a problem for green energy as it is for traditional sources of energy. Moreover, the Liberals are not helping any aspect of our economy with such measures as Bill C-69, which make it harder for any industry to create projects and jobs. The real problem is gatekeeping across the board, including the way it negatively impacts the green energy sector.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about cutting red tape. However, the Conservatives are going to lose their minds over that because it is about creating clean energy opportunities, which they have spoken out against continually. They may not want to admit it, but those are the facts. Therefore, when I say “flat earth”, as Bob Marley would say, if the cap fits, let them wear it.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the excellent member for Kings—Hants this morning.

At two in the morning on July 22 of this year, Tera Sisco heard an emergency alert on the first responder scanner at her workplace. A flash flood was barrelling through Brooklyn, Nova Scotia, where Chris Sisco and Chris and Tera's six-year-old son were sleeping. Worried, she called Chris, who woke to find the apartment filling with water. He told Tera they were going to get in their Ford F-550 and evacuate.

Chris and their son, along with neighbours Nick and Courtney Harnish and their two children, got into the massive truck. However, even at four tonnes, it was no match for the flood’s current; soon the truck was drifting away, filling with water and sinking. The next update Tera received came over the scanner once again: word that there was a child in the water.

On July 21 and 22, thunderstorms dumped 250 millimetres, or 10 inches, of rain on Nova Scotia. It was the heaviest rainfall in 50 years, amounting to three months' worth of typical rainfall in just 24 hours. Tragically, four Nova Scotians died in those floods, including the two children in that Ford F-550: Colton Sisco and Natalie Harnish, both six years old.

Nick Holland, 52, and Terri-Lynn Keddy, 14, also perished. I know that all members in this House join me in mourning this terrible loss and extending our condolences to their families and loved ones, whose grief must be simply unimaginable.

In an interview with the Canadian Press not long after burying her six-year-old son, Tera Sisco recounted to reporter Michael Tutton the story I just shared. I would like to read a quote from Tera in that piece. She said, “Governments aren’t moving quickly enough to prepare for climate change, and Canadians are now seeing avoidable climate disaster deaths”. She continued, “These climate events are historic, and my little boy is part of that history now.” I hope her words are heard loud and clear here in this chamber.

This year, Atlantic Canada has seen the devastating impact of unrelenting climate disasters. A year ago this week, hurricane Fiona, the strongest storm in Canadian history, swept through Atlantic Canada. In just one small community alone, Port aux Basques, 20 homes were destroyed, displacing 200 people. A Nova Scotian, a Prince Edward Islander and a Newfoundlander died in that hurricane.

This past summer, wildfires raged through the Halifax area, destroying 150 homes and causing 16,000 Haligonians to evacuate. Many were without a home to return to after the fires. I am sharing these stories to illustrate the human impacts of climate change. The climate crisis is here. It is ravaging communities in each of our ridings, and it is getting worse by the month and by the year.

Canadians are looking to us to act and to protect them from the most devastating impacts of extreme weather events caused by climate change. We have an immediate responsibility to adapt our infrastructure to this new reality, especially in coastal communities such as those in Atlantic Canada, and to mitigate the worst, most unbearable impacts of climate change caused by fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions.

Of course, there is no mystery as to why these disasters are happening. We have known for decades that climate change is caused by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that the only way to mitigate climate change is to stop releasing greenhouse gases by transitioning to cleaner, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, tidal, green hydrogen and others.

In Nova Scotia, we are particularly vulnerable to unmitigated climate change. We have 7,400 kilometres of coastline, and we are surrounded almost entirely by water. We have the Atlantic Ocean to the east, the Gulf of Maine to the south, the Bay of Fundy to the west, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the north.

In fact, we are connected to the rest of Canada only by a 21-kilometre-wide land bridge known as the Chignecto Isthmus, which is mostly a marshland that is barely above sea level. It is extraordinarily vulnerable to sea level rise, storm surge and hurricane damage and becomes more vulnerable every year.

While our identity and our livelihoods have been sustained for generations by our proximity to the sea, the sea has increasingly become a threat because of extreme weather events and sea level rise caused by climate change. However, here is the thing: Our proximity to the ocean also grants us a fighting chance to protect ourselves and future generations from the very worst effects of climate change, and that is the immense potential of offshore renewable energy.

This is the context in which the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources introduced Bill C-49 in the House today. Bill C-49 proposes to amend the mandates of the historic Atlantic accords in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador to accelerate offshore wind development off of Atlantic Canada's east coast. Since the Atlantic accords were signed in the mid-1980s, they have become vitally important for the economic prosperity of our two provinces. Moreover, they have provided a framework between Canada and Nova Scotia and between Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador that has allowed each province to receive a significant share of revenues generated from offshore oil production.

However, times are changing. As we make our necessary transition from oil to a low-carbon future, and in order to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, Canada and the world are looking for new forms of renewable energy. Therefore, for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to continue to benefit from the Atlantic accords in this new context, the Atlantic accords, too, must change and evolve. This change is good and necessary. It has been a long time coming, and it brings with it an incredible opportunity for our region and for our people.

Bill C-49 would expand the mandates of offshore boards that, today, regulate offshore oil and gas projects to now include the regulation of offshore renewable energy, for example, wind. We do this because, for major offshore projects to proceed, the government must provide a stable, predictable and credible legislative framework and regulatory regime. This is exactly what we are doing in Bill C-49. In introducing these amendments, we are unlocking the enormous potential of offshore renewable energy development for generations to come. As has been expressed by Canada's industry association, Marine Renewables, in its support for this bill, we are building an industry that reflects Canada's values and builds a sustainable blue economy.

Last year, my province of Nova Scotia established an offshore wind target. Seabed leases will produce up to five gigawatts of offshore energy by 2030. This was an incredibly exciting move that garnered a great deal of excitement from the renewable-energy industry around the world. Bill C-49, as we have heard, is supported by our provincial partners in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the obvious next step in ensuring that we meet that opportunity.

Let us be specific about what that opportunity is. It is a trillion dollars. That is the potential economic opportunity of offshore wind globally. We should make no mistake: Atlantic Canada is in that global race. Europe is already knocking at our door for clean energy options. The changes in Bill C-49 would allow us to create further products, such as green hydrogen. We can then ship them to our European allies, such as Germany. The German chancellor came to Newfoundland last summer to show his country's interest in Atlantic Canada's clean energy potential. Chancellor Scholz is not alone. When I recently met with Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, Yulia Kovaliv, the first thing she wanted to talk about was how soon we can start exporting green hydrogen from Nova Scotia to Europe to get off of Putin's gas.

Let us not forget the immense private sector interest in cleaner forms of energy development. Officials at the Port of Halifax are in advanced talks about decarbonizing their port. I have been involved in many conversations with offshore shipping organizations to figure out how to decarbonize the marine transportation sector as well.

This kind of job creation is exactly what we mean when we talk about the sustainable jobs of tomorrow. These renewable energy projects are creating well-paying jobs for generations of Canadians to come. I mentioned earlier that our proximity to the ocean has shaped who we are as Atlantic Canadians and provided a livelihood to communities along our coastline. Bill C-49, by unlocking the promise of offshore wind energy, would provide a limitless new opportunity for Atlantic Canadian workers to earn a livelihood and to grow our regional economy, all while providing us with a fighting chance against the threat of unmitigated climate change.

If this bill does not pass, offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada will be stalled for years to come. Therefore, to the official opposition's energy critic, who signalled earlier in this debate that she is not supportive of this bill, I will say this: She and Premier Smith can own the stalled emissions reductions, the ecological devastation, the human impact and the unrealized job creation that comes with cancelling renewable energy projects in Alberta. However, she may want to chat with Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative premier, Tim Houston, who is in full support of Bill C-49 and wants it passed as quickly as possible.

This government is unswerving in the fight against climate change, and we stand with the offshore renewables industry in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. For our workers, our communities and our future, I urge all members to support this historic bill.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like to get clarification on. The member talked at great length about the importance of renewable energy, wind and presumably tidal as well, and I agree with him, but the problem is that there was recently a tidal project in Nova Scotia that was basically roadblocked and gatekept by federal bureaucrats. Sustainable Marine Energy had to pull out of its project because of these roadblocks.

How can Canadians take the member's government seriously when a simple project like that is blocked by the federal government?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, everyone was disappointed by that project's cancellation, but it is emblematic of the fact that we are living in a changing world. Governments of all orders, municipal, provincial and federal, are being called upon to regulate, for economic, for human health and for environmental reasons, brand new technologies that have never had to be regulated before. We are learning quickly with this. Bill C-49 is exactly what this is about. We are modifying an existing framework for oil to make it function even better for offshore renewables, and I look forward to working with the member on making this bill a reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about offshore wind power. I saw a project like that in Denmark that seemed interesting.

I just want to make sure that none of these wind development projects will be built in an at-risk or protected marine area and no protected marine area will see its boundaries moved to the benefit of entrepreneurs or investors.

Can my colleague give me assurances on that?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her good question.

Bill C-49 is about making sure that offshore energy projects can proceed in a way that causes no harm ecologically, culturally or any other way. The important thing is that we are able to approve these projects quickly in a way that is respectful of all points of view and all perspectives. By working with industry we have landed on the current contents of the bill; by working with stakeholders we have landed on the current contents of the bill, and we believe it is the path forward.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as indicated by many in this House, we are faced with a climate crisis. In my community in British Columbia we are seeing forest fires. We are seeing catastrophe happening right before our eyes. We know that this has impacted the Atlantic provinces as well, so we are not spared, and this is the reality we are faced with.

One of the questions I keep on wondering about is in terms of the action from the government. For the workers who are in the energy sector, the assurance that needs to be given to them is a pathway to an alternative energy and to different infrastructure building. Will the government support a jobs guarantee for the workers in the energy sector and in other energy infrastructure development in Canada?

That way, we could transition people smoothly into the sector and ensure that the good-paying union jobs are secured for them and their families.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's interest in making sure that our highly talented and skilled workforce of today can transition and be just as productive in the low-carbon economy of tomorrow. The process of re-skilling and upskilling these already extremely talented people from across the country is one that the government is focused on. The offshore renewables sector alone, never mind all the other renewable energy frontiers we are working on, will require an unimaginable number of workers. There will be jobs for all who are interested in all manner of turbines. I will not go into all the details, but there are a great many jobs that will be available, and we will work together in this House to make sure that those jobs are transitioned.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today with my colleagues to speak on Bill C-49, which is a piece of legislation to amend the Atlantic accords, which are between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. This is a crucial piece of legislation that matters in the global race toward net zero.

I want to say to my colleagues that we are in a perfect position as a country. Canada is in the driver's seat to make sure we can be part of that global solution, but this legislation is a requirement to do just that.

The agreement that was signed for the first time by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1985 and the one signed by the Government of Nova Scotia in 2005 demonstrate the importance of the work that has been done to promote regional fairness in Atlantic Canada. This guarantees fairness in the allocation of oil and gas resources within the federation for the benefit of our provinces.

The oil and gas industry still plays an important role in Newfoundland and Labrador today, and by amending the agreements, we are paving the way for a better way of governing, managing and, ultimately, profiting from offshore wind energy.

Offshore wind energy benefits Canada in many ways. This is a critical opportunity in our fight against climate change. The science is clear in this regard. Canada must work on reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. Projects on the Atlantic coast can help to do that by harnessing the wind for the benefit of all.

That power can not only help Canada decarbonize its current electricity grid but ensure that we have excess power supply, not only for our own province of Nova Scotia but indeed for all of Canada in the days ahead. I will have more to say on that in a moment, but beyond the domestic focus, this is a tremendous opportunity, and an enormous opportunity for exports of green hydrogen transported as ammonia to fuel industrial uses around the world.

My hon. colleague from Halifax talks about the German chancellor who was in Newfoundland and Labrador last summer. Whether it is Europe, whether it is countries like Germany, but all around the world green hydrogen is the pathway for our industrial future. We have that opportunity right here in Canada, and this legislation would help to enable Canada's offshore sector to play a crucial role in doing just that.

I want to talk about some of the projects so that people can actually conceptualize what we are talking about. In our home province, there is EverWind, led by CEO Trent Vichie, and it has indigenous partners. As an Atlantic caucus, we had the opportunity to talk to Chief Terry Paul of Membertou, a partner on this project, which is driving tremendous benefit. First, of course, is onshore production of wind, which will play into a green hydrogen strategy. However, part 3 of that plan is to go offshore and leverage the tremendous opportunities we have in Nova Scotia to help fuel the world.

I want to talk about foreign direct investment. As I am part of the Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association, I was sitting in on a meeting when Minister Rutley was there, and I was talking about the fact that other jurisdictions around the world have already moved in this direction. If we look at the United Kingdom and Europe, they have tremendous expertise, and their ability to invest alongside Canadian firms and Canadian expertise is significant. This represents a significant opportunity for foreign direct investment across the country and particularly in our Atlantic region, which is extremely important.

Last, I want to tell a story about jobs and opportunities. Not too long ago I came out of high school, in 2009, at Hants East Rural High. I am proud to say that I am an alumni there. However, at that time, graduates of my ilk were going to western Canada, which was where the opportunities were. I want to articulate that there are still great opportunities in western Canada, but I am proud to say that now there are more opportunities in our home provinces of Atlantic Canada where young people can make a future. I give credit for that, in part, to this government and the investment and focus it has had on Atlantic Canada.

Now, people graduating from high school in Nova Scotia can look west, they can look east and they can stay where they are at. There are opportunities at home to build a future. This legislation builds on that, and we need to be able to move quickly.

The other thing we need to understand is that this legislation is straightforward. I heard the Conservative critic, earlier in the debate, talking about the variety of questions that she has. When I look at this legislation, it is straightforward. It is amending the accords to create the former Nova Scotia offshore petroleum board to actually regulate, to be the regulator of these projects, to extend that.

Mr. Speaker, you know very well because you were involved in provincial government during that time. I want to credit you for your work at the provincial level.

This legislation is straightforward. A regulatory model would follow. We have the expertise involved in the board. However, time is of the essence. This is a global race. The longer this sits in the House of Commons, the more we are wasting time to be able to fight climate change but, more importantly, to create great jobs in this country.

What I am disappointed in is when I look across the way, some of the Conservatives members are already signalling that they are going to be against this. They are signalling that they are against Atlantic Canada, because this is a tremendous opportunity. They should ask the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and ask the Government of Nova Scotia. The member for Halifax very clearly said the progressive Conservative, and I highlight “progressive”, in Halifax wants this legislation. Where are the members? Where are the eight members of the Conservative Atlantic caucus? Will they stand up and make sure that their party votes as quickly as possible to advance this legislation?

This matters for Canada. It matters for Atlantic Canada. I want to see the member for Cumberland—Colchester, I want to see the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake, and I want to see the member for South Shore—St. Margarets stand up and be with the Liberal government because that is what Atlantic Canada needs. In fact, every member of this House needs to drive this forward.

For those who stand here in this House and talk about climate change as being the existential threat to our country and to our world, I agree with them. However, let them not stand here and say that they are against this straightforward piece of legislation that we need to be able to advance our green energy future. It is hypocrisy, if I hear this from the Bloc, and fortunately we have the NDP on board. Who would have thought, for all the criticisms that the opposition will sling at the NDP for being anti-development, that it is the Conservatives who stand here against the ability, the green energy future and the technology that we have in Atlantic Canada.

I look forward to taking questions from my Conservative colleagues, because they are going to have to explain to my constituents, to Nova Scotians, and to Newfoundland and Labradorians why it is they are against their prosperity, because they sure as heck stand in the House and pretend to stand for their interests at other times. However, on the piece of legislation that could create the economic prosperity that matters to our world and to our region, they heckle me from the side and say that somehow they will not support us.

I actually want this House to move this legislation quickly. Let us get it to committee. Let us put a motion up this afternoon to get it to committee to study. I will ask my hon. colleague, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, who knows more about procedure. I think we should put this to the House and see if we could get unanimous consent to move this through the House so we could get to committee.

This matters. They want to talk about global energy. This is what it represents. Canada is in the driver seat, but only if we have the House on board to be able to move. Every day that this languishes in the House is yet another day that we are not moving forward on the global fight on climate change and we are not fighting for Atlantic Canadians.

That is what matters. Members can scream all they want from the other side. I am asking the Conservative Party of Canada to stand with the Liberal government for Atlantic Canada, very simply.

The last thing I want to say in my 45 seconds that I have is this. The Atlantic Loop is extremely important as part of this. We are going to create the conditions so that the offshore can succeed, but it is not just an export opportunity for hydrogen. It is an opportunity to provide Quebec and central Canada the power that they need. The Premier of Quebec has talked about the need for more generation. We have it on the offshore. Let us partner together and drive an opportunity to make a difference in this country. Let us make sure that we are focused on the ITCs. The government needs to clarify them, I will say that. We also need to drive forward.

The question remains today, and I will finish on this, will the Conservatives join us in supporting Atlantic Canada and our clean energy future, or will they not?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that the member for Kings—Hants talks about moving quickly after eight years of the NDP-Liberal coalition's sitting on its hands. It is really strange that, after his door knocking and his fear of losing his seat, now he has to lambast everybody he can in trying to become a champion of Nova Scotia. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He talked about the gun registry he said he would oppose, and when the vote came, what did he do? He abstained. Wow, what a great supporter this guy is.

The other thing that is very clear is that when we begin to understand the tidal project in the great riding of Cumberland—Colchester, we start to understand there is a business there called Sustainable Marine Energy. I really wonder whether the member for Kings—Hants went and talked to the leadership of Sustainable Marine, because what Sustainable Marine said was that it is the first project out there putting electricity back into the grid. It had no fish kills, no hits and no threatening markers at all, and what did the Liberal-NDP government do? Absolutely nothing. It gave no direction and allowed a project that is clean and green to actually be demolished. It is sad.

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

Mr. Speaker, he had almost as much time as I had in my remarks to give a speech, so I hope you will give me some time to respond. First of all, there is no gun registry, and I am happy to work with the Minister of Public Safety to make sure there is an exemption for sport shooters.

Number two, on Sustainable Marine, I agree with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that we have a problem. I have been out and vocal—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot even hear the answer being given right now. This side of the House certainly did afford the other side the opportunity to ask their question. I am really hoping the same can be done for my colleague, who is trying to answer the question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I will take this opportunity to remind everyone to keep a bit of decorum as we have these debates. Although I enjoy the energy of what is happening today, we should try to keep it down so we can hear the responses to the questions we are asking.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I covered the public safety question. I will now cover the question around Sustainable Marine. I agree. In fact, there actually needs to be a fundamental change in the way DFO operates and approves these projects. The member opposite, my neighbour, would know I was against DFO and the way in which the situation was handled on the Avon River and continue to be against that if the government moves in a different direction, so he does not need to lecture me about being an advocate.

The last piece I will say is that he mistakes himself, because we have an opportunity here to make a difference for our province of Nova Scotia. He can talk all he wants about eight years. The legislation is now before us. The industry is ready to move, and his party suggests its members are against it. Will they move with us to make sure there are opportunities in Atlantic Canada? It is a straightforward piece of legislation, and it is actually incredible the Conservatives are giving me an opportunity to highlight the hypocrisy. They talk about technology and not taxes, but they will not support the legislation that drives the technology.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a little taken aback. I would have thought that this past summer, with fires all over Quebec, Alberta and the rest of the world, would make my Liberal friends a little less smug about the fight against climate change, but no.

This morning, they are pounding their fists and exhorting everyone to vote in favour of the Liberals' climate change plan.

I just want to tell my colleague that, in 2022, the Liberal government gave the oil industry $51.5 billion. That industry turned a $220-billion profit in 2022. Considering that we need to build 3.5 million housing units in this country, that is utterly obscene.

How about a little humility, please.

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

Mr. Speaker, my answer is simple.

The Bloc Québécois should join us in our effort to create the legislation we need to move green energy and the Atlantic offshore wind industry forward. The Bloc Québécois has always talked about the importance of climate change. Now it has an opportunity to join the fight.

My question is simple: Will the Bloc Québécois join us in our effort to move the Canadian wind industry forward, yes or no?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to be back in the House of Commons. The last couple of months were tough. I had a few sinus surgeries, missed a bit of time and had some uncomfortable moments, but I am really happy. Truly, when one does not have good health, it really gives one an understanding of how precious it truly is.

Today I am really excited to speak to this bill for a number of reasons.

Before I get into the meat and potatoes of it all, there are a few comments I heard. I am really encouraged by the fact that the Liberal member from Nova Scotia acknowledges that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is a complete failure on just about every front.

In Miramichi—Grand Lake, it failed the Atlantic salmon: the fish, the species and the community itself, all of the people who benefit from it, on a vast, almost unprecedented, scale. It actually does not even deserve the right to govern it anymore. As a federal MP, I am left believing that, with regard to the Atlantic salmon, though it is a federal jurisdiction, the DFO has lost the right to govern it. It actually does not care. The people where I live know this and it is heart-wrenching for all of us. My dad was an outfitter. I grew up a salmon fisherman and a guide, so I have seen a very serious decline in that species.

I will comment on the Liberal member's question of Progressive Conservative support in the Conservative Party of Canada. That was one of my favourite things he said. I am going to quote what the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney's son tweeted the other day, after the Quebec City convention. This is what the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney said to his son about our leader's speech at the convention: “Mark, I attended my first convention in 1956 for Mr. Diefenbaker. I was 17 years old. I've seen a lot of convention speeches since then. [The leader of the Conservative Party's] speech was probably the best convention speech I have ever witnessed. [The leader of the Conservative Party's] command of such a large amount of information in both official languages for an hour and a half was extremely impressive. The only other speech that may have challenged his own was that of his wife Ana's.” That was the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

Just as an honourable mention, the Hon. Peter MacKay was speaking at the convention and was quite proud to do so. I think that the Liberals can take their worst fears and realize that they are true. Maybe they should plan harder, go door to door and start working harder. I can understand that.

I am now going to get into Bill C-49. In my speech today, I am going to cover three things. Number one is the positive impact of the Atlantic accords in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Number two is the potential upside of Bill C-49's proposed changes to energy regulation for the Atlantic offshore. Number three will be the reasons why I cannot support Bill C-49 as currently presented.

Let us start with the 1985 Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic accord. The original Atlantic accord was an agreement between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and Ottawa concerning the management of the oil and gas reserves off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It determined how two governments shared revenues and how that income affected the equalization payments received by the province. It also established the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. The Atlantic accord was a watershed in the province's economic development. It ended years of negotiations and allowed Hibernia and subsequent offshore oil fields, including Hebron, Terra Nova and White Rose, to enter into production.

Mobil Oil carried out the first seismic surveys on the Grand Banks in the 1960s, and then exploratory drilling continued during the 1970s. Chevron Standard Limited discovered the first commercial oilfield, Hibernia, in 1979, one year after I was born, but development could not proceed until the provincial and federal governments resolved the ownership and management disputes, which continued from 1967 through 1985.

The Atlantic accord was widely hailed as a success and a turning point for the provincial economy. At the signing in 1985, premier Brian Peckford predicted that it would allow “this province to catch up socially and economically to the rest of Canada”, while Right Hon. Brian Mulroney famously stated, “I am not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland and Labrador.”

We can see very early on in my speech and the history lesson that Conservatives clearly had a vast, productive and successful outlook for Atlantic Canada. I just went back over a number of decades. This is history, and that is why it is important.

Twenty-six years ago, Hibernia, Newfoundland and Labrador's landmark oil production platform, became the first to produce oil in the province. Newfoundland and Labrador’s offshore oil and gas have contributed more than $25 billion in royalties and directly employed over 6,000 people, as well as thousands more in supporting industries. That is $25 billion in royalties and over 6,000 people employed. The Hibernia project came to life thanks to former prime minister the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney’s support at a time when Newfoundland and Labrador was facing economic and cultural challenges of the cod moratorium. Hibernia created thousands of jobs and new government revenue at a time when it was truly needed.

Hibernia was celebrated as a new dawn for Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy in 1997 and has continually exceeded expectations over the past quarter century. Production was expected to last 18 to 20 years and produce 520 million barrels of oil. In fact, Hibernia has produced more than 1.2 billion barrels of oil and has paid almost $20 billion under fiscal agreements to the provincial and federal governments since 1997. Today, about 95% of those working on the Hibernia project are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. The skills, technical ingenuity and work ethic of the team have been the backbone of Hibernia’s success for 26 years and will continue into the future. That future is exciting, with the potential for Hibernia to continue production for another 20 years.

In Nova Scotia, one of Premier John Hamm’s most notable achievements was negotiating with the federal government to implement the Atlantic accord, a multi-decade regional development program that had been approved in principle during the late 1980s to prevent provincial government offshore oil and gas royalties from being included in calculations for the federal equalization program. This resulted in an $830-million payment from the federal government to the Nova Scotia government in 2005, which Premier Hamm applied against the principal on the province's long-term debt, thereby reducing debt servicing payments by more than $50 million annually. That is clearly another great Conservative decision made over the course of time.

During Premier Hamm’s reign, the Sable Offshore Energy Project was Canada’s first natural gas project. The Sable project provided a new source of clean energy to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and a new supply to the northeastern United States through the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline. Saying the word “pipeline” in the chamber gives me pleasure, but not what really what it should have given me. New Brunswickers wanted to bring a pipeline from Alberta to Saint John and Montreal. I remember that, at the time, the mayor of Montreal was against it and the Province of Quebec was a little worked up about it. Now, however, Quebeckers are against the carbon tax, and some of the Quebec members of the House who are not in the Conservative Party are running for dear life because they supported the carbon tax and put that on the backs of Quebeckers. They are going to pay for it.

Beginning production in 1999, Sable was a catalyst for $3.7 billion in direct payments to Nova Scotia’s government. Made up of royalties, Crown share and exploration payments, this is money that helped build better schools, hospitals and roads over 20 years. Since the mid 1980s, Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have jointly managed the development of offshore petroleum resources under the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, also known as the Atlantic accord acts, which generated more than $30 billion in government revenues off the east coast.

Here are a few points that are worth making about the concept behind Bill C-49. The idea of a single regulator for offshore energy projects makes sense, whether they are oil and gas or renewables, such as wind. Joint management between the federal government and Atlantic provinces is good and should be maintained, as that was the promise of the original accords, which we have just learned were successful.

Regarding offshore wind, siting is important so that other existing users are not damaged by the new activity, whether that be fishers or transportation routes. It is extremely important that the wind industry works with fishers to minimize direct impacts and ensure collaboration and compensation if there is to be a direct impact. The end of project remediation and bonding must be sufficient to remove the infrastructure when out of use.

The current process will take far too long to identify potential areas suitable for activity, and it is likely that Canada will miss the opportunity to benefit from offshore wind. Generally, floating wind is less impactful than fixed and provides more flexibility for siting in deeper water, which tends to be away from land and inshore fishing activity. By the time the current process concludes, at the pace they are going, the opportunity will likely have passed Canada anyway. We saw that with the Energy East pipeline. That was the Liberal government's problem across the floor. It caused that. I saw it in my own province of New Brunswick. We were decades behind in natural gas production, and we lost the ability to move forward with moratoriums. It really set New Brunswickers back. That was a project that should have been a success.

For Nova Scotia, offshore wind is an area of promise because land spaces are limited and tidal is still speculative. Nova Scotia does not have hydro opportunities, yet the federal mandate to be off coal is real for 2030.

One big red flag for me is that Bill C-49 allows the federal government to rely on the regulators for indigenous consultation. This could result in court challenges and detrimental judicial decisions for both offshore petroleum and renewable projects if the federal government relies solely on the regulators and does not sufficiently execute the Crown’s duty to consult because this bill also makes government ministers the ultimate decision-makers.

I know from my time as the minister of aboriginal affairs in New Brunswick that our first nations want to be partners in future energy projects and not to be just considered as stakeholders. They want to be partners. I know from all of my experience at that time that negotiation is always a better path than litigation. We have seen situations in the past where governments get really excited about projects. Governments get excited about potential economic projects and large energy projects. What happens is that they will bring in the chiefs of first nations at the ninth hour, when they have already upset them as they have missed the process. It is interesting that this legislation is coming from the Liberal government right now because it has clearly failed first nations on every single front.

I was reading something yesterday that struck me about all the work that the Liberals have done over the past 20 years to basically pretend to be best friends with first nations' people. We have situations in this country where people of indigenous descent in our country do not have water. They have water they cannot drink, and that is a basic necessity of our country. It is a basic necessity for almost every country in the world, and it should be paramount. The Liberals have failed to provide that. I cannot believe they would put a bill forward in the House that would literally disrupt the duty to consult. We have seen how successful those projects have been. Times have changed. We have to work with everyone involved. We clearly have to work with treaty people as a part of being in Canada.

The Liberals have put this forward. It is really rich of them to do that because there are a lot of indigenous people still waiting for clean water. They should get on that. They do not have a leg to stand on at this point. It is totally ridiculous that they would ever claim friendship with any indigenous person in this country. I can tell colleagues right now that that is a box they had better start to check off, or none of this will be successful.

There has been more red tape and delays. This bill would add delays in the approval process because it would triple the timeline from the current framework and would politicize the decision-making process, giving final authority to the federal and provincial ministers.

Canada’s red tape regime already hinders traditional and alternative energy development. This bill would add broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet powers for arbitrary decision-making. It would actually increase timelines and add uncertainty around requirements, which would drive investment away. We have seen this record play over and over in our country.

There was a project in New Brunswick called Maritime Iron. Everybody got all worked up and said it was not economical. Somebody in Venezuela thought it was economical. I remember other projects where it was said that they would not be economical and might emit carbon. Can members guess what? China had the same project with the same company. I have seen North African companies take our projects too.

It pains me to say that New Brunswick has lost so much because of bureaucracy, whether provincial or federal; weak leadership; the failure to consult with first nations; and an overall lack of understanding of the projects in front of us, which could have paved the way for New Brunswick.

We have Sisson mine, a natural gas extraction in New Brunswick. We have moratoriums on uranium. We have moratoriums on natural gas, even though the lamps in the entire city of Moncton were lit by natural gas in the late 1800s. There are areas in New Brunswick where we have had it forever. That is what we are built on.

The Liberals really need to get their act together on this because the Atlantic accord was a big-time positive in Atlantic Canada. We need them to stop driving investment away, and impeding growth and progress in Canada.

This bill could end offshore petroleum drilling in the Atlantic provinces. Sections 28 and 137 would give cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling or renewable energy projects with the authorization of the provincial minister if the area may be identified as a marine protected area.

Any activity may be suspended in the marine protected area or in an area that may be identified in the opinion of cabinet as a marine protected area, which would create significant uncertainty. There would be no formal indigenous consultation required in the cancellation of new or currently operating projects.

The Liberals' Bill C-55 allowed the fisheries minister to select marine protected areas by order in council, which can prohibit development and activity. This bill would implement this measure, which the Conservative Party opposed because marine protected areas should really be called “prohibited development areas”. That would be common sense, but what we are getting over here is nonsense, and that is why they have it that way.

In closing, let me reiterate that Conservatives support the development of offshore wind and renewables in Atlantic Canada, but this bill would impose uncertainty and extends timelines, which could hinder the development of the sector while creating opportunities for politically motived, anti-energy decisions and delays of offshore petroleum development.

Bill C-49 should be amended to require the development of a framework for renewable energy projects that would require clear plans for the project’s impact to fish, birds and the environment. It should also require consultation with impacted indigenous communities and private sector proponents before the establishment of a marine protected area and/or the cancellation of any operations in progress.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Before we go to questions and comments, I would like to commend the member for talking about such a great cabinet from way back in 2003-04, when a young Chris d'Entremont was a member of cabinet.

Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the history on previous Conservative governments. I think we would be hard pressed to find any member in the House who would not agree that Conservative governments of the past, the Progressive Conservatives, were actually the champions of the environment. I have even heard the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands say that from time to time.

The member unfortunately cannot see the link between the Conservatives of the past and the Conservatives of today because they are quite different. He talked at length about Brian Mulroney. I have a Brian Mulroney story myself. Not that long ago in the House, I spoke at great length about the great work that Brian Mulroney and Progressive Conservatives did, and then contrasted them to the Conservatives of today.

Much to my surprise, a portrait of Brian Mulroney arrived at my constituency office the next day, which was personally signed. It said, “Mark, keep making those speeches”, with two exclamation points, and it was signed by Brian Mulroney. I think it is very rich to try to suggest that the new, reformed party of today somehow has a link to the Brian Mulroney Conservatives of the past.

The premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador support this piece of legislation. The member said he supports it in principle. Why would he not at least help get it to committee so a decision could then be made to try to form the bill into what he wants to see, as he does support it in principle?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, going to committee may be a potential down the road, but as elected officials in the House, we have to do our due diligence.

We have watched this government impede growth in several sectors. We have seen several bills it has put forward that have really limited progress in the energy sector. We have watched this across all aspects of the energy sector. What I would say here today is that Conservatives are doing their due diligence, and that is the best thing we can do in the House.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I had the honour of being showcased in a Conservative ad campaign. I am happy to know that I was on TV across Canada. My agent will send them the bill. Given that I am a member of the Union des artistes, a bill will definitely be coming.

The problem is that what was stated in the ad was completely false. It said that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of the carbon tax. Obviously, we are for putting a price on pollution. I think that we all agree with that on this side of the House. That being said, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec.

Has anyone told the Conservatives? The Premier of Quebec told them. The leader of the Bloc Québécois told them. Every member of the Bloc Québécois has been telling them. It does not apply. There has been a carbon market in Quebec for 10 years, and the tax does not apply.

The Conservatives have been spreading lies across the country. How does that make them feel?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be the Liberal fuel regulations. There is the carbon tax. There are the clean fuel standards. There are lots of different bills. It is the Liberal's fuel regulation that is basically hurting Quebeckers now. I heard it when I was in Quebec City. I had people telling me that they were against it.

The member may think it is interesting, but I think that the Bloc Party has been in cahoots with the Liberal Party enough that there is almost as though there are two coalitions in the House. If the Conservative Party has to take on every party in the House on behalf of Canadians, we will do it.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a project from Sustainable Marine Energy. It was the first North American tidal power project, and it was cancelled by the Liberals through stalling and lots of regulatory red tape. Is the member concerned that the bill before us would exacerbate that problem by institutionalizing red tape and bureaucracy, which would prevent projects from being built?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we have grave concerns on this side of the House that the Liberal government either does not know anything about economics whatsoever or impedes growth and progress across all sectors through every decision it makes. It is probably both.

We have grave concerns because the project the member mentioned did not go forward. I told members about energy east pipeline as another project. There is a lot of evidence over the past seven or eight years that the federal Liberal government has clearly driven a spike into so many economic opportunities in this country. We now look like a laughingstock around the world because all of the projects we have said no to are happening in other jurisdictions, and they are emitting twice the carbon we are with no regulations.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, this summer we saw the ravages of climate change. We are in a climate crisis, not just in Canada but all over the world. I wonder if the member agrees that Bill C-49 needs to pass because it would create more opportunities for the east coast to use renewable energy, and that we need to act now.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I laid out the reasons why we think it should not pass at this point. It needs amendments. However, if this truly is an urgent matter for the federal Liberal government, then why did it take eight years? Why are we watching a recycled video of a housing announcement that happened six years ago? There is no urgency on that side of the floor, and Canadians know it.

People cannot afford their mortgages now. People cannot afford gas. They do not need an electric car where I live because there is nowhere to plug them in. They take 18 months to show up, and then there is nowhere to plug them in when we get them. I could go on and on, but no understanding of rural Canada exists over there, none at all. Therefore, no, the bill should not go forward right now. It needs amendments because the Liberals are impeding progress, and we cannot allow them to keep doing it.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, as someone from Nova Scotia, who represents indigenous communities, I have heard, loud and clear, not only from our provincial leaders but also indigenous leaders that this is an important thing for us to make that transition to clean energy. We have heard from Membertou Chief Terry Paul, who has talked to us about the importance of EverWind and hydrogen moving forward with all of the things that we need to make a better future for our future generations.

I am kind of astonished to hear that the member would stand up and say that there is not anything that looks at indigenous consultation, when economic reconciliation is indeed part of this legislation. Therefore, I am wondering if the member has read the legislation and, if so, can he tell us just one provision that he is against?

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, it is interesting because what I laid out is the fact that the bill does not mention the duty to consult and it does not mention the Crown's responsibility. It is silent on that part of the legislation. As a first nations individual, the member should know that. That should mean as much to him as to anybody else.

The duty to consult is on the Crown. You have bypassed it. You have not given water to the people who needed it and asked for it eight years ago. You have failed indigenous people on every front in this country. You have failed them. You completely failed them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Members cannot speak directly to a member. They are speaking to the Chair. They cannot use the word “you” when they are speaking to another member.

We will move on to the next question. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, for my colleague from Miramichi—Grand Lake, I had not heard over the course of the summer that he faced health challenges. I had a stroke in June and this is my first opportunity to speak of it in this place since we resumed. I want to thank, from the bottom of my heart, all the members from different parties who sent me notes of encouragement. As they can see, I am recovering well, but I am still not allowed to fly to Ottawa, and not allowed to fly anywhere, so I am glad I can participate virtually. For my friend from Miramichi—Grand Lake, it is good to see him back and I hope he has gotten through his health challenges.

I just do want to correct the record. The member spoke of marine protected areas as if they stopped development. From the point of view of the Green Party, we would love it if that were the case. The Minister of Natural Resources has said recently that even the interim protected areas offshore Newfoundland would be removed if the oil industry that is currently exploring there were to find oil. The government would just get rid of the protected area so that it could exploit oil there. Therefore, I will agree with members of the Conservative Party to this extent, that the Liberal ministers speak out of both sides of their mouth.

I support this bill. Let us hope we move wind energy and offshore wind energy and try to catch up with the rest of the world. We are a long way from being in the lead on this.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments about my health and I am glad to hear that the member is feeling better too.

