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.

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Madam Speaker, it has only been three minutes, but what I would say is that it is incumbent on all members of Parliament to ask themselves that question. Getting back to this motion, the Conservatives continue to use this as a delay tactic, not allowing other important questions to come before Parliament. When they go home tonight, I would encourage opposition members in the Bloc Québécois and the NDP to ask themselves what they want to get accomplished with the time we have remaining in this Parliament.

On the motion for concurrence on the 10th report, I have read the 10th report. I do not sit on the environment committee, but this did give me a good opportunity to go through the report and look at the recommendations. When the member for Portage—Lisgar stood up this morning to move the motion, it was ironic that he did not talk about the Conservatives' environmental plan or what they would do at all. In fact, an amendment in relation to the net zero accelerator fund was moved and that was turned down by the Speaker. It was ruled out of order. Again, the Conservatives want to use this place to get up on talking points instead of getting work done, instead of actually being able to focus.

If we want to talk about the environment and investments in critical minerals and Canada's clean tech advantage, I will use my remaining six minutes to talk about that. However, I want to highlight the fact that it is remarkable to me that the Conservatives want to get up and talk about an environmental report tabled by the environment committee. I have sat in this place for five years and I have not seen a genuine effort by the Conservative Party whatsoever to tackle the question of environment, to tackle the question of how Canada leverages its strategic assets to make those investments.

We have heard a slogan “technology, not taxes”. That is a great slogan with no substance behind how we get there. How are we going to leverage those opportunities we have in Canada? How are we going to fund them? That is the part about which the Conservatives do not finish their sentences. When they talk about these things, they are not straight and clear with Canadians about what the cost would be to reduce emissions and drive up Canadian competitiveness. They do not have a substantive plan.

I will give Erin O'Toole credit. In 2021, he started to go down this route. Of course, the backbench of his caucus wanted to pull him down for even mentioning the word carbon pricing. The Conservatives have not really given a genuine answer to this. I know right now that the question is around the pocketbook and affordability. It is around defence and international security. However, the environmental question plays into all of those things, and the Conservatives really do not have a serious answer on this.

Let us take an examination of the record of the Conservative Party when we do have legislation that directly relates to economic growth or affordability. I represent Kings—Hants in the beautiful province of Nova Scotia. A lot of my constituents still use home heating oil in their homes. It is the most expensive way in the country to heat homes. It averages between double to four times the amount of those who have been able to transition off of home heating oil.

This government worked with the Province of Nova Scotia, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Prince Edward Island, where the majority of households use home heating oil, to establish a program to help people make the transition off home heating oil, or certainly reduce their reliance on it. It saves thousands of dollars a month in home heating costs.

The member for Carleton said that the program did not exist. He said that it would not do any good. I have evidence in my riding, where energy bills have been reduced because of the efforts taken by this government. The Conservative Party has voted against it at every single turn. The Conservatives have not been there to help support these initiatives.

Let us talk about Bill C-49, which amended the Atlantic accords. This was simply legislation. It was not even necessarily an investment that the government had to make, or an expenditure, but just regulations to allow the possibility for offshore wind to help drive a decarbonization in Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada, and create meaningful jobs in my home province. The Conservatives stood against it at every single turn.

What does the Conservative Party actually stand for? The Conservatives want to suggest that this government has done nothing on the environment. I would remind them that this is the only government in Canadian history, which is far from perfect, by the way, and I sit on the backbenches and do not suggest it is perfect, that has reduced emissions and grown the economy. No government in the history of our country has ever done that. I sit and listen in the House to the extremes from members like the member for Portage—Lisgar, who suggests the government has done nothing. What is he talking about? Although I would agree in some facets about the way the New Democrats present themselves in the House as being more credible, sometimes I hear little to nothing from them.

Have the New Democrats not seen the measures the government has taken? Should we do more? Absolutely. Is it our job as members of Parliament, as parliamentarians, to push the government and the executive, the Privy Council? Yes we should, but let us bring some air of reality to what we are actually dealing with here in this place, and to the complexities and the challenges.

I know that some of my colleagues, including on my side of the House, in my party, when we talk about Trans Mountain, and the NDP, suggest it is in the national interest. Would we rather move oil, gas and bitumen by railroad? The market still is calling for these things around the world. My message to the NDP members when they say we should not have invested in a national interest and a pipeline to move the bitumen that would otherwise be moving on rail cars, do they think that is not a safer way to do it? The government intends to sell the pipeline to indigenous stakeholders to be able to support this. These are some of the complexities and the nuances we do not hear in this place and that we do not actually get in to legitimate debate.

