Debates of Sept. 19th, 2023

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had to go back and reread what I heard because I am pretty sure I heard the member say that this Liberal government was interested in phasing out the oil and gas sector. Then she said the word “prematurely”. That would suggest to me that she agrees that the phase-out is inevitable or happening, and I just want clarification on that. Does she agree that this is inevitable, despite the fact that she might think it is premature?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is what has been wild about the Liberals over the past eight years: They have tried to speak out of all sides of their mouths. There are NDP and Green voters who fell for the Liberals' empty words on the environment in 2015, although I should not say they fell for it. In good faith, they trusted the Prime Minister and the government to keep their promises. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands did point out the very reasonable concerns that those voters should have with the government.

The Liberal government tries to say it supports pipelines on the one hand, but it brings in anti-energy legislation on the other. It will block renewable energies just the same as traditional energies. The Canadian energy sector should be able to thrive long into the future so we can provide energy affordability, security and self-sufficiency, as well as offer emissions-reducing technologies and products to displace higher-emitting sources around the world.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am especially pleased to rise in the House this morning because I am feeling confident. My party whip complimented me on my perfect hair before I rose to speak, so I am feeling really good about speaking to Bill C-49 this morning.

The Bloc Québécois will take a careful look at the principles of Bill C‑49. It goes without saying that we will want to examine this bill more closely in committee. However, before I get into the nitty-gritty of the bill, I want to mention a few problems that I noticed with it.

The first has to do with provincial jurisdictions. Personally, I would not want the federal government to have control over the management of Canada's natural resources. We know that natural resource management is a provincial responsibility. However, when we look carefully at this bill, we see that, in response to a Supreme Court ruling, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia have agreed that offshore waters fall under federal jurisdiction. There is therefore no breach.

I think it is important to point that out, because the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill on environmental assessments that states that such assessments should fall under Quebec's jurisdiction and that what happens within Quebec's borders should be specifically assessed by Quebec. That is one thing.

I do not think there is any dispute about areas of jurisdiction in this bill. That is also important because my riding is home to the Saguenay waterway, and the federal government published a study that said that traffic on the Saguenay waterway should be restricted. I did not want to end up in a situation where I had to defend something that would go against the legitimate right of Quebec and the provinces to have their jurisdictions respected.

Before moving on to Bill C-49 itself, I would like to go over the context. That is a bit like what the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources did earlier in his speech. He went over the context. This summer, we experienced the worst wildfires in the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean and Abitibi regions. I have colleagues from Abitibi who were affected all summer by this awful situation. They had to support many people in their community.

Wildfires are a symptom of climate change. Droughts are getting longer and more intense and starting earlier. This makes forest conditions ripe for wildfires. To deny that would be heresy, in my view. I say this because I believe public decision-makers have a duty to act responsibly, particularly in the context of the climate crisis. That is the theme that the Bloc Québécois has adopted for this new parliamentary session.

What does acting responsibly in the context of the climate crisis mean? For one thing, it means listening to the science. If someone cannot listen to the science, then at the very least, they should not lie. Politicians should not lie to the population. The people of Alberta should not be led to believe that things can go on as before and that they can keep extracting oil from the oil sands forever. Albertans should not be lied to. Most importantly, Quebeckers should not be lied to.

There is a lie that is being perpetuated. I hear it here every day. It is about the infamous carbon tax. Let me repeat, there is no carbon tax that applies to Quebec. Quebec has its own carbon pricing. The only carbon tax applies to the rest of Canada, and what my Conservative colleagues are referring to is actually a fuel standard. The Conservatives themselves once tried to implement a similar clean fuel standard.

Going back to the context, it should be obvious that we are facing a climate crisis. That climate crisis must be addressed by respecting science and, above all, by not lying. I can promise you, Madam Speaker, that I will not lie.

To give a slightly more detailed picture of the current context, let me remind members how reliant Canada is on fossil fuels. For me, the first thing that comes to mind is that over $30 billion was spent on a pipeline. That is a lot. That is over $30 billion for a piece of infrastructure that will serve the greedy oil and gas industry. I will come back to that later.

Since 2015, I have often heard the Liberal government cite the fight against climate change as an excuse to spend billions of dollars of public money on the pipe dream of making oil sands development cleaner. The government hopes to extend the lifespan of the oil sands.

Now it is telling us that low-carbon oil is on the way. The government is sparing no effort to make it happen. I would simply remind my colleagues of the emissions reduction fund that was created during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was anything but what its name suggested. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that the fund had not reduced emissions after all. I would also refer my colleagues to the emissions reduction fund's $675‑million onshore program, especially with respect to the case at hand.

