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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to, among other things,
(a) change their titles to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation and Offshore Renewable Energy Management Act , respectively;
(b) change the names of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator and the Canada–Nova Scotia Offshore Energy Regulator, respectively (“the Regulators”);
(c) establish the Regulators as the regulating bodies for offshore renewable energy projects;
(d) establish a land tenure regime for the issuance of submerged land licences to carry out offshore renewable energy projects, as well as the revenues regime associated with those licences and projects;
(e) establish a ministerial decision-making process respecting the issuance of submerged land licences and the Regulators’ exercise of certain powers or performance of certain duties;
(f) expand the application of the safety and environmental protection regime and its enforcement powers to include offshore renewable energy projects;
(g) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection;
(h) authorize negotiations for the surrender of an interest, the cancellation of an interest if negotiations fail and the granting of compensation to an interest owner for the surrender or cancellation;
(i) establish the regulatory and liability regime for abandoned facilities relating to petroleum-related works or activities or offshore renewable energy projects;
(j) expand the application of the occupational health and safety regime to offshore renewable energy projects;
(k) allow the federal or provincial governments to unilaterally fund certain expenses incurred by the Regulators as a result of specific requests made by that government;
(l) allow new methods to demonstrate the existence of significant hydrocarbon accumulations in a geological feature and limit the duration of future significant discovery licences to 25 years;
(m) provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs;
(n) establish a new transboundary hydrocarbon management regime to regulate fields or pools that straddle domestic and international administrative boundaries, enabling the implementation of the Canada-France transboundary fields agreement;
(o) remove references to the former Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and, to align with the Impact Assessment Act , clarify the role of the Federal and Provincial Ministers and Regulators with respect to the conduct of impact assessments of designated projects as well as regional and strategic assessments; and
(p) specify that the Crown may rely on the Regulators for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada and that the Regulators may accommodate adverse impacts to existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 .
Finally, it makes consequential and terminological amendments to other Acts.

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

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am, of course, a replacement on this committee, but I believe Mr. Beaulieu is also fond of history in certain contexts. My history is very important to establish my ties to the French language and to Nova Scotia. But I'll return to the topic very soon.

After the American War of Independence, the first Blois to come to North America, whose name was Abraham, was given a tract of land in Nova Scotia, in the Kejimkujik Valley. The Blois family name is usually not very common, but there are many people in Nova Scotia with that name. I felt it was necessary to repeat that to ensure that all the details had been heard by the committee.

I'm returning now to Mrs. Stubbs, because I've established a link to this motion, which may initially have been introduced by Mr. Godin, but which is now in the name of Mr. Beaulieu. It's a personal attack, an argument, and it's not constructive. When parliamentarians were studying Bill C-49 in the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the manner in which Conservatives were commenting on the bill was rather offensive to me, a Nova Scotia member of Parliament. Premier Houston was in favour of this bill, as was Premier Furey.

If Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Godin and possibly the majority of MPs got what they wanted in this motion, it would create a very dangerous precedent. I might even visit the natural resources committee to demand Ms. Stubbs' resignation, in view of the problems caused to people from the Atlantic provinces.

I fully understand that the attitude towards the issue of Quebec culture and the French language in the North American context is very different from the manner in which the objectives and economic aspirations of people in the Atlantic provinces are perceived. It may well lie at a different level, but the principle is the same.

I want to draw something else to the attention of my Conservative colleagues. They may remember how Mrs. Thomas, the Conservative Party spokesperson on heritage, reacted when journalist Laurence Martin asked her if she believed the public broadcaster was important, and she froze like a deer in the headlights. She looked as if she was in shock. She was frozen for about 20 seconds, I'd say, before answering. It's dangerous, given how important the CBC is to all of Canada's francophone communities, and to Quebec in particular. It's incredible that it took her 20 seconds before she was able to answer.

It might be a good idea for the whole group to leave the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and introduce a motion demanding Ms. Thomas's resignation from the committee, in view of her highly offensive attitude. Given this context, Mr. Poilievre should perhaps ask himself whether Ms. Thomas is still a good choice for the position of Conservative Party spokesperson on heritage.

The public broadcaster is important to francophone communities, of course, but also to anglophone communities.

But I'm getting back to the context of this committee. We are in the era of algorithms and artificial intelligence. According to the conclusions of a report published by a political institution, the greatest threat we will face within three, four or five years, is the fact that it will become impossible for people to understand what's true and what's false. It's precisely for that reason that it is essential to reinvest in the public broadcaster.

Once again, I would ask my colleagues in the NDP, the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party to consider the precedent that would be established, because there would be other opportunities to use tools of that kind in the wrong context to attack other parliamentary colleagues. That's something else to take into consideration.

