Debates of Sept. 19th, 2023

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, it seems like the Conservatives have an idea that they should be in control of what goes on in individual provinces. I will go back to the days of Stephen Harper when Danny Williams was the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and there was a great feud built up, because the federal government wanted control of everything. Again, we are seeing it here today from the Conservatives: They want control.

Both premiers of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are in favour of this bill and are asking for it to be done quickly. So what do the Conservatives have against Newfoundlanders and Nova Scotians, and from an MP from New Brunswick?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to assure my hon. colleague from across the way, the most distinguished member from Avalon, that we have definitely heard the concerns of the region. That is why we are standing against this bill on principle.

We have heard the concerns and the reflections of the premiers from a couple of the provinces, but we also have heard concerns about various bills that the government has brought in, namely the carbon tax that the hon. member would be very familiar with, that his premier and others have expressed huge concerns about its implementation and do not want this bill. They do not want that tax or for it to be fully implemented anywhere, or continue to be implemented and raised as we go forward.

I am sure my hon. colleague would agree with me. Yes, I think maybe the government should start listening to the premiers and scrap the useless carbon tax because it does not do any good.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentions the need for spending and partnership with the oil and gas industry in order to make the transition. I do agree that the oil and gas industry invests greatly, generally speaking, in green technologies.

I think the member for Lakeland mentioned yesterday the amount of spending that goes on in green technologies by the industry. Recently the oil sands companies have been on track for their second-highest profits in a decade, yet they have made no new investments to reduce emissions.

I would like to know if the member believes this kind of voluntary approach has promise.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would say this. The energy sector in Canada has been doing an incredible job up to this point in innovating and leading the way around the world with some of the best practices for extraction for energy as it relates to carbon capture initiatives and turning lands back into usable, functional areas and environmentally, eco-friendly development.

This sector has had some of the best innovators. Instead of getting credit when the sector has exceeded and gone beyond in those areas, we have always found that the government of this country continues to lambast the sector, come against the sector, ridicule the sector and talk down the energy sector of this country at a time when we have a great news story to tell, when we say that Canadian energy is the best energy in the world. It is a great place to invest. It is the best place to get clean, ethically and responsibly developed resources.

I think we need to be telling the good news story of energy in Canada and not the bad.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to speak to Bill C‑49 today.

For centuries, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have relied on the ocean's industries. Others across Atlantic Canada have too. It is what we know. It is who we are. It feels somewhat historic when we talk of the Atlantic accord. If one is not from Atlantic Canada, one might not realize the significance of this agreement, particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Atlantic accord is fundamental to the respect and recognition shown between the federal and provincial governments. It was an agreement signed in 1985 that bound the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to a common understanding that the people of our province are the principal beneficiaries of their offshore oil and gas.

The Atlantic accord recognized what my province brought into this country. It recognized the historic resource strengths of Atlantic Canada, and today it recognizes that strength for the future, because now the accord will apply to renewable energy, to wind energy. As a Newfoundlander talking about wind, it may come as a surprise that this is neither a joke nor a complaint. We have huge opportunity harnessing the wind in our offshore, wind that will power not just the grid but some groundbreaking hydrogen projects. The province knows it, the private sector knows it and we know it. It is why we are working so closely together to manage and develop that resource.

This bill represents a moment of opportunity, and out my way we know to seize opportunity when it comes our way. Times were bleak after the cod moratorium, until first oil, until Hibernia, until we started to build our offshore. I remember first oil. We were not entirely sure we knew what we were doing, but we knew it was possible. We knew what could be done, and jointly managed and regulated through the soon-to-be former C-NLOPB, we stayed the course and people prospered. We did this in one of the harshest environments in the world to operate in, but we found a way. We always do. More importantly, we built up one of the most skilled labour forces the world has ever seen. People noticed and companies noticed, much like they are looking to us now.

In 2019, we renewed the accord. We established a Hibernia dividend for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, with $3.3 billion of secure long-term and predictable payments that run from 2019 to 2056. More importantly, we recognized the province as the principal beneficiary of its resources.