The government does have to continue to focus on the question of Canada's strategic advantage in critical minerals. This matters not only from an emission reduction perspective; I would say that, even more importantly in this context, it also matters for our economy and for defence and strategic interests with the United States. We spent a lot of time in the House talking about the importance of the Canada-U.S. relationship. The government needs to continue to highlight it.

All parliamentarians in this place should be focused on the question of how we can push the ability to reduce regulatory burdens that are not necessarily needed to advance the mining of critical minerals, but do so in a sustainable way. There is an ability to align processes, and I support some of the work the government has done in that place. We need to do more.

I think about things like nuclear energy, the agriculture sector and forestry. There is so much we can do in efforts that drive innovation in those traditional sectors, but also reduce emissions at the same time. We have to continue to focus on the question as one of innovation and of economic growth. Of course, at the end of the day, if it reduces emissions and drives environmental benefit, that is the triple bottom-line win we should be looking for.

I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues in this place.

Public Accounts

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

Madam Speaker, when I think of the energy needs of Canada going into the future, I cannot help but reflect on how we can use greener policies. With Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord, we can think of the power generation potential from using our coastlines, the billions of dollars of investment that would be attracted to that and the thousands of jobs, which would be of great benefit to Atlantic Canada. However, I do not quite understand why the Bloc voted against the Atlantic accord. We talk about reducing emissions, and I would suggest that this is one of the ways we can achieve net zero by 2050.

Can the member explain why the Bloc opposed Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord?

Environment and Sustainable Development

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address this issue in two ways. We all, or at least, the government and a number of other members, recognize the true value of nuclear power and having that discussion. Having said that, I am going to tag on to that after a few opening remarks about what I believe are legitimate concerns of Canadians about what is taking place in the House of Commons.

This report we are debating today has been around for a couple of years, but it was a decision made by the Bloc party to bring it forward. I suspect, as we have witnessed more and more concurrence reports being brought to the floor of the House of Commons, it is because members are upset with the Conservative Party and the multi-million dollar game the leader of the Conservative Party is playing. That is the reason we are debating nuclear power today.

I will be sharing my time, by the way, with one of my friends from the Bloc. This is a wonderful compromise, I must say.

I received a letter from someone who has been mailing a number of members of Parliament. This email was a plea to all members of the House of Commons, and it was signed off by some very impressive groups that are in support of Bill C-63. One might wonder why that is relevant; it is relevant because the Bloc has brought forward a motion. It brought forward that motion because of frustration with the Conservative game being played. As opposed to debating the game, members want to talk about the importance of the nuclear industry here in Canada. If everyone stopped playing the game and we dealt with the concerns Canadians have, like the concerns in the email I have received from a long list of organizations, we would actually talk about what it is they are asking us to deal with, and that is Bill C-63, the online harms act.

The lengthy list of organizations includes the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Association of School System Administrators, Children's Healthcare, Canadian Medical Association, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario and Empowered Kids Ontario.

What Canadians want us to be talking about is issues they know we can actually deal with, legislation that is before the House. Instead of dealing with that, we are talking about nuclear power. Nuclear power is an important issue, I do not question that. What I question is the motivation in the House to change the channel of what we should be dealing with. We should be dealing with issues Canadians want us to deal with, not the desires of the leader of the Conservative Party to become the prime minister or the filibustering the Conservatives do day in and day out.

That is something that I believe ultimately does need to be addressed. When I think of the issue of nuclear power, I think it is important for us to recognize that it does have a role to play as an industry. We hear a great deal about the benefits of nuclear power; I do not know to what degree people realize there are actually tens of thousands of Canadians directly employed.

We have two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, where nuclear power plays an important role in their economies and their communities as a whole. Ontario's consumption of nuclear power has increased over the years, as we have seen a shift away from emissions-sourced power generation to nuclear power generation. Ontarians have been a great beneficiary of it.

Even though my province and the province of Quebec, which I care very much about, have hydroelectricity in common, and I support green energy sources, there is absolutely nothing wrong in recognizing that nuclear power does have a role here in Canada. We should recognize and support it. When people think of nuclear power, they often think of power stations and that is it, when in fact, we have all sorts of uses for nuclear technology out there and how it is developed.

I would encourage members to reflect on health care, whether it is isotopes or how radioactive materials ultimately advance medicine here in Canada, it is an area of technological advancement using science that will do wonderful things in medicine into the future.

I recognize many ways that Canada could lead the world. CANDU reactors have been of great benefit not only to Canada, but also outside of Canada, where we have seen other countries look to us to see how we have been successful at generating energy through nuclear power production with these small, modular reactors. We have the technology and the expertise for Canada to play a very strong leading role. It is interesting to see the Bloc and their opposition to it.

