Debates of Oct. 16th, 2023

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, once again we are seeing the Liberals shutting down debate, something they said they would never do. Here, they are doing it again and on a bill that is worth debating.

They are talking about taking the oil and gas board in the Atlantic area and making it responsible as a regulatory board for all electric and other technologies, which it has no experience in. Really, this is something we cannot leave to committee.

We need to have voices heard up front so that we can get a fulsome debate on it, but once again, they are ramming things through the House with the help from the NDP. I am not sure why NDP members are still supporting the Liberals. They have gotten nothing they asked for, and they had an opportunity at their convention to say that they did not get pharmacare and dental care is a vague promise for 2025, after the next election. They should just give it up and quit propping up a government that continually shuts down debate.

Can the member opposite explain why they do not want to hear fulsome debate?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have debated this bill on a number of occasions at second reading, and we will debate it again this afternoon. It is important that this bill move to committee where it can be thoroughly examined and MPs can hear from experts on this bill. It is extremely important that we move expeditiously to capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that are associated with offshore wind.

Public Policy Forum released a report yesterday that showed just how important this is for the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I would encourage my hon. colleague to perhaps have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, who has worked collaboratively on this and wants to see it move quickly.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, right now, we are facing a huge climate crisis, and we need to move quickly. This is about moving the bill onto committee. We know that the Conservative leadership of Nova Scotia wants to move aggressively in having more of a power supply from offshore wind power. I would ask the member why he thinks the Conservatives are blocking this.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a very good question.

I have to say that I was astonished the Conservative opposition would be in opposition to a bill that was developed with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is about enabling new economic opportunities and good jobs for the people who live in those provinces. It is part of the ongoing transition with respect to energy around the world. It is an opportunity not just about electricity, but also about hydrogen and helping our friends in Europe. It is astonishing to me that the MPs who come from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular, are opposing this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very glad to see that there is a motion for closure today because we are in a global race to help drive Canada's offshore future and Canada's clean energy future. I have chastised some of my Conservative colleagues for not getting on board.

Ultimately, we will have a vote on this, and they will be able to lay out their position and rationale on why they are against it, but we are in a global race right now. Every day matters. If we had not moved for closure, the Conservatives would still be here trying to debate the talking points from the leader of the official opposition's office. This is the challenge.

Can the minister highlight to the House how important this bill is for the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the clean energy industry?

The fact of the matter is, notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision, this legislation can move forward because it is a joint agreement between federal and provincial authorities. Notwithstanding what the member for Sarnia—Lambton said, which was that there is no experience, this is exactly how the Atlantic accords have operated for almost 40 years now.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an extremely positive and constructive example of collaborative federalism. This bill was developed in concert with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is something they will be putting in place in their own legislation as this bill moves through Canada's Parliament. It is extremely important for enabling the economic future of those two provinces. It would create good jobs and economic opportunity.

Again, it astonishes me that members of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are opposing what is one of the great economic opportunities going forward. It is truly astonishing. They are standing against the premiers of their respective provinces, including the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister knows the debate that took place on Bill C-69. Where is it today? How fulsome have those consultations been with the provinces?

I am looking at the proposed change to subsection 56(1), which basically says that, if there is going to be a future oil development and there is a possibility that it could be turned into a future marine protected area, the Governor in Council could then pull the permit. That is the Prime Minister and the federal cabinet. The industry has said to me, “Cliff, this puts in black and white what we feared all along.”

If Bill C-69 could not do the job on Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore, this bill here will not do the job. Bill C-49 needs to be amended.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say a few things.

The first is that the legislation was developed in concert with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The mechanisms under that are joint mechanisms that would require the federal government and the province to agree on a range of different things moving forward. That is the essence of collaborative, co-operative federalism. That is the essence of how the offshore accord acts have worked for a long time.

I would say to my hon. colleague that it is amazing to me that he would oppose something that is so important for the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Also, if he is interested in discussing amendments, he should let this go to committee to have that conversation.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, we all know that we are in the middle of a global crisis. We are seeing more and more extreme weather events and natural disasters. We are also seeing a government that continues to argue otherwise, but agrees with the Conservatives that Canada should keep sinking deeper into oil and gas. Anyway, that seems to be the direction the government is taking for now when we look at its public policies.

I would like to ask the minister opposite a simple question because it would be really enlightening for us to understand how he sees things. Does he consider oil and gas to be clean energy?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's speech a bit odd. This bill provides for an offshore wind farm, a clean energy source that will, of course, be very important for the future of Nova Scotia's and Newfoundland and Labrador's economy.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a debate about time allocation. Ironically, the minister used to be a senior aide for the NDP premier in Saskatchewan, so the tie that binds is pretty deep for him.