Now it is time to renew the accord again. In fact, to call these “amendments” to the accord kind of feels wrong. What we are talking about here really is a natural evolution, because the world is evolving and because where we get our energy and how we get it are evolving. We need to evolve with it. Now is the time to renew the accord again.

The Atlantic accord will include renewable energy so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can be the principal beneficiaries of that too. We are not losing what we have built in the offshore. We are proud of it. The people of my province, and the governments there, are hand in glove when it comes to the energy mix. We accept the world as it is. We embrace it. We applaud the engineering skill that built the West White Rose gravity-based structure because it is the same skill that will construct the wind turbine monopiles that are stored right next to it in Argentia, Newfoundland.

Think about all the jobs that come with this work. As Minister of Labour, I certainly do. When we have a good management structure in place, the more projects we attract and build, the more jobs they bring, and they are good jobs. Right now, there are oil and gas companies across Canada making sure the expertise of our workers can be used to build new renewable energy projects. We are going to need every worker we can get because big things are happening and they are happening quickly, so they must be managed properly. They must be managed as they always have been in the past 25 years, with the remarkable success our offshore has benefited from.

It is with great pleasure I tell the House that by passing Bill C-49, we will secure Atlantic Canada's future and Newfoundland and Labrador's birthright as a force to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am hoping the hon. minister will look down at the note that was just provided to him. He may wish to split his time.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, let me add a few points. I do not want to cede any time on this. I have worked too long and too hard on this Atlantic accord, on both its renewed nature in 2019 and the $3.3 billion that we were able to get for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as it should get, and I am excited about what we are doing right now with Bill C-49.

What we are doing now is taking on a trusted structure, something that business knows, something that the industry knows and something that workers know. Through the Atlantic accord, we have built up agencies that provide investors stability so that they know what they are dealing with, and now, as we build a very exciting new chapter in Newfoundland and Labrador's energy industry, we want to make sure that those things still guide our way. They are things we worked so hard to build through the Atlantic accord and the C-NLOPB, with names that I think would be familiar to all sides of the House: John Crosbie, Bill Marshall, Brian Peckford, Progressive Conservative governments from both Ottawa and St. John's that together worked very hard to make it happen, Brian Mulroney and Pat Carney. These were people who had vision for this province and vision for what was at the time a very nascent industry.

I grew up on a rock in the middle of the ocean, and anyone who grows up on a rock in the middle of the ocean or in a town in Labrador like I did cannot afford ideology. They grow up seeing the world as it is, not as they wish it to be. They accept the world as it is; they are clear-eyed about it.

From the Minister of Rural Economic Development to the member for Avalon, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, the member for Labrador and the member for St. John's East, we knew the accord would need to reflect a change in the times. As companies and markets look to renewables, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be well managed and needs to be well positioned, and when it comes to energy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not need to play catch-up.

We are leaders. We like to lead. Even our province's oil and gas industry association, its biggest champion, NOIA, the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, changed its name to reflect this global shift in energy. It is now Energy NL. I was meeting with them just yesterday at the World Petroleum Congress in Calgary. Sustainability and reducing emissions has become the name of the game. They realize that. They know it; they embrace it. Energy NL's vision is of a sustainable and prosperous lower-carbon energy industry.

This bill is going to change another name. The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act will become the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act.

With all of this wind, including the wind I just used, we are now seeing big hydrogen projects on our doorstep, first-of-their-kind facilities. When I was the natural resources minister and we were developing Canada's hydrogen plan, never did I think that I would be standing on the tarmac of Stephenville airport on the west coast of Newfoundland and seeing the German Chancellor's plane landing with the CEOs of Siemens and Mercedes-Benz. They said they could have invested anywhere and created a green hydrogen industry, but they chose here, they chose us, because we are well managed and well regulated and because we have the best workforce in the world.

To members who have not been out my way, let me say that we have wind. The winds off of the Atlantic coast rival those of the North Sea, which is the birthplace of the world's offshore wind industry. This gives Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia a once-in-a-generation opportunity to become leaders in an energy sector of the future, to support our region's industrial future and to create good jobs that will exist for generations to come.