Bill C-49 was the offshore wind energy legislation, which was huge for Atlantic Canada, and it is green energy. It is something the Prime Minister and the government have put right up front through supporting legislation. Now we have Atlantic provinces that are bringing in, or have brought in, mirror legislation because we have recognized that it is not only better for our environment but also good for the economy and the communities in which we live. It will generate millions, if not billions, of dollars of investment.

Whether it is looking to the future of green energy or taking a look at how it has benefited some of our provinces, in particular Ontario and New Brunswick, nuclear power is a major contributor to our economy in a very real and tangible way. It contributes immensely to our GDP, both directly and indirectly.

Whether it is members from the Bloc or the Conservatives, especially the Conservatives in their destructive approach to the House, rest assured that the Prime Minister and the government will continue to be focused on the interests of Canadians. That is why I would ask, again, about the concerns to stop the filibuster and let us start dealing with the important legislation that needs to be dealt with, along with other issues.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would invite the member opposite to Halton Hills to see what comes out of a gas-powered electricity-generating station. I can see colour just fine. It was brown effluent. I would invite him to come. I know the member's community still burns coal to create electricity. That is the dirtiest way known to make electricity, and natural gas is not far behind. There are net-zero ways of producing electricity onto our grid. Indeed, sometimes the effluent is brown.

Conservatives who are against doing anything to fight climate change, even though it is hurting our economy and communities, are anti-science. We have seen it with the NDP, which recently flip-flopped on carbon pricing, and we have also seen it with the Bloc Québécois, whose members voted against Bill C-49, even though this legislation enables the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to build offshore renewable energy for the first time, reducing emissions and creating tens of thousands of jobs. It will attract billions in investment and unlock a $1-trillion offshore energy industry. What a remarkable thing to vote against. Conservatives voted against Atlantic Canada and so did the Bloc Québécois. It is astonishing.

The decisions around nuclear waste are being managed properly, following rigorous scientific study, consultation and environmental assessment, and with safety measures in place. It is reckless for the Bloc Québécois to suggest politicians should be making these decisions instead.

This report concludes that Canada is safely managing our nuclear waste according to best practices and best international policies. This will continue to be the case and will only be more important as we utilize this technology to reduce our emissions, fight climate change and support good, sustainable jobs as we go forward.

I would like to transition a bit to a bill that I am excited to have come to this House when we can dispense with the current filibuster that the Conservatives are engaging in. I am looking forward to discussing Bill C-73. Bill C-73 is a bill that focuses on biodiversity, our environment and nature-based solutions for fighting climate change.

I am very proud to live in Halton region. I grew up in Halton region, and it is one of the most biodiverse areas in Canada. It surprised me when I heard that, so I looked it up. It also surprises a lot of people who live in that area because it is home and it does not look or feel like a rainforest or like the most biodiverse area in Canada, but indeed it is. That is something worth protecting. I do a lot of school visits and I hear from kids all the time who are concerned about biodiversity loss and pollution, and the impacts of climate change. We have to fight against that.

As we are fighting against that and trying to make progress, the Conservatives are introducing bills, trivial ones and rather silly ones like a bill to bring back the plastic straw. They are very proud of it. They will applaud. They are very proud of their legislation to promote the use of single-use plastics.

I spend a lot of time on the water. Sometimes when I am on the water, I see Tim Hortons lids and straws—

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly believe in a unified country. My question is about Bill C-49, which was quite unifying in my province and I believe in Nova Scotia as well. There is a need to move with speed toward a green economy, a need for wind and a need for protection by the provinces and the federal government in how we move forward with this exciting, important industry for our children's future and for the betterment of all Canadians.

Could the member please tell me why his party voted against this bill every step of the way?

Natural Resources

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, the energy transition means an additional 400,000 jobs in Canada by 2030. The offshore wind energy sector will be worth $1 trillion. Hundreds of thousands of clean energy jobs will be created, but these jobs are not guaranteed. To get them, we need an ambitious climate plan. That is why we passed Bill C‑49, which will enable us to develop offshore wind energy in Canada. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois sided with the Conservatives to vote against renewable energy. Our government will fight to seize these economic opportunities and create these jobs even if the other parties turn their backs on the fight against climate change.

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

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has passed Bill C‑49. It will create an offshore wind energy sector in my region, bringing jobs, investment and clean energy. Despite this, the Conservatives opposed Bill C‑49 and opposed renewable energy. They chose their ideology over the people of Canada.

Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change explain why we need to seize the economic opportunities of the energy transition?

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

Mr. Speaker, Stephen Harper referred to Atlantic Canada as “a culture of defeat”. When the Conservative government amended the Atlantic accords, it put our region's interests in the back seat. Just ask Bill Casey.

