Debates of Oct. 16th, 2023

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[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 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, NDP, 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.