It is expected that the offshore wind industry will attract $1 trillion of investment by 2040. We would have to be out of our minds to think Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and others across the country are not going to be ready for what is to come. We are talking about renewable energy. That is good change coming. Change always makes some people anxious, but this is not about politics. This is actually about the market. Industry understands something that skeptics do not: The world is looking for renewable energy, for wind, for solar power.

We can sit on our hands and let those industries be built in other countries, letting workers in other countries get those good jobs, or we can get in on the ground floor and make sure that it is workers here who get those jobs, that it is Canadian workers, Atlantic Canadian workers and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who get that work. They are the ones and we are the ones who should be selling renewable energy to the world and taking home the profits. By passing Bill C-49, we will secure Atlantic Canada's future as a force to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister spoke about the importance of petroleum drilling projects like Hibernia and White Rose to his province. I am sure he is aware that within the NDP-Liberal government, there are those who continually war on oil and gas and want to shut it down. Is he not concerned that Bill C-49 contains measures that would give cabinet the power to decide on a whim to shut down important projects like Hibernia and White Rose without provincial input or necessary indigenous consultation?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, what keeps me up at night is anybody from that side having their paws on my offshore industry anymore. Let me tell members what the Conservatives managed to do in their time in office, because it is absolutely remarkable. It would have taken someone 300 days to get the environmental permissions to drill an exploratory well. Through their magic, they made it 900 days. Do members know what we did just a few years ago? We made it 90 days.

This may seem counterintuitive to all sorts of people, but by working with the C-NLOPB, we managed to reduce 900 days to 90 days and increase the environmental oversight. That is what good management does. There is a reason Danny Williams had an “Anything but Conservative” campaign going on for the better part of 12 years back in my province. It is because of what the Conservatives did and would do again to an industry that has given so much to my province. Pay attention to it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his new position as Minister of Seniors. I hope we will be able to meet together soon to discuss this matter. I spent part of the summer on the road, meeting with groups across Quebec.

Concerning Bill C‑49, we have a lot of questions for the government. With the summer we just experienced, we need to move past environmental window dressing and on to practical actions aimed at achieving a true energy transition. The environmental issue is a Bloc Québécois priority.

Can my colleague reassure us and confirm that he will co-operate by answering our questions? Will he genuinely agree to think of concrete ways of achieving this energy transition?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, first I will say that I look forward to working with the hon. member on issues regarding seniors.

There is a place that I will go back to again this weekend because I am very fond of this place. It is called Argentia, Newfoundland. It is a historic place because just off its shores is where Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt signed another Atlantic accord in the middle of World War II. It is a deepwater port. It has great access to the eastern seaboard, and it is right there that we are seeing what is called a monopile marshalling port, the first of its kind in the eastern seaboard. It is where we are going to build and collect the large foundations for offshore wind.

Transitions are not overnight events. Transitions take time. Perhaps one of the biggest differences among the members in this House is the view on how much time that is going to take. I understand that, particularly after the summer we have had. However, it is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is happening because it is a place where, as I said, we cannot afford to have ideology; we are about pragmatism. We are making those moves. Even as an oil-producing province, we are moving forward on lowering emissions and keeping our people employed in excellent jobs.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the Minister of Labour for appearing at today's rally. The labour leaders who were there heard his very firm promise on anti-scab legislation, and we will definitely be watching him for that important follow-through.

My riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is about as far away as we can get in this country from Newfoundland and Labrador, but we do share a similar environment. I am from a coastal community, on both the east and west coast of beautiful Vancouver Island, and while the Pacific is not as rough as the North Atlantic, I realize the potential that comes from offshore wind and tidal resources. I celebrate the fact that we are trying to actively encourage that development.