According to conservative figures from 2022, the federal government provided no less than $20 billion in support to the oil and gas sector, that is, the fossil fuel sector. Subsidies for bogus solutions are being perpetuated in the pursuit of the new fantasy of carbon capture and sequestration strategies. The most recent budget included tax credits for the production of blue hydrogen, which is hydrogen derived from natural gas with carbon sequestration. Several experts have indicated that it is unattainable in these volumes, and yet huge subsidies are still being paid out to the oil and gas sector.

Meanwhile, looking at 2022, since 2023 is not yet over, the figures show that the oil and gas sector posted record profits. In 2022, Exxon recorded record profits of $56 billion, Shell made $40 billion, TotalEnergies made $36 billion, Chevron made $36 billion, and BP made $27 billion, for a total of $220 billion. Why am I sharing those figures? It is because it seems clear to me, and I think it is clear to all my colleagues, that when it comes to energy, Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold and cannot escape the idea of it. No one seems capable of thinking outside the box.

Let us come back to Bill C‑49. I am not saying that the Bloc Québécois is not going to support this bill, but there is still a lot of work to be done. If the government wants to convince us of the merits of Bill C‑49, then it needs to demonstrate that the bill is truly for the benefit of the energy transition. Perhaps we will talk a bit later about the name of the bill we are trying to change. Slogans and changes to the names of organizations are not going to convince the public, who no longer trusts the government to fight climate change. The bill needs to set out a plan to gradually reduce offshore oil and gas production and set an end date to the issuing of permits for new drilling projects.

Generally speaking, if we go back to what is in Bill C‑49, we see that it aims to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. I understand that there are no contentious aspects from a jurisdictional management perspective, but I would say that even though the bill refers to future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely offshore wind energy off Canada's coasts, which is what I was saying to the minister this morning, the fact remains that the primary objective is oil and gas development, which our party has consistently denounced.

It is a bill that talks about clean energy, but what is hidden under this clean energy is still oil and gas development projects. It is not all doom and gloom, however. There are some interesting elements in this bill. However, many issues remain unresolved, particularly with respect to meeting conservation requirements for marine biodiversity, which we can see when we look at the part of the bill that deals the renewable energy development in eastern Canada. The same goes with respect to tightening the rules governing oil and gas development activities, although they should simply no longer exist.

I see that the stated purpose of offshore wind power development is to produce hydrogen for export. Is that an attempt to soften the current narrative around hydrogen? The fact remains that the Government of Canada's strategy on hydrogen is to produce gas-based hydrogen. At the end of the day, the amount that would be produced from wind power is negligible compared to the targeted production amounts for blue hydrogen.

I know that the minister does not like talking about colours when it comes to hydrogen. However, blue hydrogen requires a carbon capture technology that is not quite ready and the government is investing a lot of money in that.

My party and I believe that, in the context of the energy transition, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector should decline quickly. The non-renewable energy sector's decline may well be an area that requires further clarification in the bill.

We therefore do not think that any new offshore oil and gas export or development project should be permitted, regardless of the specific conditions associated with it. As a friendly reminder to my friends in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, the path that Quebec is currently taking could quite possibly start a trend in the maritime provinces and Canada. We all know that 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 production of petroleum and brine. The act also seeks to eliminate public funding for these activities.

Within the limits of its jurisdiction and in light of the current climate crisis, a responsible government could therefore decide to end oil and gas development. It has been done before. A nation did it before, and that nation was Quebec. The federal government followed our example on child care. I would urge it to do the same thing today on this file—and 20 years down the road maybe it could follow Quebec's example again, but on secularism. I digress. Still, Quebec deserves special mention as the first North American state to ban oil and gas exploration in its territory.

As we mentioned multiple times, the government of Canada has failed in its duty to protect ecosystems. Not a week, not even a day, goes by without my colleagues questioning the Minister of Environment about that. The minister did indeed fail in his duty: He authorized dozens of new drilling projects in environmentally sensitive areas, including marine refuges. We spoke out about this before the summer break.

Everybody knows as well as I do that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government supported the development of the offshore oil industry and authorized drilling projects in the very marine refuge it had created.

I want to talk about a double standard that I have seen emerging. There was a threat to the entire forestry sector in Quebec over the caribou issue. On numerous occasions, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said that he was considering issuing a decree to ensure that caribou were better protected. At the same time, in those same weeks, he was prepared to approve offshore drilling.

