Debates of Oct. 16th, 2023

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry. We have to have time for more questions and comments.

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that it is necessarily a bad thing to want to regulate the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. However, we are not talking only about future wind energy projects. For example, this bill also addresses oil and gas exploration and development.

At a time when we are in a climate emergency, and when scientists tell us that we must quickly stop using fossil fuels, does my colleague believe it makes sense that his government wants to double oil production within the next few years?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill is about working together with the governments in Atlantic Canada, with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, to make sure we are bringing forward opportunities to have more renewable energy.

The world is seeing a massive transition. There is up to $1 trillion of investment that is going to come forward with renewables and through wind energy. We want to make sure that Atlantic Canada reaps those benefits, which are thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in investment. That is good for Atlantic Canada and great for Canada.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to note that the member's party does not do a really great job with its promises for reconciliation. I am glad to see that this legislation talks about engaging indigenous peoples. This is great to see in this bill.

One concern I do have is its terrible record of engaging or not engaging indigenous peoples, including recognizing collectives of peoples as indigenous when they are not. Because of that, I ask how the government will make sure that, when it is engaging with indigenous peoples, they are actually section 35 rights-holding indigenous peoples.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. An important part of the work we do is working with and alongside indigenous communities across Canada. Working with the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada, it is going to be at the forefront of the work that is done to consult and work alongside indigenous communities.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I noted earlier in debate that some members incorrectly said that the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada in the reference case on the impact assessment meant that there would be overreach in this bill, Bill C-49. As a formerly practising environmental lawyer who did not think Bill C-69 was constitutional, I would like to say that Bill C-49 is absolutely constitutional. There is nothing more federal than the offshore. This is federal jurisdiction.

Is my hon. colleague aware that the race is on right now between the United States and China to see who can get more offshore wind in faster?

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is why it is so important that we pass this bill to get it to committee quickly to do the hard work with stakeholders and make sure we get it right. There is a tremendous opportunity. We must strike now and make this happen so that Atlantic Canada and our great nation receive the benefits with millions of dollars of investment and good jobs.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a practice of the House that, when a member realizes that he or she has a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is my obligation to inform the House that a letter from the Ethics Commissioner confirming the existence of such a matter arrived in my email inbox just after 2:00 p.m. on the most recent sitting day before the present day, that is to say, on Friday, October 6.

The House rose less than half an hour after I received this email and today, therefore, represents the first reasonably available opportunity.

The matter in question relates to subsection 12(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Subsection 12(1) states:

A member who has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons...shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.

On September 19, I wrote to seek the commissioner's advice as I am the chairman of the board of a family business, Giant Tiger stores. Although my family business is a small player in the great scheme of things, having a sales volume that is only about 5% that of Loblaws, it is nevertheless a significant player in the discount side of the grocery industry. Therefore, it seemed advisable to me to ask the commissioner whether, in order to remain compliant with the code, I might have to recuse myself from certain debates in the House and elsewhere.

As noted earlier, the commissioner responded to me just after 2:00 p.m. on October 6, advising me that, in his view, I would have an obligation, pursuant to subsection 12(1), to report to the House if I am present in the House during any debate or a vote on Bill C-56 and also that the same restrictions apply to Bill C-352, a private member's bill covering much of the same subject matter.

I can advise the House that in anticipation of precisely such a response from the commissioner, I have been at pains to avoid being present during any such debates. However, a strict reading of subsection 12(1) would suggest that the reporting obligation is triggered by the mere fact of being present during a question period when questions on the subject are raised by any party and that, as well, if I were to participate electronically in any vote on the subject, even if my intention is simply to electronically vote to register a formal abstention, I would trigger subsection 12(1).

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 12(1), I am tabling the following four documents.

The first is the letter that I wrote to the commissioner on September 19, in which I laid out the general nature of my private interest in my family's business.

The second is an email thread containing subsequent correspondence with the commissioner and his staff, leading up to his response email on October 6, in which he advised me that I should not merely recuse myself from debates in the House of Commons but also that I should exclude myself from any discussion, debate or vote on these two bills that might take place during the Conservative caucus meetings.

The third is a further letter that I sent this morning to comply with the commissioner's further instruction that I will need to formally inform the Conservative caucus vice-chair, or the individual who would chair the meeting in their absence, of my private interest regarding Bill C-56 and Bill C-352 and provide a copy of the correspondence to his office. I was told it will then be made public in accordance with the code.

Finally, the fourth is the cover letter to the commissioner delivered to his office earlier this day in which I confirmed to him that I have complied with this further instruction.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for bringing this forth, but as a reminder to the hon. member, we need unanimous consent to table documents.