I want to ask the minister, though, about the concerns we have heard from some conservationists and fishers regarding the lack of transparency when it comes to wind farm development in marine protected areas. I wonder if the minister can provide an update to this House on how marine protected areas will be treated when it comes to this important type of development.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, indeed, we will be following up. As the member said, he heard my words at the workers rally today, and, as I said, we will be introducing that replacement worker ban legislation this fall. This is something that workers in this country have been looking for, I would say, since Canada's inception. It will most certainly be a momentous day, but it will have to be managed carefully, and we will work together to do that.

I would answer the member's question on marine protected areas in the same way. I doubt there are people anywhere, frankly, who are more attuned to what can happen if we take our eyes off the environment of Newfoundlanders, because within 20 or 30 years during the industrialization of our fishery, we saw the world's single biggest source of protein, the North Atlantic cod, decimated, and we lived with those consequences in 1992. We are thankful to the oil and energy industries for, frankly, coming to our rescue at the time in Newfoundland and Labrador and also in Alberta and Saskatchewan, which I am happy to say that we helped build.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that it is important we move rapidly to develop our offshore wind resources, but I dispute the minister's statement that it is a matter of opinion how fast we move in transition.

I ask if he has looked at the most recent report from the United Nations. The climate summit is occurring there tomorrow. It is very clear the world is not on track and that what we will experience in terms of extreme weather events in the future if we do not take dramatic action before 2030 will make this summer's events look like a Sunday picnic of perfect weather. We are right now on the cusp, standing on the edge of too late, and we are acting as though we have time for this leisurely transition. We do not.

I would ask the hon. member if he would reconsider and have the Prime Minister's cabinet reconsider, listen to climate scientists, cancel the Trans Mountain pipeline, ban fracking and do those things that are required. They are not easy, but they are required.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, no, it is not easy, and no, I will not reconsider it. I would invite the hon. member to listen to the energy workers of this country about the amount of change they have gone through, the amount of change they continue to go through and the frustrations they feel.

I would challenge the hon. member to say who she thinks will do all this work on transitioning our energy sector. Who does she think will lower emissions? Who does she think will build up renewables? It is workers. It is workers I represent in St. John's South—Mount Pearl, people who have built an industry and now hear about the massive change that is happening, and it is. However, we on this side of the House listen to workers, not only because they are important but also because they are absolutely essential to this transition.

In my time as minister of natural resources, the first thing that crossed my mind in that industry was that we not lose the good workers in our oil and gas industries, because they are precisely the people who will build up renewables. They are precisely the people who will lower emissions. Who does she think does this work? That is why they are our greatest asset. That is why they are our greatest resource. That is why they are my top priority.

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

Madam Speaker, it is great to be back in the House. I have just a simple question regarding the approval process. Will this help projects like tidal energy be approved faster so we can have more clean energy in the Maritimes and on the east coast? We see right now that it is a bit of a slow walk and it should be approved a bit faster. We are hoping this legislation would help that out.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would assure the hon. member that the intention of keeping what we know is to give those assurances to investors. The first thing we want to do is make sure we are attracting investment. We want to deal with entities we know and regulations we know, and build on those rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Whenever we get involved in an industry like renewables or like oil and gas, like anything, frankly, there has to be a certain amount of regulation. One person's red tape is another person's regulation, and one can go crazy with it certainly. We began with 300 days. The Conservatives made it 900 days, and we made it 90 days and actually increased environmental oversight. It is important to be smart about it and listen to the people close to the ground.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here, back in the House. Today I will be speaking about Bill C-49, which is the 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.

I have listened to the debate today, and a lot of times, members opposite have said they want to know what it is that the Conservatives do not like about the bill. Therefore, I am going to tell them what I do not like about the bill, and I am one of the Conservatives over here.

Let us start off with the name change to remove the word “petroleum” and change it over to “energy”. I am not opposed to “energy” at all, but words are important, and we have had an entire history of a war against oil and gas in this country from the NDP-Liberal government. Continually it has shut down projects. There were 18 LNG projects on the books when it came to office, and it shut them all down. It has shut down pipelines and shut down various expansions, so I think the removal of the word “petroleum” tells us where it thinks it wants to take this direction in the future.