That seems to me to be a double standard for two natural resource sectors. When it comes to the oil and gas sector, wildlife protection is not even on the government's radar. However, when it came to Quebec's forestry industry, the minister was ready to pounce, prepared to say he would issue a decree. In the end, the only thing that made him back down, strange as it may seem, was the forest fires. The double standards are pretty clear.

On this point, in the specific case of offshore development, the Minister of Environment absolved himself of responsibility by arguing on multiple occasions that the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board was an independent body.

That is what was convenient for him, since it allowed him to justify his inaction, even though the board exists under an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the federal government is responsible for conducting environmental impact assessments and 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, our party speaks out against this process because its objective runs contrary to the objectives of protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change.

The boards and the Department of Natural Resources are responsible for both regulating the industry and fostering its development, which is totally incongruous. I am sure everyone would agree that these are two contradictory goals. As indicated on the department's website, their role is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources. I hope that this problem will be corrected in this bill and that it will not prevent the development of renewable energy.

Now I would like to draw the attention of the House to the following. I have pointed out an inconsistency to my colleague the minister regarding the greenwashing in this bill. On reading this bill I wondered why they would add the expression “clean energy”. I asked the minister earlier which development this was referring to here. Of course there is going to be wind power projects, but the development at hand here is primarily oil and gas development. Why add the expression “clean energy”? The federal government uses that expression everywhere. Oil is not and never will be a clean energy. It is a purely Canadian fantasy.

My party—and I hope the same goes for the NDP and for all the other parties—is not fooled by the name changes in the two acts in question. To me, removing the word “petroleum” is greenwashing. They remove the word “petroleum” at the very moment that Ottawa and Newfoundland have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year, which would require 100 new drilling projects by 2030.

As we often say, the Liberals do not walk the talk. That much is obvious. If their goal is to have more clean energy projects, all I can say is that what the government is doing behind the scenes could not be further from that. By now, we are used to all this greenwashing language. The Prime Minister and his friend the Minister of Natural Resources have truly mastered that craft.

What I like about the Conservatives is that we know what to expect from them. They are proud, enthusiastic even, to act as lobbyists for the oil and gas sector.

In the Liberal ranks, however, under the guise of reducing the impact of the oil and gas sector's greenhouse gas emissions, they use other strategies: they want to produce net-zero oil using a bunch of new, extremely expensive technologies. Nevertheless, the goal remains the same: to support the oil and gas sector.

I will end on a positive note. This bill is not all bad. It contains elements to regulate the development of renewable energy, but those too will need to be looked at carefully in committee.

We also believe that environmental impact assessments should be the responsibility of independent public organizations whose mission does not include any other responsibilities or objectives. In that regard, we believe that the federal and provincial governments could be guided by Quebec's environmental legislation.

Finally, if the government wants the Bloc Québécois to support Bill C‑49, then it must show that this bill serves the energy transition.

On that point, I want to emphasize that it is futile for the government to argue that all the companies are doing is exploratory drilling because everyone knows that the purpose of such drilling is development. No company spends tens of millions of dollars to carry out exploratory drilling when they have no intention of developing the resources—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. He can continue his speech during questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and to the Minister of Official Languages]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech today and for his work on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. I would also like to thank him for all the work he is doing on renewable energy. I would even go so far as to say that he is a clean energy champion in his riding and in Quebec.

At the start of his speech, he talked about provincial jurisdictions. We have worked and negotiated hard with Premier Houston of Nova Scotia and also with Premier Furey of Newfoundland and Labrador, who support Bill C‑49.

We heard earlier that the Conservatives will not support the premiers. Further to the intervention by my Bloc Québécois colleague, I would like to know if his party will support Bill C‑49 because the premiers of both provinces support it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my speech, respect for jurisdictions may not actually be an issue here. Given that the provincial premiers were willing parties to those discussions, I do not see this as an issue.

While I do want everyone to bear in mind that natural resource development is under provincial jurisdiction, that is not an obstacle in this case.

I would not say that the Bloc Québécois will never support this bill, but the reason we have trouble supporting it is that I get the sense that, once again, some people are trying to promote oil and gas development. They label it “clean energy”. In this particular case, the end goal is to promote the oil sector.

The thing is, the goal should actually be to cut back on development. That is the problem with Bill C‑49.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused, and maybe my hon. colleague can help me understand. It takes 80 gallons of oil to lubricate one windmill, and he spoke about the wind turbine. There are 2,212 turbines in Quebec, which require 176,960 gallons of oil. This report came in August 14 of this year from Radio Canada.