Clearly, Conservative Party opinion and Green Party opinion on some of these files greatly differ on a good day, and some of the member's more concrete questions would really have to come to the Liberal ministers who drafted this legislation and have them explain it.

For me, I think we have lost so much to other jurisdictions by trying to prove to everybody that we are saving the world here and I do not think our emissions are even high in Canada. We have really stalled productivity all over the place because of the Liberal government's decision-making and that is where our party has to do due diligence in the House, to make sure that we have opportunity for Canadians.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today and speak on behalf of my fellow residents of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

I have to say that in listening to the speech from the Conservatives, I am very surprised but not shocked. I will share what they did back in 2007 with the Atlantic accord in Nova Scotia. Bill C-49 is extremely important to make adjustments and modifications so that we could be moving forward very quickly on the potential of economic growth, as well as reducing our emissions.

I want to share a story that is extremely important. My colleague, who was here in the House with us, Bill Casey was elected in the Conservative Party in 1988. In 2007, believe it or not, he was thrown out of the Conservative Party of Canada under the Harper government. Why was he booted out, ejected from the party? I will tell the House what my colleague told me. I will share his story. I am sure he could do a better job, but I am going to share it.

He stood up and defended the Atlantic accord. The Conservative government, under Harper, in 2007, decided in its budget that it was going to tweak a very important part, all by itself. There was no consultation with the Province of Nova Scotia. It was going to tweak it so that some of the revenues coming in would be lost. It would make a change and Nova Scotia would lose some money because of the equalization payments.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax West.

Mr. Casey was telling the Conservative Party to not make that tweak because Nova Scotia could lose up to $1 billion of revenue, if that change was made in the budget. The then premier of Nova Scotia was Rodney MacDonald. The ministers were all trying to convince him that it was okay, that it would be fixed later. Absolutely not.

Mr. Casey was a man of principle. Mr. Casey was in the Conservative Party. He was ejected in 2007. He came back, because the people had lots of trust in him, as an independent and won. Then he came back as a Liberal and won. He was a very good parliamentarian, and he stood for Nova Scotia. He stood for Canadians. I want to thank him for that.

I have to say, when I first got elected, I was impressed with how he got the work done. The first year, I watched him as he moved from desk to desk, talking to ministers about how they could help his region.

It is obvious today that the Conservatives are against an accord that they tried to take pieces out of, which would have affected Nova Scotia. It is very sad.

This has been jointly managed between Nova Scotia and Newfoundland for many years. This is an industry that is now ready to boom. There is actually $1 trillion on the table of investments from now until 2040. In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and across Canada, we need to take advantage of this. The time is right.

How are we going to do that? Nova Scotia would help us to lower our emissions and bring us to zero by 2050. Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador have the fastest winds in the world. Why is this so important for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland? It is exactly because it puts Canada in the great position of feeding not only Canada but the world in offshore renewal, which is crucial.

Nova Scotia announced last year that it had the intention to issue targets of five gigawatts on seabed licences by 2030. They want to get moving quickly, as well. This would help them to decarbonize the grid, which is the goal of the province.

Our government is very committed to moving forward on this project. If the Conservatives could come on board, it would be very helpful. They keep talking about Atlantic Canada, and here is the chance to help Atlantic Canadians. However, Conservatives are refusing to be part of the solution to help economic development in Atlantic Canada. That is what they are doing today.

Our government is committed to expanding the mandate and to include offshore wind as a key ingredient in the accord.

We will also ensure the highest standards of worker safety and environmental protection.

We have to move now. Can members believe that as I speak today there is not one commissioned wind project offshore in the country right across Canada? There is none. Of course, it is important that we move forward and fill in that gap, and we are going to do that with the amendments we are bringing forward. We are not the only ones. The U.K. and the United States are all expanding their mandates to pick up offshore wind, which is crucial to moving forward.

Last August, I was in Halifax to witness an announcement for the first-ever wind project in Canada called the Nova East Wind project. This is a joint venture between two companies, DP Energy and SBM Offshore, which are global leaders in the industry. They are now putting the project together and will help us establish the first-ever offshore wind farm project in Canada, which will take place in Nova Scotia near Goldboro.

There are other steps we have taken to move the process forward to ensure that the ingredients are in place so that these types of projects can continue to prosper. The government has launched its regional offshore assessments in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, which will provide the information and analysis for future offshore projects. It will inform and improve impact assessments. It will engage indigenous people in various communities across Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and the like, and will identify optimal areas for future development.

We need to be in support of this. If the Conservative members want to support Atlantic Canada, they need to change their vote now. It is very important.

In our 2023 budget, our government has indicated new and improved investments and major tax credits for those types of investments and enhancing smart renewables and electrification pathway programs. These are investments that would allow us to continue to prosper quickly and move the agenda forward in this area.

The amendments are not difficult. They would modernize and expand the mandate quickly, like other countries are doing, so we can get it done; improve alignment with the Impact Assessment Act, which is very important; and establish new tools to support government marine conservation agencies. That is what we are talking about today to move the dial quickly so that Canada and Nova Scotia can take their place.

What are we going to do? It is simple. This Parliament needs to approve and pass Bill C-49 so it can get royal assent. What will happen next? The provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will mirror the same amendments so they can move this project forward. Then we will see prosperity and the important role we play in the world with respect to climate change will also be enhanced. Nova Scotia will launch a call for bids by 2025. We will be there by 2030 for sure. That is how it works, in partnership between the provincial and federal governments.

I think of Mr. Casey, who was told the day before the vote that if he voted against the budget he would not be thrown out. If members want they can google the article where he spoke about his 30 years in Parliament. He said that one of the worst experiences he had was when right after he voted against his government with respect to supporting Atlantic Canadians and Nova Scotia he was told to pack his bags because he was out of there. That is what happened.

We will stand with Atlantic Canadians today, tomorrow and every day.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion from the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. However, I do have a real question related to the bill despite all the rhetoric we heard about the former member of Parliament. It is related to the new licensing regime for exploration, which is capped at 25 years.

Part of the bill talks a lot about empowering indigenous Canadians or using the consultative processes with regulators in conjunction with indigenous Canadians to respect their inherent rights. What the bill does not explicitly outline is if an indigenous resource company has a licence will the government take it away after 25 years?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about indigenous people. As my colleague just said a little while ago, indigenous people have been consulted. They will be consulted as we move forward. The chief spoke with the Atlantic caucus a couple of weeks ago and it is 100% in favour of this.

The licences going to 25 years is good. It was lifetime before and if nobody moved on it, then there was no progress. This is important to ensure that we move forward. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are excited, are in favour and are asking the Conservative Party of Canada to vote with us to move and improve the economic situation in Atlantic Canada today, not tomorrow.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the passion and exuberance he displayed during his speech. I agree with him completely. The climate events we are experiencing, such as flooding, forest fires and various changes, are significant.

What exactly are oil and gas regulations?

Can my colleague clarify what his government plans to do about oil and gas and the environment?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question.

As she knows, the environment is very important to us, as it is to her party. In fact, all of the parties, except the Conservative Party, understand the need to advance climate action.

I have been here since 2015. We said that the environment and the economy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what we are doing here. This bill will enable us to meet our environmental responsibilities while growing the economy, creating wealth and showing global leadership. This is where Canada stands. We are in the perfect position, and we will get where we are headed with or without them.

We are ready to go.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that we have heard a lot of talk and a lot of hot air from the Liberals on how committed they are, but the Americans have moved dramatically ahead with the IRA, under Biden. Over $110 billion are moving projects forward right now. There are 27 offshore wind operations off the Atlantic that will be in operation by 2025. One off Rhode Island will give energy to 250,000 homes and one off Martha's Vineyard will given energy to 400,000 homes, yet we still have not received the promised tax credits needed to compete. They still have not been finalized. We are still dealing with the regulatory framework.

Why has the United States moved so much further ahead on this, taken so much more opportunity? Why are we still standing in Parliament talking about what could be done when we see what is being done in the United States?

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that Biden does not have to deal with the Conservative Party across the aisle. We do. That is one part of it. The second thing is that all the countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are expanding their mandates to increase the investments in that area. There are a trillion dollars on the table of investment by 2040 and Canada is well placed to be the leader in the world. Let us come together for Canada.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to say a few words on behalf of the people in my riding, Halifax West.

Bill C-49 would modernizes the mandates of the offshore boards, including Nova Scotia's, to unlock the full potential of offshore renewable energy.

Just two years ago, the Nova Scotia government announced its intention to stop using coal to generate electricity by the year 2030, shortening its deadline by a decade. It also set an ambitious target of having 80% of its electricity sourced from renewable energy in the same timeframe. It recently amended Nova Scotia's electricity act so that the province could issue requests for proposals and contracts for things like large-scale batteries and renewable energy storage solutions.

Offshore wind and hydrogen have been identified as a priority for Nova Scotia. The province's government has indicated to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources that it wants Bill C-49 passed without delay.

The province has already officially said that it wants to launch a competition in 2025 for offshore land leases, with the intent of getting enough turbines in place to produce five gigawatts of power. That is enough energy for roughly 1.5 million homes.

The provinces joined the Regional Energy and Resource Tables, which will help them identify funding and financing opportunities in low-carbon energy sectors and optimize their policies and regulatory approaches.

With a greener future, less severe weather and job creation as their north star, Nova Scotians have already begun unlocking the economic opportunities that come with expanding Canada's renewable energy sector.

That is why I support making amendments to the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador accord, so we can facilitate the launch of wind energy projects off our shores, a whole new renewable energy industry for Canada.

I am going to focus on why these amendments make so much sense for the province of Nova Scotia. As a former minister in Nova Scotia, I know how important it is for our levels of government to work together to achieve great things, such as capitalizing on Nova Scotia's incredible potential.

In Nova Scotia, we have some of the best and most consistent wind speeds in the world that provide world-class conditions for offshore wind projects. Of course, Nova Scotians are already very familiar with technology used to harness wind power.

Almost 15% of our province's power comes from our 300-plus wind turbines, making Atlantic Canada a provincial leader in wind power generation. It is truly inspiring.

The initial work is already happening. This March, Nova Scotia's provincial government teamed up with the federal government to launch a regional assessment of offshore wind development off the coast of Nova Scotia. The assessment seeks input from indigenous groups and a range of stakeholders. Independent committee members have a year and a half to report back to governments on their work, which will include analyzing future development opportunities and the potential socio-economic, health and environmental impacts of offshore wind development.

The proposed amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act are about ensuring that future offshore wind projects are subject to the highest possible environmental and safety standards, under the guidance of an independent expert regulator.

The act was put in place in the 1980s and provided a solid base for today's offshore regime. The act set up the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and it made Nova Scotia an equal partner with Canada, allowing it to jointly govern offshore oil and gas-related activity while sending proceeds back to the province.

Since the act was passed in the 1980s, we took the opportunity to make some much-needed changes to ensure that we are keeping up with modern technology and international best practices.

For example, we are updating the offshore petroleum board's land tenure regime. We are limiting the term of a significant discovery license to 25 years. This will ensure that these licences cannot be held forever, which is currently the case.

To make the regulation of future offshore wind projects as efficient as possible, we are proposing that the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board's responsibilities be broadened to include renewable energy, such as offshore wind.

It makes sense that a board that is already so familiar with the offshore, its legislation and its management be given this job. It gives these projects more stability and makes them more desirable to the companies that are considering investing in offshore wind and other renewable energy sources.

The board understands the challenges of operating in a difficult offshore environment, and it has decades of experience in safety and environmental standards, oversight and review procedures.

The renamed Canada-Nova Scotia offshore energy regulator will undergo a significant transition as its duties expand. It will regulate the entire life cycle of offshore wind and other renewable energy projects from site assessment to decommissioning.

The board already ensures that offshore projects are operating safely and protecting the environment. Specifically, the boards are in charge of land tenure, including licensing, providing offshore authorization and approval, monitoring compliance with the accord and carrying out enforcement activities.

With these amendments in place, the board will administer the governance framework jointly created by both federal and provincial governments and ensure the best practices in land rights management are being employed, specifically in the areas of how the land will be used, project bidding procedures, determining how to evaluate bids and granting licences for commercial projects.

A regional assessment of the suitability of the offshore wind around Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia has officially begun. These regional assessments are getting input from indigenous people, the fishing industry, experts on environmental issues and others. They will also inform the project-specific assessments carried out by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

It is clear that developers are interested in making offshore wind a reality. Some have expressed interest in developing offshore wind projects. Others want to get in on related facilities like on-land turbine staging sites and plants for producing hydrogen and ammonia.

For example, the enterprise Brezo Energy is developing a technology for a floating offshore wind project, and it says Nova Scotia is a perfect fit for them.

Another company called Novaporte has promised that shovels will be in the ground this year for an offshore wind marshalling yard in Sydney, where turbines will be stored and assembled.

Nova Scotia has already approved two large-scale green hydrogen electrolysis and ammonia production plants along the Strait of Canso. This aligns well with the proposed Atlantic loop that will provide the backbone for an interconnected Atlantic power grid. The loop will make it easier for neighbouring provinces to trade clean electricity and enable critical load balancing.

Last, with these amendments, we will be making marine conservation tools stronger, and we are improving the alignment of the accord acts and the impact assessment act.

This bill is a great move. It makes sense. We cannot fail to attract Canada's share of the forecasted $1 trillion in global investment in offshore wind by 2040, and it requires regulatory certainty. It would make Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador global leaders in hydrogen exports, a source of secure energy that we know Europe needs. It would create well-paying jobs for Canada's highly skilled energy workers.

These amendments are an essential part of our broader climate plan, and they will help bring our emissions down, making Canada more competitive, and stop feeding into the climate-linked natural disasters that my constituents have been experiencing this year.

Nova Scotia knows that this is the time to act. We know that this is good for Nova Scotia, this is good for Newfoundland and Labrador, this is good for Atlantic Canada and this is good for Canada. Let us get this moving and get this to committee so we can work together and get this going.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the member aware that the bill would give federal cabinet the power to cancel a petroleum drilling project on a whim at any point, overreaching provincial jurisdiction and disrespecting indigenous interests?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I know. When the bill was announced, I was in the foyer and partook in the announcement. I also know that the minister from Nova Scotia was at the announcement and represented Nova Scotia's interests. I know Nova Scotia is on board with this. I have also had the opportunity to speak to chiefs from my province from the indigenous communities, and they are on board with this. I know the petroleum board itself is on board with this.

This is a partnership between the federal government, the province, indigenous people, Nova Scotians and Newfoundland and Labradorians. This is a good thing. If there are issues with it, let us get them worked out at committee and move this along.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the question I asked previously. I know how passionate the member is about the protection of marine environments, especially shorelines.

Can she guarantee that no project, not even for an offshore wind farm, will be undertaken in marine protected areas and that no marine area boundaries will be rearranged to accommodate some developer?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

Before this bill was introduced, we worked for months with Nova Scotia, with Newfoundland and Labrador and with other stakeholders. I am confident that we will be able to work together to improve the bill in committee.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Halifax West's support for offshore wind and for climate action. My question is about being cohesive.

As she likely knows, environmental and indigenous groups are continuing a legal challenge of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's decision to approve Bay du Nord. Bay du Nord is Canada's first-ever proposed deepwater oil drilling project off the coast of Newfoundland. It is expected to produce a billion barrels of oil and 400 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. This new fossil fuel infrastructure is what the UN Secretary-General calls “moral and economic madness”.

Will the member bring her same passion to opposing Bay du Nord?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same passion that my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has, except I also have my own Lebanese and Arabic kind, which I am not going to go through here.

I believe the environment and the economy work together, and I believe this is a good piece of legislation for Nova Scotians and for Newfoundland and Labrador. It is one that has been built on. When it is passed, both provinces will still have to pass their own provincial laws. I know that both provinces are waiting for this to happen. I urge parliamentarians to take it seriously, as I know they all do, and pass it along to committee, because this is good for the provinces and the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to this particular bill. It is good to be back in the House after our break. It was not really a break but constituency time, with very busy summers for a lot of us. It is good to see so many familiar faces on all sides of the aisle and to have this discussion.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. It has a lot to do with Atlantic Canada. The bill would have direct effects on development throughout the region of Atlantic Canada.

A lot of things about the bill may be well-intended, but the realities of it, as it is written, could have devastating consequences for the resource sector, and not just in my region. It would have an echo effect across the country. It is very important that we get the balance right and that we take the time get the bill right and fix it. If we cannot fix the bill, we should do everybody a favour and make sure that it does not pass in its current form. Without amendments and without these concerns being addressed, the bill could lead to a lot of unintended consequences that could be devastating economically throughout the region and for much of the country.

I come from the beautiful province of New Brunswick. It is an outstanding province. In fact, it is a place where half has not yet been told and its potential has not nearly been realized. Part of realizing the potential we have as a province and as a region is about unlocking the key to ethically and environmentally responsible extractive resources and the development of our natural resources, and getting those resources to market. It can be a pathway to our region's prosperity, and it must not be overlooked. However, the consequence of passing bad legislation is that it could hamper development and lead to more hurdles for our resource developers and those in the area of green, innovative technologies and resource development, such as tidal, wind and solar. If we do not get the bill right, it could have unintended consequences that would hurt future development in those areas, which are critical to our energy security going forward.

We know that if we do not get energy security and food security right, inevitably it will directly affect national security. It is so important that we get these questions right and make sure that we pass bills that enhance our energy and food security, not hamper them. This bill, as it is written, would cause a lot of hurdles for developers as they look at coming into our region and potentially investing in not only the new areas of resource development and extraction but also the existing ones. If we put in place further bureaucratic hurdles and do not correct what is wrong with the bill, we are sending a message to investors in the resource sector to not come to Atlantic Canada, because they would never get through the bureaucratic, regulatory maze and all the requirements. At the end of the day, if they do happen to get through all the hurdles, the government could shut them down at any time at the whim of any particular minister, because the bill as written puts unbelievable power in the hands of a federal minister.

I do not believe the bill will lead us to work collaboratively enough with the provinces, the key stakeholders or those who are going to be directly affected by the decisions we would make. We have seen this already with the enactment of the marine protected areas and some of the enforcement around them. What can happen is that, at the whim of a particular minister, a certain area of our ocean could be blocked off and there would be no more development or fishery. This would bring devastating consequences to our harvesters, to those in the fishing sector and to those in the energy sector.

We need to get this right. We need to make sure that we address the concerns that will be laid out throughout this debate and fix the bill. If the bill cannot be fixed, we must not pass it, because the consequences of it going through could be devastating to a region that already has tremendous economic headwinds against it.

We have huge potential, and I speak on behalf of fellow Atlantic Canadians. We do have a great love for the environment and a great care for our natural resources. We believe we can do both. We can protect our environment and responsibly develop our resources. We can do it hand in hand and not at the cost or devastation of one sector.

It is time we got the balance right, and this bill does not get the balance right. I challenge our friends on the other side to go back to the drawing table and fix what is wrong with this bill, which is going to bring devastation to the resource sector of this country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying previously, it is so important that we get this right as it relates to Bill C-49. The critical importance of natural resource development, along with the critical importance of getting the renewable sector right and making sure that we expand the economic opportunities for the region of Atlantic Canada, are absolutely vital and important to not only the citizens of Atlantic Canada but also the nation as a whole. Our country has been—

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Order. I will remind everyone we have debate going on.

I am hearing people talking. If members are having discussions, if they do not mind, I would ask them to take them outside, either to the lobby or the beautiful new meeting rooms on the other side in the antechamber. I will leave it to members to do that so we can hear what the hon. member has to stay.

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we are considering resource development and this bill, I think all Canadians want us to strike the right balance. They want us to balance out the responsibility to be good stewards of the environment and to ensure we care for the planet, not only for our generation but for future generations. That is an utmost priority for all Canadians as well those who live in my region in particular, including New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to hand over to future generations a planet that is cleaner and greener and we want to develop our resources in a responsible fashion.

As a region, the people from the area I represent, and I believe this is true throughout Atlantic Canada, want to ensure they have an economically viable future for themselves and their families in their local communities and throughout Atlantic Canada, so not only do we reap the benefits of that hard work and that development but that future generations do as well. Striking that balance is of the utmost importance.

What I find concerning with this bill is that it would put way too much power in the hands of too few, and that could be detrimental to the development of vital resources, to our nation's national energy as well as our nation's food security and to our nation's future as a secure country in which to invest and do business. If we do not get it right and if we allow this type of control in the hands of very few, the consequences could be devastating for economic development in Atlantic Canada and across Canada as a whole.

We have raised very legitimate concerns that we want the government to look at carefully, and hopefully we will amend and correct the bill so that the development that does happen is responsible and it cares for the environment, which we all want to ensure. At the same time, we do not want it to prohibit those who want to build Canada's economic future. We want to ensure that we take advantage of the tremendous resources across the country from coast to coast to coast, including Atlantic Canada, which has unbelievable potential to develop its resource sector.

This is not the time to hamper investment; this is a time to look at ways to enhance investment into our region.

Atlantic Canada wants to contribute to our future economically as a country in a way like never before. I will pause here for a moment to recognize something that oftentimes gets lost.

We talk about things with respect to government bringing in legislation and passing things based on ideology, thoughts and philosophy, no matter how well intended, but in all of this it is no secret that national unity is at stake. Under the current government and Prime Minister, we have for too long pit one region against another and caused certain regions to feel alienated, left out or perhaps taken for granted. In fact, we know that is the case.

On behalf of Atlantic Canadians, I love Canada and every region of it. We have been blessed in Atlantic Canada, directly and indirectly, because of the resource sector in the western part of Canada. On behalf of those of us on the east coast, I thank our western provinces and friends out west. They have allowed our resources to be developed. They have allowed the money, the proceeds and the revenue that has been generated from that extraction and from those resources to be distributed throughout the country to regions and provinces like mine.

We benefited from those transfer payments, and we would be remiss not to thank western Canada and the resource-developed regions of our country that have made it possible for revenues to be transferred to our provinces so we can have good schools, hospitals, build roads and develop.

However, just as much as I believe in that, it is so vitally important that we as Atlantic Canadians also have the opportunity to develop our own natural resources, prosper as a region and elevate the economy of our families. It is unfair to hold back a region like Atlantic Canada that has endless potential by putting in prohibitive measures and over-regulating a sector or putting too much power in the hands of too few that could, at the whim of any particular minister, shut down an entire sector of our economy.

There are big cautionary signals coming from this bill. I challenge the House to look beyond the noise and the rhetoric to see the facts. We hear a lot of noise about how we have to protect the planet and heal the oceans, and about how we are going to reduce carbon and do all things. That is the noise.

When we get beyond the noise and the chatter, the reality and the facts are that we rank 57 out of 63 nations. We have not met our targets, despite our virtue signals. We have not met those objectives, despite great soaring rhetoric. We talk about planting billions of trees, but only a handful are actually in the ground.

It is time that we look beyond the noise. Canadians expect us to stop all the chatter, talk and great sounding rhetoric about this to get to a place of achieving actual, attainable results that will do good for our country and the world.

The reality is that we are not measuring up in meeting these targets, but we are certainly punishing the very sectors that have led to Canada's prosperity to this point. Those are the facts.

The noise says that we are meeting these targets and doing great, but the facts are that we are ranked 57 out of 63 nations. Facts are stubborn things. They have proven, when it comes to both the environment and the economy, that the government is all noise and no results. Canadians want real results.

I believe we can have both responsible and good, wholesome environmental stewardship along with economic prosperity and resource development that is, at the same time, responsible. They are not mutually exclusive. Canadian energy is the best energy in the world, and we need to make no apologies for Canadian energy. We need to stand up for Canadian energy. It is the most responsibly extracted energy on the planet. Why are we displacing Canadian energy with that from countries that do not have near the environmental regulations that we have as a country?

It makes no environmental sense, nor does it make energy sense or economic sense. It is important that we get the balance right. This bill is not going to go a long way to help us get the balance right. We have to correct this bill. There is so much noise that the facts are getting lost. However, Canadians are perceptive. They are getting beyond the persuasiveness of rhetoric, and they are asking, “What is it that the government is accomplishing to position Canada to prosper in the future?”

We talk about just transition. The government loves to talk about that, but it is a just transition to what? It is not a just transition to move segments of our population from prosperity to poverty. That is not just. That is an unjust transition to poverty. We need a true, mobilized transition to economic empowerment accompanied by environmental responsibility. We could do that. Canada has proven it can do that and be a leader in that space.

I am quite encouraged by some of the developments we are seeing within our resource sector. We have some of the greatest clean technologies in the country. We have some of the most environmentally responsible resource projects in the world. We are a leader. We have to stop taking a back seat. We have to stop talking down our energy sector, stop talking down our resource sector and stop putting impediments in the way of our development.

What we need to do instead is to start championing our energy sector, our resource sector and our good environmental practices. We need to tell the story of the great results we are attaining as a country and as a natural resource industry in this country. Why is it that we are talking down Canadian energy when we should be saying that we have a good news story to tell? We are all for all of the above. We want to transition in areas where it is possible. We are for wind, nuclear, solar and, yes, even tidal.

While the government talks about transition, we are shutting down some of the renewable energies and projects that have incredible potential. This is because of cumbersome regulation and misplaced priorities.

We had the sustainable energy project with respect to tidal energy in Nova Scotia. The Liberals pulled the plug on it. Why? It was so encumbered and hampered by over-regulation and cumbersome rules that it was no longer economically viable and it made no sense to continue so they stopped it. How is that good for the planet when we are sitting on the cusp of innovation and it was the only tidal project in North America? We pulled the plug on it as a country. We talk about how we are all for saving the planet and transitioning to a new green economy, yet we pulled the plug on those viable projects.

Here is another one. A mill in Nova Scotia was going to use its waste for producing biodegradable goods. We pulled the plug on that. Why? Because it would take 20 years to get the approvals it needed in order to proceed with the project.

We are scaring away investments into our renewable energy and resource sector and we are not investing in the areas that could have the most impact and have the biggest and most-resounding results for our country economically and environmentally.

We have a great news story to tell. Another concern we have with Bill C-49 is as it relates to our indigenous partners and friends. It talks about how the regulators would be empowered to talk with our indigenous leaders, but never once mentions the obligation and absolute primary importance of the Crown to deal directly with our indigenous friends to get these projects off the ground. Surely, history has taught us a lesson, which is to engage with our indigenous friends at the beginning of the process for these projects and make sure they are welcomed and equal partners at the table with us as we enter into these areas of innovation and production. We can get great things done for the country because, as we hear from indigenous leaders across the country, they want to partner with us on this. They want to be at the table for all of these types of projects. They want to prosper economically and do good for the environment as well. Let us welcome them at the front end and make sure that a bill like this includes them meaningfully, and instructs the Crown to deal with them directly rather than the regulators. Let us not make this a secondary priority, but one of the primary priorities.

I conclude my remarks by simply saying that we have an opportunity to position Canada to be the most energy secure and one of the economic powerhouses in the world while at the same time being one of the most environmentally responsible jurisdictions on the planet. It is time we get it right. Let us stop talking down Canadian resource development and stop throwing up roadblocks to resource development for all regions of our country, including Atlantic Canada. Let us prioritize it and get them at the table. We have a great opportunity. Let us get the balance right. Let us fix this bill. If we fix the bill, then we will do good for everyone, but if we do not fix it we have no choice but to stand against it so that our country can move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I was absolutely flabbergasted listening to that speech. There are a couple of things I want to say.

Has the member opposite talked to the energy industry in Atlantic Canada? It wants this piece of legislation advanced as soon as possible. Has he talked to the premiers of Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador? They want this legislation advanced as soon as possible. Has he talked to indigenous leaders in Atlantic Canada? They believe in this legislation. The Conservative Party is hiding behind this idea that the delineation of consultation to a regulatory authority is somehow stepping away from the Crown's responsibilities. This matters to Atlantic Canada. The Conservative Party is standing against prosperity in Atlantic Canada.

My question is very simple. The member said that he believes in the principle but not the legislation. Will he support it to get it to committee so he can supposedly make it better? Will the Conservative Party support getting this to committee so we can advance it?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's passion and exuberance regarding the question, but the bottom line, once again, is that the government has missed the mark. This legislation is poorly written. We cannot vote on legislation based on our aspirations or because we hope that it is good; we must vote on bills as they are written. Right now this has so many concerning loopholes in it. They need to be addressed as quickly as possible so we can prioritize the priorities of our regions, ensure that true stakeholder engagement takes place, and that those in every sector that will be most affected by the decisions of the current government through this legislation will be incorporated into the process not on the back end once a bill comes in, but on the front end. I think the government has done a terrible job of consultation up to this point with those who are going to be most affected by the ramifications of this bill. We have to get it right. That is why we on this side of the House are standing up firmly against it.

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

Madam Speaker, the last Liberal speaker questioned whether or not my colleague had talked to any leaders in Atlantic Canada about whether or not they wanted the bill. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that most premiers in Atlantic Canada asked for the carbon tax to be removed. In fact, some of the Liberal caucus is actually all of a sudden starting to ask for the carbon tax to be removed in spite of the fact of voting for it multiple times over this session of Parliament. I am just wondering if my colleague could talk about how that decision to keep the carbon tax in place is harming the economy of Atlantic Canada as well as not doing anything to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for that great question and, absolutely, I could not agree with her more that the carbon tax is having devastating consequences on Atlantic Canadians. They feel it every time they fill up their car. They feel it every time they fill up their fuel tanks for their homes. They feel it every time they go to the grocery store, because everything that is trucked and shipped is affected by the carbon tax.

Honestly, I do not know about anyone else, but there is not a whole lot of access to metros and subways throughout Atlantic Canada. In fact, we have to drive everywhere we go, whether it is taking our kids to sports or going to work. No matter what it may be, we are driving vehicles, and we depend on them. Our industries depend on them. Our trucking sector, which is vital to our region, and those in the resource sector and our mills all depend on fuel. They depend on natural resources.

The carbon tax is punitive, useless and ineffective. It has shown no results as it relates to reducing carbon in the atmosphere. We have asked for a metric on it. We have asked for any type of reduction that can be shown by this government as a result of the implementation of the carbon tax and that somehow emissions have gone down, but it has no proof of that. There is no metric that has been provided yet to the House that substantiates the use of the Liberals' signature landmark piece of legislation as it relates to the environment: the carbon tax. There is no substantiation.

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. colleague for Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot move to my question without personally thanking him for his really kind email this summer sending prayers after my stroke. I am so grateful.

In the debate all day today I have heard Conservatives say that they do not like C-49. I have been specific about the thing I would like to see changed, which is to go back to the original Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum board acts and remove the conflict of interest that exists that promotes petroleum. However, I do not know, and I have not yet heard from my Conservative colleagues what it is that they want changed in C-49, because it is good legislation and we need to move it forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is so nice to see that she is recovering and doing well. I wish her all the best for a full and speedy recovery, and I continue to pray for that. I look forward to seeing her back in the House in person.

As it relates to Bill C-49, what is really important is that we feel, overall, that the bill is detrimental to the future development of resources in this country. It tramples all over provincial jurisdiction as well. It causes huge concerns for those who may want to invest in Canada, invest in our resource sector and help grow Canada's economy. They see it as a further impediment to growth, and many premiers have raised huge concerns as it relates to the bill. We will continue to stand against it, because the bill would hamper development, hamper our economy, hamper our economic viability in the future and hamper investment into a vital resource sector in this country that will lead to our future prosperity.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it seems like the Conservatives have an idea that they should be in control of what goes on in individual provinces. I will go back to the days of Stephen Harper when Danny Williams was the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there was a great feud built up, because the federal government wanted control of everything. Again, we are seeing it here today from the Conservatives: They want control.

Both premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are in favour of this bill and are asking for it to be done quickly. So what do the Conservatives have against Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians, and from an MP from New Brunswick?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague from across the way, the most distinguished member from Avalon, that we have definitely heard the concerns of the region. That is why we are standing against this bill on principle.

We have heard the concerns and the reflections of the premiers from a couple of the provinces, but we also have heard concerns about various bills that the government has brought in, namely the carbon tax that the hon. member would be very familiar with, that his premier and others have expressed huge concerns about its implementation and do not want this bill. They do not want that tax or for it to be fully implemented anywhere, or continue to be implemented and raised as we go forward.

I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with me. Yes, I think maybe the government should start listening to the premiers and scrap the useless carbon tax because it does not do any good.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions the need for spending and partnership with the oil and gas industry in order to make the transition. I do agree that the oil and gas industry invests greatly, generally speaking, in green technologies.

I think the member for Lakeland mentioned yesterday the amount of spending that goes on in green technologies by the industry. Recently the oil sands companies have been on track for their second-highest profits in a decade, yet they have made no new investments to reduce emissions.

I would like to know if the member believes this kind of voluntary approach has promise.

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

Madam Speaker, I would say this. The energy sector in Canada has been doing an incredible job up to this point in innovating and leading the way around the world with some of the best practices for extraction for energy as it relates to carbon capture initiatives and turning lands back into usable, functional areas and environmentally, eco-friendly development.

This sector has had some of the best innovators. Instead of getting credit when the sector has exceeded and gone beyond in those areas, we have always found that the government of this country continues to lambast the sector, come against the sector, ridicule the sector and talk down the energy sector of this country at a time when we have a great news story to tell, when we say that Canadian energy is the best energy in the world. It is a great place to invest. It is the best place to get clean, ethically and responsibly developed resources.

I think we need to be telling the good news story of energy in Canada and not the bad.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C‑49 today.

For centuries, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have relied on the ocean's industries. Others across Atlantic Canada have too. It is what we know. It is who we are. It feels somewhat historic when we talk of the Atlantic accord. If one is not from Atlantic Canada, one might not realize the significance of this agreement, particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Atlantic accord is fundamental to the respect and recognition shown between the federal and provincial governments. It was an agreement signed in 1985 that bound the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to a common understanding that the people of our province are the principal beneficiaries of their offshore oil and gas.

The Atlantic accord recognized what my province brought into this country. It recognized the historic resource strengths of Atlantic Canada, and today it recognizes that strength for the future, because now the accord will apply to renewable energy, to wind energy. As a Newfoundlander talking about wind, it may come as a surprise that this is neither a joke nor a complaint. We have huge opportunity harnessing the wind in our offshore, wind that will power not just the grid but some groundbreaking hydrogen projects. The province knows it, the private sector knows it and we know it. It is why we are working so closely together to manage and develop that resource.

This bill represents a moment of opportunity, and out my way we know to seize opportunity when it comes our way. Times were bleak after the cod moratorium, until first oil, until Hibernia, until we started to build our offshore. I remember first oil. We were not entirely sure we knew what we were doing, but we knew it was possible. We knew what could be done, and jointly managed and regulated through the soon-to-be former C-NLOPB, we stayed the course and people prospered. We did this in one of the harshest environments in the world to operate in, but we found a way. We always do. More importantly, we built up one of the most skilled labour forces the world has ever seen. People noticed and companies noticed, much like they are looking to us now.

In 2019, we renewed the accord. We established a Hibernia dividend for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with $3.3 billion of secure long-term and predictable payments that run from 2019 to 2056. More importantly, we recognized the province as the principal beneficiary of its resources.

Now it is time to renew the accord again. In fact, to call these “amendments” to the accord kind of feels wrong. What we are talking about here really is a natural evolution, because the world is evolving and because where we get our energy and how we get it are evolving. We need to evolve with it. Now is the time to renew the accord again.

The Atlantic accord will include renewable energy so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be the principal beneficiaries of that too. We are not losing what we have built in the offshore. We are proud of it. The people of my province, and the governments there, are hand in glove when it comes to the energy mix. We accept the world as it is. We embrace it. We applaud the engineering skill that built the West White Rose gravity-based structure because it is the same skill that will construct the wind turbine monopiles that are stored right next to it in Argentia, Newfoundland.

Think about all the jobs that come with this work. As Minister of Labour, I certainly do. When we have a good management structure in place, the more projects we attract and build, the more jobs they bring, and they are good jobs. Right now, there are oil and gas companies across Canada making sure the expertise of our workers can be used to build new renewable energy projects. We are going to need every worker we can get because big things are happening and they are happening quickly, so they must be managed properly. They must be managed as they always have been in the past 25 years, with the remarkable success our offshore has benefited from.

It is with great pleasure I tell the House that by passing Bill C-49, we will secure Atlantic Canada's future and Newfoundland and Labrador's birthright as a force to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hoping the hon. minister will look down at the note that was just provided to him. He may wish to split his time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me add a few points. I do not want to cede any time on this. I have worked too long and too hard on this Atlantic accord, on both its renewed nature in 2019 and the $3.3 billion that we were able to get for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it should get, and I am excited about what we are doing right now with Bill C-49.

What we are doing now is taking on a trusted structure, something that business knows, something that the industry knows and something that workers know. Through the Atlantic accord, we have built up agencies that provide investors stability so that they know what they are dealing with, and now, as we build a very exciting new chapter in Newfoundland and Labrador's energy industry, we want to make sure that those things still guide our way. They are things we worked so hard to build through the Atlantic accord and the C-NLOPB, with names that I think would be familiar to all sides of the House: John Crosbie, Bill Marshall, Brian Peckford, Progressive Conservative governments from both Ottawa and St. John's that together worked very hard to make it happen, Brian Mulroney and Pat Carney. These were people who had vision for this province and vision for what was at the time a very nascent industry.

I grew up on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and anyone who grows up on a rock in the middle of the ocean or in a town in Labrador like I did cannot afford ideology. They grow up seeing the world as it is, not as they wish it to be. They accept the world as it is; they are clear-eyed about it.

From the Minister of Rural Economic Development to the member for Avalon, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, the member for Labrador and the member for St. John's East, we knew the accord would need to reflect a change in the times. As companies and markets look to renewables, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be well managed and needs to be well positioned, and when it comes to energy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not need to play catch-up.