We just heard the minister from Newfoundland talk about the importance of petroleum drilling projects there, so I am very concerned about the bill and the change to get away from petroleum, because Canada could be self-sufficient. We import $15 billion a year of dirty dictator oil, and the government seems fine to continue that. That is the wrong direction. We should be taking our environmentally sustainable oil and gas and making sure we are self-sufficient here in Canada. The whole eastern part of the country could use that.

That is the first problem I have with the bill.

The second thing about the bill is that it would award new powers to the regulators. Today we have people who are regulators in the petroleum drilling industry. Now, with a wave of the magic wand, they would be regulators of offshore renewable energy. This is another example of the Liberals expanding regulators' scope when they are not experts in that area. They did the exact same thing with the CRTC when we were talking about Bill C-11 and Bill C-18, and the CRTC has said clearly that it had no experience overseeing digital media, but the government made it the regulator of it. This is an opportunity for disaster.

I am not opposed to renewables. When I was a chemical engineer, I worked in renewables. I worked on solar projects, wind projects and even offshore Lake Erie wind projects, so I am a fan of transitioning and coming to better renewable energy, but let us learn the lessons from Ontario. All of those solar and wind projects were done in a hugely subsidized way that drove the cost of energy in the province of Ontario from eight cents a kilowatt hour to 23¢ a kilowatt hour and made us totally uncompetitive.

I am thus very interested in the details of this offshore renewable energy and what kind of subsidization the government is going to do, because if it does the same it did to batteries and puts $31 billion of taxpayer money into trying to attract people to build a facility, then the taxpayer is on the hook, and this is not an economically sustainable thing. It is another concern that I do not see that detail here in the bill.

The most concerning element of the bill is the addition of a new layer of decision-making and the granting of ultimate authority to federal and provincial ministers. It would increase the timeline for a final decision to 60 to 90 days from 30, with the possibility of an indefinite extension as the call for bids is issued.

I have an issue with letting federal ministers have the power to, first of all, issue land licences in a province. The province's jurisdiction has to be respected, and we have seen numerous occasions where the government wants to overreach into provincial jurisdiction, with the carbon tax, for example, and with many of the other health initiatives the government has had where it has wanted to reach into provincial jurisdiction. Clearly the provinces have pushed back, as they should. We need to make sure that, if ministers are being given these powers, there is some kind of limitation on those powers, because we know that we have already heard concerns about the bill with respect to indigenous consultations being given to the regulators.

The regulators would have the responsibility to consult with indigenous peoples. That is an abdication of the responsibility of the federal government. I am not sure that the regulators actually have the resources to do adequate consultations, which could result in court cases and challenges that would further delay and cause uncertainty in projects as they move forward. That is a concern to me, absolutely.

The other thing that gives me great concern is that the bill would give the federal cabinet the authorization to end any operational petroleum drilling on a whim. We have just gotten through saying that the government is against oil and gas. It is trying to shut down fossil fuels. Now we would be giving cabinet the power, federally, to arbitrarily, on a whim, shut down petroleum projects that we have heard from the minister from Newfoundland are extremely important to the province. This would be without the province's permission and without adequate consultation necessarily.

This is an obviously bad idea. We can see where this is going. The first initiative of the government would be to shut down as much oil and gas as it can. That is what it has done in Alberta. I am from Sarnia—Lambton, which accounts for 30% of the petrochemicals. Believe me, when the minister came to Sarnia to hear the concerns of the people about getting a transition, we were not even mentioned in the plan in the go-forward. That tells us exactly how much the Liberals care about the oil and gas workers at risk in this whole equation.

The bill would also create a new licensing system for offshore drilling. There is language in the bill that says the government would impose a 25-year cap on licences. Any licences would be limited. After 2050, everything would be off. Why would we do that to ourselves as a country? We do not know what is going to happen in the next 25 years. We do not know whether or not there will be wars or a need for those resources. Why would we arbitrarily limit our licences and cut them all off at 2050, especially considering the expression of indigenous people to have economic growth and get involved in projects? If they have a licence, is their licence going to be pulled as well after 2050, arbitrarily?