The thing that I am trying to understand is that if we are worried about the environment and we want to be environmentally friendly, what happens to those windmills? Their lifespan is 20 years, and they are not recyclable. Could he explain that to me?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in discussions about the oil and gas sector and the fact that we have to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, I always get a laugh out of Conservative members who talk about clean energy sources that rely on petroleum products.

I just want to point out that oil sands oil is the dirtiest oil in the world. When we invest energy and money in those resources, which are used by Albertans and all Canadians, we cannot invest those resources in renewable energy.

We have to stop clinging to the illusion of clean oil and liberate ourselves from oil and gas. That is what every country wants to do. We have to stop talking about things that are not backed up by science and making up facts such as, say, there is a carbon tax in Quebec. That is not true; it is a lie.

Politicians who say things like that discredit themselves.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is no secret to anyone that we are in a very serious climate emergency, and I am sure people across Canada sent thoughts and prayers to Atlantic Canadians as they experienced some of the worst environmental crises and damage as a result of the climate crisis. While all of this has gone on, although we see a bill today, the Liberals have sat on their hands while the country burns and we see record floods, and the Conservatives have not been willing to move toward a real and aggressive plan for renewable energies.

I am wondering if my colleague agrees with me that the Liberal government needs to act more quickly if we are going to tackle this climate crisis head-on.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

I would point out to my colleague that, in fact, the NDP has the ability to force the government to act quickly given the agreement it has with the Liberal government. I very much welcome the possibility of the NDP using the same proposal as the Bloc Québécois. In order to support this bill, we need to see a plan to gradually reduce fossil fuel production. It would be great to see an amendment along those lines. The NDP could support it and use its agreement with the government to push this idea of reducing our dependence on oil and, more importantly, reducing the horrific pressure we are all experiencing as a result of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

I completely agree with my colleague. I invite her to take action and move in that direction.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start with a brief comment on breaking news. I know that many people are horrified and have been contacting me about the aggression we are seeing by Azerbaijan against Nagorno-Karabakh. It appears it is launching an aggressive war of choice, calling it a “military operation” and taking a page out of Russia's playbook in the process. I hope Canada takes a firm stand for peace by opposing this aggression.

I want to follow up on a comment my colleague made about how allegedly we are trapped by oil. I, of course, reject that framing. I want to point out that his province, Quebec, receives transfer payments that are funded by energy production. I wonder if he wants to tell us how he feels about that and address whether Quebec should maybe reject transfer payments that owe their origin to the production of oil and gas.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I love that question; it comes up a lot.

I would simply point out to my colleague that more than $30 billion, some of it from Quebec, has been poured into infrastructure that Quebeckers will never use. In 2022, if I am not mistaken, the oil and gas industry received $20 billion from the federal government for a sector of activity that will never serve Quebec. The balance of trade between Quebec and Alberta equals a loss of approximately $2 billion to $3 billion. Just send it back to us; that would make us very happy. Once we finish with the electrification of transportation, we would be quite happy to get that money back.

Equalization gets blamed for a lot of things. Once we are sovereign, we will be even better off.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on Bill C‑49.

Staying on the topic of forest fires, I would like to point out that the northern area of my riding, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, lost 3.6 million hectares to the fires. Until now, the impact of climate change has been constant. The forest fires caused us tremendous economic, social and workforce losses. For an idea of the scope of the fires and the losses they caused us, members should keep in mind that my riding is three times the size of France.

Can my colleague tell us whether this bill will reduce the impact of greenhouse gases on the environment or reduce greenhouse gases from oil and gas?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work done by my colleague this summer to support her constituents in the wake of the forest fires.

I will reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. A number of stakeholders have said this summer that what we are experiencing is a symptom of climate change. It is happening right now. A number of stakeholders have told us that the effects of climate change will begin in the summer of 2023.

I cannot fathom how anyone can keep saying that they want more oil, and that anything that works against the oil and gas sector should be considered an obstacle. That is what the Conservatives do every day when they talk about the carbon tax. They are trying to tie the challenges facing the poorest people when it comes to paying for housing, clothing and food with what the Conservatives see as a disadvantage for the oil and gas sector.

The greedy oil and gas companies made $220 billion last year. The Conservative Party is defending them on the pretext that this will help ordinary people who are having a hard time putting a roof over their heads and food on the table. I have never heard such deep-seated populist rhetoric in my life. Anyone who looks back on this in a decade or so will likely blush.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly proud to rise on behalf of the people of Timmins—James Bay to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. It would make sure that we can finally embed the issue of getting renewables in wind energy development off of the east coast of Canada.