We are leaders. We like to lead. Even our province's oil and gas industry association, its biggest champion, NOIA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, changed its name to reflect this global shift in energy. It is now Energy NL. I was meeting with them just yesterday at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary. Sustainability and reducing emissions has become the name of the game. They realize that. They know it; they embrace it. Energy NL's vision is of a sustainable and prosperous lower-carbon energy industry.

This bill is going to change another name. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act will become the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act.

With all of this wind, including the wind I just used, we are now seeing big hydrogen projects on our doorstep, first-of-their-kind facilities. When I was the natural resources minister and we were developing Canada's hydrogen plan, never did I think that I would be standing on the tarmac of Stephenville airport on the west coast of Newfoundland and seeing the German Chancellor's plane landing with the CEOs of Siemens and Mercedes-Benz. They said they could have invested anywhere and created a green hydrogen industry, but they chose here, they chose us, because we are well managed and well regulated and because we have the best workforce in the world.

To members who have not been out my way, let me say that we have wind. The winds off of the Atlantic coast rival those of the North Sea, which is the birthplace of the world's offshore wind industry. This gives Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become leaders in an energy sector of the future, to support our region's industrial future and to create good jobs that will exist for generations to come.

It is expected that the offshore wind industry will attract $1 trillion of investment by 2040. We would have to be out of our minds to think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and others across the country are not going to be ready for what is to come. We are talking about renewable energy. That is good change coming. Change always makes some people anxious, but this is not about politics. This is actually about the market. Industry understands something that skeptics do not: The world is looking for renewable energy, for wind, for solar power.

We can sit on our hands and let those industries be built in other countries, letting workers in other countries get those good jobs, or we can get in on the ground floor and make sure that it is workers here who get those jobs, that it is Canadian workers, Atlantic Canadian workers and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who get that work. They are the ones and we are the ones who should be selling renewable energy to the world and taking home the profits. By passing Bill C-49, we will secure Atlantic Canada's future as a force to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about the importance of petroleum drilling projects like Hibernia and White Rose to his province. I am sure he is aware that within the NDP-Liberal government, there are those who continually war on oil and gas and want to shut it down. Is he not concerned that Bill C-49 contains measures that would give cabinet the power to decide on a whim to shut down important projects like Hibernia and White Rose without provincial input or necessary indigenous consultation?

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

Madam Speaker, what keeps me up at night is anybody from that side having their paws on my offshore industry anymore. Let me tell members what the Conservatives managed to do in their time in office, because it is absolutely remarkable. It would have taken someone 300 days to get the environmental permissions to drill an exploratory well. Through their magic, they made it 900 days. Do members know what we did just a few years ago? We made it 90 days.

This may seem counterintuitive to all sorts of people, but by working with the C-NLOPB, we managed to reduce 900 days to 90 days and increase the environmental oversight. That is what good management does. There is a reason Danny Williams had an “Anything but Conservative” campaign going on for the better part of 12 years back in my province. It is because of what the Conservatives did and would do again to an industry that has given so much to my province. Pay attention to it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his new position as Minister of Seniors. I hope we will be able to meet together soon to discuss this matter. I spent part of the summer on the road, meeting with groups across Quebec.

Concerning Bill C‑49, we have a lot of questions for the government. With the summer we just experienced, we need to move past environmental window dressing and on to practical actions aimed at achieving a true energy transition. The environmental issue is a Bloc Québécois priority.

Can my colleague reassure us and confirm that he will co-operate by answering our questions? Will he genuinely agree to think of concrete ways of achieving this energy transition?

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

Madam Speaker, first I will say that I look forward to working with the hon. member on issues regarding seniors.

There is a place that I will go back to again this weekend because I am very fond of this place. It is called Argentia, Newfoundland. It is a historic place because just off its shores is where Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt signed another Atlantic accord in the middle of World War II. It is a deepwater port. It has great access to the eastern seaboard, and it is right there that we are seeing what is called a monopile marshalling port, the first of its kind in the eastern seaboard. It is where we are going to build and collect the large foundations for offshore wind.

Transitions are not overnight events. Transitions take time. Perhaps one of the biggest differences among the members in this House is the view on how much time that is going to take. I understand that, particularly after the summer we have had. However, it is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is happening because it is a place where, as I said, we cannot afford to have ideology; we are about pragmatism. We are making those moves. Even as an oil-producing province, we are moving forward on lowering emissions and keeping our people employed in excellent jobs.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the Minister of Labour for appearing at today's rally. The labour leaders who were there heard his very firm promise on anti-scab legislation, and we will definitely be watching him for that important follow-through.

My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is about as far away as we can get in this country from Newfoundland and Labrador, but we do share a similar environment. I am from a coastal community, on both the east and west coast of beautiful Vancouver Island, and while the Pacific is not as rough as the North Atlantic, I realize the potential that comes from offshore wind and tidal resources. I celebrate the fact that we are trying to actively encourage that development.

I want to ask the minister, though, about the concerns we have heard from some conservationists and fishers regarding the lack of transparency when it comes to wind farm development in marine protected areas. I wonder if the minister can provide an update to this House on how marine protected areas will be treated when it comes to this important type of development.

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

Madam Speaker, indeed, we will be following up. As the member said, he heard my words at the workers rally today, and, as I said, we will be introducing that replacement worker ban legislation this fall. This is something that workers in this country have been looking for, I would say, since Canada's inception. It will most certainly be a momentous day, but it will have to be managed carefully, and we will work together to do that.

I would answer the member's question on marine protected areas in the same way. I doubt there are people anywhere, frankly, who are more attuned to what can happen if we take our eyes off the environment of Newfoundlanders, because within 20 or 30 years during the industrialization of our fishery, we saw the world's single biggest source of protein, the North Atlantic cod, decimated, and we lived with those consequences in 1992. We are thankful to the oil and energy industries for, frankly, coming to our rescue at the time in Newfoundland and Labrador and also in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I am happy to say that we helped build.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it is important we move rapidly to develop our offshore wind resources, but I dispute the minister's statement that it is a matter of opinion how fast we move in transition.

I ask if he has looked at the most recent report from the United Nations. The climate summit is occurring there tomorrow. It is very clear the world is not on track and that what we will experience in terms of extreme weather events in the future if we do not take dramatic action before 2030 will make this summer's events look like a Sunday picnic of perfect weather. We are right now on the cusp, standing on the edge of too late, and we are acting as though we have time for this leisurely transition. We do not.

I would ask the hon. member if he would reconsider and have the Prime Minister's cabinet reconsider, listen to climate scientists, cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline, ban fracking and do those things that are required. They are not easy, but they are required.

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

Madam Speaker, no, it is not easy, and no, I will not reconsider it. I would invite the hon. member to listen to the energy workers of this country about the amount of change they have gone through, the amount of change they continue to go through and the frustrations they feel.

I would challenge the hon. member to say who she thinks will do all this work on transitioning our energy sector. Who does she think will lower emissions? Who does she think will build up renewables? It is workers. It is workers I represent in St. John's South—Mount Pearl, people who have built an industry and now hear about the massive change that is happening, and it is. However, we on this side of the House listen to workers, not only because they are important but also because they are absolutely essential to this transition.

In my time as minister of natural resources, the first thing that crossed my mind in that industry was that we not lose the good workers in our oil and gas industries, because they are precisely the people who will build up renewables. They are precisely the people who will lower emissions. Who does she think does this work? That is why they are our greatest asset. That is why they are our greatest resource. That is why they are my top priority.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I have just a simple question regarding the approval process. Will this help projects like tidal energy be approved faster so we can have more clean energy in the Maritimes and on the east coast? We see right now that it is a bit of a slow walk and it should be approved a bit faster. We are hoping this legislation would help that out.

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

Madam Speaker, I would assure the hon. member that the intention of keeping what we know is to give those assurances to investors. The first thing we want to do is make sure we are attracting investment. We want to deal with entities we know and regulations we know, and build on those rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Whenever we get involved in an industry like renewables or like oil and gas, like anything, frankly, there has to be a certain amount of regulation. One person's red tape is another person's regulation, and one can go crazy with it certainly. We began with 300 days. The Conservatives made it 900 days, and we made it 90 days and actually increased environmental oversight. It is important to be smart about it and listen to the people close to the ground.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the 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.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The member knows we cannot use the names of current members.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative energy project in the Bay of Fundy. After 10 years of hard work, it was providing clean, green energy, which is what we all want, to Nova Scotians. For all their trail-blazing efforts, Sustainable Marine Energy was awarded a tide of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The repeated delays and a bombshell permit rejection, which the Liberal government refused to justify, were the straw that broke the camel's back. After five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges, the pilot project in Digby county was cancelled.

Let us think about the common elements here. Even though the project was the kind of renewable energy that the Liberal government is saying it wants to have, the company had to jump through hoops for 10 years. Finally, the government was able to pull the permit. The federal government can pull the permit without any justification. This is just a precedent of what is to come with the other projects currently existing in the petroleum sector on the coast. I am very concerned about that.

The other thing I would say is that Bill C-49 contains language to put Bill C-69 in it. It directly references the Impact Assessment Act, which, as I said, is a process that makes project approvals longer and their consultations more complicated. At the same time, someone could start and stop the process as many times as they wanted. There is lots of uncertainty. I am very unhappy about that one.

If we look at the access to offshore infrastructure, this bill says that the cabinet, the governor in council, would regulate access to that infrastructure, including enforcing tolls and tariffs. Here we go again. It is another opportunity for the Liberal government to toll, tariff and tax something that is already in place.

Who is going to pay the extra cost of those tolls, tariffs and taxes? The consumer of the energy that has been created will ultimately pay those costs. Have we not learned anything? We have seen the carbon tax get put in place. It drives up the cost of gasoline. It drives up the cost of home heating.

People in the Atlantic provinces are already struggling. All the premiers have asked for the removal of the carbon tax, and even the Liberal MPs from that area are asking for the removal of the carbon tax because it is increasing the cost of everything. It is increasing the cost of food.

They are not just taxing the farmers and putting tariffs on the fertilizer, which is another tariff and another cost that is being passed along, but they are also taxing the transporting of the goods to the processor. There is a carbon tax on the processor. They are shipping it to the grocery store with a carbon tax on that.

At the end of the day, the consumer is paying. When I see clauses such as this saying that the government can enforce tolls and tariffs on the infrastructure, I am concerned for the ultimate consumer because these costs are significant.

If we think about the carbon tax, we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the carbon tax is costing, depending on what province one lives in, from $1,500 to $2,500. Then there is the second carbon tax that was put in place, and the cost of that is another $1,800. That one is in every province, even in Quebec, although they are trying to deny that it is.

We talk about extra tariffs on top of that, and Canadians are out of money. The government is out of touch when it comes to understanding that there is no more money that people can pay. They were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills before the pandemic. Now, with the increase of all these taxes, people are borrowing money to live, and some of them have lost their houses and become homeless. People are skipping meals. They cannot afford to eat. Honestly, I am very concerned when I see this kind of language in the bill.

There is also a financial stipulation in the bill. It came with a royal recommendation, which says there is some level of federal funding that is required. An obvious question may be how much the funding is. There is no answer to that. It was not in the budget. It was not in any of the forecasts.

Where is this magic money going to come from? Are we going to run additional deficits? That is inflationary spending. We keep telling the government about this. In fact, the finance minister herself said that it would be pouring fuel on the inflationary fire to have this extra spending, but then we see things such as this, where there is extra spending. It is not even defined how much it would be. That is not going to be an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell.

I will be clear that Conservatives support the development of renewable resources, but we support those developments without political interference. We do not want the government of the day picking winners and losers and deciding what to shut down based on its ideology. That is not where we want to be. We want to see the free market drive this. There is an opportunity to create jobs, create prosperous industry and do the right thing for the environment. That is what Conservatives want to see.

I do not think this bill is capturing that. I think there is a lot of political interference put into the mechanisms of this bill in ministerial powers, cabinet powers, and tolls and tariffs. There are lots of mechanisms for the government to interfere.

Canadians are struggling, and the government's new draft regulations on clean electricity will push up costs even higher. Reporting from CTV in August indicates, “Electricity infrastructure expenses are expected to increase significantly over the next several decades as maintenance and increased demand is estimated to cost $400 billion”. That is already before we know how much the offshore renewables are going to cost.

I ask members to remember the lesson from Ontario, which was that it drove the price of electricity up so high that we were uncompetitive and people could not pay their power bills. This is not just a lesson from Canada. Germany experienced the same thing. It went heavy on renewables, which drove the cost of everything up. It then went back onto Russian oil and coal. Of course, we refused to take $59 billion to put Germany on low-carbon LNG from Canada, so Australia took that deal. It was the same thing with Japan, which gave us the same offer. Saudi Arabia took that deal.

Gee, I wish we had $120 billion more to put in our health care system so that everyone in this country could have a doctor. That is what I think. All I can say is that those are some of the concerns I have. There are many things in the bill that I do not object to. There are some administrative things that are taken care of. Those are fine.

Do I think we can fix all of this at committee? Call me skeptical, but my experience under this NDP-Liberal coalition is that its members will ram through an agenda to shut down oil and gas, and it does not matter what reasoned amendments the Conservative Party will bring at committee, as they will be refused. They will ramrod it through. They will time allocate it to make sure this thing is rushed through. They will be skimpy on the details and say, “Trust us. We'll get it in the regulations.” I have been here long enough to know that that is not good for Canadians.

Our job here as the official opposition is to point out what is wrong with these bills. It would be so nice if we could be consulted before the thing was written, when it could still be altered, but here we are with something that honestly has way too much political power in it. I do not think it is going to be good for the Atlantic provinces. They do not think it is going to be good for them. They are already crying out against the policies of the government with respect to the carbon tax.

Those are my initial thoughts. I may have more thoughts as we go forward, but I would be happy to take questions.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's closing comments were interesting. We have heard a wide spectrum of support for Bill C-49, not just from the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc in the House, but from provincial entities as well.

The questions I have for the member are about her concern that we are going to have to time allocate this to get it through and that we are going to try to ram through the legislation. Is that to say that the Conservatives have no intention of seeing the bill ultimately go to committee? Is the member already conceding that the Conservatives are going to filibuster this legislation? Why do the Conservatives not believe in at least having the opportunity to see this legislation advance to the committee stage? Why does she insist that the Conservatives have to be time allocated for this bill to ultimately pass?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am judging from experience. The behaviour of the past is a predictor of the future. The government continues to time allocate all the time. Am I saying this is not going to committee? No, I am listening to the debate and to what other people are saying, but I am pointing out the things that I think are shortcomings in the bill.

The government says that it is urgent, because we have climate change and it is an emergency. Let us talk about that for a minute. In 2005, our emissions were 732 megatonnes. Every party in this House committed to reduce that 30% by 2030. That means we need to get to 512 megatonnes. Today we are at 819 megatonnes. The government's plan has done nothing. I believe in real action. Using offshore renewables and reducing emissions are good things, but the government cannot be the one pulling the strings and deciding who the winners and who the losers are.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her statements. I find that, oftentimes, the member speaks quite eloquently to her point. I think she is a champion not only for her community but also for conservatism across the country.

I would humbly submit that, in this place, New Democrats have often been consistent in our message that we do have a climate crisis. It is a great day in Parliament when Conservatives speak directly to the climate crisis. In my home province of Alberta, we have seen and continue to see outrageous wildfires that are polluting our air, destroying traditional hunting and harvesting grounds, and changing our environment for the worse. This is harming and scaring our children and the next generation. We spoke about, for example, free market decisions and how the Conservatives' values relate to the free market.

I would like to remind the member that Conservative governments right across this country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, have directly intervened in the free market by way of a moratorium on all renewable projects for six months. Can members imagine the kind of interference that would be? Can they imagine if a government had that kind of power to intervene and stop projects in this way? That is what is happening in Alberta right now. There are 118 renewable energy projects worth $33 billion, including one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country. This is an extreme interference in the free market. Whether it is a pause or a cancellation, it is a direct attack on the free market, which is something the Conservatives often tout as a victory for capitalism in this place. How does the member circle that square when it comes to support for renewable projects and oil projects?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, at the start of the member's question, he talked about all the forest fires. I feel terrible about the impacts of the forest fires in B.C., but I want to point out that 14 years of carbon tax did nothing to help that.

I also want to point out that if we look at the 819 megatonnes of emissions we had this year, 290 megatonnes so far were due to forest fires. The Liberal government said that it was going to spend $500 million to buy more water bomber equipment and train more firefighters to reduce the length of time that these things burn. It has not done that.

Why does the member and his whole NDP team continue to support the government on disastrous policies that are not addressing climate change and are making life more expensive? Why do they not get a divorce?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Sarnia that it is important to distinguish the measures that reduce emissions, or at least provide a break with respect to growing emissions, from the global phenomenon. Overall, Canada's record is one of failure under successive governments to reduce emissions. In Copenhagen, the previous government under Stephen Harper promised to reduce emissions, but it failed to do so; emissions went up. Similarly, in Paris in 2015, the government under the current Prime Minister pledged to reduce emissions, but they have gone up.

The individual use, particularly by the Province of British Columbia, in bringing in place a carbon price initially held emissions and reduced them. That was contaminated by the provincial NDP government when it changed the way our revenue-neutral carbon tax worked in B.C.

However, the global phenomenon of increased emissions and global warming has what is referred to as a feedback loop. This is something the member for Sarnia—Lambton did not identify. Burning forests add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but those burning forests are themselves caused by the carbon dioxide we already added to the atmosphere. One cannot attach that to a policy tool used in one jurisdiction and call it a failure. We really need carbon pricing, and it needs to go up.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say that it is a global problem. If we look at the percentage of the global problem that is due to people using heavy oil and coal, we can talk about that 50% and how Canada's LNG could actually cut that by 75%. That would be something worth doing in the world. Instead, our 18 LNG projects were cancelled. Can we guess what happened then? The 18 LNG projects popped up in the Nordic countries, so the carbon footprint did not leave the planet; only the jobs and prosperity for Canadians did.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her passion.

I am very worried. This is not the time to take overly polarized positions on any specific projects or initiatives in that regard, whether good or moderate, or whether they require further study. We absolutely must focus on the environment. If there is one thing the House should agree on, it is a consensus to move forward as quickly as possible.

It is no longer the eleventh hour. We are well past that. With that in mind, I firmly believe that political fervours that lead people to power or that encourage people to please their base are no longer an option. We must work together. That is why the Bloc Québécois wants to act responsibly right now.

From my colleague's point of view, what will it take in terms of climate change or extreme climate events for the Conservative Party to finally decide to take real, conscientious action for the environment?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has an absolutely sound and real climate change reduction plan. We would reduce emissions, increase absorptions and get a plan to actually mitigate the impacts of climate change, floods, etc., that we are seeing.

The Conservative leader has talked about small modular nuclear reactors, which could replace diesel in the north and be used, for example, to generate electricity for greenhouses for food security. We have talked about the need to increase rail in this country and to build rail with housing close to it. We have heard about those things and about LNG. There are a lot of opportunities to reduce emissions in terms of increasing absorption. Carbon sequestration is a key technology that Canada should be leveraging. We would certainly be able to actually plant trees, not just talk about planting trees.

At the end of the day, we have to have a plan, because we cannot be calling in the military every time we have a flood or a fire. It is not resourced to do that work, and we have to have a plan, because we know we are going to continue to see impacts.

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

Madam Speaker, the labour minister said something very interesting when I asked him a question about tidal energy. He said Liberals really enjoy working with proponents they know. He was not talking about bringing in other outside foreign investments. I firmly believe that Liberals like giving money to Liberals. They are pretty good at that. The one interesting thing is that, when we listen to his speech, every now and then we can hear the actual truth.

In this bill, there is an indefinite review process by ministers that would perhaps allow for some political manoeuvring. What does my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton think about that clause in this bill?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am absolutely in agreement with my colleague. In my books, it is back to the drawing board on this bill, because there is so much wrong with it that I am not sure we can amend it and fix it.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will not need all my time, as I will be sharing it with the member for Winnipeg North. He will probably have the bulk of the 20 minutes. Since the discussion on the topic began, I have thought it was necessary for a Newfoundlander to stand up and say a few words on it. I know the minister spoke earlier, and I compliment him on his speech.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49, which is an act to amend the Atlantic accord acts with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a crucial piece of legislation that matters in the global race toward our net-zero future, and Canada is in the driver's seat to be a leader on just that.

The legislation is required to do just that. The Atlantic accords first signed between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1985 and subsequently signed between Nova Scotia and the federal government in 2005 are symbolic of the importance of the work that was done to fight for regional equality in Atlantic Canada. This was done to ensure equity in how the resources of oil and gas at that time were to be distributed in the federation and for the benefit of our provinces. While the oil and gas sector still plays an important role in Newfoundland, today, by amending the accords, we would be setting the path to how best to govern, manage and, ultimately, benefit from the resource of offshore wind.

There are many ways to look at the benefit offshore wind represents to Canada. First and foremost, this opportunity is crucial in our fight against climate change. The science is clear: We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and projects on the Atlantic coast can do just that by harnessing the wind for our collective benefit. The power can help Canada not only to decarbonize its current electricity capacity but also to ensure that it has excess power to supply to other provinces as well.

Beyond the domestic focus, this opportunity represents an enormous export potential for green hydrogen to be transported as ammonia for industrial uses around the world, helping to decarbonize the world. I know that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador just issued permits to four different companies that are interested in creating wind energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and in producing hydrogen to be shipped to other European countries. They are not approved yet, but they are authorized to go to the next level to get that done. As the labour minister mentioned earlier, this is something that will help workers in Newfoundland and Labrador create a new field of expertise. Thus, the workers who built our oil industry will also help build our wind energy.

In his speech, the minister also mentioned the Port of Argentia becoming a port to house the so-called monopiles that will be used in offshore wind energy projects. I had the opportunity to be in Argentia and look at some of those, as they were sitting on the land, that came in the first shipment. They will be used for projects off the east coast of the United States, and Argentia will play a major role in that.

They are able to do that with the help of the federal government. It was only a couple of months ago that the then minister of transport announced major project funding for the Port of Argentia to build and expand its wharfage. It was a $38-million investment from the federal government for a $100-million project that the port is taking on. It has reinvented itself. At one time, Argentia was a U.S. naval base and served the area well, and of course it was a great economic driver when it was there at the time. However, today, it has this to depend on as another major economic driver for that full area.

It boggles my mind to hear people say that nobody wants this to happen. The premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for the renewal of the accords to be done and signed off on by the federal government and the provinces. They can then go out and attract new industry to come to the provinces and create good jobs and good family incomes in the meantime.

Somebody spoke about working with proponents we know who already have a record in this field. That is exactly what it is. These people who are coming to set up the wind farms, whether onshore or offshore, have the experience. They have done it before in many regions around the world and they are certainly looking forward to doing it in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Hopefully, it does get approval to go ahead in both areas.

I know the member mentioned the carbon tax and nobody standing up against it. I would remind people in this House that it was I, as an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, who stood and voted with a Conservative motion to eliminate the carbon tax on home heating fuel. I still stand by that and I support that vote. I had my own reasons for doing it. I wanted to let the people I represent know that I am prepared to stand up and speak for them when necessary in this House.

I will close off here and answer any questions that anybody has on this particular piece of legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member probably knows that I share roots in Newfoundland. That is where my mother and her family were from and I hope that he sees the labradorite that I cherish from St. Paul's and I am wearing on my neck for this debate today. Of course it is always tough to debate a Newfoundlander and Labradorian who, also like the labour minister, among Canadians, is uniquely skilled at oration and speeches.

I appreciate the member's measured comments because there has been a lot of mischaracterization of the issues that Conservatives are raising about this bill today. We recognize that the provincial governments support the bill. I know that the key thing they wanted was the incorporation of the provincial ministers for having a say. We respect provincial jurisdiction and I am glad to see that.

However, there are some realities around expanding the scope of the mandate of the regulators dealing with a whole bunch of environmental issues and local impacts in renewable offshore development that would require new expertise, technical abilities and skill sets. Does the member have any comment around wanting to see, as we do, clarity in the bill in terms of resource provisions that would be required for regulators to meet their new mandates and any other of the real logistical, practical implications that would be required to support both petroleum offshore drilling and renewable offshore projects as well?

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is great to know the member has some roots in Newfoundland and Labrador. I always tell everybody that there is no place like home. I look forward to each and every day that I can get on a plane to fly back to Newfoundland and be in my riding. I appreciate the time I spend there. I do not necessarily appreciate it as much to be here in Ottawa, but I am a bit of a home person.

Passing this bill would give it the opportunity to go to committee and see if there are amendments that need to be done to strengthen the bill or to make sure we are not overstepping our boundaries when it comes to dealing with individual provinces and individual boards. I look forward to the bill's getting passed, going to committee for review and if there are some adjustments that need to be made to it, that should be the place that it happens.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague with whom I have the great pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. He chairs that committee and we have spent a lot of time together trying to save our fisheries. I would like to ask him two questions.

We worked hard on the right whales file. We have seen all the effort that is being made by our fishers to keep right whales as safe as possible and ensure their survival. We know that takes a lot of energy and causes a lot of stress for our fishers.

What should we make of the marine gas exploration initiative in an area known to be frequented by right whales versus the efforts fishers are making to save this species?

Meanwhile, Quebec is a role model in terms of wind energy. We know that social licence is needed to implement this type of mechanism, which is a great alternative to gas exploration.

Are you sure you are going to get enough social licence from your people?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that she needs to address her comments to the Chair.

The hon. member for Avalon.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I believe it is a good sector. I understand what the member is saying about the protection of whales. However, I have not heard of any incidents, even in the offshore oil industry, that have damaged whales or pods of whales. There is more concern around the fishing gear in the water. They become entangled and drown, or whatever.

I know in Newfoundland we are only looking at having the monopiles onshore and not offshore, with the wind energy. Nova Scotia may be looking at offshore, I do not know. I do not know the habits of the whales in that area.

This past summer I managed to get quite a few nice pictures of whales in my riding. They were putting on a bit of a show in the area. They were free to do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That last question goes to the hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are talking a lot about offshore wind. I used to live in Newfoundland, and it is a windy place. The door blew off my Jeep once at Point Verde, just south of Argentia.

I want to mention that what we need in Canada is increased interprovincial interties of electricity. We have heard talk of the Atlantic Loop and how that plays into all of this. Investments in those interties would help us develop renewables across the country.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, all I will say about the Atlantic Loop is that I think all parties are onside with creating the Atlantic Loop.

It is very important to get New Brunswick and Nova Scotia off coal, for example. I think that would allow it to happen. It would take a lot of money and a lot of effort to do. The power that comes from, and I will use Churchill Falls as an example, and goes into Quebec may not be enough power to actually satisfy the demands. We may have to look at developing Gull Island or some other project in Labrador. The water is there, the flow of water is there. It is the cleanest energy that we could produce. I think we should be driving it more each and every day to help produce clean energy projects.

I would be remiss if I did not say I am not against all projects offshore. I have two family members who worked in that industry for many years, and one of them still does.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, every so often, when we bring in legislation, there are some surprises.

Yesterday, it was quite encouraging when we brought in Bill C-48 on the bail reform issue and we saw parties come together to recognize the value of the legislation and understand and appreciate how important it was to get it passed.

In fact, later yesterday, after a few hours of debate, a Conservative member suggested that we go ahead with unanimous consent and pass it through the system.

That was a bit of a surprise. I was quite pleased about it. I thought it surprised a number of people. It was quite encouraging because it shows that, if the House recognizes something of great value, collectively, where we have all parties onside, we can accomplish things very quickly inside the House.

I look at Bill C-49, which we are debating today. I am not from Atlantic Canada, as we all know, but I understand the importance of regional development. The Atlantic accord is of critical importance to Atlantic Canada, to two provinces in particular, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia.

We understand and appreciate all of the efforts. I have had a number of Conservatives stand up and ask why it took so long to bring it before the House. It is not like one can snap one's heels together, wave a wand and make legislation appear. There is a lot of work that is done prior to bringing the legislation forward. There is a timing issue. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place.

As for my quick readthrough, in terms of the legislation, and the passion that I have seen from my Atlantic colleagues in dealing with this legislation, and they are a passionate caucus, as we know, this is good solid legislation that should be supported.

What surprises me today with Bill C-49 is that it is one thing to say one does not want to pass it today. It is another thing to come out saying one opposes the legislation. That is what we are hearing from the Conservative Party today.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the principles of this legislation. This is legislation that has the support of every other political entity, from what I understand, inside the House. It also has the support of provincial jurisdictions of different political stripes. We have heard member of Parliament after member of Parliament, at least from some opposition benches and the government benches, talking about how important this legislation is.

Even the Minister of Labour and Seniors came forward, in a very passionate speech. He was not the only member of the caucus who spoke passionately about the importance of this legislation to their respective provinces.

Renewable energy is so critically important when we talk about economic development into the future. I know that first-hand from being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, first as an MLA in Manitoba, and the impact that Manitoba Hydro has had on the residents of Manitoba, to the benefits of Canada as a nation.

It is a renewable energy. It is one of the reasons why, and I do not know if it still is today, and if not, it would be very close, the cheapest energy price in North America, in terms of electrical rates, is in Manitoba. It now might be two or three. I know that when I was a MLA, for a long period of time it was number one, the cheapest rate.

I can tell members that here is an opportunity. When we talk about Canada reaching its climate targets and looking at offshore renewable energy projects, one can very easily get excited to think of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal communities, because the opportunities are great.

However, I do not understand why, in looking at the legislation, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to say “no” to Atlantic Canada. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I listen to the energy that is coming from the government benches, which is being driven by my Atlantic colleagues, like the member for Avalon talking about how important this legislation is, there seems to be a disconnect with the Conservative Party.

It was interesting when the member for Avalon posed a question earlier to a Conservative member asking why he did not support the bill. The Conservative member stood up and said that it is the principle of the legislation and that it is about the carbon tax. Really? I do not think that a number of the Conservative speakers who have stood up really understand what the legislation would do, as they were trying to rope in the issue of a price on pollution and, as that one member implied, base an opinion on a price on pollution to not support the bill. It seems to me that they are being somewhat misguided. I have not heard from any Conservative member, and I have been here all day listening to member after member speak on the legislation, specifically why this legislation cannot be passed.

We had the former Conservative member stand up and speak for 20 minutes about, based on the past, we are going to see time allocation and that we are going to see some opposition parties working with the government in order to get the bill time-allocated in order to pass. Well, I can assure the Conservative Party that there will be time allocation on this bill if the Conservatives are going to filibuster it, because we on the government side see the value of this legislation to Atlantic Canada and to Canada as a whole, which is the reason we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we see this type of regional economic development take place. If that means working with New Democrat and Bloc members in order to ensure we get time allocation so that we can get legislation passed, I am game for that.

We recognize that we are talking about our environment. We are talking about future jobs and opportunities. I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador continue to be a “have” province. I want to see the prosperity of all regions of our country. I recognize the value of renewable energy, because of the example of Manitoba Hydro. I see where government does play an important role. What I do not see is why the Conservative Party would take an issue such as this and deny two provinces the opportunity where there was an agreement.

After this legislation passes, with the support of at least some opposition parties, and it will pass, it will receive mirror legislation from provincial legislatures in order to enact and make sure that it turns into a reality so that the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will have wonderful renewable energy resources being developed and opportunities well into the future.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member says that he was listening to the debate all day, but it seems like he has not heard what the Conservatives have said.

On the point about the carbon tax, I think the reason the member was raising it is because the Atlantic premiers said they did not want the carbon tax. They have also asked for a suspension of the clean fuel regulations. They also, by the end of Bill C-69 leaving the Senate, opposed Bill C-69. The government ignored all of them. I think that is why this is being brought up.

Since the member wants to know what issues the Conservatives are raising in the actual bill, if he were to read it, I will tell him. It is because this bill would not only allow for the potential arbitrary decision-making to end both existing and future offshore petroleum drilling, but that would also impact renewable energy offshore development according to this bill.

This bill is an attack to end offshore petroleum drilling, as is the government's track record, and it will also hold up the development of renewables too. This bill actually triples the timeline for final ministerial decisions on renewable offshore energy development. In section 28 and 137, it gives the ability for cabinet to arbitrarily prohibit development in areas. It imports—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. parliamentary secretary the opportunity to answer and for other questions to be asked.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting how the Conservatives want to critique the bill in order to try to justify an irresponsible position, when all one needs to look at is us having a Progressive Conservative premier who is actually in agreement with the legislation. We have other jurisdictions that are provincial. What the member is actually implying in her critique of it is that those jurisdictions also got it wrong. I believe the consensus within the legislation that we are proposing to pass is in fact—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, at first glance, Bill C‑49 does not seem to do away with the annual process for the auction and sale of exploratory drilling permits.

Why then was the word “petroleum” removed from the names of the two boards if their mission still involves offshore oil and gas development? Is this more smoke and mirrors from the Liberals when it comes to the environment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if we saw the legislation pass into committee, the member would be afforded all sorts of opportunities to get some of the specifics answered at the committee stage. If there are some issues opposition members would like to see amended in some fashion, that would provide an excellent opportunity to do so. I am not familiar with the specifics of the question that was posed.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, the provincial Conservative government in Nova Scotia is moving aggressively to establish a significant footprint in power supply from offshore wind. Clearly, it sees the benefits of tapping into the enormous potential of renewable energy. As New Democrats, we see there is enormous potential for a thriving offshore renewable energy industry in Atlantic Canada. We need to seize this potential, while making sure it is done right.

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ultimately argue that there are many winners in the passage of this legislation and will conclude my comments by saying that we have to remember there has to be mirror legislation from provincial jurisdictions in order to enact into law the regulatory bodies.

For example, if we can somehow get this thing passed before the end of the year, we still have to have provinces bring it into their jurisdiction potentially, which can also take time. That is why, in good part, it would be nice to get a commitment from the official opposition that they would like to see this legislation pass before the end of the year.

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

Madam Speaker, Tip O'Neill once said all politics is local, but in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and the climate crisis, it is rather the crucible of events. We have the extreme traumatic event of hurricane Fiona that impacted Newfoundland and Labrador so strongly. People from that province now take a different view about the climate crisis; it is personal.

This is a really exciting opportunity. Onshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador may lead to green hydrogen. Offshore could be huge. However, the federal cabinet thinks it has to have a sop for Newfoundland and Labrador so it approved the Norwegian Crown corporation Equinor with Bay du Nord, which is an abomination in the face of the climate crisis.

Can the hon. member suggest that we perhaps could get policy coherence from the government, say no to Bay du Nord and move more rapidly on onshore and offshore wind?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Canada has some very aggressive climate targets that we want to be able to achieve. We passed legislation not that long ago regarding that, and this legislation ultimately will help Canada address those targets. What we have found over the years, with all the disasters that have taken place, is even more and more Canadians are looking to governments to show leadership on the issue of climate.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place about the important issues facing Canadians, and to be back after a summer break. I am sure I am not alone, but I would like to take a moment to specifically talk about the fact I had the opportunity to travel across Battle River—Crowfoot and the more than 60 municipalities I have the honour of representing; over 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful east country Alberta real estate.

Although I make it home every weekend, it is always good to spend a little more focused time chatting with those good common-sense thinking Canadians who make up those communities across east central Alberta. I can tell the House that what I heard from so many of them emphasizes exactly what I am going to talk about regarding this bill. It comes back to the basic foundation of trust.

One needs to be able to trust, whether it is a bill like we see before us in Bill C-49, whether it is the words of a Prime Minister or whether it is the actions of a cabinet behind closed doors and the cabinet confidences associated with that and the whole range of other elements that make up our institutions within this country. From the thousands of kilometres I drove across east central Alberta, communities where there is no such thing as public transit, from small hamlets to the small city of Camrose, I know these folks are ready for somebody they can trust. Definitively, I can say they do not trust these Liberals. They do not trust their agenda. They do not trust what they say. The unfortunate reality is that history proves that point.

I bring it back now specifically to Bill C-49. We are talking about, in broad strokes, a bill that brings forward a whole host of changes that have the intent, and I use the word “intent” specifically, to provide that framework to allow for renewable development in two of Canada's Atlantic provinces.

I heard the previous speaker, who I do not think actually spent much time listening to some of the concerns Conservatives brought forward over the course of this debate. It is a laudable goal. What is unfortunate is the Liberals, the NDP and I think the Bloc as well are so blinded by the politics of these energy issues that they refuse to acknowledge the reality that exists. I am proud to represent a constituency that is, and I am not sure it is the most but certainly one of the most, bullish on renewable development. There are wind farms being built.

I also am proud to be involved in my family farm. I could go on a lot about some of the complaints I heard from farmers, but I will save that for another day. What is interesting is about the vehicles driving by. In fact, we had to time some of the moving from one field to another and moving large equipment on the roads because of the shift change that was being dealt with at some of these renewable developments.

People in Alberta get energy. We get oil and gas and we get renewables. We get the whole spectrum of it, but the unfortunate reality is the government does not.

I brought forward the issue of trust. I heard about it constantly over the course of the summer. The reason that is so key when it comes to the debate surrounding Bill C-49 is because the government is saying it wants to accomplish all of these things. It is saying it wants to model these regulations and have these objectives, but by the way, it is allowed to interfere in the process, so to just trust it. It is going to model it after the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, so it is saying to just trust it on that.

They have dealt with the consultation of the provinces, and I heard many times from members of the Liberal Party that we should support this because there is provincial support. I acknowledge this fully. I am glad there was that consultation that took place and I am glad they were able to come to some sort of consensus.

