Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Order.

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

You can't interrupt me in the middle of my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Mr. Perkins, I will ask you to hold.

Minister, please hold.

Colleagues, there's a question and an answer. When we finish our question, let's get a complete answer. Then you can come back to your next question. We don't need multiple people speaking in the mics at the same time. It's one at a time.

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

Mr. Chair, I had the floor. The minister—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

You asked the minister a question and he gave you an answer.

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

I wasn't finished. It's not for him to presume when I'm finished.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Please proceed with your question.

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

Minister, you think it's appropriate for a company that's owned by foreign owners to come to Nova Scotia and not talk to the local groups and not have any science. His response to my question was that there's lots of science in Scotland, so they don't need to do any science.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, I wasn't there when he was there. If that was what he said, I wouldn't agree with that. Science is required. It is being developed under the regional assessment. It will be developed under a project-specific assessment. However, until companies know where they will be looking to locate, which will be the product of the regional assessment, I'm not sure what science they'll be able to do. They're not even sure where the location is.

Yes, eventually they will need to do that, but we're not at that stage yet. We're doing the regional assessment work, which is the first step.

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

They know where they want to put it, so I would say they could start that.

Let's talk about the business case. You mentioned the business case. You've been very condescending to some of my colleagues about it. I have an extensive business background—I know you have—but you understand that if I say I'm going to invest a dollar in something and the government says it will give you $1.15 back in taxpayer money for every dollar you put in, that's not a very risky situation, which is what's happening with your government. The accelerated capital cost allowance for these projects right now is 75%. In your budget, in the fall economic statement, you put in, in the case of green hydrogen, another 40% input tax credit. That's a 115% credit they can get for spending a dollar.

Without that taxpayer subsidy, which is not only subsidizing all the costs but giving them a profit on it, do you think any money and capital would be coming here to do this, since it doesn't have a business case that says it will produce wind energy at a cost comparable to the energy we already have in our province?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The investment tax credits don't apply just to hydrogen. They also apply to carbon capture and sequestration and a range of other things, including electricity generation. They are intended to allow us to move forward expeditiously, particularly with new technologies and technologies that are still coming down the cost curve. It is important to put in place measures to stimulate that.

That is no different from what governments around the world are doing. You can have a look at what governments are doing with respect to this kind of stuff everywhere. At the end of the day, Canada intends to be a long-term player in this game, and Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador intend to be long-term players in this game.

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

I don't believe the projects can exist without the government essentially nationalizing them and paying for them all through the taxpayer, as they can get back 115% on a dollar they invest.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

The investment tax credits pay only a portion of the capital for a period of time. They expire at a certain period of time, as we've gotten to the point where the market is more mature. We can choose not to pursue these opportunities and let the jobs go elsewhere—and the economic prosperity. If that's what you're suggesting, that's certainly something you could do—

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

No, my suggestion is that a 115% taxpayer subsidy is not the appropriate thing to—

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

—but that is not the view of every other G7 country in the world. That is not the view of the Premier of Nova Scotia. That is not the view of the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We believe in seizing the economic opportunities that are going to drive the economic future of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll now go to Mr. Blois for five minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Blois.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'll take you back to before Christmas. I don't remember the exact date that Bill C-49 was introduced, but as a Nova Scotia member of Parliament, I assumed that this was going to be a relatively straightforward process. It is a legislative change that enables an existing regulatory agency in offshore oil and gas to be extended the same privileges to regulate the activities of offshore wind, which play into hydrogen and decarbonization.

Call it a gift. Call it whatever you want. I was shocked to see the Conservative Party oppose this. Look, this place is here for us to have legitimate conversation about the angles and issues of the bill, but I haven't heard it. You've been here for almost two hours, and I have yet to hear a substantive piece about what the problem is.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm the only who's been citing sections of the bill.

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

Mrs. Stubbs is yelling across the way about the Impact Assessment Act. I'm glad, Minister, honestly, that you have said there will be updates coming in short order, but that is fundamentally different from what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is the provinces acquiescing. As I hear Mrs. Stubbs yelling—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order. I'm not yelling. I'll just say it into the mic.

Kody, just for clarity, I actually cited the sections in Bill C-49 that—

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

I have a point of order.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—include the unconstitutional sections from Bill C-69. Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I just want to make sure we use points of order for points of order, not for points of clarification or debate. Let's please refrain from using them as a way to debate or interrupt another member.

Did you have a point of order as well, Mr. Angus?

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

Yes, Chair, I have enormous respect for you, but I'm here to get work done. I'm here to hear from the minister; I'm not here to deal with interference. I'm here to hear what Mr. Blois has to say. He's a legitimate member. We need to stop this pattern of trying to throw people off and throwing mud.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Blois, I'm going to turn the floor back to you, with apologies for the interruption. Go ahead.