We do not need to restrict ourselves in this way. It is concerning to me that this would be in the bill, because there is no need to do that. If it is decided in 2050 that the situation warrants fewer licences, that is the government of the day's decision. Again, it is very troubling to see what is in here.

Today, petroleum activities are subject to a fundamental decision by the existing review boards in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador. A decision on approving or rejecting a project allows 30 days for provincial or federal ministers to respond, or the regulator's decision is accepted. However, for offshore renewable energy projects, under this new process, the regulator would give recommendations to the federal and provincial ministers. Ministers would have 60 days to respond, with a 30-day extension allowed if given in writing, and with, again, the possibility of an indefinite extension if they decide a call for bids is issued.

This is exactly, once over again, Bill C-69, in which the government took the approval process for projects and made it longer, and made it possible, at a minister's whim, to restart the process as many times as necessary to frustrate the private investors and drive them out of the country. This is what has happened with multiple projects: the LNG and the pipeline projects I have mentioned. More than $80 billion of foreign investment has been driven out of the country. The uncertainty of having to spend billions of dollars and wait six years to get a project approved keeps anybody from wanting to do a project in Canada unless the taxpayer is willing to give them $31 billion to do it.

This is not moving in the right direction. We need to be nimble when it comes to our decision, responsible but nimble. Again, I do not agree with the red tape regime that would hinder both traditional and alternative energy development in the bill. The broad, unilateral, discretionary cabinet power for arbitrary decision-making increases timelines and adds uncertainty around onerous requirements that are already driving away investment.

I want to read a quote from Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe, who talked about the lack of consultation with provinces. He said, “They’re un-consulted, notional targets that are put forward by the federal government without working with industries, provinces or anyone that’s generating electricity”. The provinces are concerned that they are going to see infringements from the government and I think, based on what has happened before, that they are right to think that.

There was a project that was a renewables project. It was in New Brunswick. It was the first North America tidal power project deal, and the Trudeau Liberals killed it. Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative—

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

The member knows we cannot use the names of current members.

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton.

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

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

Sustainable Marine Energy started developing an alternative energy project in the Bay of Fundy. After 10 years of hard work, it was providing clean, green energy, which is what we all want, to Nova Scotians. For all their trail-blazing efforts, Sustainable Marine Energy was awarded a tide of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

The repeated delays and a bombshell permit rejection, which the Liberal government refused to justify, were the straw that broke the camel's back. After five years of insurmountable regulatory challenges, the pilot project in Digby county was cancelled.

Let us think about the common elements here. Even though the project was the kind of renewable energy that the Liberal government is saying it wants to have, the company had to jump through hoops for 10 years. Finally, the government was able to pull the permit. The federal government can pull the permit without any justification. This is just a precedent of what is to come with the other projects currently existing in the petroleum sector on the coast. I am very concerned about that.

The other thing I would say is that Bill C-49 contains language to put Bill C-69 in it. It directly references the Impact Assessment Act, which, as I said, is a process that makes project approvals longer and their consultations more complicated. At the same time, someone could start and stop the process as many times as they wanted. There is lots of uncertainty. I am very unhappy about that one.

If we look at the access to offshore infrastructure, this bill says that the cabinet, the governor in council, would regulate access to that infrastructure, including enforcing tolls and tariffs. Here we go again. It is another opportunity for the Liberal government to toll, tariff and tax something that is already in place.

Who is going to pay the extra cost of those tolls, tariffs and taxes? The consumer of the energy that has been created will ultimately pay those costs. Have we not learned anything? We have seen the carbon tax get put in place. It drives up the cost of gasoline. It drives up the cost of home heating.

People in the Atlantic provinces are already struggling. All the premiers have asked for the removal of the carbon tax, and even the Liberal MPs from that area are asking for the removal of the carbon tax because it is increasing the cost of everything. It is increasing the cost of food.