However, what I find absolutely tragic is that we cannot trust what the Liberals say because, time and time again, when it fits their political narrative, they will throw their provincial partners under the bus. Bill C-69 is referenced in the context of this bill. All 10 provinces in this country wanted that repealed, so how dare the government stand up and righteously say that provinces support the bill? There are not many issues that all 10 provinces of this country will agree upon unanimously, but the Prime Minister accomplished it with the opposition to one of the most absurd pieces of legislation to cross the floor of this place. Forgive me if I come back to the basic premise that we simply cannot trust the Liberals.

When it comes to many of the details of this bill, we look at how it could add red tape. Liberals say that it is okay because they will create a framework and it will be dealt with in regulations. The unfortunate reality is that, when those words are uttered by Liberals, it effectively means that they will accomplish nothing.

I will sum up the energy situation in our country after eight years of a Prime Minister who is absolutely clueless on energy. If I could sum up the conversation of those eight years, I would sum it up in two words: missed opportunity. Why is that? We have seen the untold cost of these additional delays, the red tape, the impacts of Bill C-69, the carbon tax and the fact that the Liberals seem to care more about piling things on their desks than actually dealing with these problems. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment are gone. That is a missed opportunity, and I will say why it is so significant and why I highlight it here.

We talk often about the fiscal situation of the country, the debt and the deficit. I know provinces talk a lot about investing in schools and hospitals. Municipalities will talk about paving roads and water infrastructure, the whole deal. However, when it comes down to it, the missed opportunity here is the hundreds of billions of dollars that did not get invested in our economy. That means fewer schools, fewer hospitals, fewer paved roads. That means fewer resources to invest in the benefits that the Liberals talk so much about. It is a missed opportunity.

There are the situations around wind, solar, battery production, minerals and resources. These are all very real issues. Once again, I would sum up the last eight years as a missed opportunity. The American president came to this very House and said he wanted to partner, but why would any company invest in a country that it cannot trust would ever be able to build a mine? Once again, I ask the question about trust. There is a whole host of questions on whether the Liberals can be trusted, and their history shows otherwise.

When it comes to the development of renewables, a tidal project got cancelled because the government cannot be trusted when it comes to dealing with the economy. Specifically, that project was cancelled because of cost overruns. Again, we come down to a very fundamental premise: Can we trust that Bill C-49 would build renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada? The Liberals' history makes that very question one that we cannot answer. The Liberals stand and say a lot of things about that, but the reality speaks otherwise. We need to make sure that we are pragmatic in the way we approach energy issues. There is one way that I think we should be able and willing to do that.

I often hear from my NDP colleagues, and there are only two here from Alberta. They seem quite quick to diminish our oil and gas sector. Sometimes when I listen to them speak in this place, I wonder if they have forgotten that they ran for federal office and not provincial office. I certainly hear quite often from my constituents after they have listened to either question period or some of the debates, and they ask that very question.

We need to be pragmatic and realistic about energy. We need to ensure that, when we are talking about solutions, we understand the impacts that exist. I know there has been a whole host of conversations about renewable projects in Alberta. I did talk about how there are those investments being made, and I know there are other investments.

I had the opportunity for a couple of years, and it was truly an honour and a privilege, to work with former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall. He was proud to be leading at a time when Alberta had fallen into a deep socialist chasm where it had a government that was so clueless that it tried to tell farmers that, if they set foot outside their front door, they might be subject to the rules and regulations put forward by a bureaucrat in the province's capital. Can members believe that? It was a dark time for the province of Alberta and one that I am very thankful the people of Alberta resoundingly rejected only a number of months ago.

However, when it comes to the energy reality we have to face, costs are up. On that subject I hear two things, and quite often they are disconnected. We hear Liberals talk about wanting to address things such as the cost of living crisis, but they also want to increase costs.

Let us look at the former of those two. The Liberals want to address the cost of living crisis, often in the form of government payments. There was support, and I believe it was unanimous support, to increase the GST rebate, which the Liberals renamed the “grocery rebate”. I am not sure the Prime Minister should be bragging that his economic management has led us to so many Canadians not being able to afford groceries without the help of the government. That is a whole other conversation, though.

The cost of living crisis is real. I was replying to some constituents' emails today, and seniors are talking about how they cannot afford energy. They just got a power bill, and they are scared about their upcoming gas bill, not to mention the fact that winter is coming. That is part of it, but let us look at why. Let us have a realistic, pragmatic look at why that is the case.

Part of the reality is a carbon tax. The Liberals do not like it when we bring this up to bridge the connection I am about to make because the reality is that they want costs to go up. The carbon tax, by its very design, is made to increase costs, yet we have the government talking about how one has to address affordability. Can members believe that? The Liberals are intentionally making costs rise, yet they talk a whole host about affordability. That is part one.

Now here is the latter of the two points I made, and it is related to the environment. Let us be real here. The carbon tax and the Liberals' environmental plan are not accomplishing the objectives that they set out to, nor are they truly even an environmental plan. The Liberals talk often about needing to address climate challenges, yet they have failed to do so every step of the way. It is terribly ironic how they laud an increase in costs, yet they are not accomplishing anything. They are subjecting Canadians to so much pain, yet there is no gain. I said that we needed to be real here, and it is that lived reality that so many Canadians are facing.

When it comes to the realistic nature, we need to be a country that can say yes to development. Processes and structures have to be in place to ensure we respect the environment and to ensure human rights. Alberta specifically, but our nation generally, is a leader in this. I applaud my provincial counterparts in Newfoundland.

I spent close to a decade batching wells and throwing pigs. That may be a strange reference to many in the House, but basically that is doing environmental work in the oil patch. If members have questions about that, I would be happy to talk to them about what batching wells and throwing pigs is all about.

The lived reality of what Alberta is, and the unprecedented prosperity in the western world, quite frankly, that we have seen, is an example for so many. I applaud Newfoundland and Labrador. They are visionaries in being able to continue to use their resources, to look at the opportunities that exist and be a leader.

I believe the press conference was in Newfoundland. I may stand corrected on that. When the German chancellor came to Canada with a metaphorical cheque in hand, saying they want our LNG, what did our illustrious Prime Minister say? He said, “Sorry, there is no market for it.” What he forgot to add is that was because he had closed down the market. It is that reality that exists.

I have had conversations with constituents. One constituent called me a number of weeks ago. I want to bring this up because I think it is an interesting idea. Often what happens is that the thinking that takes place in Ottawa, our nation's capital, and sometimes even in corporate headquarters and whatnot, is a little blinded to the reality that exists. Let me throw a couple of things out there.

For those who have seen wind development, they are impressive machines. They are absolutely massive. For those who have seen them moved on trains and trucks, I would note the resources that are required to move them. They are massive machines. I had a constituent bring up an interesting point the other day. They asked, “Why not put solar panels on a windmill?” Why not? Maybe there is something that could be practical about that.

I had another constituent who was frustrated because a solar project was being built without adequate consultation. I am paraphrasing, but he basically shared how frustrated he was that 160 acres, a quarter section, was going to be gravelled over and have solar panels built on it. A quarter section of land was going to be gravelled over, productive ranch land. This constituent brought up to me something that was really interesting. He asked, “Why do they not build the panels an extra three feet tall, and then at least goats or sheep could be run on the land?”

The reason I wanted to bring those things up is that, so often, in what is being discussed in this place, we lose sight of what matters to Canadians. We lose sight of regular folks going about their business, the individuals who are hard at work. They are those who are working in the oil patch, those who are building the wind turbines, those who are driving the trucks and those farmers who are currently, in many places, in the field, including my father. I will say hello to my dad, and I think my wife was in the grain cart today, so I will say hello, sweetheart.

So often, we forget the reason why all of us are here is not for some ideological objective. It is not for some nuanced, political whatever. We are here because of the people. Let us make sure we work for the people. When I spoke to many people across my constituency this summer, they said that they could not trust the Liberals. I stand here today in this place and say history proves that right.

Therefore, we need to work at bringing back trust to our institutions. When it comes to making sure there is energy development in this country, let us get it right, because whether it is traditional energy or new energy, Canadians deserve better than what they have been getting from the Liberals.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member said something about making sure that when we are in this House, we should not lose sight of what is important to people. In my community of Don Valley East, as in many communities across this country, climate change is real. People are feeling the impact of climate change. I just did a survey. It was among the top three issues, so I know it matters to people in my neighbourhood.

As to my question for the member opposite, he talked a lot about the environment and keeping our environment healthy and clean with renewables. I would like to know if the member believes in climate change. I know his party, at its previous convention, voted against accepting climate change as real. I would like to know from the member if he and his party actually believe in climate change.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, do members know how rich it is for a Liberal MP to ask a farmer whether he believes that climate change is real? I can tell him that for more than five generations my family has not only dealt with the realities of climate, but has understood it better, I would submit, than the vast majority of members on that side of the House, who try to politicize and dictate to Canadians.

The member specifically said that climate change and the concerns associated with that issue were among the top three concerns raised by his constituents. I am sure it was, so let us have a plan that actually addresses it. What he conveniently forgot to mention in the question was that affordability and housing were probably the first two.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time standing in the House this session, so I just want to welcome you back and welcome all of my colleagues back.

My colleague's speech was entertaining. I have to say that he spoke more about goats than he did about climate change, so I have a bit of concern about the priorities there.

He did talk about reducing red tape and about costly delays, and he did talk about missed opportunities. A large part of his conversation today was about missed opportunities, so he will not be surprised that I am going to ask some questions about missed opportunities in our province, in the province of Alberta, where the leader has stopped renewable projects. We have a Conservative leader who has stopped renewable projects in the province, costing $33 billion and thousands and thousands of Alberta jobs.

The member can talk about how the trucks got in the way for him, but realistically, if he wants to talk about missed opportunities, that has to be one of the biggest missed opportunities in this country. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member would so selectively listen to what I said. Here is the reality. If the member understood the pragmatic realities that energy is facing, she would understand that the point I was making about goats, which bears specific emphasis, is that they are blinded by ideology and refuse to recognize practical reality. It is why her party and its sibling party, or whatever they would call it, their officially connected Alberta party, were so resoundingly rejected in the last election.

When it comes to the issue of where Alberta stands on renewable development, here is the reality. We have the most renewable development in this country. We are proud of that and there will be more. What we also need to ensure is that there is a firm regulatory framework to allow that to happen. We have done it with oil and gas and we will do it with renewable energy. The fact that her party is so blinded by politics speaks to why it was rejected in the last Alberta election.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so happy to see my friend from Battle River—Crowfoot. I am going to hone in on something he said in his speech about transportation needs, because it is critical.

Because of having a stroke, I could not take a plane to Ottawa, and as I needed to pursue foreign interference, I took the train. I thought of him while crossing the trestle bridge over Battle River. I thought, “I know who the member of Parliament for Battle River—Crowfoot is.” I want to let him know exactly how often one can get public transit from Vancouver to Kamloops. It is a shockingly poor two times a week that someone can get Via Rail out of Vancouver to get to Kamloops and Edmonton.

By the way, we took the train back and we were stopped. Edmonton was as far west as we could go because Via Rail cancelled the train due to the fires, so we rented a U-Haul truck out of Edmonton and drove to Kamloops. It is a long story, but would the hon. member join our passenger rail caucus so we can do everything we can to boost accessibility, for particularly low-income Canadians, to reliable public transit in rural and remote areas because all of the buses packed up and left? Any comments would be welcome.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question because it highlights that we need to ensure that we provide opportunity in our country, and that includes for rail development. I have in my constituency one of those Via Rail stations, in the community of Wainwright, and it is unfortunate that there has been reduced service. Although the Liberals brag a lot about investing in transportation, it certainly has not come to Battle River—Crowfoot, nor has it been seen in the Via train situation.

We have to acknowledge that we must provide opportunity on all fronts, even if that is passenger rail service. I know the province of Alberta has been leading the country by ensuring that it is opening the door to say that there is potential to have high-speed passenger rail service from major urban area to major urban area. I think the rest of the country could learn from that. In addition to passenger rail, I am proud to have communities that are actively working to ensure that we increase rail capacity, period, because more rail capacity in our country is good for the economy and it is good for industry. Ultimately, if we can get passenger trains on that rail, it is good for passengers as well.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal-NDP coalition claims it cares about climate change and renewable energy, yet it had its Ottawa gatekeeper bureaucrats cancel a viable tidal wave energy project in Nova Scotia just this year. That company lost close to $40 million.

Why would any company want to invest in renewable energy in Canada when it sees this kind of thing?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good and valid question, because the member is right. When it comes to the idea of capital, it goes to markets where it can see a predictable return on investment. Talking about economic terms like that probably flies over the heads of many of the left-leaning members in this place. The reality is that the Liberals have created more boundaries, roadblocks and reasons as to why so few are deciding to invest in Canada on many fronts. Energy is a big part of that, whether it is renewable or traditional.

We need to be a country that says “yes” again, that allows mines to be dug to get rare earth minerals and that allows windmills and solar farms to be built. In addition to those things, we have to be willing to say “yes” to oil and gas and we have to be willing to say “yes” to major infrastructure. However, the sad reality is that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sorry.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on Bill C-49. This is an important issue for my region. It is an important issue for me. Two of the main reasons that I decided to seek public office in the first instance was that I care deeply about creating jobs in Atlantic Canada and want to do more to protect our environment as we build a clean economy. These elements are key to the purpose of Bill C-49 and form a major part of the reason I am so strongly in support of this important piece of legislation.

Let me begin by stating what I hope will be taken as obvious: Climate change is real and its impacts are serious. We need to do more to combat climate change and make sure that our communities adapt to mitigate the consequences of severe weather events, which are arriving with a greater sense of frequency.

In Nova Scotia, our shared home province, we know the importance of doing more to combat climate change. In particular, over the past 12 months or so, we have seen severe weather events that I could not possibly have imagined just a few years ago. The devastating impacts of hurricane Fiona are now well understood by members of this House. We have seen forest fires spread through our province like we have never experienced before. We have seen dangerous floods claim the lives of family members of the province we both call home.

Though we may face hurricanes, storm surges and other severe events, Atlantic Canada is not the only region of the country that has been impacted by the changing climate impacting our communities. We see heat waves in Quebec and Ontario. We see atmospheric rivers in British Colombia. We see wildfires that have displaced families and endangered critical infrastructure in nearly every region of this country.

It is important that I make these points and put them on the record to ensure that the perspective of government is well understood. Climate change is real, the impacts are serious and we need to do more to combat it.

In addition to making sure we address climate change fully with the different ideas we can come up with, we need to understand that not only is it the right thing to do from an environmental perspective, but it is in our self-interest because the cost of inaction is simply too great to ignore.

Members will have seen, as I have, the physical damage that can result from severe weather events. Over the course of the first 20 years or so of my life, it was typical to see insured losses in the range of $250 million to $450 million a year across this country. Within a few short years, that number could potentially reach $5 billion. The reality is that it is expensive not to take action on climate change, and we all pay the consequences.

It is not merely an issue of insured losses. Look at the contributions that governments need to make to deal with the fallout of severe weather events. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps in excess of $1 billion, just in Nova Scotia as a result of the fallout of hurricane Fiona last year. Look at the consequences to the health and well-being of families of letting climate change run its course without intervention. Look at the impact we see when businesses are forced to shut down, as we sometimes lose power for weeks. Crops have been lost in this country that have cost local farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of these severe weather events. As I mentioned, they can endanger our critical infrastructure, upon which our communities rely for their well-being.

The good news, despite the very serious impacts of climate events, is that we can do something about them. Bill C-49 presents an opportunity. In fact, in my opinion, Nova Scotia has the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to creating job opportunities for people in the green economy. Members will have seen increasing global demand for clean energy products when it comes to powering our economies, when it comes to transportation globally and when it comes to construction and manufacturing. The entire world is hungry for climate-friendly solutions to solve problems for businesses.

I can point to a number of examples in our home provinces that are creating good-paying jobs for my neighbours today and for the residents of Nova Scotia. I can point to the carbon sequestration technology from a company like CarbonCure in Nova Scotia, which has been celebrated as one of the leading global companies when it comes to sequestration. I can look at Graphite Innovation and Technologies, which has invented a technology supported by research funding through Transport Canada. It has a more efficient hull paint for vessels that can make them 20% more efficient, not only reducing their fuel consumption but reducing the cost for people who use vessels to transport goods.

There are companies, such as the Trinity Group of Companies in my own community, that have embraced energy efficiency as a growth model for their community. When we shared news of a policy that allows homeowners to transition to heat pumps from home heating oil, it happened to be hosted at that particular location, and they were celebrating the fact that that day they had added their 100th employee. These are good-paying jobs in communities like mine.

There is no shortage of other examples. I look at Sheet Harbour, again in my constituency, and the work that RJ MacIsaac is doing to decommission and recycle the components of ships that would otherwise be run aground in some foreign country and left to rot, posing serious environmental consequences. Instead, RJ MacIsaac is creating good jobs in a small community like Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia.

I would like to draw members' attention as well to a billion-dollar opportunity for our province in a new industry. The industry is green hydrogen and the company is EverWind Fuels. It plans to create a green hydrogen option that will create export opportunities to develop clean energy in my home province. It could be powered by offshore wind, allowing it to offer one of the cleanest fuel sources, which is in extraordinarily high demand.

It is important that we look at the pathway to success for opportunities like this and not merely ascribe our strategy to being one of hope. It also has to involve a thoughtful approach to policy development. That is where Bill C-49 comes in. This bill is important because it would amend the accord acts, which gave life to the Atlantic accords, political arrangements reached a number of decades ago, to expand the scope of the regulatory framework to include offshore renewable energy and not simply offshore oil and gas. Members will have seen the significant economic production of the offshore oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada over the course of our lifetimes, but we have not seen the same return when it comes to offshore renewable opportunities.

With the introduction of Bill C-49, we would be creating a regulatory framework that would give certainty to investors that says we welcome their business here in Atlantic Canada and want them to create opportunities for our community members to work in our economy in a way that is sustainable and renewable and will help us power the next generation of the economy in Atlantic Canada by providing clean electricity. As the cost of pollution continues to rise and continues to have an impact on our communities, we need to do more to generate energy from renewable sources, including offshore wind, for example.

There are very real proposals to build companies and advance projects that create good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians in the offshore renewable sector. However, without a regulatory framework, investors will not know whether projects will have a clear pathway to approval, and they will potentially flee our jurisdiction in search of a more friendly country or province where they can make an investment.

Over the next 15 or perhaps 20 years, we expect to see investments approaching $1 trillion globally in the offshore renewable sector. We need to put our hands up and say that we want the investments that are going to create good-paying jobs for our neighbours in provinces like Nova Scotia. It is rare that we have the opportunity to debate legislation that has a specific impact on just a few provinces, including my home province of Nova Scotia, that may not be national in scale. However, by working with provincial governments such as those in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, both of which support this bill, we are going to advance opportunities to create good-paying jobs for people in our communities.

I should point out that although there is some anxiety among workers who traditionally take part in the energy sector about the potential to transition to a clean economy, I want to communicate that this bill would create opportunity for those same people to continue to work in good-paying jobs. I look at opportunities for friends of mine whom I have known since I was seven years old. They are heavy equipment operators, who traditionally are involved in road building or projects for replacing municipal water and sewers. When I speak to them now, they are increasingly working on projects that deal with the prevention of coastal erosion or projects that will make our communities more sustainable, such as, as I mentioned, decommissioning ships that could otherwise be left to rot somewhere, posing great environmental concerns.

With the introduction of Bill C-49, we have an opportunity to say we are going to create regulatory certainty for the businesses that want to make investments. We have found out that we can monetize wind in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that wind is in plentiful supply in our part of the country. If we embrace the opportunity to tap into a new natural resource to create renewable energy for our economies, we can power the economy in a way that is good for our environment and good for the people who call your region and my region home.

We have only one planet. It is our duty to protect it, but by doing so we can create economic opportunities for a generation of workers who would otherwise not be able to have good-paying jobs so they can provide for their families. I am in support of this bill. I understand there is some division between the different parties in the House, but I would encourage all members, if they care about creating good-paying jobs in Nova Scotia and care about protecting our environment, to support this bill. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the former and now fired minister of immigration and failing Minister of Housing has finally found his new job, after he was defeated, as the minister of meteorology.

I really hope he can answer two questions. One, why has his government allowed tidal energy to fail in Nova Scotia? Is it because of their lack of direction? Two, could he please explain quotes from the member for Avalon? He said:

I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “We're losing faith in the Liberal Party.”

I've had people tell me they can’t afford to buy groceries. They can’t afford to heat their homes and that’s hard to hear from especially seniors who live alone and tell me that they go around their house in the spring and winter time with a blanket wrapped around them because they can't afford home heating fuel and they can't afford to buy beef or chicken.

Can the minister explain that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, while the hon. member resorts to personal attacks against me, I am going to remain focused on creating jobs for the people who live in our communities.

With respect, we have supported a number of projects that are pushing tidal energy in our province. As he starts to wave a kleenex because he is so upset about the answer I am providing to him, I will point out that while he claims to care about affordability, he is getting paid to go on fancy trips to the United Kingdom to enjoy luxury dinners that his constituents likely could not afford.

When it comes to supporting vulnerable people, we are going to continue to put measures in place that make life more affordable. I look at some of the legislation we are putting forward to help increase competition in the grocery industry. I look at measures I am personally advancing to make housing more affordable.

While the Conservatives throw insults at individuals across the way, we will put forward solutions that are designed to make life more affordable for my constituents and his.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that implementing an agreement for managing offshore renewable energy with Newfoundland and Labrador means that there will be a labour issue, perhaps even a labour shortage. Plus, where there are workers, there needs to be housing. How lucky we are to have the minister responsible for housing here with us.

I have a question for him. If the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador were willing to match the federal government's contribution and put in something along the lines of, say, another $900 million for the construction of social and affordable housing over the next five years, would the minister be rushing to meet with government officials to start building these units as quickly as possible?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to implement measures that will lead to more housing in every province.

Thankfully, I was able to engage with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in my capacity as immigration minister and now in my capacity as the Minister of Housing, to help them reverse the population decline they were experiencing up until just last year. We helped them do that by advancing new immigration measures that were targeted to bring in the kinds of workers they need to power their economy. I have recently met with them, because we need to continue to advance measures that will help build more homes for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

We are working to advance investments in projects that will not only cover affordable housing but help build more housing, including in the city of St. John's. We are engaged right now with the city and the province to change the way the city builds homes to provide more affordable housing options for the workforce and for people who have long called the city home.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister started off talking about something we should all know in this House, and that is that climate change is real. Last week in this House, somebody from the Maritimes, from South Shore—St. Margarets, said that wildfires across this country were manmade and that the hurricanes affecting his own region have happened for hundreds of years.

I am not from Newfoundland; I am from the Prairies. We saw some very similar issues with regard to transitioning workers and climate change, but what do we tell young people in our ridings? How do we respond to the fact that one of the major parties in this country refuses to admit that climate change is real in the House of Commons? On Friday, I was at a climate march in Montreal. I do not understand how I am supposed to speak to my constituents when we have a party that refuses to admit that climate change is real.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member and very much appreciate her question, because I think it is important.

I sometimes experience some frustration when I hear members of this House speak publicly to school children and say that carbon pollution is just food for plants. When I hear them dismiss once-in-a-century severe weather events, which now seem to happen on an annual basis, as things that have always happened, I find it deeply concerning.

Thankfully, I believe Canadians are smart and they understand that climate change is real. They will compare the plans of the various parties to address the crisis of climate change, and they will vote accordingly, as they have since 2015.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to talk about Bill C-49 while standing on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I would like to start by acknowledging that indigenous leadership, knowledge and culture are critical to Canada's effort to fight climate change. For hundreds of generations, indigenous peoples have been the stewards of the land and waters, including Canada's oceans, as I was in my home of Unama'kik. It is clear that they continue to have a deep connection to the oceans that surround Canada. In my riding of Sydney—Victoria, the Mi'kmaq have a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the lakes and oceans that surround us.

In the spring of 2022, the federal government, in partnership with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, announced their joint intention to expand the mandate of existing offshore boards to regulate offshore renewable energy projects. That fall and into this past winter, officials from NRCan invited indigenous groups in Atlantic Canada to engage in the amendments that we are discussing today. That invitation was accepted, and government representatives were able to share information with interested indigenous communities about the proposed amendments and listen to the initial thoughts on the evolving offshore energy industry. As this bill was tabled, NRCan reached out again to indigenous groups and proposed further meetings, so they could discuss these amendments in even greater detail.

I can assure the House that the government remains committed to learning from and sharing information with indigenous groups, so we can better understand how offshore wind turbines and the economy they support will support indigenous peoples, including those in Sydney—Victoria.

Engagement efforts continued in the two regional assessments for offshore wind development in Atlantic Canada that were launched in March. Before they began, an independent committee was assembled to lead each assessment and work alongside indigenous groups to seek nominations for committee members. These members are required to develop and carry out indigenous participation plans, and the perspectives and knowledge of indigenous peoples will also be sought through indigenous knowledge advisory groups that were created for each regional assessment.

This government is deeply grateful that indigenous peoples are playing key roles in the development and success of Canada's energy industries. As project leaders, company owners, skilled managers and workers, and holders of indigenous knowledge, they are critical to observing, interpreting and addressing climate change.

Indigenous energy leadership is continuing into the clean technologies space, and I can attest first-hand that EverWind is looking to build a hydrogen production facility in Point Tupper and planning to power it with three wind farms. It is partnering with the Membertou Mi'kmaq community to jointly develop and operate two proposed farms: the 20-turbine Kmtnuk project and the 15-turbine Bear Lake project. That is an example of indigenous leadership in energy sectors to deliver clean, reliable and affordable power to our grids. These projects will create good, sustainable jobs and secure revenue for nations in the years ahead. These opportunities do not end at our shores; they extend well beyond them.

With global investments in offshore wind set to be worth $1 trillion, this bill is key to ensuring that this success continues. It will bring sustainable jobs and unlock unprecedented economic opportunity for indigenous peoples in my home of Sydney—Victoria and across the country. This is one reason that it is incredibly discouraging to hear the Conservative Party oppose this bill, attempting to block indigenous communities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador from benefiting from new renewable energy projects.

Some members of the House have expressed concern that offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will not carry out sufficient consultation with the indigenous groups potentially affected by offshore renewable energy projects. However, to the contrary, these boards are extremely capable of carrying out indigenous consultation and accommodation obligations on behalf of the government, and they have done so for many years.

The amendments proposed through this bill will simply clarify what is already established by case law and current practice: that both the Government of Canada and provincial governments can rely on the offshore regulators, the two boards, to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate. The government remains ultimately responsible for the quality of the consultations and accommodations. The provinces understand this, and so do we.

By confirming this accords act, we reaffirm our commitments to both joint management Canada's offshore with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and ongoing reconciliation with indigenous people.

To further underscore this point, these amendments include the authority for the offshore energy regulators to establish a participant funding program for any matter within their jurisdiction. This authority would ensure that they can facilitate engagement and consultation with indigenous groups and are able to carry out meaningful relationship-building with indigenous groups whose rights may be adversely affected by offshore energy activities.

Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the quality and the credibility of the efforts of the offshore energy regulators and contribute to open, balanced decision-making. It is also consistent with the authorities currently in place for other regulators, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canada Energy Regulator and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

With Bill C-49, both offshore energy boards will have enough resources to undertake indigenous consultation, stakeholder engagement and thorough regulatory reviews of proposed projects. As we advance this legislation, I can assure the members of the House that, going forward, there will continue to be opportunities where indigenous groups are able to provide their valuable feedback on offshore wind.

First, there are two regional assessments that I have previously mentioned, and indigenous people will be included in any calls for information regarding wind energy areas of interest or actual calls for bids. This will allow indigenous groups to participate and lead in the development of good, renewable energy projects.

We know the government has a duty to consult with indigenous people on actions that could impact indigenous or treaty rights. We propose that, with these amendments, the government will be able to rely on Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore energy regulators to meaningfully consult with indigenous groups on the government's behalf and make necessary assessments on the Crown's behalf to mitigate adverse impacts on indigenous and treaty rights. This does not mean that the Crown can abdicate its responsibility to fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate, as some have suggested it does. We actually think that it allows for a more robust process. The Crown will ensure that this duty is met.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the benefits that Bill C-49 will bring to the communities across Nova Scotia and, specifically, Cape Breton. The economic boom in Sydney—Victoria did not happen by chance. It happened because of bold investments and actions on the part of our government. Bill C-49 is another step in that direction.

Amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia accord would expand the mandate of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore board to regulate offshore renewable energy projects, including tidal, in the existing Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord area. As a result, the benefit for all communities in Cape Breton would be vast. Not only would it continue to contribute to our ongoing economic boom through job creation, but it would also bring our province and country another step closer to meeting our emissions reduction targets.

All communities stand to benefit from the passage of Bill C-49. It would represent a vital step in the future of Nova Scotia offshore wind and offshore renewable energy technologies, which have the potential to electrify and decarbonize Canada's economy, creating substantial jobs and contributing to Canada's emerging clean hydro sector. Sydney—Victoria stands to benefit, and so does the rest of Nova Scotia.

It is deeply important that this bill pass swiftly, so indigenous communities such as those in my riding can benefit from the immense economic opportunity and new well-paying, sustainable jobs that will come with the offshore renewable industry. That is why we continue to make indigenous knowledge, and the commitment to protect the environment, an essential part of expanding our offshore energy industry. We continue to encourage our Conservative colleagues to do the same by agreeing to stop their opposition of the creation of new indigenous economic opportunities and by supporting this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Sydney—Victoria talk at great length on the consultation with indigenous peoples on Bill C-49, which is very important. Not long ago, I spoke with one of his fellow Nova Scotian colleagues, who reiterated the same, so I asked him about consultation with non-indigenous fishermen. His response to me was, “Who cares about them? Why are you looking for trouble?”

Does the member for Sydney—Victoria agree with his fellow Nova Scotian Liberal colleague that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen is asking for trouble?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, our direction of making sure that we are looking at clean energy and clean wind energy, as well as our commitment to the environment, is going to help all fishermen in the Atlantic. We heard loud and clear from the United Nations, when I was out there at the conference in the spring, that the stocks and all the fisheries are jeopardized by climate change.

Unless we have a plan for the environment and for climate change, we do not have a plan for the fishermen who rely on those industries. It is important for us to understand that all benefit from our shift to the green and clean future, especially the fishermen of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, where I am.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His commitment to the environment is beyond any doubt.

As for Bill C-49, I have many questions.

As I read this bill, it struck me as a great way to conceal malicious intentions around oil and gas development.

Wind energy is great. Saying that we are going to produce green hydrogen is great. That is the positive side of the bill. However, is it not true that the bill sugar-coats a bitter pill?

The bill appears to promote wind energy, but is it not true that its real intention is to allow twice as much offshore oil and gas production and development down the road, as announced soon after this bill was introduced?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the double-talk around this bill.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am always concerned about where we are heading in this country and in our society, but I know we have to take those first steps in the right direction. We have listened to indigenous knowledge from indigenous elders and indigenous leaders; they have told us that we need to do more for our environment and that we need to look out for future generations. This is why I believe that the heart of this bill is looking at renewable energies, the power of hydrogen energy and what we can do to make sure we have a sustainable future for our children. While we know there are still fossil fuels that we burn and there are still cars out there being driven, we have to step in that direction, so that is what I remain committed to doing.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was a tough summer for Halifax and Nova Scotia in general. I would like the member to reflect upon his government's policy for cell service. Back in 2018, there was a failure here in Ottawa on cell service related to a tornado and other weather conditions. This summer, we saw continual failures to provide accurate and accessible cell service by the large conglomerates. The member's government has been lax on rolling this out. At the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, in 2018, we pulled them in for hearings, and most recently, the minister had them come forth when Rogers had an outage. However, we still do not have adequate and reliable service, which has been very costly for the citizens of Nova Scotia. What is the government going to do next?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite. Cell coverage and cell service is not only an important luxury to have but also an essential service for reporting, such as when we have hurricanes, fires or floods. Cell service and those alerts are very important. We need to do what we are doing with the grocery stores: We are calling the grocery store CEOs and saying that we need them to do more. We need the telecom companies to do more, and I think all parties and the government can agree that we need to go to these telecom companies and say that this is an essential service for our ridings and community members and that we need them to do more.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on Bill C-48, an act that would 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.

At the end of the day, this is about renewable projects that will start to move forward. Coming from my neck of the woods in Windsor, Ontario, with the auto industry, we have seen Canada fall from number two in assembly in the world—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to give our hon. colleague an opportunity to correct himself. I believe he is standing up talking on Bill C-48 and the topic today is Bill C-49.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Please make sure that we are speaking to Bill C-49.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague is listening to me, so that is good. It is Bill C-49. I appreciate the correction. We would not want that to stand in the record here.

I want to talk about the connection to my community and renewables and also what is taking place with this bill in Atlantic Canada.

I asked my previous question about 911 calls that were dropped because we saw the east coast suffer significantly from the climate change that we are witnessing across the globe and across Canada, everything from wildfires to rain and other types of flooding events.

Even in my region, there are consequences with the Great Lakes, in southern Ontario. I think it is important, when we do public policy, that we start to remediate and look at some of the consequences of poor actions by Conservatives and Liberals in the past when it comes to the telco industry and communications, which are paramount in this.

I have spoken many times in this chamber about the fact that we are in our current problem with regard to cellphone and, especially, rural service, because we chose certain actions.

This government and the previous government set up an auction process for our spectrums. They gobbled up around $23 billion from the spectrum auctions since 2000. They are then making Canadians pay some of the highest prices because we do not have a telephone bill of rights.

Where did that money go? Successive governments, from Chrétien to Martin to Harper and now to our current administration, have raked all that cash in. At the same time, we have had no regulation on prices and accountability.

The accountability part is important because, in 2018, we witnessed a terrible situation here in Ottawa, with regard to tornadoes. We had special hearings about that, because 911 was out for a period of time or was reduced in service and quality and so forth. Even this past summer, the same thing just took place again in the Halifax region.

Shame on us for not forcing the telcos to provide better, reliable service. It is interesting, because the minister, in the Rogers thing, picked up the phone and called Rogers. He said that when he speaks, Rogers is going to actually listen and do something. It sounds like the grocery store plan that he has right now with the CEOs.

We know it did not work because Rogers recently sued the Competition Bureau and the tribunal process. It is getting Canadian taxpayers' money for the Competition Bureau fighting for Canadians against the acquisition of Shaw.

We have a system in place that has run amok. Under climate change, the consequences for communication are real, as we move quickly away from land lines, especially with the cost of operations. People cannot afford cellphone plans like family plans and a land line any more. Then other services are not available any longer.

It is a public interest aspect that is critical to our public policy, because the spectrum auction and the way that we roll out and have these companies abuse Canadians can all be taken in-house here.

We have seen other countries do that, but we will not do it because they lobby so hard and they basically have a hands-off policy. We do not have a telco bill of rights, which the NDP has been fighting for. We do not use a spectrum auction to make sure that we have lower prices, better access and higher accountability.

We have not done any of those things. I am worried that, with this bill here, we still have public policy with this void and the gap in the difference, which we could actually improve as transition takes place with climate change.

One of the things that has taken place in my region is with the auto sector. I was mentioning the transition in the auto sector. In my region, we were number two in the world in assembly and we have dropped to eighth. We have had to fight back most recently. Without a national auto policy, we have been slow off the mark for transitioning to a greener, cleaner auto industry.

We did our first press conference, with Joe Comartin and David Suzuki, in Windsor, on a green auto strategy back in 2006. That is also when I showed the film Who Killed the Electric Car?. That was an original GM vehicle; it was a clean, green machine that they took off the market.

We are finally seeing some good transitions. Yesterday, we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in front of industry committee, and I was asking questions. We have recent announcements on Volkswagen and Stellantis, which add up to about $28 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned that these returns would not be as quick as the government was saying.

It was really good to get at that during the hearing. We realized, through the testimony, that it was still a better deal than the Trans Mountain pipeline. He had to look at the two situations, as requested. The Trans Mountain pipeline is already up to $31 billion, has fewer jobs connected to it and has greater environmental degradation related to it.

Meanwhile, on the Volkswagen and Stellantis deal, the money is only guaranteed, for the most part, if there is battery production. We have to meet it because our free-market American friends have brought in the Inflation Reduction Act. They are massively subsidizing their capital investments in the auto industry and other factors. In fact, they are just ramping it up.

I was at the national state legislatures meeting this past summer. The year coming up and another year after that will have the Democrats and Republicans spending more money than ever before, and doing it through corporate subsidization. That is allowed because of our situation regarding a trade agreement.

All we did was match what the U.S. did for Stellantis and Volkswagen, and thank goodness. This is a good shout-out for our UNIFOR workers who have been at the forefront of the transition for the economy for auto from day one. Dave Cassidy, John D'Agnolo and others in my region have been at the forefront making sure that we actually have a green transition economy and we get some of the new plants.

That is important because those vehicles are shipped primarily within Canada and the United States, and other parts of the world, and we will start being able to compete. The point is that, at least with that transition, we are going to see some improvements in the job guarantee components and the subsidy. Some of it goes to capital operations, but the vast majority goes to production.

We did not want to put him on the spot by asking which investment he would choose, between this and Trans Mountain, but it is just basically out the door all the time. There are no qualifications on any of that whatsoever. It was an interesting conversation yesterday and it fits well with what we are trying to do with climate change and reducing emissions on vehicles.

The auto industry has been one of the more centralized themes, in its producing and creating, as one of the toughest things that we have to change but it also offers some potential solutions. If we look at some of the products that are coming out now from the auto industry with this transition to batteries and so forth, it is also becoming generators and capacities within people's homes. We have other subsequent issues that we can apply our vehicles to in our houses to reduce emissions. There is a new future with that coming forward.

That applies to this act because it will help offset other areas of climate change. If we look at Newfoundland and Labrador, and Halifax, and we look at those offshore capabilities, those are also some of the things that were done in my region regarding windmills and wind turbines. They are not perfect by any means, but they are also part of the solution to advance different types of energy.