In 17 parliaments, from Tommy Douglas to Tom Mulcair, the NDP only supported time allocation 14 times. The current iteration of the NDP has supported time allocation 35 times in this Parliament. As a former senior aide to Premier Roy Romanow, would the minister advise the current NDP government partner to continue to support a government that is falling in the polls? With all his experience with the NDP, would the member counsel the current government to perhaps try to stand on its own two feet?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying I am very proud to have worked for a distinguished premier such as Premier Romanow, who was somebody who did enormously positive things for the Province of Saskatchewan after the previous Conservative premier, Grant Devine, virtually bankrupted the province.

However, I would also say that it is extremely important that we are moving forward rapidly to fight carbon emissions and to build an economy that can be strong and create good jobs and economic opportunities for Canada and for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. This bill is about creating such opportunity in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is important that we have a plan to fight climate change and that we have a plan for the economy; the Conservative Party has neither.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to build on my colleague's question around the marine protected areas. I am hearing concerns about the lack of clarity around what this means in marine protected areas. Could the minister provide some clarification for those who are concerned about next steps, moving forward?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, in terms of protected spaces, Canada committed to protecting 30% of lands and waters by 2030. When the government came to power in 2015, below 1% of marine areas were protected. Now it is close to 15%, and we are on a pathway to protect 30%.

The hon. member will know that there are different types of protection, including marine protected areas, marine refuges and other effective area-based measures. There are different rules that apply to each one of those. Canada follows all the international guidelines and, in fact, is a leader in protection around the world.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is a debate on the motion for closure. Just this last week, we saw that Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. On June 13, 2019, that bill was also subject to a motion of closure. If only we had a couple more hours of debate to really look at the subject, maybe we would not find that there are bills at the Supreme Court that are deemed unconstitutional. I can understand that from the Liberal government, but what happened to the NDP?

There were House leaders of old, such as Stanley Knowles, who was quoted as saying in 1967:

I submit, therefore, that you do not have full political democracy let alone the economic as well as political democracy unless you include a full and unquestioned recognition of the rights and functions of the opposition to the government of the day. Only in this way can you protect the rights of minorities. Only in this way can you make sure that the force of public opinion will be brought to bear on the legislative process.

Forcing closure on debate on a bill as important as this to Atlantic Canadians, as well as all Canadians, is just a blight on this democratic process. What has happened to the NDP of old? Is this the new NDP?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that unlike the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party are standing up for jobs and economic opportunities for Canadians in the context of a world that is going to look different as we fight—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I would remind members that, if it is not time for them to ask questions, they should wait until I ask for questions and comments.

The hon. minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, as we fight the existential threat that is climate change, we must have an economic plan for the future that is going to create good jobs and economic opportunity in every province of this country. This bill is an important part of doing that, particularly with respect to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I would suggest to the hon. member that perhaps he sit down and have a conversation with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia about those issues.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I am very much struck by the fact that we are here on what the Liberals would characterize as a bill of critical importance, and yet we are again ramming it through Parliament. On Bill C-69, time allocation was invoked, and here we are again. There was a time when the New Democratic Party stood for something, which was to be the conscience of Parliament; it would not shut this down. Now it has become the NDP of no democratic principles; it is now prepared to ram everything through that the Liberals ask of it.

From Tommy Douglas to Tom Mulcair, time allocation was invoked an average of 1.2 times per Parliament. Here we are with time allocation for the 35th time. The government says it cares about jobs. Does it care about democracy, or is that just inconvenient for it?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was speaking with the hon. member for Kings—Hants, who has sat in this chamber and listened to the debate on this bill over the course of the past number of days. No real suggestions have come from the opposition as to things it would like to see changed. If it does, it will have that opportunity at committee, where it can have a fulsome discussion and hear from witnesses.

We certainly think it is important to have that kind of transparency, but it is also important for us to seize the economic opportunity. Canada is not the only country that is focused on it. This is a global race. We must move quickly. I would again suggest that the opposition have a chat with the Conservative premier of Nova Scotia.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is a little ironic to hear the government, and even the NDP in its questions, boasting about the much-vaunted 30% protected areas when the Liberal government itself authorized exploratory drilling in a marine refuge it created.

How credible is the government when it comes to protecting and conserving oceans and endangered species? I have my doubts.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have put in place protections and requirements for marine refuges and protected areas in line with international best practices. This will go a long way towards helping us achieve our marine conservation goals. This bill advances Canada's climate goals and provides joint management tools to better protect the environment.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, the minister likes to talk about listening and consulting with Atlantic Canadians, and he has talked about the premier of Nova Scotia. I would add the premiers of New Brunswick, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador when it comes to the carbon tax and the opposition that the government faces.

Just last week, the Supreme Court of Canada found its legislation, Bill C-69, to be unconstitutional. I would think this would give the government and the minister pause when it comes to invoking closure. We should look at these bills properly as parliamentarians and debate them, so the government does not make the same mistake and ram another bill through Parliament that is poorly written and will face challenges down the road.

Your record is awful on bills such as this one. The Supreme Court of Canada just ruled that you rushed it. Why are you now rushing it again?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the hon. member was not directing his question to me. I would remind him that he is to ask questions and make comments through the Chair and not directly to members.

The hon. minister.