I want to begin by saying that I extend my deepest concern in solidarity with the people of Atlantic Canada, who have just come through the devastation of hurricane Lee. I was supposed to be in Lunenburg this past weekend. It was the second year in a row that I had attempted to be at the Lunenburg writers festival, both years with planes booked and hotels all set. Last year it was the devastation of hurricane Fiona that shut down the writers festival, with a cost of $800 million in damages for the people of the region. I was invited to come again this year, and then we had hurricane Lee.

What we are seeing is the climate crisis up close. It used to be that hurricanes were spread out over many, many years. Now we are starting to see them regularly, and they are moving further north as we are seeing an increasingly destabilized climate.

This past summer, 200,000 Canadians were displaced by climate catastrophe. Some communities were almost lost, from Kelowna to Yellowknife to Halifax to my region of Kashechewan and Fort Albany in the James Bay subarctic. Fires in the subarctic of James Bay are almost unheard of. As we were scrambling to try to get Hercules aircraft up to get people out of the fire zones, people had to put their families in canoes to stay ahead of the fire. All through this time, of course, the leader of the Conservative Party was running his tour to make pollution free across Canada. In fact, he had to cancel a number of his events because people were being chased out by the toxic fumes of a climate catastrophe.

How do the fires in James Bay, what we just saw in the Arctic and the almost toxic levels of air quality we have seen for the last number of weeks in Edmonton tie into the crisis being faced in Atlantic Canada? The scientists who are monitoring the collapse of the Greenland ice shelves have noticed a very disturbing trend. Soot from fires that is landing on the ice shelves draws heat because it is dark, and ice normally is reflective of the sun. However, the more soot that falls on the Greenland ice shelves, the quicker the disintegration of those ice shelves has become. That is causing increasingly destabilized waters in the Atlantic.

When 14 million hectares of Canadian forest burn in a single summer, we can see that we are at an environmental tipping point. It needs to be said clearly and simply that the cause of this collapse is the burning of fossil fuels. The oil industry bears responsibility. It knows that and it has known that for decades.

In the early 1980s, Exxon produced some of the best scientific evidence showing that a climate catastrophe would unfold if the diminution of the use of fossil fuels was not implemented immediately. In fact, in 1982, we had a memo from Exxon Mobil warning that if steps were not taken, the damage would not be reversible. Unfortunately, this is what our country and our planet are living through now. Exxon and the other oil players decided to suppress evidence and in fact spent millions on a disinformation campaign falsifying what was very straightforward science saying that the more carbon that is put into the atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped, and the more heat that is trapped, the more the temperature changes and the more the planet destabilizes.

It is therefore really important that we address this crisis straight on. We have to address it with a sense of urgency. There is an urgent need for the government to start moving quickly on addressing this. There is a need to urgently hold the big oil companies to account.

We know that this past summer, Rich Kruger, the CEO of Suncor, said the only urgency facing his company was to make as much money as possible. This is at a time when it is making record profits, yet he sees the urgency of burning more of our planet quicker in order to pay shareholders, most of whom live offshore.

However, there is an impact to that that is not just about this year, next year or 10 years from now. Scientist David Archer states, “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge...longer than nuclear waste, far longer than the age of human civilization so far.” That is the cavalier attitude of those who are promoting the expansion of big oil to not just the world we have today, but the world that our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren will have to live with. It makes no economic sense whatsoever.

I will refer to last week's really interesting report by the International Energy Agency, hardly a left-wing think tank, that warned we are at “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”. It says that since the war in Ukraine, there has been a massive push in Europe to increase clean energy so that they get off Russian oil and gas. The Biden administration's IRA has launched a huge clean energy transformation, something that is not being picked up in Canada. In fact, Danielle Smith has just spiked investments by $33 billion and has shut down numerous projects out of the ideology she has that clean energy is somehow a threat to oil and gas in Alberta, even though thousands of jobs would be created. In fact, Calgary Economic Development says Alberta alone stands to gain 170,000 jobs from clean energy development. Unfortunately, we have a premier who believes the world is flat. It is not flat; it is burning.

To the International Energy Agency's comment that “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era” is here, Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency says, “We are witnessing the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era and we have to prepare ourselves for the next era.” I am hoping that this legislation to update the accords with Atlantic Canada to increase offshore oil will be part of that process. Birol says, “Oil and gas companies may not only be misjudging public opinion...they may well be misjudging the market if they expect further growth of oil and gas demand across this decade. New large-scale fossil fuel projects carry not only major climate risks but major financial risks.”