Sadly, the McGuinty government at that time and then the Wynne government brought in bad policy that still lingers to this day. That is why we will have to be looking to make sure that Bill C-49 would be a solid bill at the end of the day, and have subsequent follow-through. They brought in some private sector proponents and it turned into a fundraiser when it came to the issue of the Green Energy Act that was passed in Ontario.

The important aspect of this is that, when we see these projects and the subsidies going forward to them, and the policies that are happening, people feel confident in them. That is what I am hoping will come from this bill. I hope when the elements become real and substantial, people will support them.

I noticed a significant difference in my community in the auto sector. We have one of the most successful manufacturing plants from the Second World War building the Chrysler minivan. It was not Stellantis, but it was Chrysler.

We fought for years in this House for a basic auto policy that would be transparent, and that is what is going to be necessary for new projects in Bill C-49.

I was part of the discussion yesterday when we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in place. I noted that we had to rescue Chrysler in the past, and that led to a plant that still exists today and the government made money on it, as it was done right. Most recently, we have had some auto investment for helping General Motors and others. Had the Conservatives not cashed in the shares they got from General Motors, we would have made more money on that investment, but they cashed them out early for ideological reasons and we did not get the return we should have.

I stood here in this chamber when Jim Flaherty said that we cannot pick winners or losers and could not do anything about it. Thank goodness he switched his position. I am eternally grateful for that. He was a hard worker, somebody one could approach, and he did a lot of work for Canada. He switched his position on that, which is how we rescued General Motors at that time, despite the objections of many people and parties. It was a forethought that this could open up the new investment that we are getting now not only in the Oshawa area, but in Ingersoll and other places where we see the auto return.

In fact, it is coming back to Quebec. The Sainte-Thérèse plant closed a long time ago, which was a shame because our auto investment in our supply chain was critical along the lines. It was important to rescue that plant, but at that time there was no support from the government and it was unfortunately lost, but that is one of the returns we are seeing now. They are involved in new battery manufacturing, which is critical, because Ontario and Quebec manufacturing is very solid.

When projects come forward, in this bill I am hoping there is also going to be the potential for other provinces to tap into some of the manufacturing, supply and servicing that is going to be required for some of the new investments for clean energy. We have seen that in a number of years in our region, as parts of the manufacturing took place for the wind turbines in Windsor and Essex County, and in other places it had to be shipped in. Some of it was shipped in from overseas, but there was a lot domestically produced, so we have an advantage hopefully to prepare and to be the manufacturers of the materials, goods, services and servicing.

As a side topic to some of this, the planning has to be done because we are looking at energy. I am a long-time critic of the deep repository for nuclear waste that is being proposed in the Bruce Peninsula area. It wants to be one of the first places ever in the world to do this, bury nuclear waste next to some of the largest freshwater reserves in the world. Only a couple of these facilities have been built, which have caught on fire or leaked. It wants to build and bury that for over 100 million years. That is a legacy of nuclear waste that we have to factor in, so there is a decision pending on that. The government and other members have been quiet on this. I have not because I have been there and have seen what is happening. The community is being greased by the nuclear industry with respect to extra resources and a number of things. There is lobbying going on, and that is fine, but it has to be based on reasonable expectations. Ironically, the original proposal was turned down by the Saugeen First Nation, so it moved a mile off the site and proposed a new one there.

The point I am making is there is a legacy cost involved in all of this, and servicing costs, and we have to build those in. That is why this opportunity in Bill C-49 is important for jobs and the economy. It is important that we try and get in front of some of the domestic work we can do.

The climate change aspect is critical in this; to fight back against these things is going to take large and small projects. It is important that we feel momentum and that we can control some of these measures and have input. When people turn on the TV and see the mess that is taking place not only in Canada, but other places in the world, I get a lot of young people asking what we can do. There are a lot of things we can do regarding our own behaviour, our country's behaviour internationally, and how we respond to this. I have a private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park to do that.

It would actually create a green space that would stop flooding and soak up the negative resources with regard to the water in the spillage that can take place into industrial areas and residential areas. It would also have an effect for 200 of Canada's 500 endangered species.

When we look at these projects that are taking place and go forward with Bill C-49, I am hoping they also get community benefits. I want to talk about community benefits a little because it does not have them in now, which is why local members from that area should be fighting tooth and nail for this addition. If the bill concludes with some of those elements later on, it would provide control and supports for the community.

My first public meeting to get a new border crossing in Windsor was in 1998. We went for a long period of time. We fought off an American billionaire who wanted to twin the Ambassador Bridge and ram it right through the west end of the city, cutting us off. We fought off OMERS, one of the largest pension funds, which wanted to put a truck route right through south Windsor, destroying the environment with a truck route.

We finally got a compromise for a new bridge. Part of the new bridge project includes community benefits on both the Canadian and American sides. Those benefits allow the community to opt in to these larger projects. It is a $5-billion project. All we could get was $10 million on both sides, but at least it was a start. It was historic, the first time it was done. However, the $10 million goes into a community fund from which other projects then emerge. There is conservation money and money for homes with regard to greening, offsetting the damage of the construction that is taking place. The inclusion of projects would build a legacy. All of those things make people feel better and stronger about the massive investment they get with regard to an energy project or something else.

I am hoping that there is going to be an opportunity for community benefits to be put into this bill to ensure people there get to see what we have seen so strongly in our area. Again, the community benefits process is everything from not only the project getting done but also constant community consultation about what those things would be, and control. That is critical when it comes to having some empowerment, so the people feel stronger about the investments, and also the value when they look out and see the windmills and some of the changes that physically take place. That was a concern we had with regard to our project.

What also has to happen, and the reason I mentioned the nuclear component and the legacy costs, is that we still have to look at what we do with the end of the life cycle of a windmill and wind turbine. We did have some testimony at the industry committee recently about this. I asked about those things. There is no real plan for any of that right now. We do not want to have to basically rip things down and ship them hundreds of miles away on large transportation platforms that would create more greenhouse gas emissions, just to be recycled. We have to think about a long-term plan, because as of now, Windsor-Essex County and Chatham-Kent have a scattering of windmills across them, creating green energy. Eventually, the windmills' lifespan is going to cease and they will need either refurbishment, replacement or recycling.

These are important elements that we should be building into the cost of things. It is kind of the argument the NDP has been making for years on manufacturing's extended producer liability. That is critical because with public funds involved, it is not just the cost of the moment. This is what federal governments have been really particularly abusive of in the past: getting in on the capital of something at the very beginning and then walking away from the operational legacy. We have seen this in the housing industry. There are so many market rental units right now that need fixing up.

I want to say that I am appreciative of the opportunity to speak to this bill, because my region has a connection through the work that has been done. I want to conclude by again saying that we have to take seriously the public infrastructure that we have. Why I started with telco on this is because climate change is going to require us to be quicker and more responsive. No longer should governments be letting the three giants run their way with the rest of Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-49 as an opportunity where we have consensus for a very important region of the nation. Our regions look for economic development and prosperity. I look at the accord, what we are debating today, as something that has virtually universal support. We want to see this legislation pass. We have seen numerous members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus actually speak to the legislation and its importance.

Given the wide spectrum of support for the legislation, is the member at all surprised that the Conservatives seem to want to sit on the legislation or are not being outspoken in favour of seeing the legislation in the first place?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the Conservatives on that. However, I will say that when we have an opportunity, we have to seize it, with this type of support coming from the provinces. Time is of the essence on this. Climate change is not going to wait for parliamentary procedure. Climate change is not going to wait for us and for the government to get its act together in regard to how it deals with telcos and making sure that they provide proper 911 service for people during emergencies. That is why I would like to seize upon the added value that we can get in this bill, whether that would be the community benefits I mentioned or whether that would be in being more specific in demanding that the telcos be more accountable for their actions, because people's lives are at risk.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some Nova Scotians who might be affected by Bill C-49, even though the member for Windsor West really did not.

My friend and former physician colleague Beau Blois and his family have been named provincial Woodland Owner of the Year. They have a round barn. They have Angus beef, and they are renowned in the region for what they do. I thank Beau and Laura for what they do.

Next, I would like to highlight Jeremy Dobson and Justin McKay, who have created the first significant Afghanistan memorial in my riding.

Finally, I offer heartfelt condolences to my assistant Holly Miller, whose father, sadly, has passed. Her father, Gary, would have been significantly affected by Bill C-49.

I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight those folks.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure they are really good people, and it is nice that we know their names, but we never heard anything about the effect on them. I would say that the most important issue to the member is to really know and pronounce in Parliament the effect on them, because that is where we want amelioration for those who are affected. That is critical. When there is change taking place, there could be some negative offsets for people's lives and businesses, and so forth. They should be respected for that and compensated.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is my take on Bill C-49. Climate change is like watching a bathtub that is about to overflow. Relying on offshore wind power would be like using a spoon to try to empty the bathtub. Meanwhile, this bill keeps the tap running full blast. That is what this government is doing, because it is going to double oil production off the coast of Newfoundland.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on Bill C‑49. Aside from the local benefits and spinoffs he mentioned, is this a bill that will really help tackle climate change at last?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it will, because now we have support for alternative energy that we did not have in the past, which needs to be brought forth. That is part of how to actually move forward on these initiatives. It is a good, legitimate concern; there is no doubt. However, we need to actually move forward where there is consensus on clean energy.

For my region, there are still very much some big concerns that were expressed with regard to wind, because of the effects on soil and potential issues underneath. These are all things that need to be kept in mind.

What I have been saying in the past is that there are other expenses and that we need to make sure we plan for the legacy costs. That is where the member really needs to have the focus in terms of the comments being strong, but it also needs to be on understanding that there is a cost for all of these things in the forefront that needs to be countered as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a specific quote to follow up with the question. This is from the Conservative natural resources critic on CBC, on September 21, 2023. She referred to the legislation “as another step in a long line of Liberal laws and policies since 2015 that appears destined to drive investment out of Canada with more uncertainty, red tape and extended and costly timelines.”

This is legislation that is supported by Atlantic provinces. There is a consensus. I wish the Conservative Party would listen to what the people in the region are saying, along with the members of Parliament who are reflecting the desire to see this legislation pass. Would the member not agree that the Conservative Party needs to stand up for that region and get behind this important piece of legislation?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot really comment on the Conservatives and what their intentions are, but I can tell members that, in my experience, when we actually have the provinces united behind something in their region, we have to act on it quickly because that consensus may not stay. Even greening the auto energy sector was very difficult in many respects because people thought they were going to lose their jobs and they were going to be transitioned out altogether.

We have seen remarkable compromise and work by the union movement to make sure they understand people want jobs, not just now but also in the future. They are willing to go through that transition and that process, at risk to themselves and their families, but they know also that the alternative is even worse because of the consequences of climate change. As such, it is critical that we move on this right now, respect the provincial jurisdictions that are there and work with the co-operative environment we have. That is going to take compromise on all parts.

I will conclude with this: Once again, time is of the essence, because either the federal government or provincial governments could fall at some point, and that consensus would disappear. Then, we would lose out on the opportunity, and other people and other places would make decisions for us.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since our hon. colleague from Winnipeg North is into reading into the record quotes from members of Parliament, I would like to read into the record a quote from a Liberal MP. After eight years of the Prime Minister, a Liberal MP is finally admitting the harm that has been caused by his Prime Minister's punishing policies. He said this just last night:

I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them [our constituents] a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “You know, we are losing faith in the Liberal Party”. I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries. They can't afford to heat their homes and that's hard to hear.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments about the telcoms, but the carbon tax is making life more unaffordable for Canadians. What does he have to say about that and his party's—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

We are out of time, but I will ask for a 10-second response from the hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not quote anybody in my speech, so I guess I will not even answer the question since I did not quote anybody. The member will hopefully listen to my next speech.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the mandates of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord. The primary goal of this legislation is to provide for a new approval process for the development of oil and gas projects off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the mandates of these two boards.

When second reading of this bill started a week or so ago, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada thought they would use their speeches and the speeches of the official opposition to try to make this about some sort of strange “If one is not with the Liberals on Bill C-49, then one must be against Atlantic Canada” idea.

In fact, they came out of their caucus meeting and actually said that they think they could distract people after giving the Prime Minister all of this bad news about what we have been hearing in the summer. They thought they would come out of the caucus meeting and try to hold a shiny thing over here to see if their constituents would be distracted. The distraction attempt for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was from the Liberals' failure to address the primary concern they heard over the summer from their communities: the cost of living.

There have been 24 times that all of them, except for one now, have voted to increase the cost of everything. One can almost hear the Liberals in their meetings saying that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, people might forget that their home heating oil bills have more than doubled under the NDP-Liberals; that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, all the complaints they heard from people in the summer, of having lost faith in this government and forcing the cost of everything up, might be forgotten; and that, maybe, all of the damage they have done to themselves and their constituents will be forgotten.

Just so everyone knows, it is tied to Bill C-49 because they were using that as a bright, shiny object to try to distract from those failures. What are those failures they are using Bill C-49 to try to distract from? I think they are actually best captured by the words of the member for Avalon. For those watching, the member for Avalon is a Liberal member of Parliament from Newfoundland. On the show Power and Politics, he said this, and let me start with this quote, as I think it is a great one: “I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.” That affordability crisis, of course, is that which Conservatives have been talking about for the last year, and of which Liberal members of Parliament live in denial.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on, on the program, to say, “I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit”, with “them” being his constituents. He says, “Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, ‘You know, we're losing faith in the Liberal Party.’ I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.” The Liberal member for Avalon then goes on to say, “They can't afford to heat their homes, and that's hard to hear from, especially, seniors who live alone and tell me they go around their house in the spring and wintertime with a blanket wrapped around them, because they can't afford the home heating fuel. They can't afford to buy beef or chicken.” We have been telling the Liberals that, yet they are trying to use Bill C-49 as a distraction from the day-to-day challenges they have caused Canadians.

The member for Avalon obviously had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance around this time. He said, “I told the minister, when she came to Newfoundland, about this, and she told me, she said, ‘I'm going to correct this. You're right.’” She actually said she is going to correct it. We are still waiting. Not only do they break promises to Canadians; they also break promises to their own backbenchers.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on to say, “We can't keep adding on to expenses, and David,” which is the name of the host, “you know that everything in our province comes in by boat and truck. They burn fuel. Lots of it. That's the cost to bring it in, and it's going to be added to every item that gets on a store shelf somewhere.”

That is punishing anybody who goes to buy something, whether it is a chocolate bar or a tin of milk. It is anything. A piece of two-by-four will go up, which will make homes more expensive to build. I think our leader has been saying that for a year, and there has been nothing but deaf ears on the other side, except for one fellow who found religion after talking to his constituents for three months in the summer.

The same Liberal member went onto say, “I think they,” being the Liberals, “will lose seats not just in Newfoundland, not just in Atlantic Canada, but indeed right across the country if they don't get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. It is interesting that he is calling his own party “they” as if he is not part of them anymore and had not voted 23 times before this for the carbon tax. Now, on the 24th time, he has changed his mind and flip-flopped. It is unusual for a Liberal to flip-flop.

He said “get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. This one is hitting home to everybody I speak to and it is a grassroots issue. If an election were called today, I am not sure the Liberal Party would actually form the government. I am pretty sure that would not happen if an election were held today, and they would not be in government.

The hurt and pain that has been caused by the Liberals out there, because of their inflationary deficits and carbon tax, is causing a great deal of hardship that is not recognized by 157 Liberal members, and their cohorts in the NDP who support all of this, but the 158th member has finally got it. Maybe it will take another two years for the other Liberals to get it.

This is the counter to the bright, shiny distraction the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-49. They are trying to make some crazy accusations about who supports Atlantic Canadians. Apparently, according to the member for Avalon, Liberals do not support Atlantic Canadians. He goes on to say, “And I know the government is pushing people to switch over to heat pumps.” We hear that all the time, including today from the member for Central Nova. He says, “Many homes, especially the older homes, are not designed for that. They are not built to sustain the heat from a heat pump, so I don't think it works.”

Quite frankly, to show how out of touch the member for Central Nova is with his bright, shiny $10,000 heat pumps that he is pushing for all the companies that he knows and likes in Nova Scotia, the fact is if someone is living on CPP, disability or a fixed income, they do not have $10,000 for a heat pump.

Apparently, in the golden world the Liberals live in with $200,000 vacations for the Prime Minister and the fancy world the member for Central Nova lives in with his chauffeured car as a minister, he thinks people on CPP, OAS and GIS can afford $10,000 out of their cash flow for a heat pump. The Liberals' disconnection from reality knows no bounds.

Finally, in that interview, in response to the issue of the messenger, the messenger being the Minister of Environment who believes orange is a very nice colour to wear, the member for Avalon said, “No, he is not”, meaning he is not the right messenger. “No, he's not, and because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and his whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”

The member from Atlantic Canada's request was that they actually increase the payments to people so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which they claim, would cost more out of the treasury. The solution for cancer was to give us more cancer. It was not to say that they were going to get at the root of the disease, and the root of the disease, the cause of this inflation, is the carbon tax. That is what they should be getting rid of.

Bill C-49, which they are trying to use as a distraction from this reality, includes a process to review renewable energy projects in the ocean. I can inform this House that while the NDP-Liberal government claims to support renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada, the track record says that it actually does not do that. Over the decades, we have been trying in Nova Scotia to harness the enormous power of the Bay of Fundy tides to generate clean renewable electricity. There have been about half a dozen projects and hundreds of millions of private-sector dollars spent trying to figure out how to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. All but one project have failed. These are very large turbines. The projects that failed had these large turbines built and put on the floor of the Bay of Fundy. These turbines are about five storeys high.

For those members who do not know, the Bay of Fundy rises and falls every day by 52 feet. Twice each day, 160 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy, which is more than the combined river flows of the world. The Bay of Fundy's tides transform the shorelines and tidal flats and expose the sea bottom as they flood into the bay and its harbours and estuaries. It is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's GDP and create up to 22,000 jobs. That is almost as many people as work in our number-one industry, which is the fishery.

Besides the money, how big is that in terms of energy? Three hundred megawatts of tidal energy can power a quarter of all Nova Scotia homes. That is just a fraction of the Bay of Fundy's 2,500-megawatt potential. That means Nova Scotia could become a net exporter of clean renewable tidal power.

However, how are we doing on that? With respect to every project, as I said, that has had these turbines placed on the bottom of the ocean floor, within about 48 hours they failed. The power of the tides had blown the turbines apart. However, people at an innovative company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a different idea: What if we floated those turbines on the top of the water instead of sinking them to the ocean floor? Guess what: It worked. The first project to consistently put power into Nova Scotia's power grid and to be paid for that power by Nova Scotia Power was successful. They were the first turbines not to be destroyed by the power of the Bay of Fundy tides.

One would think that the NDP-Liberal government would be thrilled and that the approval of such a successful green renewable-energy project would be fast-tracked, but that is not what happened. The Atlantic Liberals had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to extend the permit for further piloting of the project. They used DFO to kill the project. That is important to Bill C-49 because of the power it would give DFO over all energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Those turbines are now out of the water. They are disassembled, the technology is shelved and the company is bankrupt. I say thanks to Atlantic Liberals and their commitment to renewable energy from our oceans. They talk the talk, but walk away when it comes time to move forward. It is typical of these Liberals. It is all about the input, without any results.

Therefore, this bill is not about approving projects in renewable ocean energy and oil and gas development to get the world off coal and dirty dictator oil. No, it would formalize a process designed to make sure these projects never see the light of day. What the NDP-Liberals have done here in this bill is put more gatekeepers in place to stop energy project development in Atlantic Canada. They imported four sections from the disastrous Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, into Bill C-49. With Bill C-69, the NDP-Liberals had said that more projects would get approved when they approved that. How many have been approved? There have been none. How many have been proposed? There have been none. It magically drove all capital out of Canada for energy projects.

Now, Bill C-49 would bring that process and that incredible success rate to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy projects. It would impose the same process, and imposing the same process would yield the same result. This bill would triple the current timelines for approval of offshore energy projects. Currently, a decision by the offshore regulatory board has 30 days for cabinet to agree or disagree. The Liberals would extend that in this bill.

Sections 28 and 137 give the federal cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling and renewable energy projects and also give the Minister of Fisheries a veto to propose developments in areas that the minister said that there may be a time in the future when there might be a marine protected area, MPA. It is not that there is a marine protected area, but maybe someday, if the minister thinks there might be one, and so, no, we cannot go there. It is sort of like Whac-a-Mole, which is what DFO has been doing on land with the rivers for any energy projects, and using the passage of one shrivelled up river as a reason to stop a project. Now, that same power would be given to DFO.

Why is that possible? An MPA is a part in the ocean. Fish swim and do not know the boundaries of the parts. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a few years ago met with the fishing groups in Nova Scotia and, in effect, said, “We're going to shut down 30% of the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia using MPAs. Work with us and you can pick which fisheries we shut down. Don't work with us, and we'll pick what is on.” The department uses its excessive power for other political purposes, and that is being imposed in the bill.

The bill brings the inefficiencies of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act into the bill as well. It adds sections 61, 62, 169 and 170 of the IAA where the federal minister has the power to impose conditions on authorizations. It also invokes section 64 of the IAA, which allows a federal minister to interfere in a project if they think it is in the public interest and create any condition, without limit, they think is necessary regardless of what the regulator decides.

Adding these Bill C-69 provisions to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy process extends the process through unlimited federal delays at any time, but at a minimum it is going to be over 1,600 days, which is four and a half years. That is the process that Bill C-69 sets out. It is a minimum of four and a half years for the approval of any project. That really efficient process, which has led to no projects being approved in western Canada, is now being imposed on Atlantic Canada. It is a recipe to end all our offshore energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

There are no provisions in the bill that require commercial fishing communities to be at the table when all of these projects are being considered. There has been no consultation with the fishing industry about these projects. Why is that important? It is because, in Atlantic Canada, that is our largest industry. To not require their involvement when most of these projects impact their ability to earn a living is a betrayal by Atlantic Canada MPs to the critically important industry they supposedly represent as members of Parliament and to the tens of thousands of people who work in it.

Finally, the current Atlantic accord treats Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently. The Nova Scotia government has the ability to designate areas under provincial jurisdiction as energy projects within the bays of a province, or the “jaws of the land” as it is called. However, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have that power. I am shocked, frankly, and they should really give their heads a shake, a favourite saying of one of the MPs over there. Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MPs are okay with Nova Scotia having authorities that the Newfoundland and Labrador government does not. What else would we expect from these silent Liberals? Well, they are silent except for the member for Avalon who apparently is not comfortable in his own caucus any more.

It is time for Atlantic Liberals to get their heads out of the sand. It is time for them to speak up and recognize that the bill before us does for Atlantic energy projects what Bill C-69 did for energy projects in western Canada. Atlantic Liberal MPs need to join us in fixing these issues in committee when we propose solid and thoughtful amendments to ensure that projects get done and not stopped by Liberal gatekeepers.

It is also time for Atlantic Liberal MPs to stop voting with the NDP-Liberal government to increase the cost of everything with the carbon tax. It is about time they do that. Well, this week, they voted once again to impose a quadrupling of taxes on their own constituents. If they truly care about the economy, they will speak up for their region and axe the carbon tax and they will amend this bad bill so that projects can actually get approved.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to hear the Conservative member from the Atlantic continue to stand up and oppose good, clean jobs in Nova Scotia.

However, over the past two years, we have seen hurricanes that cost billions in damage, and fires in the member's riding that cost millions in damage. We have seen floods that have taken people's lives. Yet, the member seems to be saying that there is nothing to see here.

I have two questions for the member. First of all, does he agree with the provincial premier of Nova Scotia who said, “Climate change is real”, it is obvious, or will that member continue to bury his head in the sand? How many more states of emergency do we need in Nova Scotia before that member agrees that climate change is real and it is time to act?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a little ironic coming from that member, who has voted 24 times to increase the cost of everything for all of his constituents.

On the issue of storms, we have had multiple storms every decade since the 1700s. He should look up the history. Yes, I had fires, man-made fires, that were started in my riding that were not started by climate change. They were started by individuals.

Perhaps he would like to explain to me why he disagrees with his colleague from Avalon and with the commitment from the minister of fisheries through the member that said she should correct the problem to make sure it is right. Will he stand up and agree with the Minister of Finance and the member for Avalon that the carbon tax needs to be fixed as it is hurting people in Atlantic Canada?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about diseases and cancer in his speech. I would like to talk to him about that. Right now pollution is causing more cancer and more respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses. The increase in pollution is also causing kidney problems. People are malnourished because of lower crop yields. All insect-borne diseases are on the rise.

Why then does the official opposition always put its foot on the brake when it comes to fighting pollution?

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe pollution should be fought. We believe that that should be through technology, not through taxes that do not work.

The carbon tax has had zero impact in this country on the rate of carbon emissions. In fact, every year under the government, except for when it shut the entire economy down during COVID, carbon emissions have gone up. There is such a lack of knowledge about what is going on in the world. If we were at net-zero today, China would make that up in 56 days with its plan on expansion of coal plants, yet the government opposes us getting liquified natural gas to China so that the real emissions, a third of the world's emissions, could be reduced.

I would like to ask the members opposite why they hate reducing the coal production of China so much?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we were in the House, and the member brought up the fact that wildfires in Canada were man-made and that storms have been hitting his region for hundreds of years, and I was shocked. The next day I was in Montreal at a climate march with young people who were asking for real action on climate change in this country. The member just double downed on that in his response to my Liberal colleague.

I have a serious question for him. Does he believe that climate change is real? Does he stand in the House and claim that climate change is not a factor in the hurricanes hitting his community, in the wildfires ravaging our communities and in the massive costs that are associated with that? Does he believe in climate change? Does he think it is real?

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

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of a Liberal-NDP coalition member who does not listen, does not listen to constituents and does not listen to what anyone in the House says. I have said many times, as has our leader and every other member, that of course climate change is real. However, the tax does not do anything to change that.

Leave it to a member of that costly coalition to not listen to what I said, which was that the fires in my riding were started by individuals. They were not started by climate change. She forgot those facts because they are inconvenient for her.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, let us just distinguish on the last point that was being made between who started a fire, whether it was a lightening strike or somebody who threw a cigarette butt out a window, and the fuel load in place that causes the wildfires. He knows this perfectly well because we have talked about this. We share many things, including a history in Nova Scotia.

The month of May in Nova Scotia is historically wet and cold. One could not start a forest fire there if one tried most years for many years. However, year after year, recently, and very recently because of climate change and global warming, the month of May in Nova Scotia has been hot and dry. This year, for the first time, we had extensive wildfires because of climate change. Regardless of who lit the match that hit the fuel load, it was hot and dry and ready to catch fire because of climate change.

As to the earlier points, the bill we are debating right now, Bill C-49, I am sure he will recall that it was our mutual friend, the late Pat Carney, who negotiated the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. The difference between tidal power and offshore wind is that offshore wind is a fully developed technology and ready to implement. We are still working to try to develop tidal power as it is not yet fully formed. It has not yet solved the threats to fisheries.

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

Mr. Speaker, our mutual friend, the late Hon. Pat Carney, did negotiate those deals, and from our perspective, I appreciate that the member thinks this was an unusual year. This was an El Niño year in North America, where we got less rain in the spring than we did last year or the year before. I expect, when we do not have an El Niño year again, that will change.

With regard to the issue of where wind power generation goes, of course we believe in tidal power and wind power. That is why I spoke for a great deal in my speech about the only project that has ever worked, which was the tidal power by Sustainable Marine Energy, which the government shut down. It, without damage, continued to return power to the Nova Scotia power grid, and they did not get paid for it, yet the government used this as an excuse to shut it down. DFO had given it four approvals and would not give it the fifth.

That approach to shutting down all energy projects, whether they be in oil and gas or on the renewable side of things, is the problem with the bill. It would put in place the terrible provisions of the IAA and Bill C-69 into this process.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets is a very kind person. As the member for Sydney—Victoria stands in the House and lectures Conservatives on our record, I would not even dignify it with an answer or acknowledge him until he stands in the House to apologize for his past comments toward indigenous women, which I find offensive, and I think many Canadians find them offensive. I would still like to hear an apology in the House from the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I would like to ask my colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets a question. In British Columbia we have had a carbon tax for over a decade, yet we have seen increasing wildfires, incredible drought situations and increased emissions. Greenhouse gases have not gone down.

How high does the carbon tax have to be before we see the end to the climate events we are seeing and stop punishing Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Sydney—Victoria, with his past comments, speaks for himself and his attitude toward women. That it is tolerated and has been rewarded with a parliamentary secretary spot is just a mystery to me.

That aside, on how high the carbon tax can go, I do not think there is any limit to how high the Liberals can put a tax, especially when it is ineffective. Their plan is to go to at least $270 a tonne. That means, in the short term, at least 61¢ a litre on gasoline, and in my riding, and in the hon. member's riding, there is no public transit.

My constituents do not have public transit. They have to drive everywhere. They have to drive to grocery stores. They have to drive their kids to school. They have to drive to hockey games. They have to drive to see their family and parents. That is becoming increasingly unaffordable, and it is caused by a tax that has no impact on the actual reduction of climate emissions.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech with some compliments and then move on to the criticisms.

This bill seeks to amend the 1986 agreement, which was not bad, because, even though the Supreme Court said that the federal government has jurisdiction over offshore issues, the federal government entered into an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador to work together in that regard. That is a good thing, and I want to point it out, because there are not many good things.

At that time, wind energy did not exist. Bill C‑49 will tie the federal government to all parliaments affected once they have entered into the new agreement, which affects the management of offshore wind projects. This bill could pave the way to real action in the area of renewable energy for the east coast. It makes improvements, such as the joint management of renewable offshore energy resources and the option of cancelling seabed oil concessions. It also promotes relations with indigenous peoples and their active involvement in the use of renewable energy. Those were the compliments.

Now, here are the criticisms. Bill C‑49 continues to maintain exploration and development mechanisms that lead to oil drilling. The government may have missed an opportunity here. It could have taken advantage of this opportunity to do something about that.

I want to start by reiterating one thing. When Canada makes international commitments about the environment, protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change, and the whole world sees the political decisions that have been made, it seems to me that at some point, action should follow. An emergency requires immediate action. Even young children understand that word. Given that we are in a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis, every decision made should align with Canada's commitments to fight climate change. We shall see about that.

In April 2019, the government announced a total ban on oil and gas work as well as mining, waste dumping and bottom trawling in all of Canada's marine protected areas. It was also urging other countries to do the same because, as we know, the government likes to lecture. It was telling other countries to do more to protect the environment. Marine refuges, however, were not included in that commitment. I like to say that words matter, and here is an example. Marine refuges were overlooked.

A little later, in 2020, Canada introduced new regulations that exempted future drilling from environmental assessment. The government's intention was to accelerate underwater oil drilling, and this after having lectured other countries.

The bill does not give more teeth to the regional assessments that, by the admission of the individuals in charge, are inadequate. Again, the government could have used Bill C‑49 to address that. I could talk about assessments at length because there are so many irregularities, but again the industry comes out ahead. There are no societal gains here.

In November 2020, the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board agreed to provide Building Product of Canada, or BP Canada, access to 264,500 hectares of ocean in exchange for a commitment to do exploration work worth $27 million. They say one thing and do another. This area is essential to marine biodiversity. It contains coral and sponges that other marine species use as spawning grounds or nurseries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said so itself.

Meanwhile, with his customary emotional delivery, the Prime Minister promised to reaffirm Canada's commitment to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025 and to reach 30% by 2030. While BP Canada is making its little deals with the board, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has already started watering down his discourse. Regarding offshore drilling projects, he said at a committee meeting that the regulation will guarantee that all drilling projects comply with the strict standards of environmental protection and that the regulation establishes a clear and efficient process for assessing exploratory drilling projects.

In other words, the government supports such projects. Offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.

The lighting on the oil platforms and infrastructure is harmful to birds because it causes confusion about places for them to rest, find food and so on.

The Liberal government is committing to marine conservation and claiming it is possible to accomplish that goal while promoting the development of the offshore oil industry. One can see why The Guardian and Oil Change International are saying that Canada is a climate hypocrite.

I would like to remind members that the purpose of exploration is extraction and development.

I want to briefly mention Bay du Nord. Many countries were shocked when the government made that announcement as it was preparing for the COP15 on biodiversity in Montreal. Perhaps that explains the comments of The Guardian and Oil Change International.

Equinor, the company that spearheaded the project, was the one that decided not to move forward with it, at least for the time being. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change who approved the Bay du Nord project used to be a committed environmental activist.

Regardless of the outcome of Bay du Nord, this first deep-water project, with the government's about-face, doublespeak, selective terminology and broken policy and climate commitments, Canada is being two-faced, acting like a good participant when, let us face it, under the changes set out in Bill C‑49 it is still quite likely that permits will be granted and offshore oil activities will be promoted.

Just days after introducing Bill C‑49, the government announced new drilling permits to double offshore oil production.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the devil is in the details. If the government wanted us to oppose this then it went about it the right way, in other words introduce a good bill and the next day announce more drilling. One might say it is sabotaging its own legislation. The government had an opportunity to show that it could let go of fossil fuel. There is still time for that. We are used to the greenwashing language that the Prime Minister has mastered.

That said, legislation paving the way for renewable energy in this region of Canada would be good. I repeat: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is imperative. Just like western Canada, the Maritimes need a helping hand to do that. In both regions, the environment and biodiversity are under attack.

Our caucus has serious doubts about the probity of the commitments set out in Bill C‑49. What better ruse could there be than to slip poison into an innocent-looking treat that everyone likes? We will be watchful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to.

When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.”

We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I must say that my hon. colleague is always present and always has questions. I am always amazed. Sometimes I wonder if he ever sleeps because he must be studying every bill.

Why are the Conservatives against this? Every time we talk about climate change, the Conservatives are against it. We always wonder if they believe in fighting climate change. They do not make the connection between health and climate change; they do not tie these two things together, when it is very important.

However, coming back to Bill C‑49, there are rules for future offshore wind projects, but the government wants to pursue oil projects. We take issue with the government saying one thing and doing another. It is typical of the Liberal government.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was entirely too charitable to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, because I heard him say that this year was just an unusual year and we will go back to normal soon. What we have is an example of a Conservative front-bencher, who obviously enjoys the favour of the Conservative leader, denying climate change in this very chamber, denying the evidence of fires and denying the evidence of the floods that took place in Nova Scotia.

I wonder if the member would like to revise her evaluation of the climate-denying Conservatives.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

Before moving on to the answer, the hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member who just spoke to provide what he is speaking about. I think he is reiterating a false narrative. There is no—

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I must respectfully interrupt my hon. colleague. In the Speaker's opinion, the member for Calgary Centre's remarks are a point of debate in the House. He will have an opportunity to take part in the debate and ask his questions.

Did I misunderstand? Does the hon. member for Calgary Centre want to clarify his remarks?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I interrupted, Mr. Speaker, because what the member was saying is a gross misstatement about those in the front row of this party. If the member is going to put that out there and is going to state it in Hansard, it had better show up, as opposed to being complete deceit to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to respect the rules of the House and check into the facts of what the member is stating.

[The Acting Speaker, Gabriel Ste-Marie]

I thank my hon. colleague for his comments.

After verifying with the table officer, this is a point of debate. The hon. member or his colleagues will have the opportunity to participate in the debate.

Without further delay, the hon. member for Repentigny has the floor to answer the question.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois often finds that, when either the Conservatives or the government members open their mouths, all we hear are speeches from oil companies.

When I think about Bill C‑49, what comes to mind is an image of oil wells with wind turbines on top them. The content of this bill looks a little bit like that. This bill could be worthwhile, but some of the decisions go completely against combatting climate change and keeping Canada's international commitments.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleagues, Conservatives believe in climate change. We just do not believe that this carbon tax is doing anything to fight the climate crisis we are facing. It is punishing Canadians.

If the Liberals do not want to believe me, perhaps they will believe a Liberal MP from Newfoundland, the member for Avalon, who stood up, finally, and said:

I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit. Everywhere I go people come up to me and say, “We're losing faith in the Liberal Party.”

...They can’t afford to heat their homes and that’s hard to hear from especially seniors who live alone and tell me that they go around their house in the spring and winter time with a blanket wrapped around them....

Would our hon. colleague please comment on that? A Liberal MP is finally standing up and saying the carbon tax is punishing Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are back to debating the carbon tax. I would just like to remind everyone that it does not apply in Quebec.

In fact, the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was a minister in Jean Charest's Quebec government when the carbon exchange was created. She knows full well that it does not apply in Quebec.

I guess the member does not have enough influence in her caucus.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair today.

I appreciate having the chance to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-49. I would like to mention that as I deliver my comments I do so on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the other side likes to downplay and ignore climate change. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I can tell members that my constituents have faced some of the worst impacts of fires and floods, which have been exacerbated by climate change. From winter storms taking down power lines in Quebec to storms battering our coasts, the fact is that the climate crisis is a serious issue that requires serious responses. Today, we are here to talk about a plan to help expand job-creating climate action in Atlantic Canada, which is certainly a region that has seen no shortage of climate impacts.

Let us take Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia’s workers and their families have been through not one, not two, but three climate disasters in the last 13 months: hurricane Fiona, the wildfires in the Halifax Regional Municipality and Shelburne County, and the flash flooding that tragically led to the deaths of four Nova Scotians, including three children. It is time to stand behind the people of Nova Scotia and all of Atlantic Canada as we move forward with opportunities that will support the fight against climate change and benefit the region’s long-term economic future.

Developing the offshore renewable energy industry should be a priority for all members of Parliament, which is precisely why I am here today as a member of Parliament from British Columbia. Enabling the offshore renewables industry to move forward will not only help the people who live and work in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but also help Canada as a whole in the effort to do the following: help reduce emissions and meet emissions targets; create a clean, reliable and affordable grid; create good-paying sustainable jobs; enhance Canada's ability to compete in the global low-carbon economy across all sectors; and, further grow our economy today.