They are not just taxing the farmers and putting tariffs on the fertilizer, which is another tariff and another cost that is being passed along, but they are also taxing the transporting of the goods to the processor. There is a carbon tax on the processor. They are shipping it to the grocery store with a carbon tax on that.

At the end of the day, the consumer is paying. When I see clauses such as this saying that the government can enforce tolls and tariffs on the infrastructure, I am concerned for the ultimate consumer because these costs are significant.

If we think about the carbon tax, we know from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the carbon tax is costing, depending on what province one lives in, from $1,500 to $2,500. Then there is the second carbon tax that was put in place, and the cost of that is another $1,800. That one is in every province, even in Quebec, although they are trying to deny that it is.

We talk about extra tariffs on top of that, and Canadians are out of money. The government is out of touch when it comes to understanding that there is no more money that people can pay. They were within $200 of not being able to pay their bills before the pandemic. Now, with the increase of all these taxes, people are borrowing money to live, and some of them have lost their houses and become homeless. People are skipping meals. They cannot afford to eat. Honestly, I am very concerned when I see this kind of language in the bill.

There is also a financial stipulation in the bill. It came with a royal recommendation, which says there is some level of federal funding that is required. An obvious question may be how much the funding is. There is no answer to that. It was not in the budget. It was not in any of the forecasts.

Where is this magic money going to come from? Are we going to run additional deficits? That is inflationary spending. We keep telling the government about this. In fact, the finance minister herself said that it would be pouring fuel on the inflationary fire to have this extra spending, but then we see things such as this, where there is extra spending. It is not even defined how much it would be. That is not going to be an acceptable alternative, as far as I can tell.

I will be clear that Conservatives support the development of renewable resources, but we support those developments without political interference. We do not want the government of the day picking winners and losers and deciding what to shut down based on its ideology. That is not where we want to be. We want to see the free market drive this. There is an opportunity to create jobs, create prosperous industry and do the right thing for the environment. That is what Conservatives want to see.

I do not think this bill is capturing that. I think there is a lot of political interference put into the mechanisms of this bill in ministerial powers, cabinet powers, and tolls and tariffs. There are lots of mechanisms for the government to interfere.

Canadians are struggling, and the government's new draft regulations on clean electricity will push up costs even higher. Reporting from CTV in August indicates, “Electricity infrastructure expenses are expected to increase significantly over the next several decades as maintenance and increased demand is estimated to cost $400 billion”. That is already before we know how much the offshore renewables are going to cost.

I ask members to remember the lesson from Ontario, which was that it drove the price of electricity up so high that we were uncompetitive and people could not pay their power bills. This is not just a lesson from Canada. Germany experienced the same thing. It went heavy on renewables, which drove the cost of everything up. It then went back onto Russian oil and coal. Of course, we refused to take $59 billion to put Germany on low-carbon LNG from Canada, so Australia took that deal. It was the same thing with Japan, which gave us the same offer. Saudi Arabia took that deal.

Gee, I wish we had $120 billion more to put in our health care system so that everyone in this country could have a doctor. That is what I think. All I can say is that those are some of the concerns I have. There are many things in the bill that I do not object to. There are some administrative things that are taken care of. Those are fine.

Do I think we can fix all of this at committee? Call me skeptical, but my experience under this NDP-Liberal coalition is that its members will ram through an agenda to shut down oil and gas, and it does not matter what reasoned amendments the Conservative Party will bring at committee, as they will be refused. They will ramrod it through. They will time allocate it to make sure this thing is rushed through. They will be skimpy on the details and say, “Trust us. We'll get it in the regulations.” I have been here long enough to know that that is not good for Canadians.

Our job here as the official opposition is to point out what is wrong with these bills. It would be so nice if we could be consulted before the thing was written, when it could still be altered, but here we are with something that honestly has way too much political power in it. I do not think it is going to be good for the Atlantic provinces. They do not think it is going to be good for them. They are already crying out against the policies of the government with respect to the carbon tax.

Those are my initial thoughts. I may have more thoughts as we go forward, but I would be happy to take questions.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's closing comments were interesting. We have heard a wide spectrum of support for Bill C-49, not just from the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc in the House, but from provincial entities as well.