Is the hon. member seeking unanimous consent to table the documents? Otherwise, they can just be sent to the Clerk.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I suppose, in that case, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member can submit all of the documents to the Clerk as part of his written submission.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C‑49. I have not taken part in debate on a bill in quite some time. I am sorry if I am a little rusty.

First of all, this bill is a bit more complicated than it appears. As we all know, this is not the first time that we have debated about this. This bill aims to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member for a few seconds.

The hon. member just started her speech. It is unfortunate that often when someone is speaking in French we have some background noise.

Can we afford the hon. member the courtesy of listening to what she is saying, please?

The hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate it.

As I said earlier, the main purpose of this bill is to regulate the energy industry in marine environments in eastern Canada. Understandably, this mainly concerns oil and gas development, which my party and I regularly denounce here in the House, but also, as other colleagues mentioned, future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely, offshore wind power off the east coast.

This is a bill that continues offshore oil and gas development, at a time when Canada should be looking to withdraw from oil and gas. The government has clearly stated this intention.

As my Bloc Québécois colleagues mentioned, our main concern with this bill is the continued failure to meet marine biodiversity conservation requirements for renewable energy development in eastern Canada.

As I said earlier, tightening the rules around oil and gas development could be a good thing, but these rules should simply no longer exist, just like offshore oil and gas.

From an energy transition perspective, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector needs to decline rapidly. It is simple: No new offshore exploration or oil development project should be authorized, regardless of any special conditions. That is the path Quebec is currently taking and the maritime provinces should take note.

In 2022, Quebec put a firm and definite stop to oil and gas exploration and development in its territory by passing an act ending exploration for petroleum and underground reservoirs and production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities. As such, every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. We are talking about roughly 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three licences to produce brine and two storage leases. Quebec has become the first government in North America to prohibit oil and gas exploration and development in its territory. It has also been part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance since 2021. I was at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland when Minister Charette made the announcement. I have to say that it is truly a source of pride for Quebec.

In joining this alliance, Quebec joins Denmark, Costa Rica, France, Greenland, Ireland, the Marshall Islands, Portugal, Sweden, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Wales, and Washington State, who are all working together to phase out oil and gas production. California, New Zealand, Chile, Fiji, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, and Colombia are also associate members or friends of the alliance, and although they are not perfect in their energy production, they also want to do more and do better. Of course, Canada is conspicuous by its absence from this alliance.

Phasing out oil and gas production is not part of the Government of Canada's short-, medium-, or long-term plan. It is disheartening. These days, even the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, a former environmental activist no less, can be heard practically boasting that Canada is a major petro-state. What I find troubling about these statements is that the minister does not seem to want to improve Canada's situation. We hear about cutting and capping greenhouse gas emissions, but not one word about capping and cutting oil and gas production. That is more than disheartening; it is worrisome.

It is especially worrisome considering the summer we just went through. We had unprecedented wildfires, torrential rains, hurricanes and rising ocean temperatures. Rather than seeking to do more to combat or at least better adapt to climate change, the government is telling us it wants to increase oil and gas production, one of the main factors behind air pollution, likely the biggest one. It is unbelievable.

It is even more unbelievable when we consider the fact that Canada failed in its duty to protect marine ecosystems when it authorized dozens of new drilling projects in ecologically sensitive environments, including drilling inside marine refuges. It is easy enough to understand that offshore drilling threatens marine life. For example, the sonic cannons used to explore the seabed interfere with blue and right whales' communication, sense of direction and foraging activities. Unfortunately, both are on Canada's endangered species list.

Exploration is noisy, yes, but extraction is risky. Accidents will happen, too, and spills have extremely serious ecological consequences, as we saw with the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion in April 2010. Need I also remind the House that regular activity alone brings dangerous pollution levels for wildlife?

Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in these marine refuges. The Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is an independent body.

I would like to remind the House that the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and that the federal government is responsible for protecting natural environments. For years now, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has been promoting the development and exploitation of marine oil and gas. Every year, the board issues a call for tenders and auctions off new exploratory drilling permits.

Every year, the Bloc Québécois speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change. The boards, including the Department of Natural Resources itself, are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which are two contradictory goals. This bill will not fix that problem. It will not prevent the development of the non-renewable energy sector.

I get the impression that, with Bill C‑49, the government is taking us for fools, but we are not stupid. As my colleague from Jonquière already explained in the House, changing the names of the two acts and the two boards to remove the word “petroleum” is greenwashing pure and simple.

We need to face the facts. Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador intend to double Canada's oil production by 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. To reach this objective means launching 100 new drilling projects by 2030. One hundred new drilling projects is a lot.