It is clear that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforces are ready to move forward with these offshore opportunities. The citizens of these provinces have the skills we need, and they bring generations of experience in a range of marine industries to the table. Like British Columbians, our east coast colleagues are talented in other areas that are expected to benefit the offshore renewable energy industry, including shipbuilding, aquaculture, defence, research and ocean technology.

My Atlantic colleagues have been clear when they have spoken in this chamber. These provinces, and the livelihoods of all who call them home, have been shaped by the sea, providing rich maritime heritage and a passion for the environment, both of which make offshore wind and other renewable energy projects a natural fit for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Of course, they also benefit from the geography and energy context that makes these projects so attractive. Nova Scotia’s current energy mix means that affordable and reliable offshore wind power will support lowering prices for ratepayers, and as Newfoundland and Labrador uses its hydro capacity to support the electrification of buildings, industry and transportation, more and more power will be needed in the future. This is true across the country, yet the offshore potential of Atlantic Canada is one of the greatest on earth. Unlocking this potential is a critical part of achieving our commitments to the global fight against climate change.

Members on the other side like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the climate crisis, as we see time and again in this place. Our side knows that ambitious action provides us with an opportunity to show the world that Canada is a reliable partner and leader in solving the great challenge of our era in a manner that supports the creation of sustainable jobs. To ensure we honour our commitments to Canadians and the world, and to ensure our economy does not surrender opportunity to our competitors as the rest of the world races towards net zero, we need to move quickly. That urgency brings us to the business before us today, and our provincial counterparts agree that we must move quickly.

Nova Scotia, for instance, has stated that coal-fired power plants are going to become a thing of the past by 2030, and that 80% of the province’s power will, by then, come from clean energy. That is only six years away. Nova Scotia’s Progressive Conservative government and citizens are asking for this House to get this bill passed so they can start building the renewable energy they need.

Atlantic Canadians, in particular, are calling on the Conservative Party to end its campaign of climate action obstruction and join us in passing this bill. Everyone is asking the Conservative Party to stop blocking jobs, investments and the renewable energy that will power their homes and businesses. The question is whether or not the leader of the Conservative Party will take his head out of the sand and heed this call.

Make no mistake. We will advance this legislation and deliver for Atlantic Canada either way. Doing so makes sense from both an environmental and economic perspective.

The potential for job creation and environmental benefits in renewable energy is so strong in Nova Scotia that the provincial government has already made several significant moves toward making offshore renewable energy projects a reality in preparation for this bill’s passing. Nova Scotia has joined the federal government in carrying out the regional assessment on offshore wind that is currently under way. Right now, the regional assessment committee is hosting public open houses to provide information on the process itself and get feedback on potential project locations.

Nova Scotia also released the first module of their offshore wind road map in June, which clearly delineates its vision for offshore wind energy and the regulatory pathway and timelines for project development. The road map provides certainty for businesses looking to invest, as well as giving a line of sight on what is coming for stakeholders, indigenous groups and other interested parties. The road map also outlines the seabed leasing opportunities, noting that access to seabed rights that are solely under the province’s jurisdiction could be available for commercial projects as early as next year.

For this to happen, Bill C-49 needs to pass quickly through this chamber. I again encourage my Conservative colleagues to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada, as well as both the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. I encourage them to reverse their thoughtless and ideological position and vote in favour of this common-sense bill. Bill C-49 affords the House the opportunity to deliver good sustainable jobs, good renewable energy projects and major economic opportunities for all while combatting climate change.

The two boards, the C-NLOPB and the CNSOPB, which has held the provinces’ offshore energy industry accountable for many years, are the natural choice to take on an expanded mandate for the regulation of the provinces’ offshore energy projects. It is a perfect fit. The offshore board already ensures that licensed project operators adhere to offshore regulations. It engages and consults with stakeholders, indigenous groups and the public to get feedback on potential and existing projects. It has years of experience in offshore safety and environmental protection and holds operators to account through the boards’ comprehensive compliance and enforcement activities.

The boards are also an excellent collaborator. They have put several agreements and memoranda of understanding in place with other organizations and agencies to make it easier for them to share information, expertise and resources with each other and coordinate their initiatives. This includes agreements with the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canada Energy Regulator, Natural Resources Canada, the Transportation Safety Board and more. With these many agreements already in place, the offshore boards are a clear and logical choice for overseeing the development of offshore wind projects, as well as other renewable energy projects off the shores of Nova Scotia.

Economically, this bill makes good financial sense. We have heard that it is expected that as much as $1 trillion will be invested in offshore wind globally by 2040. That investment is already starting to flow to offshore markets around the world. This is why it is so urgent that the Conservatives end their opposition to these jobs and investments so that all members of Parliament can come together to get Bill C-49 passed.

We need to seize this massive economic opportunity, not just for Atlantic Canada but for all of Canada. This bill is key to ensuring that our country is a leader in the global race to net-zero. All members of all parties of all regions should not delay this bill any further, or else we will throw away the opportunity to attract investment, the opportunity to build a world-class offshore wind industry and the opportunity to create the thousands and thousands of jobs associated with it.

Bill C-49 makes sense for Atlantic Canada’s workforce, and Canada more broadly. When Canada builds major new industries, Canadians from across the country contribute and benefit. The benefits of this economic activity help to spur waves of labour development, and that is critical to the economic well-being of Canada as a whole, along with the restoration of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

The world needs Canadian clean energy and technologies in order to advance the fight against climate change and access long-term energy security. When Chancellor Scholz came to Newfoundland and Labrador last summer, he made it clear that Germany is looking to buy clean Canadian hydrogen made from offshore wind.

I am happy to take questions about Bill C-49, a very important piece of legislation.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City indicated that he stands behind the people of Atlantic Canada. Is he also prepared to say that he stands behind his colleague from Avalon, who represents those people in the House, when he answered a question last night?

Last night, he was asked if the Minister of Environment was “the right messenger for that part of the country on this”. The member responded, “No, he's not, because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and this whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it all overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”

Will the member stand with his colleague on behalf of the people in Canada who are struggling under the carbon tax system? Will they support us in removing it from the backs of Canadians?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very unfortunate situation that we have the official opposition still denying that climate change is upon us.

We need to take action. There is a cost to not dealing with climate—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in no way could the question I just asked the member be interpreted as to say that I do not support climate change and the need for Canadians to—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order, but it is a good point, nonetheless.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply offer that, if we are going to have these inflammatory questions, we should be able to address them. That is what I am doing. I am saying that climate change is real. It is happening, and there is a cost to the inaction of not dealing with it.

Bill C-49 clearly addresses that. British Columbians have had a price on carbon in my province since 2008, and it is one of the mechanisms to help reduce the impacts of consumer behaviours. The point is simply that we need to take action. Clean energy is important, and Bill C-49 will get us there.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is indeed a cost associated with inaction. I get the impression that certain things have been included in this bill simply to make us believe that they really want to tackle climate change. For example, the bill provides for the withdrawal of petroleum exploration licences.

However, seeing that the government is allowing petroleum production to double in northern Newfoundland, does my colleague get the impression that the government could one day use what is in the bill to prevent potential projects from moving forward?

Then again, does he think that it is just there to make this bill easier to swallow, given the potential effect it will have on climate change?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of our government's commitment to that transition to clean energy. We will have, for the short term, continued extraction of carbon-based fuels in our country. Bill C-49 would be a very important way of enabling the offshore energy boards to bring in clean energy, such as wind. I talked in my speech about how important this is for sustainable jobs and the economy, and to help us tap into what is needed in the world right now to decarbonize our economy.

I do not necessarily agree with my colleague's premise, but I think this is an important step in making sure that clean energy is available in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for clean energy projects.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since 2019, we have seen net profits of the oil and gas sector go up by over 1,000% and the refining sector by 40%, and we know the product they make is directly contributing to climate change, causing billions of dollars in damage and great harm to our agricultural sector. The Conservatives want us to believe a magical fairytale that it is somehow the carbon tax's fault.

Would my hon. friend agree that this is a fundamentally unserious party when it comes to dealing with the causes of climate change and inflation? It is about time they got off their unicorn and started being level with Canadians.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from British Columbia asked an excellent question. I could not have said it any better myself. I think we need all parties to come together in the House to work on advancing clean energy and the transition to decarbonize our economy.

Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of the east coast's commitment to that transition. The provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, are clearly asking for this. It is up to the House to provide this enabling legislation so provincial legislation can follow, and projects that are already being studied can get developed. It is a very important piece of legislation. I ask all parties to come together quickly to get this legislation through the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, as with most Liberal legislation, when it comes to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the Atlantic accord, the devil is always in the details. This bill is a framework for the development of offshore wind energy in Atlantic Canada, and it is necessary, but it needs to be done right.

In my speech today, I will address concerns brought to me by the fishing industry, in my role as shadow minister for Fisheries and Oceans, and by representatives and stakeholders in the oil and gas industry. As I am the only MP from Newfoundland and Labrador who has the freedom to address the shortcomings of Bill C-49, stakeholders from these industries have put their faith in me to address their concerns on the floor of the House.

I will start with what I have heard from representatives of seven fish harvester organizations, which are mainly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as throughout Atlantic Canada. The main concern raised by stakeholders is the lack of detail on the consultation process required with their industry.

Most in the industry, including those who sat in on an information session on September 12 by the committee for the regional assessment of offshore wind development in Newfoundland and Labrador, are concerned about the process. Lobster fishermen I met with in Nova Scotia are concerned with how offshore wind energy will impact their ability to fish.

The Liberal government, which is heavily influenced by hard-core environmentalists who often proclaim themselves to be stakeholders, does not have a good track record when it comes to setting aside areas where fishing activity is no longer permitted or where new restrictions are put in place.

The fishing industry is not against development of offshore wind energy. However, from its point of view, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations.

Bill C-49—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks a couple of days ago, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord, desperately needs amendments. As with all Liberal legislation, the devil is in the details, or, in this case, the lack thereof.

Bill C-49, as it stands, would end all future expansion of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry. In addition, the entire fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is fearful of the mass installation of wind turbines on its fishing grounds.

The fishing industry is not against the development of offshore wind energy; however, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations, from its point of view. That industry has a history of a lack of meaningful consultation with the Liberal government, especially when it comes to the setting up of marine protected areas, otherwise known as MPAs. MPAs have been arbitrarily created, oftentimes on prime fishing grounds, even though objections have been raised by fishermen. Their concerns are never taken into account, but the Liberal government goes ahead and forces fishers off their lucrative fishing grounds, endangering their livelihoods.

Why am I talking so much about fishermen and their experience with MPAs? It is because they fear that the exact same thing will happen in the designation and development of offshore wind farms. Bill C-49 is far too inadequate in relieving those fears. The process of consultation, negotiation and, in some cases, compensation needs to be clearly defined in this legislation. Fishermen are sick and tired of attacks by the Liberal government on their livelihoods, and they tell me that it is time for them to have an effective seat at the table. The bill before us needs to address this.

The fishing industry is not the only industry concerned with the arbitrary implementation of MPAs. The oil and gas industry has similar concerns. Bill C-49 would effectively kill all offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Any significant petroleum discovery or renewable energy project not yet developed would be governed by amendments to the Atlantic accord.

I see my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon, looking across at me. I am sure he has read the bill inside and out. However, I will read from the summary of the bill. It says:

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

That is an area that may be identified as an MPA. Also, item (h) would give out the power to decide whether or not to compensate for the cancellation of such projects.

We all know that the Liberal government and its extreme environmental restraints have one goal in mind when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry, and that is to shut it down. The stakeholders I have talked to say that Bill C-49 puts the long-held fears of their industry on paper in black and white.

The Liberal government destroyed the Bay du Nord project by delaying approval after the longest environmental assessment in Canadian history. It used Bill C-69 as its tool to do that, and it can still do that in the future because that part of the bill was not destroyed by the court, unfortunately. Bill C-49 would be another tool in the anti-oil tool box, and Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador, should be ashamed to support the bill as it stands.

What oil and gas company would want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore the offshore in Atlantic Canada and have a significant find, only to be told that it cannot develop because the area may become a future MPA? The answer is none. This bill would drive much-needed investment dollars out of our offshore, which is already protected by the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and would send that investment into jurisdictions with not only a poor environmental record but also a poor human rights record.

I cannot, as the lone supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry in the House of Commons, vote for a bill aimed at killing that industry. Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada should feel the same way, but they do not. They tell me that I need to vote with them to support this bill for the good of my province. I ask if they are cracked. How can a bill that has the potential to kill all new oil and gas production off our shores be good for my province? This bill was created to wedge Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, and our propaganda machine, the CBC, even said it itself.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl said that the Conservatives should not be meddling in the Atlantic accord, that we should support their amendments. If he is in this place, where he should be, he can get on his feet when I am done speaking and explain how members on my side of the House are meddling in the Atlantic accord when it is his party, under his ineffective guidance, that brought these amendments forward. How can Conservatives be meddling when we did not bring these amendments forward?

Then there is the Liberal member from Nova Scotia, whom I chatted with not that long ago. He said that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen was looking for trouble. It is unbelievable. If he wants to stand and clarify what he said when I am finished, he can do so as well. The fishing industry is all ears.

Trying to use this Liberal legislation to wedge Conservatives, the only party in this House that supports the oil and gas industry in Canada, is just a distraction. It is a distraction from the eight-year record of the current NDP-Liberal government, which sees Canadians reeling from the effects of the carbon tax on everything they buy and from food bank usage at the highest rate in 42 years. However, we will not be distracted. Not only do we support the oil and gas industry, but we support the mining industry.

Guess what else supports the mining industry. It is the wind power industry. To produce a single gigawatt of wind power, it takes 44 million pounds of copper, 150,000 tonnes of steel, 24,000 tonnes of iron, 1,000 tonnes of aluminum, 700,000 tonnes of concrete and a whopping 12,000 tonnes of fibreglass. That is what is required to produce one gigawatt. Where does fibreglass come from? It will not come from oil produced on the Grand Banks if the Liberals have their way; I can say that.

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

Madam Speaker, it was quite remarkable to sit in this place for that, and it is fortunate for the member opposite that we are protected by parliamentary privilege because of the level of misinformation that his speech contained and the level of fearmongering. This is the government that approved Bay du Nord and this is the government that supports energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed across Atlantic Canada.

The member talks about his stakeholders. Is Energy NL against this? I do not think so. Is the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador against this? I do not think so. Are the proponents of the projects being contemplated in Atlantic Canada against this? Absolutely not. Is the Premier of Nova Scotia?

Who is he talking to? He is not talking to everyday Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, who want to see this. Clip this to the voice of the common people and let him tell them why he is against progress in Atlantic Canada. It is simply astonishing. I cannot believe it sitting here in this place.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I hear voices on both sides other than those of the hon. members I have recognized, and I would ask members to please wait until it is their time and they are recognized.

The hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

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

Madam Speaker, I challenge the member for Kings—Hants. He knows that what I said earlier today when debating closure on this bill was that there are real deficiencies in it. He heard me read proposed section 56, and he even complimented me on studying the bill and knowing what is in it.

I sat next to a former political figure in Newfoundland and Labrador, who all members have lots of respect for today. I showed him that and he was shocked. Many are shocked in the oil and gas industry. I have spoken to many fishing organizations from Nova Scotia that are now banding together to make sure they are adequately consulted and not steamrolled in this process, as they were when MPAs were thrown on their fishing grounds.

[An hon. member]

Table them.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the hon. member that he had an opportunity to ask a question, and he should take the time to listen to the answer. If he has further questions, he should wait until he is recognized during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional. Since Bill C-69 is embedded in the bill we are discussing, Bill C-49, it would also make this bill unconstitutional. What does the member think the proper response should be?

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

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Kings—Hants were as familiar as my hon. colleague about what is going on with the gatekeeping in our offshore oil and gas industry.

In response to the member's question, anything that is related to Bill C-69 in Bill C-49 needs to be scrapped, given how the court just ruled and how Bill C-69 is now in total jeopardy.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about people and organizations who are concerned about this bill. I am always open to hearing about critiques and the best way to move forward. I wonder if the member could please clarify exactly which organizations and people he is referencing who are expressing concerns about the bill. Perhaps he could be a bit more specific as to what the exact concerns are.

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

Madam Speaker, I can start with the FFAW, the Coldwater Lobster Association, the Brazil Rock Lobster Association and the Maritime Fishermen's Union. There are loads and loads. In fact, the Fisheries Council of Canada was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, and it is expecting a whole-of-industry approach to seek proper explanation for this bill and to lay out what a real consultation process looks like and make sure it is adhered to so that the council is not steamrolled in the way that it was when marine protected areas were jammed down its throat.

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

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for being recognized again for an opportunity to re-engage with my colleague here today.

My question is very simple. He obviously suggested that this bill has flaws. I did not hear much about it, but I think he also recognizes that there are offshore energy opportunities. We have stakeholders across the region who are talking about this bill as being extremely important. Will the member vote for it tomorrow to at least get it to committee so he can raise the supposed concerns that many stakeholders and he share? Will we get this bill to committee so we can move it forward? Will he vote tomorrow in favour of getting the bill to committee?

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

Madam Speaker, if the NDP-Liberal government is willing to amend this bill and lay out amendments tomorrow to remove proposed section 56 and outline a meaningful consultation process for the fishing industry stakeholders, I would be willing to vote for it. Otherwise, we have loads of them to invite to committee, and they can ask for the amendments they want.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the folks from Cumberland—Colchester, especially when it is to speak to a bill that would negatively affect potential development in Nova Scotia. We have heard from many people in the House, Atlantic members of Parliament specifically, wanting to now portray themselves as the saviours of Nova Scotia. They are going on, touting how many people really want to be a part of the bill, which we know is utter hogwash.

We know that Bill C-49 would create uncertainty and control. By that, I mean it would create uncertainty and control related to the cabinet members of the NDP-Liberal coalition government. The difficulty we see there is that they are the ones who would assume the ultimate decision-making process when looking at the development of the offshore industries in Nova Scotia. We know very clearly that they would want to stop projects in the ocean to have ultimate control of their fiefdom, as they have had on land now for many years, and to effectively kill the oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia. It is really quite shocking.

We know that representatives from Germany came to specifically Nova Scotia in Canada and said that they would like to have our natural gas. The Prime Minister said that there is no case for natural gas. He asked who would need natural gas and why anyone would want natural gas. We also know that the NDP-Liberal government has killed 17 natural gas projects in this country, which obviously shows its true colours. Those members not only want to control it, but also to control the destiny of people in Atlantic Canada.

We know that the bill is rife with difficulties, red tape, long delays, stifling unproductivity and an unfriendly business environment. That part of this really hearkens to the words of a friend whom I had an opportunity to see during the break week, who said that, for people who build houses, the red tape, delays, bureaucracy and cost that the NDP-Liberal coalition has created really make it absolutely unpleasant, unpalatable, unfair and unpredictable for someone to even want to build simple housing in this country. Going forward, why would Canadians want to continue to have the voice of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and cabinet members in particular, making those decisions?

We know that, as my colleague spoke to before, at the discretion of a cabinet member, it could possibly create marine protected areas for anything that could possibly, at any time in the future, be examined or have difficulties. With any of the ambiguous language put forward, they would create marine protected areas that, of course, would stymie development.

We also know that the track record of the government, when it comes to offshore projects, is absolutely atrocious. We know that Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project, offshore in Nova Scotia, partly in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, was effectively stopped by the government. We know that Sustainable Marine simply asked for direction going forward from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it got absolutely nothing from the department.

This was the first time a project in the development of tidal energy had put energy back into the grid, and it was measurable. It also had significant abilities to monitor for fish strikes. Even the government arm of monitoring, called FORCE, on the tidal energy project, readily admitted, when I met with those folks and Sustainable Marine energy, that there were no worrisome signals or fish strikes. There was one fish that swam through one of the turbines, but other than that, no fish were harmed in this process.

The scope of Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project is really related to the fact that, if it were able to harness a significant amount of the energy off the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, there would be potential there to power all of Atlantic Canada in perpetuity with minimal cost. When we look at that kind of a project, which the Liberal government has absolutely no ability to support or go forward with, then I ask again why Canadians would want to say that we should allow the cabinet minister to have the opportunity to decide when projects should or should not go forward.

The difficulty, and my colleague, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned this, is that there are many sections of overlap from Bill C-69 embedded in Bill C-49. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional.

Just a few things, if I may. Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 of Bill C-49 invoke section 64 of Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, where the minister finds that a given project's adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and its adverse direct or incidental effects are in public interest, section 64 allows, and in fact requires, the minister to create any conditions which they deem appropriate in relation to those effects and with which the project proponent must comply.

In Bill C-69, the Liberals forced all offshore drilling to be subject to a review panel, increasing the timeline from 300 to 600-plus days for offshore reviews. Conservatives raised this as a major point of concern with Bill C-69. The impact assessment by the agency can take 1,605 days, which, sadly, is four and a half years, if all aspects of the process are followed.

This bill specifies section 64 of IAA, which allows the minister to create any condition they wish, based on an impact assessment report, which could add another 330 days to the process, if it was stated in clause 62 of Bill C-49, required by the regulator or prescribed.

What we are talking about is a country where people cannot afford to feed themselves, to put a roof over their heads and to generally look after their families. When we understand that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to put up red tape, barriers and concerns, then we know what is on the mind of Atlantic Canadians.

Those of us who went back to our ridings last week talked to people, and they talked about the carbon tax and the cost of living. We know that the Atlantic Liberals over on that side of the House have voted 24 times in favour of a carbon tax, over and over again.

There is one person on that side of the House, a Liberal, who has suddenly found religion, or perhaps he has found the Conservative common sense. I cannot exactly explain why, but we do know that he was on TV and was quoted multiple times. I think it is germane to read into the record one of the great quotes:

I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.

A gentleman on the opposite side said that. When we go back to our ridings in Atlantic Canada and hear of the difficulties, we understand very clearly that the Atlantic Liberals continue, over and over, to vote for a punishing carbon tax. What do they want to do now? They want to create further problems for Atlantic Canadians by stopping projects in the ocean.

We already know that they continue to do this on land with the statistics that I quoted previously, the delays of four and a half years on projects. Again, I will tie that to the builders we hear from to understand very clearly that they are giving up on their dreams of building houses and projects for Atlantic Canadians because it is an untenable position.

It is intolerable. It is unacceptable. It is unexplainable why the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to continue to stymie development in Atlantic Canada. That is something, on this side of the House, that we will not stand for.

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

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that DFO needs reform. I want to clarify the position of Atlantic Liberals, which is that we support the carbon price, but we are calling for amendments and constructive dialogue on being able to ensure that it better resembles the lived realities of the constituencies he and I represent.

I want to tell a little story. In the provincial election of 2021, Premier Tim Houston said that he wanted to be very clear that he is not aligned with the federal Conservative Party of Canada. The member for Cumberland—Colchester really highlighted the difference between progressive conservatism and where the federal Conservatives are today.

Premier Houston is in Ottawa today. He has publicly called on this legislation to be advanced. My question to the hon. member is this: Would he like for me to arrange a meeting with Premier Houston, so that he could have a conversation to better understand why he is standing against the interests of that provincial government and our entire region?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not need that Liberal member to get me a meeting with Tim Houston. As a matter of fact, I met him on Saturday, oddly enough.

Do members know what Premier Houston said? He said that the Liberals need to think more clearly about what Bill C-49 means now that we know that Bill C-69 has been declared unconstitutional. He also made reference, very clearly, that they are not taking seriously the problem with the Chignecto Isthmus in Nova Scotia.

He also made it very clear that he knows that Atlantic Canadians, and specifically Nova Scotians, are suffering under this punishing carbon tax. He wonders how, in heaven's name, the Atlantic Liberals could stand up and vote 23 times for a carbon tax, which they continue to want to raise, punishing Atlantic Canadians for living rurally, mainly living in single family dwellings, not having public transit and those kinds of things. When I met with the premier on Saturday, those were the things that were important to him.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for addressing this legislation and for speaking the truth about the negative impacts it would have on both offshore petroleum development and the future of renewable offshore development.

I wonder if he would expand on how disastrous it would be to proceed with Bill C-49 now, given that sections from Bill C-69, sections 61, 62 and 64, which are all embedded in Bill C-69, have now been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, on Friday, to be largely unconstitutional.

I wonder if he would expand on exactly the perils of proceeding with this legislation, which they are rushing through on time allocation, given that we would all know that we were passing a bill with significant clauses that are unconstitutional.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, if we look at it from a perspective of medicine, maybe, it would be like saying, wow, I cannot find that large retractor, but I think we should just sew up the patient anyway. Maybe we will find it later. Maybe they will run into a problem, or maybe they will not.

When we look at it like that, we all know what the outcome is going to be. The patient could die. That would be the biggest disaster. Of course, one would have to go in to do another operation at the best of times.

Already knowing that a disaster has already happened once with their frivolous law-making attempts, we know that allowing this bill to proceed, especially using time allocation, is a road that we do not want to go down.

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

Madam Speaker, as a Newfoundlander with roots in Newfoundland and family still in Newfoundland, I am personally very excited to see the potential for a thriving offshore renewable energy industry in Atlantic Canada. I know many Newfoundlanders and east coasters are excited to see good jobs, a lowering of energy bills and the fight to end the climate crisis.

Could the member please share if he supports a thriving renewable energy industry for workers and communities on the east coast, or is he more interested in protecting the interests and profits of rich oil CEOs?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, what we know very clearly is that, whether we like it or not, there continues to be a significant appetite for natural gas in the world.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, when we know that Newfoundland and Labrador have significant reserves of natural gas, it would be folly to continue to allow those things not to develop. It does not stand to reason.

We know that we cannot quickly pivot and allow renewables to be the only source of energy. We know that, whether we like it or not, there is a very good chance that natural gas will continue to be a part of the prosperity of Newfoundland and Labrador.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Before we continue, I want to remind members of a couple of rules of the House, which are that, if they wish to speak, they should stand to be recognized, and if they wish to ask a question or make comments, they need to be in their seat.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table a document from Premier Houston in relation to a comment that he made on calling on—

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It appears that the hon. member did not consult to get unanimous consent. I already hear that there is no unanimous consent.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to stand in the House and speak in support of Bill C-49. It has had a great history behind it, with much debate that took place in the 1950s and 1960s about resources off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Typically, as we see in Canada, compromises were made, and the Atlantic accords were put in place to deal with the jurisdiction off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast and followed by Nova Scotia a year later.

The original agreement was, as Newfoundland and Labrador's then premier, Brian Peckford, stated, consistent “with a strong and united Canada”. The day the first of the two accords was signed, the agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, the prime minister at the time, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said in his speech, “It is unquestionably an historic Accord, probably the most important agreement reached between Ottawa and St. John's since Newfoundland entered Confederation”.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a matter of great importance for Atlantic Canadians, in particular constituents of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, I am going to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord acts. Introduced by our government this spring, this is a piece of legislation that intends to bring Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador into the green energy future. More specifically, our government intends to strengthen and modernize the regulations governing their offshore regimes.

As a proud Atlantic Canadian, I can tell members about the importance of safeguarding our unique coastal environment, as well as the importance of creating sustainable economic opportunities at home. This is especially true given the events of the past year in Atlantic Canada.

This last year, we saw a once-in-a-lifetime hurricane, Fiona, followed by an uncontrollable once-in-a-lifetime wildfire, followed by deadly once-in-a-lifetime flooding. This devastating sequence of events is no coincidence. It is the consequence of a climate emergency that has been brewing for decades. It is the consequence of leaders who do not recognize that we must act now to protect our communities.

Atlantic Canadians needed economic growth this year. What they did not need was a significant taxpayer bill for climate disaster cleanups. That is why Bill C-49 would support Canada's clean energy sector to fight the climate crisis. That is why Bill C-49 would unlock the incredible economic potential that lies in the renewable industries within Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot speak for the official opposition, but my constituents in Cape Breton—Canso sent me here to do my part to make government work for them. The same is true for my government colleagues on this side. We are here to work for all Atlantic Canadians and for all Canadians. With that, our government intends to do the right thing for the economic and environmental future of Atlantic Canadians. I will discuss how this legislation is going to help in that effort.

The world is now looking for cleaner sources of energy, and offshore renewables are becoming a leading contender in that very search. As we look to the future of Canadian energy, offshore renewables have the potential to not only help Canada achieve its net-zero goals, but bolster our energy capacity in sustainable ways. However, current regulations are standing in the way of these very crucial renewable projects. That is why Bill C-49 would remove the red tape that is currently preventing green energy projects from getting under way. In fact, without this legislation, not a single offshore wind project can be built, which is an important fact to note. This fact alone should be sufficient to convey the importance of passing this bill.

The reality of the situation is that if we do not create the regulatory environment that allows these clean energy projects to go forward, then massive private sector opportunity will go elsewhere. In other words, Canada has the opportunity right now to be a leader in the emerging offshore renewable industry. If we do not rise to the occasion and become the leader, another jurisdiction surely will. Our government believes that meeting this moment to chart a new path for Atlantic Canada and indeed all Canadians is here.

However, Bill C-49 is not just about removing red tape. It is also about advancing our commitment toward strengthening our environmental protection. This legislation would ensure that the Government of Canada's MPA protection standard is applied in a manner that respects the joint management framework for the Atlantic offshore. It would also provide the federal minister and provincial officials with the ability to prohibit oil and gas activities in areas that could be important for marine conservation and protection.

This is an incredible step forward in our commitment toward expanding Canada's energy capacities in a responsible and sustainable way. It is also reflective of the great partnership we forged with our stakeholders and provincial counterparts, which has allowed us to work together toward common goals. It is why the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have declared their support for this bill. In fact, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone so far as to publicly urge the federal opposition parties to support the passing of Bill C-49. I wish to echo this statement and reiterate to my opposition colleagues that the legislation is indeed critical for the future of Canadian energy. I would say it is critical for economic development in Atlantic Canada writ large.

The Conservatives, and many of them are colleagues of mine, have been talking a lot about common sense, but on this item, they seem to intend to vote against Bill C-49. I do not see the common sense in that. I believe that the magnitude of the opportunity before us is real and that the regulatory framework is strong. It is important for me, as a member of Parliament, to reach across party lines and ask for their support. It is support for Atlantic Canadians and support for coastal communities.

This regulatory framework would indeed provide it to rural communities like mine in Cape Breton—Canso. Historically, in my riding, we have felt left behind in large-scale investments. The large-scale investment that I think can happen here is the best case scenario. It is private sector investment. Eventually, no doubt there will be government support, but this should be led by the private sector, which is so key.

We are partnering with Atlantic Canadians to work on offshore wind and green hydrogen. I think that is fundamentally what common sense is about. It is about working together and working together for the common good. Canada is well positioned to lead, as we all know in this chamber, the clean energy economy, but we need to make the right choices now. That is what Bill C-49 is all about.

With that, there is a simple conclusion that I would like to make here. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against unlocking historic economic investments in Atlantic Canada. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against bringing good, sustainable jobs to my area, to the Atlantic region. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, with whom we have worked together to bring these projects to life. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against putting partisan politics aside for the betterment of our constituents.

I implore each member of this honourable House to vote with us on this legislation. Let us all do the right thing for Atlantic Canada with Atlantic Canada. Let us work to pass Bill C-49.

I am thankful for this opportunity. I look forward to working not only with members on this side of the House but with the opposition to make this legislation a reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the Liberal member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, talk about the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Nova Scotia. Those premiers will answer to their electorate if they do the wrong thing by their electorate and by the industries that are going to be impacted either positively or negatively by offshore wind or offshore oil and gas.

There is a little paragraph in the summary of Bill C-49, and if our Liberal members from Atlantic Canada do not have the time to read the bill, they can read this. The bill provides that the Governor in Council, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, can “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”. Does the member agree that item (g), referencing proposed section 56 in this bill, could be removed? If so, I would support a bill that takes out—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member across asked if we read. I can tell him that in Cape Breton, they do teach reading and writing and we are quite good at it.

I will also say this. When we look at this particular bill, it is looking at focusing on greater collaborations. I think the premier and the governing party in Newfoundland and Labrador understand the importance of collaboration and understand working for the benefit of the future, for jobs and for economic development. They understand that.

We can sit here all day and pontificate and throw barbs, as we do from time to time, but we are here as Atlantic Canadians to get people to work, to become economically resilient for our region and to export our energy in Atlantic Canada to Europe.

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague spoke about the various impacts of voting against Bill C‑49. I wonder whether a vote for Bill C‑49 is a vote for increased oil and gas production in eastern Canada. I think that is a fair question.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, this vote would change the regulatory framework to make renewable opportunities not just words on paper but a reality. For a long time, we have been looking at opportunities to green the grid in Atlantic Canada. This would provide a spoke on the wheel to do that. It would also provide an opportunity for us to become energy resilient as a region and look to offshore wind and green hydrogen to export to the rest of the world.

That is what we as Atlantic Canadians are focusing on. I hope everyone here thinks the same way and votes for this bill.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently came to the industry committee and noted that the Trans Mountain pipeline right now is at $22 billion and continues to absorb more public money, which the government does not have a response to for the future, other than just continuing to pay. That is what the Liberals agreed to do. The Liberals also recognized the work of Stellantis and Volkswagen in the $22-billion investment deal for batteries. That is tied to production and labour.

Is the member confident that the renewable energy and non-renewable energy projects and investments are going to be tied to labour and production so that there will be measured hours for persons who are basically paying for this project as subsidies?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, when we look at this particular bill, it is focused on establishing a regulatory framework and is basically amending the existing act to include offshore wind, hydrogen and renewables. However, I think any economic development opportunity in Atlantic Canada absolutely needs to be tied to set-asides for jobs and working with first nations communities in the Atlantic region.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend marked a significant milestone for many of us in this House. It has been 15 years since the class of 2008 began its journey of service to Canadians. I still have the picture on my refrigerator of my brothers and my father celebrating that special evening.

My first duty as an MP in this House was the spectacle of the multi-vote Speaker selection, which was particularly significant to me.

During the first break, I crossed the floor to speak to a hockey idol, or nemesis, of mine, the hon. Ken Dryden. I relayed to him how, as an eight-year-old, I had been told by my aunt that we had this relative who may even make it to the NHL some time. She was an Orr. We had a lot to discuss.

During the second vote break, I noticed the Right Hon. Stephen Harper doing paperwork at his desk in the House, so I went over to chat and enjoyed a fantastic one-on-one discussion with him. I proudly relayed those two experiences to my father while he lay in his hospital bed just a week before he passed away. It was the last smile we shared.

I am happy to speak to this legislation today, as it fits well into the responsibilities that I have been engaged in over this past decade and a half. The committees that I have served on that have touched this file include international trade, science innovation and technology, indigenous affairs, environment and, most recently, natural resources.

I have also advocated for Canadian resources on the global stage through the OSCE, ParlAmericas and Asia-Pacific. Most specifically, this advocacy has been on food security, energy security and addressing global conflict with rogue states, as well as international terrorism.

On the international front, when the Liberals, particularly the Prime Minister, get the opportunity to grandstand, it is a bewildering sight. Whether it be disruptive trade irritants with our trusted allies, ill-conceived and anti-natural resource eco-activist proclamations or unprofessional statements to global leaders, sadly, we now have a global reputation where we are showing others just how unreliable we are.

When it comes to the actions of the Prime Minister and his numerous environment ministers, the effects on both the energy industry and the global environment, as well as the lost revenue that could have kept our economy strong, could not be more dire.

This bill would amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board by adding offshore renewables to their mandates. It would also create a regulatory regime for offshore wind and other renewable energy projects similar to those that currently exist for petroleum operations.

It would also allow the federal government to rely on regulators for indigenous consultation. Unfortunately, this might result in court challenges and detrimental judicial decisions. This bill would add more red tape and uncertainty to an already overburdened bureaucratic framework.

The Atlantic offshore drilling ban could end offshore petroleum drilling in the Atlantic provinces in any designated region deemed to be a prohibited development area. Again, this would be done by political decree.

Let me express my admiration for the thousands of Maritimers who shared my home province of Alberta and became experts in oil and gas extraction. As with any job so far from home, it was a true family commitment. It has also helped enhance the energy expertise needed to explore and extract oil and gas in the Atlantic offshore. Sadly, the government views any criticism of its lauded legislative goals as being anti-Atlantic. That could be no further from the truth.

The energy industry knows far too well the effects of Liberal policy on its Canadian assets. The industry does not need even more investors turning their backs on ethically produced and carbon-reduced energy, as well as strong workers rights, to satisfy the ideological fantasies of the Prime Minister and his cabinet.

The proposal to rely on regulators to satisfy the duty to consult with indigenous people, particularly in the proposed section 62, is of concern. It is well known that the government does not have a solid track record when it comes to serious discussions with indigenous people. The proposed section may face challenges in the future and jeopardize both offshore petroleum and renewable energy proposals on the grounds that it is the Crown's duty to consult, and this cannot be delegated elsewhere.

In the past, judicial decisions on major energy projects consistently cited the failure of a two-way dynamic and the lack of a decision-maker at the table during Crown-indigenous consultations. Is that what is being created here?

The legislation also speaks of indigenous collaboration. The history of the government's policies could leave billions of dollars of indigenous assets at risk. Will this be addressed?

The government currently formulates most of its environmental goals around the American Inflation Reduction Act, thinking that we will somehow benefit from American benevolence. Where was the government when the Biden administration's first action was to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline? There is not a chance that it was advocating for Canadian energy. It was too busy gleefully rubbing its hands, because someone else had done the dirty work. What are the consequences of these actions?