As it relates to Bill C-49, our government has worked with the Government of Nova Scotia and with Newfoundland and Labrador because the legislation represents billions of dollars in economic opportunity. The Conservatives stood in the way every single time. Can the Minister of Housing provide an update to this House about why this bill matters for Nova Scotia?

Regional Economic Development

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, with a strengthened Atlantic accord, Atlantic Canada is set to become a global leader in wind hydrogen. There are trillions of dollars on the table, and we should all be excited about the good jobs that will create in our region. We can think about the kids who will now get to see their folks work at home.

However, the Conservatives spent months blocking Bill C-49. How could the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame fight against the best interests of his community? Because Conservatives try to stand in the way of progress, but we get it done. Atlantic Canada will produce the clean energy that the world wants.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador came together to sign the historic Atlantic accord. This agreement created an offshore energy sector in our province, delivering economic opportunity and prosperity for generations of families and communities.

Now this government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have come together again to strengthen this accord and kick-start a new offshore renewable energy industry. Bill C-49 has now become law, ensuring that Newfoundland and Labradorians can lead the world in offshore wind and clean energy.

Economic Development

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

Mr. Speaker, the hydrogen industry in Canada is expected to be worth $12 trillion by 2050. It helped create more than 350,000 Canadian jobs, all the while helping us fight climate change. Together with the provinces, Canada's allies, industry and organizations such as the Canadian Hydrogen Association, Canada will succeed from this enormous economic opportunity.

Canada is making strides with the national hydrogen strategy, hydrogen investment tax credits and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords amendments act. By leveraging our world-class offshore wind resources, we are positioning ourselves as a leading clean energy supplier while boosting our economy and creating thousands of jobs.

This summer, I witnessed a game-changer at Canada's first operational fuel station for class 8 hydrogen trucks. I thank ITD Industries, Walmart Canada and Nikola. They are transforming the trucking industry with lower maintenance and fuel costs, an impressive range of over 800 kilometres and, best of all, zero emissions.

Let us all embrace the hydrogen opportunity. It is a win for both Canada's economy and our environment.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous news for the people of Cape Breton. Bill C-49, our offshore wind bill, is now law. Expanding on the historic Atlantic accords, we have delivered groundbreaking legislation that will enable the construction of offshore renewable energy in Atlantic Canada. While support for the legislation was unanimous in the Nova Scotia provincial legislation, shamefully, the federal Conservative leader directed his party to oppose countless jobs and billions of dollars' worth in investments for sustainable growth.

Bill C-49 sought input from indigenous stakeholders, local businesses, the fisheries and environmental advocacy groups to improve and pass this important legislation. It is a shame that no Atlantic Conservative member was brave enough to stand up to their leader, but, on this side of the House, we will continue to fight for our environment, build the economies of the future and advocate for Atlantic jobs.

Wind Energy

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the offshore wind industry is expected to attract $1 trillion in investment by 2040. With the passing of Bill C-49, Newfoundland and Labrador is poised to lead the way, just as it did for our oil and gas sector. The Atlantic Accord will now ensure that we are the beneficiaries of our wind resources. That means thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment. While Conservatives voted against Bill C-49 every step of the way, we believe in the future of wind.

We understand that the energy market is diversifying. We support a strong and prosperous economy for Newfoundland and Labrador. I will always stand up for Newfoundland and Labrador's future. With Bill C-49, it is looking even brighter.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, Nova Scotians are smart, passionate, hard-working people. Nova Scotians are seizing our strong winds, turning them into big revenue that will drive our economy and produce good jobs for generations to come. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that Nova Scotians should reap the rewards of the multi-trillion dollar offshore wind and clean hydrogen industries. That is why the passage of Bill C-49 represents a huge step for Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians, unlocking a generational economic opportunity for our region. However, just like the Harper Conservatives of the past, who tried to push Atlantic Canada down by taking our offshore revenues, Conservatives are again doing everything they can to block this huge opportunity for Atlantic Canadians.

We will not let them. We are standing up for Nova Scotians and Atlantic Canadians because our hard-working people deserve to prosper.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, when I sat in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature with former premier Danny Williams, he had to go to Ottawa to fight day in and day out against the Conservative Harper government as it tried to rip up the Atlantic accord, a historic agreement that has delivered jobs and prosperity in the province for generations.

Over the last year in the House of Commons, I have had to fight day in and day out with my Liberal colleagues against the Conservatives again, who tried to rip up the Atlantic accord and kill Bill C-49. For the last year, the Conservatives have stood against the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the people of Nova Scotia, while we fought for them so we could deliver on the promise of the Atlantic accord and the enormous economic opportunities of Bill C-49.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have led the offshore oil sector. We will lead the offshore green energy sector, and we will do it without the support of the Conservative Party.