Debates of Oct. 16th, 2023

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, 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]

Mr. 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, NDP, 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.