The Americans are not fools. Instead of allowing Canadian products to get to world markets, the U.S. is now flooding these same markets with their oil and gas. Indeed, we were outsmarted and outplayed, because the Americans knew the Liberals were more concerned with ideology than practicality. So much for ensuring that the energy produced in the most environmentally friendly way in the world makes it to our trading partners' shores.

However, there is a chance that our Atlantic offshore energy could help make this happen, as long as we do not put too many obstacles in the way. Many of the provisions and regulations that we see in this bill mirror the legislation that has just been struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. On the issue of the recent SCC decision, there is much more to it than just this proclamation.

In September 2019, the Alberta government announced its court challenge of Bill C-69, and on May 10, 2022, Alberta's Court of Appeal deemed Bill C-69 unconstitutional. This of course prompted the Government of Canada to appeal that decision, which is its right.

Meanwhile, other provinces chimed in, stating their disapproval of the Impact Assessment Act provisions and the act's intrusion on provincial jurisdiction. I state this because the mechanism associated with Bill C-69 is mirrored in this legislation.

The jurisdictional overreach of Bill C-69 allowed for political interference in the regulatory process by the Minister of Environment and cabinet. It has been disastrous for Canada's extraction industries.

Conservatives have warned the government and its NDP enablers that this unprecedented power over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources, including wind, hydro, critical minerals, and oil and gas, would hurt Canadian workers and was unconstitutional. This was upheld in the SCC decision this past week.

One of the other features of this bill addresses the full life-cycle analysis of renewable projects. This has been one of my missions when discussing both renewable and non-renewable energies. We have to analyze the environmental impact of all forms of energy, including its transmission. We must also measure the impact associated with the machines that are powered by this energy. Only then can we fairly determine what is the best type of system available for each region of this vast nation. This is important, because we are sorely needed on the world stage.

As I mentioned earlier, I have spoken up consistently in support of Canadian resources, both for agriculture and renewable and non-renewable energy. We hear from the government how European countries are onside with Canada's aggressive carbon tax and its anti-oil strategy. It may make them feel good that other ideological governments share their vision, but that is not the reality on the ground.

On the political front, we see those governments that continue to push the global green agenda onto its electorate being laid waste. The Liberal members seem to be too blinded by their leader's aura to see that it is happening here as well. This strategy of pitting one group against another is a logical tactic for combat, but not an honourable formula for governing. This is why this legislation needs to be amended.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot quite figure how the member can say what he said in his concluding remarks. I understand the Conservatives do not want this legislation to pass, but let us be very clear. Provincial premiers and many different stakeholders have seen the value of this legislation. It is a very competitive area and we want to ensure that the Atlantic provinces have the opportunity to take advantage. That is what this legislation would do. There has been work in consultations and it even has the support of a Progressive Conservative premier.

Why does the Conservative Party feel this is a bill that it can filibuster on and deny Atlantic Canadians the opportunity to see economic growth?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, there are opportunities for economic growth in the oil and gas industry and in renewables. This is something we expect, but it has to be done right. That is the concern we have. There are probably six or seven sections in this bill that need more scrutiny, and that is the key. As we know, when it gets to committee, these amendments are critical and important.

The point is that we have seen the effects of a federal government that takes glee in restricting and limiting energy no matter where it is or from whom. There is the experience of the rest of Canada, but when it comes to concerns about Atlantic Canada, we simply want to make sure that everyone is on the same page.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I have heard time and time again from the Conservative Party that it is interested in lowering prices for Canadians. This bill is a great opportunity to help lower prices by ensuring that we support the use of renewable energy. Not only would there be a better use of renewable energy, but it would also create employment.

Is the Conservative Party interested in supporting the creation of employment by using renewable energy or is it interested only in protecting the profits of rich oil CEOs?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course jobs are important, no matter where they are in this country. The question that has to be posed is whether renewables are going to be cheaper in the long run, because that is the major concern that we have.

There are 50-some windmills about six miles from my home that are 20-some years in. They are going to have to be disposed of soon. No one could tell us what the actual overall costs are for reclamation. We have solar projects that people are concerned about because they do not know what the reclamation costs are going to be. We should make sure we know all the facts and then we can talk about the best method of getting energy to the citizens of this country. There are so many strengths from all over this country and we should be aware of them.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government believes that the only way to make advancements in clean energy is by taxing and hurting Canadians and federal government intervention. Canadians are rightly concerned with the Liberals' plan, as 2.7 million livelihoods have been brutally impacted and the government's economic record is nothing but disastrous.

I would ask the member to tell me what the government could do to encourage clean energy advancement without killing jobs and punishing Canadians with taxes, to have our clean capabilities meet the current world's need for clean oil and gas, but which the Liberals claim there is no business case for.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could go on for a long time on that particular topic.

Quite frankly, the world needs Canada's oil and gas. It needs our expertise in being able to produce the most clean energy in the world. We could have gotten it to market if someone on the other side might have seen a case for this. While the U.S. is making dozens of natural gas facilities where it can transfer gas around the world, we are wondering when it would be a good idea to get our first one going. These are issues. If we had our natural gas displacing the energy in other places in the world, that would be the best step to what we are supposedly talking about, which is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-49 in the House today. Before I begin, I would like to note that we are standing on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

There is immense potential for offshore renewables, including the offshore wind industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. It has the potential for new sustainable jobs and the potential for a supercharged Canadian low-carbon economy. With some of the fastest winds in the world off our east coast, with Bill C-49 we could build one of the world's greatest offshore wind industries, powering countless Canadian communities with clean, reliable and affordable electricity.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

When we had speeches from the opposition side, the House was quiet and people listened, so I would like the same courtesy to be accorded now to the current member.

The hon. member for Calgary Skyview.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleagues do not like when I say “reliable and affordable electricity” because they want to increase electricity rates for Canadians.

We are going to bring immense economic opportunity and provide the world with the hydrogen it needs. According to the Public Policy Forum's new report published today, the installation and maintenance of massive onshore wind generation will create jobs and incomes at high levels of intensity for several decades during build-out, and continuing indefinitely with ongoing maintenance and replacement activity.

It also determined that the installation of 15 gigawatts of offshore wind generation would create an average of approximately 30,000 direct jobs annually during several years of construction and installation and about 1,200 permanent jobs for ongoing operation and maintenance.

Canadian businesses know a good thing when they see it. They are more than ready to invest in offshore renewable energy. They are already doing it. Over the last several years, a number of Canadian companies have bought into international offshore wind projects according to Marine Renewables Canada. This includes Canadian financial institutions like the Bank of Montreal and CIBC, and Northland Power.

Northland Power is a Canadian company that has not waited around to invest billions in offshore wind. Headquartered in Toronto, Northland Power is already a global leader in offshore wind with three large operational offshore wind projects in the North Sea in Dutch and German waters and over 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind projects in development from Scotland to the Asia Pacific. It is a great example of how Canadian experience and ingenuity is moving offshore renewables in the global energy transition forward. That experience was most recently demonstrated in the last few weeks when Northland closed just over $10 billion of financing for two additional offshore wind projects in Poland and Taiwan, despite a challenging economic environment.

Northland is a Canadian success story. It has grown from a purely domestic business 10 years ago to having offices in eight countries; deploying more than 250 people in offshore wind; establishing a centre of excellence for offshore wind in Hamburg, Germany; investing roughly $6.5 billion into assets already in operation; and committing about $9.5 billion into developing more offshore wind projects.

Perhaps the best news of all for Canada's workers and the economy is that it has confirmed that it wants to bring its experience and expertise home. It is so important to it that it decided to come to Parliament earlier this year to be present when the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources introduced this bill. It wants to be a part of fulfilling our offshore renewable energy potential, bringing jobs to Canadians and helping to grow our low-carbon economy. As we speak, the company is exploring opportunities in the Atlantic Ocean that will support both decarbonization efforts and electrification of the burgeoning green hydrogen sector.

I am sure all members agree that Canadian companies are more than willing to invest in this industry. If this legislation goes forward, it is only a matter of time. We are bringing billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs, or even more, to Canada's offshore. This can only happen if we work urgently to pass Bill C-49. That is why I find it so disturbing that Conservative members are so against bringing these economic opportunities to Atlantic Canadians.

I have seen this in my home province of Alberta, where Conservatives in Alberta have put out a moratorium. It is impacting over 118 projects, up to $33 billion in potential losses of investments into our economy, impacting billions of dollars of investment and up to 24,000 jobs. Then, the premier started a misinformation campaign, spending $8 million of taxpayers' money to drive a bus around Ottawa to misinform Canadians. That is $8 million of Albertan taxpayer money being spent to misinform.

The natural environment off of our coasts makes us capable of becoming one of the strongest players in the world in the offshore renewable industry. If we look at the Global Wind Atlas, the winds off our east coast are stronger than those around the U.K. and northern Europe, where there are already wind farms. If we compare our winds to those off the upper east coast of the United States, our offshore area is simply bigger and has higher wind speeds.

According to experts, and as published in Policy Opinions, the online magazine put together by Canada's Institute for Research on Public Policy, the price of electricity generated by offshore wind has also dropped significantly, in part, due to developers backing more efficient and bigger turbines. Now is the time for Canada to board this train, and the sooner the better.

The “Global Offshore Wind Report 2023”, published by the Global Wind Energy Council, is predicting that the industry could face supply chain bottlenecks in every country that produces offshore wind energy by 2026, except for China. We have a timely opportunity here to be a part of minimizing that bottleneck and be part of the solution by developing the offshore wind industry in Canada, and encourage new investments into companies that could supply needed materials and parts to the world.

According to Marine Renewables Canada, getting this legislation passed will only help Canada expand its renewable energy industries. Perhaps this expansion of affordable, clean, renewable energy is the cause of the Conservative Party's opposition to this bill. The Conservatives have been clear that they want to make pollution free again, and now they are voting against Bill C-49 and all of the jobs it would bring to Canadians.

As I wrap up my speech, I would like to briefly remind members that we have so many things already in place that will make Canada's offshore renewable energy a resounding success. Both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are fully on board with this legislation. We created the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, so that we can supply Germany and hopefully other European allies looking for secure sources of energy.

Canadians have excelled in so many renewable energy industries. They want this chance to show the world that we can lead in the offshore renewable energy sector too. The door is wide open. We just need to walk through it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, last week, the New York State Department of Public Service denied an application from developers of energy in that state developing offshore wind resources to do exactly what this member is a proponent of. It denied the request for billions of dollars of additional subsidies and concessions. Why was that? It was because the developer said that without it, there was no business case.

I am wondering if the member across the aisle has seriously considered whether there is really a business case that is viable without costing Canadians billions of dollars in subsidies and concessions. I also want to know why that member is not supporting his home province of Alberta.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who is on the natural resources committee, for his question. However, there is, once again, misinformation on what this is about.

In my home province of Alberta, Premier Smith and the UCP government have put out a moratorium, which is preventing $33 billion in investment. Thousands of jobs will be lost. With the transition to a net-zero economy, it is estimated that it will create up 420,000 jobs across Canada.

This is about working together. That is why Premier Furey from Newfoundland supports this. I will read a quote for the hon. member: “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry. We have to have time for more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing to want to regulate the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. However, we are not talking only about future wind energy projects. For example, this bill also addresses oil and gas exploration and development.

At a time when we are in a climate emergency, and when scientists tell us that we must quickly stop using fossil fuels, does my colleague believe it makes sense that his government wants to double oil production within the next few years?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill is about working together with the governments in Atlantic Canada, with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure we are bringing forward opportunities to have more renewable energy.

The world is seeing a massive transition. There is up to $1 trillion of investment that is going to come forward with renewables and through wind energy. We want to make sure that Atlantic Canada reaps those benefits, which are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in investment. That is good for Atlantic Canada and great for Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to note that the member's party does not do a really great job with its promises for reconciliation. I am glad to see that this legislation talks about engaging indigenous peoples. This is great to see in this bill.

One concern I do have is its terrible record of engaging or not engaging indigenous peoples, including recognizing collectives of peoples as indigenous when they are not. Because of that, I ask how the government will make sure that, when it is engaging with indigenous peoples, they are actually section 35 rights-holding indigenous peoples.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. An important part of the work we do is working with and alongside indigenous communities across Canada. Working with the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada, it is going to be at the forefront of the work that is done to consult and work alongside indigenous communities.

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

Madam Speaker, I noted earlier in debate that some members incorrectly said that the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference case on the impact assessment meant that there would be overreach in this bill, Bill C-49. As a formerly practising environmental lawyer who did not think Bill C-69 was constitutional, I would like to say that Bill C-49 is absolutely constitutional. There is nothing more federal than the offshore. This is federal jurisdiction.

Is my hon. colleague aware that the race is on right now between the United States and China to see who can get more offshore wind in faster?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is why it is so important that we pass this bill to get it to committee quickly to do the hard work with stakeholders and make sure we get it right. There is a tremendous opportunity. We must strike now and make this happen so that Atlantic Canada and our great nation receive the benefits with millions of dollars of investment and good jobs.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a practice of the House that, when a member realizes that he or she has a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is my obligation to inform the House that a letter from the Ethics Commissioner confirming the existence of such a matter arrived in my email inbox just after 2:00 p.m. on the most recent sitting day before the present day, that is to say, on Friday, October 6.

The House rose less than half an hour after I received this email and today, therefore, represents the first reasonably available opportunity.

The matter in question relates to subsection 12(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Subsection 12(1) states:

A member who has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons...shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.

On September 19, I wrote to seek the commissioner's advice as I am the chairman of the board of a family business, Giant Tiger stores. Although my family business is a small player in the great scheme of things, having a sales volume that is only about 5% that of Loblaws, it is nevertheless a significant player in the discount side of the grocery industry. Therefore, it seemed advisable to me to ask the commissioner whether, in order to remain compliant with the code, I might have to recuse myself from certain debates in the House and elsewhere.

As noted earlier, the commissioner responded to me just after 2:00 p.m. on October 6, advising me that, in his view, I would have an obligation, pursuant to subsection 12(1), to report to the House if I am present in the House during any debate or a vote on Bill C-56 and also that the same restrictions apply to Bill C-352, a private member's bill covering much of the same subject matter.

I can advise the House that in anticipation of precisely such a response from the commissioner, I have been at pains to avoid being present during any such debates. However, a strict reading of subsection 12(1) would suggest that the reporting obligation is triggered by the mere fact of being present during a question period when questions on the subject are raised by any party and that, as well, if I were to participate electronically in any vote on the subject, even if my intention is simply to electronically vote to register a formal abstention, I would trigger subsection 12(1).

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 12(1), I am tabling the following four documents.

The first is the letter that I wrote to the commissioner on September 19, in which I laid out the general nature of my private interest in my family's business.

The second is an email thread containing subsequent correspondence with the commissioner and his staff, leading up to his response email on October 6, in which he advised me that I should not merely recuse myself from debates in the House of Commons but also that I should exclude myself from any discussion, debate or vote on these two bills that might take place during the Conservative caucus meetings.

The third is a further letter that I sent this morning to comply with the commissioner's further instruction that I will need to formally inform the Conservative caucus vice-chair, or the individual who would chair the meeting in their absence, of my private interest regarding Bill C-56 and Bill C-352 and provide a copy of the correspondence to his office. I was told it will then be made public in accordance with the code.

Finally, the fourth is the cover letter to the commissioner delivered to his office earlier this day in which I confirmed to him that I have complied with this further instruction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for bringing this forth, but as a reminder to the hon. member, we need unanimous consent to table documents.

Is the hon. member seeking unanimous consent to table the documents? Otherwise, they can just be sent to the Clerk.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suppose, in that case, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member can submit all of the documents to the Clerk as part of his written submission.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑49. I have not taken part in debate on a bill in quite some time. I am sorry if I am a little rusty.

First of all, this bill is a bit more complicated than it appears. As we all know, this is not the first time that we have debated about this. This bill aims to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member for a few seconds.

The hon. member just started her speech. It is unfortunate that often when someone is speaking in French we have some background noise.

Can we afford the hon. member the courtesy of listening to what she is saying, please?

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate it.

As I said earlier, the main purpose of this bill is to regulate the energy industry in marine environments in eastern Canada. Understandably, this mainly concerns oil and gas development, which my party and I regularly denounce here in the House, but also, as other colleagues mentioned, future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely, offshore wind power off the east coast.

This is a bill that continues offshore oil and gas development, at a time when Canada should be looking to withdraw from oil and gas. The government has clearly stated this intention.

As my Bloc Québécois colleagues mentioned, our main concern with this bill is the continued failure to meet marine biodiversity conservation requirements for renewable energy development in eastern Canada.

As I said earlier, tightening the rules around oil and gas development could be a good thing, but these rules should simply no longer exist, just like offshore oil and gas.

From an energy transition perspective, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector needs to decline rapidly. It is simple: No new offshore exploration or oil development project should be authorized, regardless of any special conditions. That is the path Quebec is currently taking and the maritime provinces should take note.

In 2022, Quebec put a firm and definite stop to oil and gas exploration and development in its territory by passing an act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities. As such, every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. We are talking about roughly 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three licences to produce brine and two storage leases. Quebec has become the first government in North America to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development in its territory. It has also been part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance since 2021. I was at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland when Minister Charette made the announcement. I have to say that it is truly a source of pride for Quebec.

In joining this alliance, Quebec joins Denmark, Costa Rica, France, Greenland, Ireland, the Marshall Islands, Portugal, Sweden, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wales, and Washington State, who are all working together to phase out oil and gas production. California, New Zealand, Chile, Fiji, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Colombia are also associate members or friends of the alliance, and although they are not perfect in their energy production, they also want to do more and do better. Of course, Canada is conspicuous by its absence from this alliance.

Phasing out oil and gas production is not part of the Government of Canada's short-, medium-, or long-term plan. It is disheartening. These days, even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a former environmental activist no less, can be heard practically boasting that Canada is a major petrostate. What I find troubling about these statements is that the minister does not seem to want to improve Canada's situation. We hear about cutting and capping greenhouse gas emissions, but not one word about capping and cutting oil and gas production. That is more than disheartening; it is worrisome.

It is especially worrisome considering the summer we just went through. We had unprecedented wildfires, torrential rains, hurricanes and rising ocean temperatures. Rather than seeking to do more to combat or at least better adapt to climate change, the government is telling us it wants to increase oil and gas production, one of the main factors behind air pollution, likely the biggest one. It is unbelievable.

It is even more unbelievable when we consider the fact that Canada failed in its duty to protect marine ecosystems when it authorized dozens of new drilling projects in ecologically sensitive environments, including drilling inside marine refuges. It is easy enough to understand that offshore drilling threatens marine life. For example, the sonic cannons used to explore the seabed interfere with blue and right whales' communication, sense of direction and foraging activities. Unfortunately, both are on Canada's endangered species list.

Exploration is noisy, yes, but extraction is risky. Accidents will happen, too, and spills have extremely serious ecological consequences, as we saw with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in April 2010. Need I also remind the House that regular activity alone brings dangerous pollution levels for wildlife?

Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in these marine refuges. The Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an independent body.

I would like to remind the House that the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government is responsible for protecting natural environments. For years now, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been promoting the development and exploitation of marine oil and gas. Every year, the board issues a call for tenders and auctions off new exploratory drilling permits.

Every year, the Bloc Québécois speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change. The boards, including the Department of Natural Resources itself, are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which are two contradictory goals. This bill will not fix that problem. It will not prevent the development of the non-renewable energy sector.

I get the impression that, with Bill C‑49, the government is taking us for fools, but we are not stupid. As my colleague from Jonquière already explained in the House, changing the names of the two acts and the two boards to remove the word “petroleum” is greenwashing pure and simple.

We need to face the facts. Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador intend to double Canada's oil production by 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. To reach this objective means launching 100 new drilling projects by 2030. One hundred new drilling projects is a lot.

A few weeks ago, in the middle of the week of the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit, the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that they intended to open thousands more square kilometres of marine environments to oil exploration projects. That was right in the middle of the Climate Ambition Summit week. I am sure the contradiction is not lost on anyone.

Canada was also slapped on the wrist in New York when the UN under-secretary-general for global communications called out the Prime Minister by describing Canada as “one of the largest expanders of fossil fuels last year”. Far from an honour, this distinction is an embarrassment.

The Minister of Environment defends his leader by saying the following:

The federal government has no jurisdiction over the use of natural resources. What we have said and what we are doing is taxing pollution from the oil and gas sector and all other industries.

What the government has the opportunity to do through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is not open up thousands of square kilometres of marine environment to oil development projects. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, some of the areas identified by the government for exploration are part of a marine refuge set up to protect biodiversity.

Who set up this marine refuge? The Liberal government itself. This is where we reach the height of irony. This marine refuge was set up by the government in 2019 to meet its international commitments to protect marine environments. According to the federal government, this is an ecologically and biologically important area that supports great diversity, including several species in decline. Using fishing gear that would touch the sea floor is prohibited, but if we follow the government's logic, it will be possible for oil companies to drill exploratory wells there.

That is kind of where we are headed with the government. It is not the path to take when it comes to climate change and the climate crisis. I invite parliamentarians to reflect on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member made.

I just want to highlight the fact that this is legislation that has received a consensus of support from the premiers, I believe, of both Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, along with many different stakeholders.

Given the very competitive nature of what is happening around the world and the importance of getting this legislation through the House, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important to get it to the committee stage as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the premiers of the provinces involved are in favour of this bill. For these provinces, more oil exploration simply means more money. That is putting it bluntly, but that is what it boils down to. We agree on why this bill needs to get to committee quickly.

I think that the committee will need help from experts to better understand what the government is trying to do with Bill C-49. When I look at the details of the bill, I get the sense that it is an exercise in greenwashing. Put simply, the government is trying to get rid of the word “petroleum”. It talks about renewable energy because there are offshore wind projects, but the fact remains that the government intends to double oil production by 2030. That is certainly something we need to keep in mind. I hope we can have constructive debates in parliamentary committee, should the bill get there.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the future member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. When massive wind farms are planned for the very rich fishing grounds that exist in her future riding around the Gaspé peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, who will she stand with? Will she stand with big wind energy or will she stand with the fishing industry?

My second question is this: I wonder if my hon. colleague would be willing for Quebec to pay back the equalization payments it has received from provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta that were derived from the oil and gas industry.

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I wanted to address that in my speech, but I ran out of time. I wanted to talk about the fishers in the Gaspé region and the Magdalen Islands.

My riding covers part of the Gaspé, but there are also fishers in the Lower St. Lawrence. In Matane, in my riding, there is a seafood processing plant, a shrimp plant. Around the world, when people eat baby shrimp, they know the shrimp are from Matane because they are processed there.

Fishers back home are facing major challenges right now. Marine refuges are creating more conditions that the fishers have to respect. The fishers are not allowed to enter these zones with their fishing gear, yet the government would allow the oil companies to drill there. On that issue, I stand with the fishers, but above all, I stand with the energy transition and the fight against climate change. I do not think that the argument the Conservatives are trying to make on Bill C‑49 will get us anywhere in the fight against climate change.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is very concerned about the climate crisis, but protecting biodiversity and the goal of protecting 30% of marine areas by 2030 are also part of the discussion. Now we are finding out that, for the Liberal government, the area is only protected until we find [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I do not know whether the hon. member finished his speech or whether we lost the connection because of a technical problem. I do not know if something like that is happening today. It happened this morning too. I will take a moment to check on that.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the last couple of minutes the member spoke we were not getting translation and we did not hear what you were saying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Somehow, and this was not the first time this has happened today, the individuals coming in virtually have just dropped off.

I do not know whether the hon. member heard enough of the question to be able to answer it. I will think about what I will do after that.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague was referring to one of the key issues negotiated at COP15, which Canada co-chaired with China last year. One of the commitments was to protect or conserve at least 30% of the world's oceans through marine protected areas. As I said earlier, the Liberal government did decide to protect certain areas, but then it changed its mind and opened them up to oil and gas exploration. That is somewhat contradictory.

I cannot help but think that the Liberal government and its Minister of Environment and Climate Change should not be leading this UN conference while also continuing to drill for oil and gas in their own country's waters. I think my colleague and I feel the same way about this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the technical team is working with the hon. member, but I believe the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was able to answer the question.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about clean energy and Bill C-49.

I have to say that the government has a very poor record when it comes to clean energy and when it comes to ensuring that Canada meets its obligations related to all the challenges associated with climate change. At least the government is taking a step forward with this bill to support the investments needed for Canada to create a clean energy economy and to create critically important jobs.

We support this bill. We want it to be studied and improved in committee. That way, we will have a bill that is even more robust.

What I do not understand, and I have been listening to the debate throughout the course of the day, is why Conservatives are so adamantly opposed to renewable energy.

I will start off by saying that I am one of the few people in this House who has actually worked in the energy industry. I have been ankle deep in oil as a former refinery worker at the Shellburn oil refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which was closed under the Conservatives, as they did so many times during that dismal decade of the Harper regime. They closed manufacturing jobs across Canada, and, of course, the Shellburn oil refinery was one of the victims of that.

I do not believe there is a single Conservative who has been ankle deep in oil. In that sense, the Conservative caucus is all hat and no cattle. During their dismal regime, the Conservatives provided billions and billions of dollars of support to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas industry but no support for the workers. We have seen this. As energy workers have been laid off across Alberta, there has not been a peep from the Conservative MPs to say that these energy workers are being laid off while we are pumping billions of dollars in subsidies to support oil and gas CEOs.

It is a real puzzlement to me that, given the Conservative track record, we have seen the appalling decisions made in Alberta by Conservatives, such as shutting down renewable energy projects. The NDP has a great track record on that, and I will come back to that in a moment. For Danielle Smith to say, “No, we're going to stop all those renewable energy projects, throw those workers out of work and shut down the renewable energy sector” is unbelievably irresponsible and incompetent, yet we have not had a single Conservative MP stand in this House to condemn Danielle Smith and the Conservatives in Alberta for taking such a woefully irresponsible action. Not a single one. They just have gone into hiding as Albertans are being thrown out of work. One would think that a Conservative MP who represents Alberta would be willing to speak up, but that has not been the case, sadly.

In that sense, I guess they are being somewhat congruent in opposing renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada as well. If they oppose renewable energy projects in Alberta, if they are opposing renewable energy generally and if they deny that climate change even exists, I guess there is a certain coherency to them saying they are going to oppose this bill because it is going to create too many renewable energy jobs and help Canada too much by ensuring that we have the clean energy economy of tomorrow. In that sense, for once Conservatives are being consistent.

The reality is that climate change does exist, and we have been hit by it repeatedly in the last few years. I can speak as a British Columbian for what we have lived through over the last few years.

The heat dome killed 600 people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Sixty of them at the epicentre of that heat dome, that intense heat that killed people in their apartments, were in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. We cannot tell people in my riding that climate change does not exist. We cannot tell people in my riding that somehow renewable energy is a bad thing and that we need to cut any possibility of providing supports for renewable energy. We have to just continue to hand money, as Conservative governments have done, to the bankers, billionaires and oil and gas CEOs. We saw with the heat dome the intense impacts of climate change.

Then the atmospheric rivers happened just a few months later, and they cut off the Lower Mainland of British Columbia from the rest of the country. The rock slides, the loss of life, the cutting of rail lines and roads and the flooding of the Fraser Valley all indicate the profound impact of climate change in British Columbia.

The Conservatives say that we do not need renewable energy, that climate change does not exist. The reason British Columbians are so highly opposed to Conservatives and that kind of discourse is that we have seen first-hand what the reality of climate change is.

That is why the government needs to act on these things. The NDP and its leader, the member for Burnaby South, have said repeatedly that things need to change, that the government has to start to walk the talk. The massive oil and gas subsidies going to corporate CEOs have to end and we need to make investments. This is a step forward, but it is by no means the only thing that the government should be doing. There is a whole range of other things that can make a difference, such as creating the kinds of clean energy jobs that help our economy prosper and other economies prosper. These are things that the government needs to be doing.

Just a few years ago, I went to the region of Samsø in Denmark. Samsø is a region that was economically deprived. It lost all its major industries. What the people of Samsø did, in working with the Danish government, is decided that they would retrain the workers in that area in clean energy jobs, and that is what they did. They got support from the national government of Denmark, and the Samsø region then went through a training program. As a result of that and their own investments from the people of the region of Samsø, they decided to build a first onshore wind farm.

These are the people of the islands, an incredibly innovative and entrepreneurial group. That wind farm was so prosperous that they decided to build an offshore wind farm, which was the largest in Europe at the time. It was incredibly prosperous. They then moved from there to biomass. They also moved from there to solar. They have transformed their transportation sector. They transformed their heating sector as well. The entire region is now a fossil fuel-free zone as a result of those investments by the people themselves.

This is where we are seeing other regions of this world and other countries going. They are making the investments in clean energy that have led to untold prosperity. Samsø today is more prosperous than it has ever been because of those investments.

I said at the beginning that I would talk a bit about the NDP record on this. We simply have to look at NDP provincial governments. In Nova Scotia, it was the NDP provincial government that made the investments in tidal power, which is now top of mind. In terms of innovations in tidal power, that NDP government made a huge difference.

In Manitoba, we have just seen the election of Wab Kinew as premier. This is an exciting development because when the Manitoba NDP was in power, it led the country in geothermal investments. We will see Manitoba rise again after the years of the terrible Conservative government there and the hateful campaign that it ran. The Conservatives in Manitoba were thrown out, and now there is an opportunity not only for real development in education and health care, but also for a thriving economy because of the kinds of investments we have seen in the past from the Manitoba NDP, which will come back.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP invested in solar power. In Alberta, it invested in wind power under Rachel Notley, and, of course, in British Columbia it was hydro power. When we look at all the forms of renewable energy, it is NDP administrations that have made the difference. The NDP makes a difference. We will do it nationally too, but in the meantime, we will support this bill and push the government to do better on ensuring a renewable energy future.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, nuclear facilities and oil and gas properties and businesses must demonstrate that they have a 100% reclamation plan in place and have the funds to ensure this can happen. If the member endorses the same 100% reclamation laws for renewable energy, could he tell us how this bill would ensure that an entity will remove the remnants of wind turbines when they are done their lifespan, as well as solar panels and other renewable forms of energy, so that the toxic metals involved in the solar panels, for example, are not going to be a threat to future generations?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a valid question that has to be addressed at the committee stage, which is why we want to move the legislation forward so the committee can examine it. That being said, while I have a lot of respect for my colleague, who has been here a long time, not a single Conservative MP, after the incredible debacle we saw with the abandoned oil and gas wells, stood up and said that oil and gas CEOs should not have abandoned those tens of thousands of wells and all that toxic metal. We have never had a Conservative MP stand in this House and say that is wrong. The Harper regime pumped tens of billions of dollars at oil and gas CEOs, and they were never asked to do the reclamation that is so important. I am hoping that finally Conservatives understand that what they did was wrong, and I hope they apologize to Canadians.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑49 by saying that this attempt to remove the term “petroleum” from the names of the boards was just more smoke and mirrors from the Liberals when it comes to the environment. In Quebec, we do not need to double oil and gas production.

Could my colleague explain to me why, from coast to coast to coast, there is so much need for oil and gas exploration and for production to be doubled when, in reality, we should be investing in the energy transition? Perhaps he can tell me about his part of the country.

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

Madam Speaker, in my part of the country, British Columbia, we have a government that invests heavily in clean energy. There are huge investments coming from the B.C. government.

Premier David Eby and his cabinet are national leaders in clean energy investment. That is important. In addition, investments really need to be made at the community and regional level.

As I mentioned earlier, when we look at all the NDP provincial governments, whether it is in Nova Scotia in the past, Manitoba now with a new government, Saskatchewan, Alberta or British Columbia, there has always been unprecedented investment in clean energy and the green economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member is very keen on the process of what takes place inside the House on the floor. The NDP and we as government have been criticized for bringing in time allocation on the legislation. I believe it was essential in order for us to pass this legislation. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts as to why it was important.

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

Madam Speaker, I have said this before. There are two blocs in the House of Commons: There is the Bloc Québécois and there is the block everything party.

The Conservatives have blocked everything in this House. Whether it is clean energy, dental care, support for seniors or support for families, every single piece of legislation is blocked by the Conservatives. I do not think that is in the national interest. It is certainly not in the interests of Canadians.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak on Bill C-49, a piece of legislation that has garnered significant attention, concern and debate, both in this House and across our vast nation. As the representative of Yellowhead, a region known for its profound commitment to responsible energy development, I feel compelled to voice the concerns of my constituents.

At first glance, Bill C-49 may appear as a simple regulatory measure. However, digging deeper, we unearth layers of bureaucratic red tape that could stifle our nation's energy ambitions. History has shown that Canada's west, which is rich in resources and determination, has the potential to drive our national economy, yet time and time again, we find ourselves grappling with legislation that seems more intent on creating roadblocks than pathways.

A case in point is Bill C-69, which has been dubbed the no-more-pipelines bill by many. While the bill promised streamline processes and heightened project approval rates, the results have been far from encouraging. The stagnation is not just concerning, it is alarming.

Recently, large portions of Bill C-69 were deemed unconstitutional, casting a shadow over its legitimacy and efficacy. Instead of learning from these missteps, Bill C-49 threatens to echo these sentiments.

It layers on more gatekeepers, prolongs timelines and moves us further from our energy development goals. The current 30-day window for cabinet decisions could be stretched out, making it harder for projects to gain momentum. Is this the vision we have for Canada's energy sector?

Section 28 and section 137 of this bill would grant unchecked power to select officials by allowing them to potentially halt projects based on speculation rather than solid evidence. This is not how we should be governing our energy sector, or any sector for that matter.

Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the absence of consultation with the fishing industry. Our commercial fishing communities play a pivotal role in our national fabric. To leave the industry out of the conversations surrounding Bill C-49 is not just an oversight, but a grave error.

I implore my colleagues, especially those representing Atlantic Canada, to critically assess Bill C-49. It is essential that we do not find ourselves down a path reminiscent of the failed and recently found unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69.

It is not just about looking at Bill C-49 in isolation. It is about understanding its place within a larger tapestry of regulations with potential cascading effects and how it communicates our nation's stance on energy development to the world.

When global investors see a nation riddled with regulatory obstacles and prolonged approval processes, they hesitate. They wonder if their investments would be bogged down in red tape, rather than contributing to tangible development and returns. In this globalized era where nations vie for the same pool of investments, we cannot afford to send mixed signals.

Yellowhead, the region I am honoured to represent, embodies the pioneering spirit of Canada. Our people understand the value of hard work, the balance of harnessing resources while preserving the environment and the importance of creating sustainable futures for our children.

When faced with bills like Bill C-49, my constituents cannot help but feel their ambitions are being curtailed and their efforts marginalized. What kind of message are we sending to innovators and entrepreneurs when we allow bureaucracy to overshadow ingenuity? Do we want to be a nation that says we value green energy, yet simultaneously creates hurdles for its implementation?

Our constituents deserve clarity. They deserve to understand where we stand as a nation on energy, be it traditional or renewable. Bills like Bill C-49 do not provide that clarity. Instead, they further muddy the waters, leaving our energy sector, investors and countless Canadians whose livelihoods depend on it in a state of uncertainty.

As we move forward in our deliberations, I urge all members of this House to reflect not just on the specifications of Bill C-49, but on the broader message it sends about Canada's energy ambitions. Are we paving a way for innovation, sustainability and prosperity, or are we creating more roadblocks?

Our path should be clear. It should be one that aligns with our nation's values, our people's ambitions and our shared vision for a prosperous future.

While we have discussed the energy sector at length, there is another point we need to address, which is the overarching issue of governance, checks and balances. The manner in which projects are approved and by whom is critical to any democracy. Our systems are set up to ensure that no single entity has unchecked powers, but Bill C-49 challenges that foundation.

Let us examine the discretionary powers given to certain departments and ministers. This bill is granting a level of authority to officials that is a profound overstep in proper governance. To be clear, this is not about the mistrust of any individual or department; rather, it is about preserving the balance of power and ensuring that our projects undergo rigorous, unbiased scrutiny. The way the bill is written allows for the potential blocking of projects based not on existing tangible concerns but on speculative future possibilities. The implications of such a provision are profound. Can we in good faith stall or reject initiatives based on what might or might not happen in the future? This is a slippery slope.

Today it is a hypothetical future establishment of a marine protected area, but tomorrow it could be any number of speculative scenarios.

Furthermore, the recent decision of Bill C-69 rings in my ears, a bill that was found to be largely unconstitutional.

We are tasked with a duty to create and uphold laws that not only serve our nation's interests but also align with the foundational tenets of our Constitution. We must tread carefully, ensuring that the powers we grant and the decisions we make stand the test of constitutional scrutiny. As representatives, it is our duty to stand up and ensure that any bill, including Bill C-49, does not undermine the checks and balances that are integral to our democracy. It is not just about energy, fisheries or any singular domain, but about ensuring that we safeguard the processes, checks and balances that have served our nation well for over a century.

Let us pivot our attention to the precedents this bill may set, especially in regions like Yellowhead. My constituents are hard-working individuals who are deeply connected to their land and environment. Our region boasts an abundance of natural resources and we wear our badge of responsible stewardship with pride. The decisions we make here have profound ripple effects on their lives and they anticipate a bill that resonates with their aspirations, traditions and future, yet Bill C-49 emanates an unsettling ambiance of unpredictability. By extending decision-making durations, we risk strangling potential projects in the web of red tape. Every additional day waiting for decisions translates to missed ventures, evaporating investments and, tragically, job opportunities slipping through the fingers of deserving Canadians. In an era where global competition is fierce, Canada's industries must remain nimble and compelling. While addressing environmental concerns is non-negotiable, our approach must also facilitate growth and progress. Burdensome regulations that deter investment and impede rapid action can render Canada an unattractive site for both local and global investors.

While the essence of Bill C-49 is noble, its present rendition leaves several questions unanswered. It is incumbent upon us, as representatives of Canada, to ensure our legislation strikes the right chord of fairness, dynamic progress and inclusivity.