I'd like to say something about the CBC. I'll explain why it's important to me. When I'm in Ottawa for my work, it's very easy to find news and information, but when I'm back at home in Nova Scotia, it's difficult. It's hard to find people to talk to in French, of course, but also hard to get information. But then there's the CBC, and I can listen to it in my car when I'm driving between my office and home.

I think that's something that needs to be considered. However, here we are again today debating this motion for yet another day, a motion that constitutes a personal attack on my colleague. It's a complete waste of parliamentary time. It gives me a good opportunity to discuss various important matters, but it's important for my colleagues sitting here to consider the context of other work that is important for our stakeholders.

I'm returning to the CBC issue by talking to you about the Congrès mondial acadien. You, Mr. Chair, are of course a very proud Acadian. I'd like to congratulate you on your work. I'm one of your colleagues in the Atlantic Liberal caucus. You no doubt remember when Mr. Cormier, you, I and others had to draft a letter to the president and chief executive officer of the CBC, Catherine Tait. It was tough. Thank you for having done that. It was very important for our entire region, but in particular for your riding. It was unbelievable. It was about the Congrès mondial acadien. Contrary to what had been initially decided, the CBC will now showcase the event's activities. I think it will be in Yarmouth, in our colleague Mr. d'Entremont's riding. That's a clear illustration of the need to promote and encourage the French language beyond Quebec. It's important in Quebec, to be sure, but it's important in our region too.

I wanted to provide this perspective to all my colleagues, here on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Once again, I don't want to repeat certain points of view that I presented on Thursday morning, but just add some clarity.

This goes back to something Ms. Kusie said. When I was explaining the history of Grand-Pré, several microphones were open at the same time and there was some noise. For the benefit of all Canadians tuned into our meeting online or on the parliamentary television channel, I'd like to point out that Grand-Pré is a very nice place. It's historically important for francophone communities.

In fact, I need to make a minor correction. I gave some details about the Acadian experience. Needless to say, the Congrès mondial acadien is important. When I was talking about the order from the Crown in 1755 to deport the Acadians, Ms. Kusie said:

“Oh, the Planters”.

I don't think Ms. Kusie had any ill intent. I think it was just a mistake. I wasn't in fact talking about the Planters. The Planters were people loyal to the Crown who lived in the United States. After the Seven Years' War, they were invited by the Crown to come and settle vacant land, with the Loyalists.

In my riding, there are names like St. Croix and Grand-Pré, which are old names from the francophone community. However, the Planters came after the Acadians, and it's a touchy subject for Acadian communities.

I'd like to raise another point. Mr. Beaulieu will be pleased to hear that I agree with the Bloc Québécois on at least one thing. The order to deport the Acadians was given at Fort Edward, which is today a national historic site administered by Parks Canada in Windsor, in my riding. Mr. Stéphane Bergeron wrote a letter to Minister Guilbeault, the minister responsible for Parks Canada, to encourage him to increase funding to enhance the exhibitions and other activities at Fort Edward. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Bergeron on that score. I'd also like to thank the Bloc Québécois for encouraging investment in Nova Scotia. It's very important, particularly for maintaining our ties with the French language. I'll ask Mr. Beaulieu to thank Mr. Bergeron on my behalf.

In 2012, I played fast pitch softball in Dominique Vien's riding. I'd like to explain the connection between my participation in the Canadian championship and the importance of investing in entirely francophone towns and regions. In Bellechasse, approximately 99% of people are francophone. I wouldn't want to forget mentioning certain very important people in this account. First of all, I'd like to talk about Mr. Jean Roy, the principal of the high school in Saint-Gervais. He's very likeable. He was a pitcher. His son, Mathieu Roy, is the only player from Quebec on Canada's national softball team. I wanted to make sure that Mathieu Roy's name was written into the story.

Because of the motion introduced by Mr. Beaulieu and the amendment proposed by Mr. Samson, it's impossible to begin any other work that our committee needs to do. Nor can we continue our study of the importance of francophone high schools and French-language universities. That's awful.

I'm going to give you more background. The motion directly mentions Quebec, but the Standing Committee on Official Languages has a very important role to play for people outside of Quebec. It's very important for the federal government to take the initiative to assist and encourage people in francophone communities, and for it to provide money and resources, but it's equally important for it to help anglophones who want to improve their French language skills.

I'm going to tell you about my own story. I attended Hants East Rural High, a small secondary school located in Milford Station, a rural region of Nova Scotia. There were several farms near the school. Two teachers were very important to me, Ms. Amy Jo Comeau and Mr. Trevor Comeau. I hope they will be able to watch the committee meeting, because they'd be very proud of my performance here and my ability to speak French.

Following the debate on this important motion, I hope that all my colleagues will take into consideration the other recommendations for the ministers responsible so that more funds will be invested in francophone community high schools across Canada.

There are, of course, some French courses given in high schools, but most are pretty basic. Afterwards, in 2019, I began to take French courses in Ottawa.