A few weeks ago, in the middle of the week of the United Nations Climate Ambition Summit, the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced that they intended to open thousands more square kilometres of marine environments to oil exploration projects. That was right in the middle of the Climate Ambition Summit week. I am sure the contradiction is not lost on anyone.

Canada was also slapped on the wrist in New York when the UN under-secretary-general for global communications called out the Prime Minister by describing Canada as “one of the largest expanders of fossil fuels last year”. Far from an honour, this distinction is an embarrassment.

The Minister of Environment defends his leader by saying the following:

The federal government has no jurisdiction over the use of natural resources. What we have said and what we are doing is taxing pollution from the oil and gas sector and all other industries.

What the government has the opportunity to do through the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is not open up thousands of square kilometres of marine environment to oil development projects. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, some of the areas identified by the government for exploration are part of a marine refuge set up to protect biodiversity.

Who set up this marine refuge? The Liberal government itself. This is where we reach the height of irony. This marine refuge was set up by the government in 2019 to meet its international commitments to protect marine environments. According to the federal government, this is an ecologically and biologically important area that supports great diversity, including several species in decline. Using fishing gear that would touch the sea floor is prohibited, but if we follow the government's logic, it will be possible for oil companies to drill exploratory wells there.

That is kind of where we are headed with the government. It is not the path to take when it comes to climate change and the climate crisis. I invite parliamentarians to reflect on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of the comments the member made.

I just want to highlight the fact that this is legislation that has received a consensus of support from the premiers, I believe, of both Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, along with many different stakeholders.

Given the very competitive nature of what is happening around the world and the importance of getting this legislation through the House, I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is important to get it to the committee stage as soon as possible.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that the premiers of the provinces involved are in favour of this bill. For these provinces, more oil exploration simply means more money. That is putting it bluntly, but that is what it boils down to. We agree on why this bill needs to get to committee quickly.

I think that the committee will need help from experts to better understand what the government is trying to do with Bill C-49. When I look at the details of the bill, I get the sense that it is an exercise in greenwashing. Put simply, the government is trying to get rid of the word “petroleum”. It talks about renewable energy because there are offshore wind projects, but the fact remains that the government intends to double oil production by 2030. That is certainly something we need to keep in mind. I hope we can have constructive debates in parliamentary committee, should the bill get there.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the future member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine. When massive wind farms are planned for the very rich fishing grounds that exist in her future riding around the Gaspé peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, who will she stand with? Will she stand with big wind energy or will she stand with the fishing industry?

My second question is this: I wonder if my hon. colleague would be willing for Quebec to pay back the equalization payments it has received from provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and Alberta that were derived from the oil and gas industry.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. I wanted to address that in my speech, but I ran out of time. I wanted to talk about the fishers in the Gaspé region and the Magdalen Islands.

My riding covers part of the Gaspé, but there are also fishers in the Lower St. Lawrence. In Matane, in my riding, there is a seafood processing plant, a shrimp plant. Around the world, when people eat baby shrimp, they know the shrimp are from Matane because they are processed there.

Fishers back home are facing major challenges right now. Marine refuges are creating more conditions that the fishers have to respect. The fishers are not allowed to enter these zones with their fishing gear, yet the government would allow the oil companies to drill there. On that issue, I stand with the fishers, but above all, I stand with the energy transition and the fight against climate change. I do not think that the argument the Conservatives are trying to make on Bill C‑49 will get us anywhere in the fight against climate change.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is very concerned about the climate crisis, but protecting biodiversity and the goal of protecting 30% of marine areas by 2030 are also part of the discussion. Now we are finding out that, for the Liberal government, the area is only protected until we find [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I do not know whether the hon. member finished his speech or whether we lost the connection because of a technical problem. I do not know if something like that is happening today. It happened this morning too. I will take a moment to check on that.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, for the last couple of minutes the member spoke we were not getting translation and we did not hear what you were saying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Somehow, and this was not the first time this has happened today, the individuals coming in virtually have just dropped off.

I do not know whether the hon. member heard enough of the question to be able to answer it. I will think about what I will do after that.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe my colleague was referring to one of the key issues negotiated at COP15, which Canada co-chaired with China last year. One of the commitments was to protect or conserve at least 30% of the world's oceans through marine protected areas. As I said earlier, the Liberal government did decide to protect certain areas, but then it changed its mind and opened them up to oil and gas exploration. That is somewhat contradictory.

I cannot help but think that the Liberal government and its Minister of Environment and Climate Change should not be leading this UN conference while also continuing to drill for oil and gas in their own country's waters. I think my colleague and I feel the same way about this.