I urge my colleagues to reflect deeply on the ramifications of this bill. I intend to hear from our diverse constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, when I look at the legislation, it talks about the future, going forward and developing other alternative energies in a very competitive world. It is disappointing that the Conservative Party seems to be so narrowly focused in wanting to not see this legislation, at the very least, get to committee when we see the type of consensus and support it is currently getting.

It even addresses some of the points the member has raised, for example, the type of support it has from provincial premiers. The member made reference to constitutional jurisdictional control and so forth. A lot of that is in here.

Let us allow the bill to go to committee. We had to bring in time allocation. Why does the Conservative Party not want to focus on green energy?

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that was a very lovely statement that the member for Winnipeg North just cast upon us. However, he is also a member who supported Bill C-69 that was found unconstitutional.

The member talks about how this is going to make it much easier for green projects to be built. I am quite sorry, but that is not true. There are a lot of burdensome regulations in there, and it does not matter whether it is going to be traditional or renewable energy resources. Either way, this bill is going to stifle any kind of development.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, but I do have some questions.

This bill has to do with the energy transition. I just want to tell my colleague what the energy transition is, exactly. It is a set of changes that energy production, distribution and consumption models are undergoing to make them more environmentally friendly.

I know the Conservatives are worried about their oil, but we know the main thing that happens when we burn fossil fuels, oil, coal and gas: climate disruption. Just look at the forest fires that raged from May 31 to the end of August in my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Just look at the melting ice in northern Quebec and Nunavik.

It is irresponsible. I wish that, instead of thinking only of oil, my colleague would tell me how to foster some degree of consensus so we can get this bill to work.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have just said in my speech that that is the thing. It is not just about traditional development of our resources or energy streams. This bill is also going to affect any type of green energy being produced. That is the problem.

We need to make sure that we have the proper scrutiny in place. There is too much burdensome regulation in this bill. There are many times the minister could just step in, arbitrarily, for whatever decision they want. The government can say that in the future we may have this kind of potential problem, so therefore we need to stop it right now or hold back on the process. I am talking about green energy development.

That is the concern with Bill C-49. It does not allow for proper procedures to follow through and for proper scrutiny.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, what I appreciate about the bill is that it would impact or create opportunities for marine infrastructure, creating jobs and a transition toward renewable energy.

I heard a lot of concerns about balance needed in this bill. I wonder if the member would agree that included in this bill there needs to be clarity in marine protected areas so we can make sure the fishers are protected.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the whole point of our concern with the bill, the fact that it does not provide clarity, it does not provide proper consultation, even with the fisheries in Canada.

There are a lot of issues this bill does not address. That is what we need to be looking at. Sure, we could take it to committee, but the point is that even if we take it to committee, we are still going to have the same issues. Is the NDP going to support the fact that we need to change the bill or not?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

We are all painfully aware of the Liberal government's track record when it comes to tabling confusing legislation: more gatekeepers, more red tape, longer delays and the politicization of decision-making.

Canadians everywhere are tired of the Prime Minister, who scares businesses away from investing in our country. They are tired of stifling bureaucracy and costly Liberal bills. This bill is full of this.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been in power for eight long years. They have nothing to show on the renewable energy front and have made no progress on attracting investment to Canada's energy sector. It is quite the contrary, so forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the state of this current legislation as it is written.

We have seen this dog-and-pony show over the last eight years, over and over again. We had Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, to name just a few. The Liberals consult, they equivocate and they blur the lines. They do everything they can to muddy the water, except get the job done.

Bill C-49 proposes to make the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulators. At the same time, it would create a regulatory framework for offshore wind and renewable energy, the regulation of which would be added to their mandates.

As my colleagues have stated before on this subject, the Liberals have finally decided to include the provincial governments as partners in decisions affecting their jurisdiction. Of course, they did not do this with Bill C-69, and we all know where that unconstitutional legislation stands.

Bill C-49 would triple the current regulatory timeline for project approval. Currently, the provincial review boards have the final say on the approval or rejection of a project, at which point the relevant provincial or federal ministers are given a 30-day period to respond before the decision is finalized.

Under Bill C-49, ministers would be given 60 days to respond, with the possibility of a further 30-day extension and a further possibility of an indefinite extension.

Thanks to nearly a decade of the Prime Minister, Canada is a country that is characterized by a strict and stifling red tape regime. We are now among the most costly and regulated business environments in the world.

Liberals continue to attack traditional energy development, trying to recklessly phase it out, to the detriment of all.

I will remind the House that the first thing the Prime Minister did after his election in 2015 was to publicly apologize for Canada's natural resources, saying that he wanted Canadians to be known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources under his government.

It does not get much more out of touch than that. Liberals say they want to boost alternative energy, yet they use a bill like this to suffocate it in regulation and red tape. The proposed framework is not only one that creates more bureaucracy and red tape, but one that politicizes each and every step of the decision-making process. By giving final authority to federal and provincial ministers, the regulators are reduced to the position of giving recommendations only to the government.

To be clear, Canada's Conservatives support the responsible exploration and development of offshore resources, but we also believe it should be done responsibly, through an arm's-length regulatory process, not political decision-making.

An even more disturbing aspect of this legislation is its potential to be used to impose a complete shutdown on offshore oil and gas development projects at any time. I will say this again. This bill could end offshore petroleum extraction in Atlantic provinces for good at the whim of a minister.

This bill is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's key industries, one that generates billions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs. Section 28 and section 137 would allow the federal cabinet to halt an offshore drilling or renewable energy project if the area “may be identified” as a marine protected area in the opinion of cabinet.

I bring us back to Bill C-55, a bill Conservatives staunchly opposed. It allows the fisheries minister to unilaterally declare an area to be a marine protected area, essentially using the precautionary principle to shut down projects in the absence of any scientific proof.

Bill C-49 would do exactly the same, and this should scare every Atlantic Canadian. There could be a unilateral decision by a minister that is not based on science, leading to an arbitrary opinion from the cabinet that leads to the shutdown of a vital offshore resource development project our country desperately needs.

This is not the way to govern if Canada ever hopes to attract business investment in our energy sector. Furthermore, this cancellation process for new or currently operating projects provides no meaningful consultation with indigenous or community interests whatsoever. There is zero responsibility for any stakeholder consultation. This abdication of responsibility, this failure to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous interests, may also invite extensive court challenges, leading to further delays as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle.

As I alluded to before, there are also a number of practicalities with the bill that beg for clarification. For instance, the bill requires some degree of federal funding to cover the expansion of mapping by the regulators, as well as the expansion of offshore activities generally. As for these financial implications, there is no specific funding allocated. We must also question whether the regulators will need additional personnel for technical expertise, along with additional funding to allow them to properly fulfill their new responsibilities under their new mandate. If so, where is this money coming from? Is it even realistic to expect the regulators to be prepared in a timely fashion to deal with this new work that is currently outside their scope? Bill C-49 leaves much to be desired in the way of clarity.

After eight long years of this Prime Minister, Canadians should be very wary of a government that says, “Don't worry about the details; we'll deal with them later.” They need answers now and they deserve answers now, answers this government must be prepared to provide the House.

I was hoping the government would learn from its failure with Bill C-69, which had the same lack of detail on crucial issues, uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and vague timelines, but this legislation shows that they have learned absolutely nothing, which comes as no surprise.

We see the same inefficiencies of Bill C-69 imported into Bill C-49. Not only does the Impact Assessment Act have provisions to allow the federal minister to interfere in any given project if they deem that it is “in the public interest”, but it would also allow them to create any arbitrary conditions to which a project proponent must comply. How does that create confidence or certainty for investors? Is it not the responsibility of government to create an environment in which businesses want to invest, and in which businesses want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? This Prime Minister seems to have forgotten this part of his very own mandate.

These provisions go further and would allow the minister, again, to impose arbitrary conditions during project review, which would serve to further delay timelines for an unspecified amount of time, potentially even years. This will only drive industry away from Canada. It provides absolutely no certainty to these businesses that want to invest potentially billions and billions of dollars in our country.

It cannot be overstated how detrimental the consequences of more Liberal uncertainty are. Shamefully, this has been the effect of taking Canada out of the global competition for energy development, both traditional and alternative, when instead we should be a global leader.

Going back to my earlier comments, perhaps this is exactly what the Prime Minister meant. Not once has he championed the Canadian energy sector on the world stage. Instead, he apologized for our existence, which only drives investment to other countries and squanders opportunities for Canadian workers. We have the resources and we have the workforce and industry leaders. We can be a global leader in the energy sector. Instead, the Prime Minister prefers to cede market share to overseas dictators whose environmental human rights standards are non-existent.

It is time to put Canadian energy first, it is time to put Canadian jobs first and it is time to put Canadians first. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques. We need a Conservative prime minister who will green-light new technologies, reduce approval timelines and remove the Liberal gatekeepers so that major energy infrastructure projects can finally be built in this country once again.

With that, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Lakeland, that the bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since sections 61 to 64 of 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, have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those same sections are embedded in Bill C-49.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to get more into detail shortly, but I just wanted to get the member's thoughts in terms of a specific quote.

This comes from an individual, and I will give the name right away. It is in regard to this particular bill. It says that “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with the federal's government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act” and looks forward to seeing them pass.

This comes from Premier Andrew Furey. There are so many other quotes that I will hold back right now but that I hope to get onto the record shortly.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts in regard to the consensus that has been built on this legislation to see it passed into the committee stage. Does he support any of those stakeholders?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. Premier Furey has stated that he wants this bill and needs this bill to pass, for clarity, for his own well-being.

It is our job in this House to clear up any confusion. The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional. Over a third of Bill C-49 includes policy from Bill C-69. We need to fix this bill now, before it goes further.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, with regard to this, there is a consensus on the bill with regard to the provincial elements. If this is not going to be something they support, what would they offer as an alternative? It would be interesting to hear their response. If not this, then what is the next step?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, just to be on record, the Conservatives 100% believe that provincial ministers have a say in what goes on in their neck of the woods. What drives us crazy and creates cause for concern is that there is no responsibility built into Bill C-49 for the government and the regulators to do any stakeholder consultation.

We absolutely want the provincial ministers to have a say. They know what is best in their communities and in their provinces, but Bill C-49 provides none of that.

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

Madam Speaker, I did oppose Bill C-69. Some of the hon. member's colleagues have said that anyone who voted for it obviously did not understand environmental assessment.

I do support Bill C-49. The Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum boards need to have an expanded regulatory capacity to approve offshore wind.

I want to know if he would not agree with me that the tremendous potential for the economy in Atlantic Canada is in wind-generated hydrogen.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, in June earlier this year, our leader said, “Under my government, we would green-light green technology to allow for our brilliant engineers to invent the technology that will bring about cleaner, greener and more affordable electricity.”

What stands in the way of this is duplicitous bureaucracy and the government gatekeepers. That is exactly what we are seeing with Bill C-49. It provides no certainty to those stakeholders and the communities that this bill will impact the most, and it gives arbitrary power and authority to a minister, without scientific proof, to designate an area as a marine protected area and to absolutely kill any opportunity.

That is fundamentally wrong.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague may remember that there once was a young MP from Prince George who uncovered the Liberal scandal that became known as the clam scam. I wonder if he could perhaps fill us in on what his concerns are under this bill, where a Liberal minister, without any authorization, on their own, could interfere with the goings-on in Newfoundland, where we have seen their actions.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, there was a young member of Parliament at the time, probably a few pounds lighter at the time, who did uncover or discover an issue called the clam scam, where we had a federal minister who decided to award a contract worth millions of dollars to a sitting MP's brother and a former MP, all through Liberal patronage.

Again, as to this “Wait and see. Let us deal with issues later. Just trust us” approach, trust is earned; it is not just given.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate about this particular issue. It is somewhat surprising that the Conservative Party would stand in the way of what is good, sound, solid legislation, and not, at the very least, allow it to go to committee. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of the legislation. Instead, they have chosen to filibuster. We just witnessed a member bringing forward an amendment. Thank goodness we have at least one political party that recognizes that the Conservative Party is, by filibustering this legislation, denying Atlantic provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to work with the government through this legislation to take advantage of the whole idea of renewable energy.

I do not understand why the Conservative Party would deny Atlantic Canada the opportunities within this legislation. If, in fact, the Conservatives have some legitimate rationale, they have the opportunity to allow the legislation to go to committee, which is all we are looking for right now. That is why we had to bring in time allocation. Even when this legislation passes through, we would have to see mirror legislation brought in from the provinces in question. Therefore, we have provincial jurisdictions waiting for this legislation to be able to pass.

The Conservatives try to give a false impression that we are trying to ram something through, when, in fact, a great deal of consultation has taken place. We have seen many Atlantic Liberal caucus members stand up and speak to this legislation because they have seen the value of the potential in Atlantic Canada when it comes to renewable energy. They have recognized that one does not have to be partisan to see that value.

I would like to quote a few individuals. “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with] the [federal government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and looks forward to seeing them pass.” That comes from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey.

Another quote from the same person states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”

Let us go to a different province and a different political party: the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. What does Nova Scotia have to say in a couple of very selective quotes? Referring to Nova Scotia and Canada, this government states, “Both levels of government have the same goal: our aim is to balance progressive, clean energy exploration and responsible environmental stewardship.” That comes from Tim Halman, who is the minister of the environment for the Province of Nova Scotia.

Here is the minister of energy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons. He says, “This is a big deal for us. Working with the feds in terms of offshore oil has worked well, but knowing that we will have a part of our waterways available for wind development within our jurisdiction was huge.” It continues; he says, “When it comes to the resources, we are the envy of many jurisdictions. We know that there is a huge amount of interest in offshore wind opportunities, so we knew we needed to move forward.”

This is from politicians of different political stripes, and the Conservatives do not even want the bill to go to committee. They would rather filibuster it indefinitely.

It is not just the politicians. I found another interesting quote I would like to share with members. This comes from Elisa Obermann, who is the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. It is from her press release. She says, “This is an exciting day for Canada and our marine renewable energy sector. The tabling of the amendments is an important milestone towards establishing an offshore wind industry that will play a significant role in our clean energy future”.

There are many other quotes I could actually provide to the House, and that is because I truly believe that, when we take a look at Bill C-49 and what it would do, the essence of it is to ensure ongoing economic development in the whole area of renewable energy resources while at the same time saying there is a responsibility to protect our environment.

The government brought in this legislation quite a while ago now. I know I have had the opportunity to speak to it, and I had initially thought there would be support from the Conservative Party. We would have to pull my speeches from the records to get confirmation of that, but I honestly thought the Conservatives would support this legislation, because we often hear the Conservative Party saying it will support the energy sector, which we do in a very real and tangible way. Clean energy is a part of the energy sector, so by supporting Bill C-49, we would be supporting the energy sector.

It is amazing that the Conservative party tries to say we are trying to push this thing along and no one is supporting it, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We know there is substantial support for renewable energy. I reflect on my home province of Manitoba and the important role Manitoba Hydro plays, or I look at my Quebec colleagues, whether they are members from the Bloc or the Liberal caucus, or even the member from the New Democratic Party. We have within those two provinces great potential in terms of hydro development, and at the end of the day I suspect we will see a growing industry and spinoff benefits.

We can talk about how this energy is brought to life and is ultimately healthier for our environment, but it creates both direct and indirect jobs. Coming from a province that has such a wonderful hydro development and great potential, I am very sympathetic to my Atlantic colleagues who are so passionate on this issue and are wanting to see the legislation pass. That is the reason we had to bring in the time allocation, because we know that the Conservative Party is not prepared to see this legislation and that its members would rather filibuster and put up roadblocks. What we just witnessed with the moving of an amendment reinforces that fact, but the people of Atlantic Canada can know that a majority of people in the chamber see the value of it, and that is why we are going to ensure that it passes.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his compelling speech. I say that with a bit of sarcasm.

I want to congratulate the member, though, on his daughter's re-election in Manitoba, the only provincial Liberal elected west of Toronto. I would note that every single Liberal gave resounding, long applause for the announcement that the NDP won the election. All his colleagues are as happy that the Liberals are gone in Manitoba as the Manitobans themselves.

The member repeated quote after quote from Atlantic ministers and premiers on that, but I have a couple of quotes for him that I would like to mention. Sonya Savage, the former Alberta minister of energy, said that Bill C-69 takes “a wrecking ball to the Constitution”. Former premier Kenney said that Bill C-69 is a “prejudicial attack on Alberta”.

Why does the member care only about quotes from ministers who are not from Alberta?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage.

It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill.

My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his daughter's election. He is a former MLA as well, so it is important to recognize the family contribution to democracy. It is not unusual for him to stand and speak in this chamber, but it is important for us to recognize what has taken place.

With Wab Kinew and the NDP election in Manitoba, what does the member think about the fact that we have some partnerships on the east coast that are important? The Conservatives are opposed to the bill right now. I am looking for what the alternative is if we do not agree at this point in time, especially with sustainable energy on the docket, and where we go from there. I appreciate that the member has had a long history not only in this chamber but also as an MLA.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the recognition. As I said previously, I am a very proud father. Knowing her sense of commitment to not only her riding but the province; MLAs often take on that sort of role.

The passage of the legislation is a high priority of the government. We are very fortunate in the sense that we have at least one other political entity, the NDP, that has also recognized the value of the legislation. As a result, we are going to be able to ensure that this legislation gets passed. We have been working very co-operatively with the provincial jurisdictions in question so that we have a mechanism and a process that will enable the provinces and Ottawa to meet the economic opportunities going forward.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, could the member explain to the House why it is so important that we get this bill off to committee? I sit on the natural resources committee, and it is waiting for Bill C-49 to get there to be further reflected on and returned to the House.

Could my colleague make a brief statement on why it is so important to get this bill to committee and brought back?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the primary reason is that once it gets to the committee stage, the committee is able to break it down into the different parts and see if there are any ways we can improve upon the legislation. If there are, great; if it is good as is, then it can pass through the system so that the provinces can mirror the legislation and, ultimately, Atlantic Canada and Canadians would benefit.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C‑49 at second reading. The bill amends the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. I will briefly talk about the bill, then I will talk about Quebec's choices and, lastly, I will talk about Ottawa's poor choices.

First, under bilateral accords, the federal and provincial governments jointly manage oil and gas resources in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Bill C‑49 amends the federal implementation acts for these accords. I will go over the key changes. Bill C‑49 builds on the existing petroleum regulatory scheme to establish a new regulatory scheme for offshore renewable energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The Minister of Justice defines renewable energy projects as follows:

An offshore renewable energy project means any work or activity that relates to the exploitation or potential exploitation of a renewable resource to produce an energy project, that is not conducted by or on behalf of a government or educational institution.

Parallel to the legislative amendment, there are two regional assessments under way for offshore wind energy development: one in Nova Scotia and one in Newfoundland and Labrador. These assessments will provide information and analysis regarding future offshore wind energy development activities that would be governed by the amended development legislation.

The government is presenting Bill C-49 as an operation to develop offshore renewable energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. According to the government, “the global offshore wind market alone forecast to attract one trillion dollars in global investment by 2040.” It is worth noting that the goal of developing wind energy is linked to the goal Canada set out in its hydrogen strategy, which aims to supply countries, including Germany, with clean hydrogen.

Second, as mentioned in a December 2022 note on exploratory drilling and marine biodiversity, we know that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed and seismic surveys interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.

While exploration activities may be noisy, development activities are risky. While accidents can happen and spills have a serious environmental impact, as was the case with the explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April 2010, even regular activities create a dangerous amount of pollution for wildlife. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the federal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in the very marine refuges it created.

Since the pandemic, the Liberal government has been repeating that the economic recovery depends on a strong, resilient and innovative oil industry, even though the Bloc Québécois has been presenting alternatives since the summer of 2020 through its green recovery plan—I would even go so far as to talk about a green finance plan. I have to give a nod to my colleague from Mirabel who has worked hard on this file. There is something to this.

Speaking of environmental risks and the oil industry, I want to repeat the wise words of the member I used to work for. He used to say, “It is not a matter of whether an accident will occur, but when.” Sooner or later, we will have to repair serious environmental damage.

During the pandemic, the federal government accelerated the environmental assessment process to authorize 40 exploratory drilling projects east of Newfoundland and Labrador in an area frequented by endangered species. Environmental groups initiated proceedings against the federal government because the regional assessment process for exploratory oil and gas drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was incomplete.

Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels per year, which will require 100 new drilling projects by 2030. That is a lot.

Ottawa approved Norwegian oil company Equinor's Bay du Nord megaproject off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite protests from environmental groups, Bay du Nord appears to be the first of many new oil projects, since new licences were recently auctioned off for oil exploration in over 100,000 square kilometres.

It reminds me of “Drill, baby, drill”. In early November 2022, four oil companies spent $238 million to win auctions for exploration work over an area of 1.2 million hectares. The licences were granted by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador. Its mandate is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources.

In July 2020, Canada joined the Global Ocean Alliance, a U.K. initiative that now includes 73 states that are committed to defending before the UN the goal of 30% global marine protected areas by 2030. One of the key issues in the COP15 negotiations is to include in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework a commitment to protect or conserve at least 30% of the world's oceans through the establishment of highly and fully protected marine areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Let us just say that, with these projects, we are wondering how Canada will manage.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change cannot assume their leadership role at the UN Biodiversity Conference and advocate for the protection of the oceans while authorizing and promoting the development of the oil and gas industry in sensitive marine areas. As I have indicated, the Liberal government authorized oil exploration in the very marine refuge that it itself had created. How could this government have any credibility when it comes to ocean conservation?

According to the department's own words, the Northeast Newfoundland Slope marine refuge is “an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area that supports high diversity, including several depleted species”. The Liberal government has authorized drilling in that very marine refuge. However, even BHP, the oil company behind the project, recognizes that the marine region is home to many species of fish, birds and marine mammals, 36 of which have been designated at risk.

According to the Liberal government, marine refuges where there are exploratory activities can still count towards Canada's marine conservation objectives until actual extraction and production takes place. In light of scientific knowledge about the dangers of exploratory drilling, this makes no sense. It also flies in the face of international marine conservation standards.

Once and for all, Quebec is putting a stop to oil and gas exploration and production inside its borders. We have made our decision. While the federal government carries on like this, Quebec has officially started its energy transition. On April 12, 2022, the Quebec National Assembly passed an act ending exploration for petroleum and production of petroleum and brine and to eliminate government funding for these activities. This new law prohibits oil and gas exploration and production while revoking all licences active Quebec. It also provides for the closure of wells drilled under these licences and site remediation. The Quebec ministry of natural resources will conduct hydrogeologic studies and perform the monitoring and control activities required to ensure that the work does not harm the environment.

Since August 23, 2022, oil and gas exploration and production has been banned in Quebec, and every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. There were 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three authorizations to produce brine and two storage leases extant in Quebec. Quebec made a clear choice. Furthermore, holders of a revoked licence must permanently close the wells drilled under their licence and restore the sites. Quebec is the first North American jurisdiction to ban oil and gas exploration and production in its territory. Quebec is part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, or BOGA, a coalition of governments that are committed to the same goal. Quebec is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.

Third, I want to make a comparison. In 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador's oil production was 282.7 thousand barrels per day, or 5% of Canada's overall production and 24% of Canada's light oil production. Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest producer of crude oil in eastern Canada and is the third-largest oil-producing province in Canada, after Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In conclusion, let us work on this bill in committee. We can talk about it there. The Bloc Québécois is ready to collaborate in the true spirit of the energy transition.

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

Madam Speaker, the member makes reference to the protection of lands and water, if not directly then indirectly. It is important to note that, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, his government had, I believe, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1% on the protection of lands and water. Today, we are at 14%, which is a significant increase, and we are forecasted to hit 30% by 2030.

We have recognized as a government that it is good for us all to provide and encourage good middle-class jobs and boost the economy, but it is also good to protect the environment. Can the member provide her thoughts on the different attitude of this government compared with the previous government, where the protection of land and waters is now at 14%, with a goal of somewhere around 30%, which is significantly higher than Harper's 1%?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, the opposition is applauding the government, and I think there are a lot of similarities between the two governments. I think Canada is still an oil country, unfortunately. That seems clear. It is not just the Conservatives. Canada recently earned a title I would not be very proud of. It joined the ranks of climate hypocrites, countries that are known to engage in greenwashing at the international level. That is clear.

Setting a target to protect 30% of lands and waters is nice and all, but, as I said in my speech, when the habitats of protected species such as right whales and blue whales are opened up, I have to wonder how that can be achieved.

Seriously, we just witnessed yet another prime example of how both Liberals and Conservatives engage in mutual backslapping and keep promoting fossil fuels instead of making meaningful investments in a true green transition, in jobs and science that will actually enable us to make the ecological and environmental transition.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted.

Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49.

Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we want the bill to go to committee because we want to have this kind of discussion on the clauses. We still have too many questions. We would like to present amendments and proposals.

My colleague mentioned Quebec, but as I said in my speech, Quebec made a clear choice to get away from oil and gas. What we are talking about is Bill C-49. While we are still talking about possible investments in oil and gas, Quebec has decided to make a much greener choice and to truly get away from oil and gas and ban these projects.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. They will no doubt deliver a great presentation in committee, putting forward proposals and defending Quebec's environmental interests.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for her very informative intervention.

I wonder if the member agrees, based on the information that she has shared with us, that a good portion of the discussion at committee will need to be to seek clarity for creating stronger provisions for marine protected areas.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague.

My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, who is the fisheries critic, surely has something to say about protecting marine species. She has already made a presentation explaining the importance of enhancing protections for these protected species. She is lobbying for greater protection.

We in the Bloc Québécois really believe that we will need to think about these marine protected areas and create much more robust provisions, particularly in committee. If not, it means we are not serious about meeting this 30% target.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I rise today to speak on the government's latest attempt at over-regulating, bureaucracy-building legislation, Bill C-49.

I have noted in this debate that several speakers on the government side have scarcely spoken about the details in their own legislation. They have spoken solely on the offshore renewable revenue they believe this bill would potentially offer to applicable provinces. I say “potentially” because if the government members had taken more time to study their own bill in greater detail, they would have found that Bill C-49 features such a mess of new red tape, it would be surprising if anyone could complete an offshore project of any kind, let alone have it generate revenue.

This is symptomatic of the government's approach to Canada's resource sector. For every talking point, there are miles of new regulations, new levers for federal bureaucracies to kill jobs and projects, and endless delays. Shovel-ready projects that start with Liberal photo ops are left to be strangled by bureaucratic Liberal laws and regulations.

After eight years, the Liberal government has continued to drop the ball on project after project. We would think the government might act with some humility after last Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government's previous pipeline-killing legislation, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional.

Conservatives warned the Liberals repeatedly that their no-more-pipelines act, Bill C-69, did not respect provincial jurisdiction, and was a power grab by the Prime Minister and his career activist environment minister to phase out these key sectors.

Liberals were called out by energy workers who wanted to keep their livelihoods; by indigenous communities wanting to sustainably develop their lands; by stakeholders in multiple sectors, including wind, hydro and critical minerals; by nine out of 10 provincial governments and every territorial government; and now by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I could speak for hours on the comments made by provincial and business leaders on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the unconstitutionality of the Liberal bill, Bill C-69, but I will mention just a few.

The Premier of Alberta said, “The ruling today represents an opportunity for all provinces to stop that bleeding and begin the process of re-attracting those investments and jobs into our economies.” The premier also said, “And we will continue to fight against Ottawa’s unfair overreach”.

The economies of British Columbia and Alberta have been closely intertwined, especially with the resource sector. Many residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country have worked in the resource sector in Alberta in the past.

The president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. said in an interview on Bill C-69 that there is complexity, confusion and cost, and as a result, investors did not know if they were going to be investing in Canada, and whether or not they could get projects to “yes”. That was causing investors to pause and look at other countries rather than Canada.

The World Bank came out a few years ago and ranked Canada number 64 in the world in the length of time it takes to approve a project. That is a very embarrassing statistic for the country.

A 2019 C.D. Howe Institute report titled “A Crisis of Our Own Making: Prospects for Major Natural Resource Projects in Canada”, stated:

With investment in Canada’s resources sector already depressed, the federal government’s proposed Bill C-69 would further discourage investment in the sector by congesting the assessment process with wider public policy concerns and exacerbating the political uncertainty facing proponents with a highly subjective standard for approval.

That is exactly what happened. The cost of the Liberals' refusal to reverse course was billions of dollars in potential investment that was taken out of Canada. Energy projects that would have been built in Canada were instead built in countries with lower environmental standards and fewer labour protections.

This new bill, Bill C-49, should be removed by the government and completely revised because it applies provisions from that now unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, to Canada's Atlantic offshore sector.

Looking at the core details of Bill C-49, it is very clear in the needless political roadblocks it seeks to create that it would stall projects in our offshore industries.

It triples the approvals timeline from the current framework and takes the final authority in the decision-making away from on-the-ground regulators to ministers in Ottawa. This is once again the Liberal philosophy of “Ottawa knows best”. What would be the result of handing the final approval of offshore energy projects to our Greenpeace activist environment minister? The answer is obvious: no good-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians and instead, political decision-making. We know this from other legislation, like the government's just transition bill, which is seeking to take away jobs from energy workers in exchange for employment that cannot guarantee the same levels of benefits or pay.

Why is the government seeking to hand operational control of the Atlantic offshore industry to a Liberal environment minister who the Newfoundland Liberal member for Avalon said did not understand the “issues of the region”? It is a question only the Liberals can answer.

Regulators who have worked in this sector and this region for years are better placed to make these decisions on a timeline that already works for both regulators and industry. Adding more red tape, which often does nothing more than repeat pre-existing environmental reviews, will do nothing to create good-paying jobs, particularly in renewables. We know this because of the unmitigated disaster the government made of a viable tidal energy power project in Nova Scotia.

Sustainable Marine Energy's Bay of Fundy tidal energy project had enormous potential to deliver clean energy for Canadians. Had it been built, it could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of taking nearly 3,700 cars off the road. The project was proceeding at pace under the Harper government, but after the Liberal government's election, Sustainable Marine Energy was snagged in a forest of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

After eight years, that company withdrew the project completely last spring. Despite $28.5 million of taxpayer money having been invested into the project, the government refused to release this clean green project from a regulatory trap of its design. The result: taxpayers are out $28 million, Canada loses out on a powerful source of green energy, and the people of Nova Scotia, who had this environmentally friendly project killed in front of them in Ottawa by bureaucrats, are forced to pay Ottawa's carbon tax now.

Bill C-49 will never deliver a dime of renewable revenue to provinces so long as the Liberal government regulates renewable projects like tidal energy out of existence. It will also not deliver revenue from vital offshore drilling projects when the now unconstitutional Bill C-69 enforces impact assessment reviews that last for more than 1,600 days, or when Bill C-55 allows the fisheries minister to select prohibited development areas solely on her call, the power which the legislation today also reaffirms.

The Prime Minister, in the aftermath of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, said there was no business case for LNG exports to be shipped out through Atlantic Canadian ports to our European allies. The United States became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2021, as projects ramped up production and deliveries surged to Europe to alleviate the energy crisis there.

Just last week, one of Canada's closest and historic allies, France, signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for its LNG production. A 27-year deal would have been a fantastic way to generate revenue for Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Albertans, British Columbians and Canadians. Instead, the Liberal government has no clue about the value of Canada's resources. Instead, it is focused on gaining more political control and its ideological job-killing agenda. It is not even a green agenda because, as I mentioned earlier, the government is happy to kill green projects just as slowly.

A Conservative government will support Canadians in every region by responsibly building energy projects of every variety that bring home jobs for Canadians. We will build green projects to sustain our environment, not just regulate them out of existence. We will champion Canada's world-class resources to our allies and we will deliver results.

The Liberal government only creates more red tape, regulates projects out of existence, drives away investment and brings more control to Ottawa. The Liberal government is just not worth the cost.

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

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member can explain to the House why she chooses not to believe that a Progressive Conservative premier and a Liberal premier in Atlantic Canada fully support this bill and want to see it go to committee. The bill is all about greener energy. When she says that we have failed Canadians, she is not talking about the Government of Canada or the Liberal Party of Canada; it goes far deeper than that. How does she justify this in such a solid way, while not respecting what it is that Atlantic Canada premiers would like to see?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member has been speaking for a long time in here, and just recently, before I spoke, he spoke about the official opposition filibustering indefinitely and delaying this legislation. That is pretty rich, because this member wastes more time than anyone in this House and maybe in parliamentary history. I am not sure.

He spoke twice on this legislation, which moved everything ahead tonight. I had to cancel a phone call with a constituent, since everything was moved ahead because this member had to speak again and bumped everyone else. He is actually the one who is delaying his own legislation.

As we move forward, we are going to speak to this legislation. We are going to bring comments forth from our ridings and our constituents, which I have done.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on how it is possibly the case that we are in this House of Commons, debating a bill that imports sections from a law that was supported by the NDP and the Liberals, that has been in place for the last five years and that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Friday, when specific sections, such as section 61, section 62 and section 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49?

Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we want to expand the Canadian oil and gas sector so that the world and all Canadians can have energy security and energy self-sufficiency.

The NDP-Liberals warned expert witnesses and warned every province and territory that was against Bill C-69 at the time or called for major overhauls, but this bill contains sections that, as of Friday, the Supreme Court said were unconstitutional. Could my colleague comment on how it can possibly be that the NDP-Liberals are now trying to ram through a bill containing these sections?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense. There was a Supreme Court of Canada ruling just a few days ago, making part of this legislation unconstitutional. Here they are reaffirming the exact parts that were called unconstitutional on Friday.

The government should be pulling this legislation. It should be going back to the drawing board, pulling out the parts that have been deemed unconstitutional and coming forth with something else. This whole process really does not make any sense. As the government tries to quickly push this legislation through by shutting down debate, it is wanting to move this legislation through even faster. It makes no sense.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, just to be clear, is the member saying that this government, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are all pushing forward unconstitutional legislation? Does she really believe that?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know what other jurisdictions are doing in other parts of the country. We are talking about legislation that is here in the House of Commons, and this is what we are debating today. That question does not even make any sense.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-49. The legislation would amend the Newfoundland and Labrador accord act, as well as the Nova Scotia accord act, legislation that governs and regulates offshore petroleum management between the federal government and those provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The legislation before us, in short, would establish a single regulator with respect to conventional offshore petroleum, as well as offshore renewables.

I will say in that regard that Conservatives fully support the principle of establishing a regulator responsible for all offshore energy projects. Moreover, we recognize the need to establish a regulatory framework in order for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, to leverage the opportunity to take advantage of the shift toward offshore wind, in particular, and the opportunities that this would provide those two provinces.

That is not the issue. The issue is in the details of the bill, and a very quick review of the bill evidences that it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. It is indeed another disastrous bill from the disastrous Liberal government.

With respect to the environmental assessment process, the bill incorporates the Liberals' anti-energy Bill C-69's Impact Assessment Act. This is legislation that, last Friday, was largely determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be unconstitutional. Indeed, of the provisions of the Impact Assessment Act that have been incorporated into Bill C-49, each and every one was determined by the court to be unconstitutional.

Members can think about that for a minute. We have a bill, a substantial component of which pertains to something as significant as the environmental assessment process, and it incorporates a statutory scheme that was deemed to be unconstitutional. The environmental assessment process is a pretty big deal when it comes to offshore energy projects.

One would think that a responsible government would go back to the drawing board to get it right. One would think that a responsible government, at the very least, would reflect on the impact of that very clear repudiation of the government's disastrous Bill C-69, which was supported by its coalition partner, the NDP, against the objections of all 10 provincial premiers. However, this is not a responsible government. It is a reckless government.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada in no uncertain terms repudiated the government. On Monday, the government's response was to shut down debate and impose time allocation to see that the bill receives as little scrutiny as possible. It is a bill that would achieve the opposite of what it is purported to do.

The bill would kill offshore renewable projects before they even got off the ground as a result of a significant amount of new red tape, delay and uncertainty. Indeed, if the Liberals were honest, they would call the bill what it actually is: “an act to kill offshore renewable energy”.

I will give you, Madam Speaker, and all hon. members examples of why that is. Pursuant to the accord acts at this time, the minister has a 30-day period to respond to a decision of the regulator as to whether to approve or reject a project. With respect specifically to renewables, not oil and gas offshore, the current government would double the time for the minister to respond from 30 days to 60 days, which is more delay. This is from a government that talks so much about championing renewable energy. However, that is just the beginning, because this bill would provide that the minister may initiate multiple 30-day extensions, so even more delay. This bill would provide the possibility of an indefinite bidding process, even where the regulator gives the green light to a project. That is an indefinite delay.

Where have we seen that before? It was none other than with the Liberals' disastrous and now largely unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, the Impact Assessment Act. That law came into effect four years ago, again, with the full support of the NDP over the objections of all the provinces. More than 25 projects have been in the queue for approval. How many projects have been approved over four years? The answer is not one, zero. Therefore, the bill has done what we said it would do, which is kill energy projects as a result of delay, uncertainty and red tape. It has also negatively impacted Atlantic Canada, with the $16-billion Bay du Nord project, which is hanging by a thread.

Therefore, they have a disastrous record of zero projects in four years, almost all of them languishing at phase two of a four-phase process. Moving ahead, in the face of that, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada have the audacity to stand up and say that the way to develop renewable offshore energy is to duplicate, copy and paste the very regulatory regime that has resulted in zero projects moving forward. It is really quite incredible.

However, it gets worse—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the time provided for this is over.

The question is on the amendment.

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

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, we request that the amendment be adopted on division.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 17, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:44 p.m. so we could start the take-note debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to see the clock at 7:44 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider Motion No. 29 under Government Business.

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that 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 read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Cariboo—Prince George to the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #419

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the main 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

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

Vote #420

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 25 minutes.