Canada as a petrostate needs to get very serious very quickly about the diversification of energy, not just to deal with the fact that our northern boreal forest is on fire and our communities on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts are facing more and more climate urgency, but to deal with the fact that our economy needs to shift so that we do not lose the competitive advantage. It is a competitive advantage that is being taken very much by our colleagues and neighbours in the United States.

Why is it urgent to move on Bill C-49? Until now, the Liberal government has talked a good game on the climate crisis, but it has not really delivered. It made numerous promises in the fall economic statement and in the budget about clean energy tax credits, but those clean energy tax credits have to come into force very quickly. Again, as we have seen in the United States, there are huge opportunities and huge investments are being made.

As McCarthy Tétrault notes:

Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic Accord Acts by notably establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces and their offshore areas. Bill C-49 also expands regulation of current petroleum projects and clarifies jurisdictional rules regarding domestic and internal sea boundaries.

As this also includes petroleum, we have to get a really clear sense as New Democrats of how much the government is going to hold petroleum exploration to account. As the International Energy Agency says, we cannot allow more development of the energy that is burning our planet. The Liberals will have to be clear with us on this.

We really need to catch up with the United States. My colleagues in the Conservative Party seem to think that clean energy projects are some kind of ridiculous, outrageous attack on the 20th century, where they are very comfortable living. We have seen the Conservatives' attack on the investments in the battery plants being put in the auto sector, while huge amounts of investment are happening in the United States. We see their attacks on wind energy, relentless attacks, as though it is some kind of threat, particularly the members coming from Alberta, where we have 170,000 abandoned wells spewing toxic stuff all over farmlands.

Look at what is happening in the United States off the Atlantic coast right now. One wind farm off Rhode Island is going to create energy for 250,000 homes. There are 27 major projects on track to be completed by 2025 in the United States on the east coast. The Vineyard Wind project will create power for 400,000 homes. Canada is no where near this.

The Maritimes, with its huge energy costs, has an opportunity to step up right now, create thousands of jobs and dramatically lower the energy costs people face. This is why we need to move quickly on this.

The other huge opportunity we have is hydrogen, and getting a strong hydrogen economy off the ground is essential.

This past November, I was in Berlin. We had excellent meetings with various ministers. I met with Chancellor Olaf Scholz. The question the Germans asked of us was whether we could deliver them a hydrogen economy. That is what they were interested in from Canada.

My Conservative colleagues have always gone on about how Canada should be selling its LNG to Germany and Europe. They said to us very clearly that they were not interested in Canadian LNG, because by the time we could actually build a pipeline, they would be off that energy. They wanted a hydrogen economy. However, hydrogen is something the Conservatives do not believe in because it does not burn the planet. They think it is some kind of threat.

The Germans are a major industrial economy. They want to know if Canada will partner. When I met with Chancellor Scholz, I told him about the huge potential for hydrogen in Alberta. Now that we have Danielle Smith and her stagecoach to nowhere sitting out on the dead prairie grass, the Germans will not be going to Alberta if she does not get her act together. However, they will go to Atlantic Canada, and Atlantic Canada has a huge opportunity right now.

In Alberta, we saw $33 billion in clean energy projects spiked out of ideology. Again, this is because the Conservatives believe the world is flat.

Let us compare this to the Calgary economic development study that predicted 170,000 jobs in Alberta alone from a clean energy economy. I meet with Alberta energy workers all the time. Those workers want a clean energy economy. They know what is happening in big oil.

Big oil has fired 50,000 people in the oil patch in the last 10 years. Suncor got rid of 1,500 jobs this year alone. Rich Kruger is bragging he is going after work; they are moving toward automation. There is nothing in this for workers, but where the opportunities are going to be is in clean energy. We need to move beyond ideology. We need to address the economic issues and opportunities, because this investment is going stateside in a big way.

I talk with people in energy and mining sector all the time. They are saying that they we need to get a tax credit program up quickly, that the Americans are moving forward on that. How fast are the Americans moving? Since Biden moved forward on a clean energy vision, there has been $240 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investment in the United States. The private sector in the United States has over $110 billion in the clean energy manufacturing investments, $70 billion in electric vehicle supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing.

Let us just talk about the electric vehicle supply chain for a moment. The Conservatives have been regularly attacking EV investments to keep our auto sector competitive. If we do not play in this field, it goes stateside, and the states are very willing to get this. It will have a huge impact in regions like mine, which is based on mining. They are looking at the opportunities of the base metal and clean energy critical minerals supply chain in which Canada could be a leader. We can do this, but we need to move quickly. We need to get the regulations in place to make these things happen. These are huge projects.