The questions I have for the member are about her concern that we are going to have to time allocate this to get it through and that we are going to try to ram through the legislation. Is that to say that the Conservatives have no intention of seeing the bill ultimately go to committee? Is the member already conceding that the Conservatives are going to filibuster this legislation? Why do the Conservatives not believe in at least having the opportunity to see this legislation advance to the committee stage? Why does she insist that the Conservatives have to be time allocated for this bill to ultimately pass?

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

Madam Speaker, I am judging from experience. The behaviour of the past is a predictor of the future. The government continues to time allocate all the time. Am I saying this is not going to committee? No, I am listening to the debate and to what other people are saying, but I am pointing out the things that I think are shortcomings in the bill.

The government says that it is urgent, because we have climate change and it is an emergency. Let us talk about that for a minute. In 2005, our emissions were 732 megatonnes. Every party in this House committed to reduce that 30% by 2030. That means we need to get to 512 megatonnes. Today we are at 819 megatonnes. The government's plan has done nothing. I believe in real action. Using offshore renewables and reducing emissions are good things, but the government cannot be the one pulling the strings and deciding who the winners and who the losers are.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her statements. I find that, oftentimes, the member speaks quite eloquently to her point. I think she is a champion not only for her community but also for conservatism across the country.

I would humbly submit that, in this place, New Democrats have often been consistent in our message that we do have a climate crisis. It is a great day in Parliament when Conservatives speak directly to the climate crisis. In my home province of Alberta, we have seen and continue to see outrageous wildfires that are polluting our air, destroying traditional hunting and harvesting grounds, and changing our environment for the worse. This is harming and scaring our children and the next generation. We spoke about, for example, free market decisions and how the Conservatives' values relate to the free market.

I would like to remind the member that Conservative governments right across this country, in particular in my home province of Alberta, have directly intervened in the free market by way of a moratorium on all renewable projects for six months. Can members imagine the kind of interference that would be? Can they imagine if a government had that kind of power to intervene and stop projects in this way? That is what is happening in Alberta right now. There are 118 renewable energy projects worth $33 billion, including one of the largest renewable energy projects in the country. This is an extreme interference in the free market. Whether it is a pause or a cancellation, it is a direct attack on the free market, which is something the Conservatives often tout as a victory for capitalism in this place. How does the member circle that square when it comes to support for renewable projects and oil projects?

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

Madam Speaker, at the start of the member's question, he talked about all the forest fires. I feel terrible about the impacts of the forest fires in B.C., but I want to point out that 14 years of carbon tax did nothing to help that.

I also want to point out that if we look at the 819 megatonnes of emissions we had this year, 290 megatonnes so far were due to forest fires. The Liberal government said that it was going to spend $500 million to buy more water bomber equipment and train more firefighters to reduce the length of time that these things burn. It has not done that.

Why does the member and his whole NDP team continue to support the government on disastrous policies that are not addressing climate change and are making life more expensive? Why do they not get a divorce?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Sarnia that it is important to distinguish the measures that reduce emissions, or at least provide a break with respect to growing emissions, from the global phenomenon. Overall, Canada's record is one of failure under successive governments to reduce emissions. In Copenhagen, the previous government under Stephen Harper promised to reduce emissions, but it failed to do so; emissions went up. Similarly, in Paris in 2015, the government under the current Prime Minister pledged to reduce emissions, but they have gone up.

The individual use, particularly by the Province of British Columbia, in bringing in place a carbon price initially held emissions and reduced them. That was contaminated by the provincial NDP government when it changed the way our revenue-neutral carbon tax worked in B.C.

However, the global phenomenon of increased emissions and global warming has what is referred to as a feedback loop. This is something the member for Sarnia—Lambton did not identify. Burning forests add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but those burning forests are themselves caused by the carbon dioxide we already added to the atmosphere. One cannot attach that to a policy tool used in one jurisdiction and call it a failure. We really need carbon pricing, and it needs to go up.