In Scotland, where North Sea oil is continuing to diminish, the huge offshore wind projects in Aberdeen have been transformative. We have not seen that in Canada. Therefore, we need to move on that.

As for what we see in the United States on the Inflation Reduction Act, it is expected that there will be 1.5 million additional jobs over the next decade based on clean-energy jobs. That is a huge transformation. However, here is the other element that is really fascinating. When the Biden plan came into place, there were a lot of skeptics. It was hard to tell whether this would work or not, but he brought a whole-of-government approach, something that the Liberal government has not done. At every level, the U.S. is focused on making this happen. They are saying now that with the Biden investments, the clean-energy takeoff that has happened, they are going to see 50% to 52% below current emissions by 2030.

The environment commissioner says that the Liberal government's promises to get to 40% below is still very much pie in the sky, very unrealistic, because the Liberals have missed every single climate target they have made. This is a problem with the Prime Minister going to COP26, standing on the world stage and making big, bold pronouncements, but not actually having done the work.

For example, when he announced the emissions cap, the Liberals did not talk to anybody here about what that emissions cap would look like. They went to COP26, made an announcement of an emissions cap and then did not follow through. The Liberals are going to have to follow through on the emissions cap now, because what we are seeing from the walk-away of the big oil companies in the Pathways Alliance is the lack of investment in clean tech, the fact that Suncor has walked away and divested itself through its clean energy projects and that it wants to vastly increase oil and gas production. The emissions cap has to happen and the government needs to get serious about this.

There is another interesting element for why we need to ensure that we get these regulations and tax credits and update our act so we can actually compete with the United States. In the United States, American families are projected to save between $27 billion to $38 billion on their electricity bills from 2022 to 2030 relative to a scenario if they did not have that act. The other thing we have learned about clean energy is that it is much cheaper to produce than gas or oil right now. That is why we are seeing this movement, where the International Energy Agency says that we have reached the economic tipping point. Is Canada going to continue to live in the 20th century or is it going to embrace the realities and the crises of the 21st century, not only the realities of a burning planet and destabilized weather systems that we have to address but also the opportunities to dramatically decarbonize?

The other element we need to really focus on is who is going to pay the cost for the huge damages that are being done to our planet right now, the billions in damages to communities and provinces from these unprecedented wildfires. We were so lucky and thankful that we did not lose communities this summer. We have seen a lot of damage, but we realize that we do not have the capacity anymore to deal with the kinds of fires we are seeing that easily could have taken out Kelowna, Yellowknife and communities in my region. We have to start addressing fires in a new and different way.

Growing up in northern Ontario, firefighting in the summer was a summer job before going to college or coming home from college. We need to talk at the national level. My colleague from the Kootenays has put forward a vision of the need to have a national program, but also who will fund this.

We see that Suncor made $70 billion in profits in two years. Those profits should be put into a fund for the damages that are caused by Suncor's actions. Who takes the risk when fossil fuels are burned? Ordinary Canadians and citizens around the world. If the shareholders are to make a profit, the people who really have a stake in this crisis should be able to get some recompense.

The New Democrats will be supporting this bill. We have a number of questions we want clarified at committee, and we will be more than willing to work to make this happen. We need to move quickly and decisively in the face climate crisis, but also for the opportunities we see.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, given that the anti-energy, anti-private sector, anti-resource development costly coalition of the left continues to mis-characterize the position of the Conservatives, let me just say this again. We support innovation and the development of new energy sources, which obviously help diversify Canada's energy mix and create new opportunities and reduce emissions globally.

Here is a crucial point, and it is relevant to the member's comments. The Conservatives want to attract private sector investment that will spur the development and the affordable and feasible adoption of alternative energy and the fuels of the future, instead of putting taxpayers on the hook or losing innovation and investment in the valley of death between invention and commercialization in Canada. It makes no difference and it is not in good faith to tell Canadians a bunch of things that are not possible.

The Conservatives recognize this reality. Oil and gas remains the top private sector investor in the Canadian economy, Canada's top export. It also counts for 75% of private sector investment in clean tech. That is why the Conservatives take an approach of the development and advancement of all kinds of energy, because all of this innovation technology fits together.

Given all of the concerns that the member has raised, since he seems more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable instead of the Prime Minister, could he just explain how he rationalizes being the power broking prop-up to the federal Liberal government despite all his complaints and crises about which he is apparently outraged?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue about private sector investment was very clearly stated. How are we going to have private sector investment in the clean tech economy when we have someone like Danielle Smith, who is part and parcel of the Conservative movement that is over there, shutting down clean energy and telling them to go to the United States?

How can the Conservatives believe that they can talk about private sector development when they are shunting billions of dollars of investment to the United States because of the ideology that if it does not burn the planet, it is not good for us?

That is a false view and we have to challenge it. Private sector investment will only come if we have the regulations and the support in place for a clean energy economy.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed some of the exchanges that I have heard from Conservatives in the last half hour.

The previous MP to speak specifically talked about the Conservatives being willing and open and saw the need for change and transition, and for growing out all sectors of the energy opportunities in Canada. However, moments before that, the member for King—Vaughan stood up and complained that it took 80 gallons of oil to lubricate a single windmill.

The red herrings that those members seem to throw up in the air, as if that is going to suddenly justify stopping all investment in renewable energy, seem to be countless.

Could the member for Timmins—James Bay comment on the hypocrisy we seem to hear from Conservatives from time to time.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that there are huge opportunities. It is like my colleagues over there are defiantly against the cellphone because they believe the typewriter is going to come back. The difference is that the typewriter is not killing the planet; big oil is. They can pound on their typewriters all they want and scream at the moon. The reality is that when we meet with energy workers in Alberta, which I do all the time, they say that they get it, that they want investment, that wind power needs metals like aluminum. It actually creates jobs in the value chain.

The Conservatives are out to ridicule and undermine the creation of one of Canada's main industries, which is auto. They do not want a proper EV battery operation to get off the ground. They want us stuck in the 20th century. They want us to think the world is flat. They want us to think that vaccines do not work. Meanwhile, the planet is burning.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, moving toward renewable energies is a path forward that we must consider. However, we must also think about workers' rights. Sometimes the devil is in the details.

Subsection 25(4.2) on page 16 stipulates that any person employed by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board is not subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Does my colleague agree with that? Is this something we should amend, or at least clarify? Why should these workers not be protected by the Canada Labour Code?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. We need to make sure that, whenever we go forward on anything with respect to clean energy, the rights of workers are protected and they are fully covered. We will certainly be looking at that.

We spoke with the Liberals again and again about how the clean energy tax credits have to be tied to apprenticeships and standard wage rates, so we are not creating McJobs but actually creating well-paying union jobs. That is Biden's commitment in the United States and needs to be the commitment here, and we will continue to push. I am certainly willing to work with the Bloc on this to make sure that it is clarified in the legislation.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, this summer we saw the ravages of the impacts of climate change. They were quite devastating, not just in Canada but all over the world. This means that we need to start acting now; I think this is why the NDP supports Bill C-49.

It is not that we are propping up the Liberal government on this bill; rather, we have our own sets of priorities, such as combatting the climate crisis. Could the member comment on this and clearly describe why we support Bill C-49?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are at an unprecedented moment in our history as a people. The decisions we make now will affect one, two, seven or 10 generations ahead. We cannot be cavalier about this and engage in petty politics. We need to ask what we can do to make a difference. We have to do that. We have to take seriously the fact that the planet is on fire and that fire is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The most vulnerable regions on the planet are the ones taking the biggest hit, whether it be in the South Pacific or even in the region my colleague represents. Those communities did not cause this problem, but they are living with the consequences and looking to us to make a difference.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to take this member seriously. In one breath he says that we should not engage in petty politics; in another, he says that people who disagree with him are flat-earthers.

Listening to this member speak, it is also clear that he is more interested in holding Danielle Smith accountable than in holding the Prime Minister of Canada accountable in this chamber. That is because New Democrats have negotiated a deal with the Liberals whereby they vote for every single significant proposal the Liberals put forward but still want to be able to criticize them for electoral reasons. However, they are here every time, voting with and supporting the agenda of the government.

I can say that these policies are not popular in the member's home riding, which is why our leader has been so warmly received in his riding. Maybe the member is preparing for a political future where he will run for the legislature in Alberta. I would certainly welcome him to come to my constituency and do that. However, he is also very clearly misstating the Conservative position. Our position is that the red tape the Liberals are constantly piling on industry is as much a problem for green energy as it is for traditional sources of energy. Moreover, the Liberals are not helping any aspect of our economy with such measures as Bill C-69, which make it harder for any industry to create projects and jobs. The real problem is gatekeeping across the board, including the way it negatively impacts the green energy sector.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a bill about cutting red tape. However, the Conservatives are going to lose their minds over that because it is about creating clean energy opportunities, which they have spoken out against continually. They may not want to admit it, but those are the facts. Therefore, when I say “flat earth”, as Bob Marley would say, if the cap fits, let them wear it.