One of the positive things about the pandemic, for me at least, was that I had an additional two hours to practise French from home with a French teacher. This service was provided by the House of Commons. I am still taking these courses. I'd also like to thank Mr. François Bélanger and Ms. Élizabeth Harvey, two professors in the French department at Université Sainte-Anne, a very small institution in southwestern Nova Scotia. I applaud their work and trust that everything is going well for them.

I'd like to return to the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, which is mentioned in the motion before me. In fact, I have to return to the motion. Remember that I said I had 10 other points to raise, all of which are specifically about certain words or phrases in the motion. It so happens that the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie is mentioned several times in the wording of the motion. It's an organization that has to be given consideration because it's very important.

My colleague Mr. Drouin is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, but he's also the Chair of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, an international body.

I've had several opportunities to speak with Mr. Drouin about the importance of this organization, not only in terms of promoting the French language, but also in terms of relations between countries where French is spoken.

I can provide you with another bit of background. Part of the motion introduced by Mr. Beaulieu is redundant. Mr. Drouin it is not only the MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, but also the Chair of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the APF. A vote was held and the members of the branch voted overwhelmingly in favour of retaining Mr. Drouin in his position as chair. The motion we are now discussing is therefore unnecessary. What is necessary is for us to continue with our other work.

I repeat that the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie is vital. I believe that all my colleagues need to know just how important this organization is, particularly in view of two factors.

The first is the war in eastern Europe between Ukraine and Russia. I know that the MPs who are members of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie have developed ties with some European representatives. That being the case, it's very important to get organized, to harmonize all the points of view, and to come up with sound positions in support of Ukraine.

The second is that the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie is a key forum for the discussion of efforts by the Russian Federation to sow confusion among Canadians, not only by creating distractions, but also through disinformation.

In March, I attended an open discussion with some citizens in my riding. I had announced that I would be there for the discussion. At the event, a number of citizens compared President Zelenskyy to the Nazis in the Second World War. It's unbelievable, and completely crazy. It is disinformation from the Russian Federation that is giving people this impression.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I wait with bated breath to see environmental organizations clamouring to give the Conservatives any endorsements, but I appreciate that input from Mr. Patzer. Maybe it's worth having a good conversation about how we can make sure to have strong environmental policies. I'd be happy to talk with him about the importance of certainty in the market and carbon pricing, if he wants, at another moment. Right now, though, we're talking about clean electricity, and I'm going to stay focused on the study, because it is an important study we have in front of us. It's a study I would like to see us go ahead with.

A question was put about what the Canadian government has done when it comes to electricity and any other piece that has come into all of this is. What I was trying to get to was whether we've had the chance to ask the witnesses about that. What have they seen? What did they like? What would they like to see more of? Have we had that chance? The answer is no, and we won't have that chance if this amendment goes forward.

That's why I am going to keep pushing for this and really encourage members opposite to think about that. What are the kinds of questions we would love to ask of these witnesses if we get to call back these panels? Don't we all think that's an important thing for us to be thinking about?

I have had the opportunity to meet with the Canadian Nuclear Association and share our firm commitment to nuclear as part of the energy mix we need as we move to a net-zero grid. They said:

The Canadian nuclear industry is encouraged by the Government’s commitment to nuclear playing an increasingly significant role in the country’s energy mix. While additional steps must be taken to ensure that all clean energy technologies receive equal and fair treatment, today’s budget is a significant step to ensuring that Canada remain a global leader in the advancement of this critically important clean energy technology.

We're talking about nuclear, and I was talking about the global context with the International Energy Agency as well. It's important to point out that Canada has a part to play in supporting our allies and like-minded countries when they're looking at how they get these clean, affordable forms of energy. How can we support them?

We have quite the deal set up with Romania, which is not only creating jobs for Canadians in the nuclear field, but also helping to support Romania in building out more nuclear capacity. That helps keep them away from any reliance on Russian oil and gas. It allows them to help support their neighbours.

It's really important, then, when we're talking about what we're doing with electricity in our own grid, to recognize that there is an expertise we've developed here in Canada that's sought after by other countries. This is a tribute to Canadian workers, expertise and know-how. I just wanted to point out that piece too.

Let's look at the executive director of Clean Energy Canada and talk about what our competitive advantages are. As I just mentioned, there's the investing we did with Romania and other examples like that, but there's also our electrical capacity here in Canada. Budget 2023 was foundational for clean electricity investments. It was a foundational budget.

The executive director of Clean Energy Canada said:

Budget 2023 is a carefully considered hand. While the transition to clean energy is a nation-building project that won’t be complete in one fell swoop, Tuesday’s budget—

That was budget 2023.

—builds on Canada’s pre-existing climate measures while injecting capital into a clean industrial strategy, helping secure our nation’s many competitive advantages.

To pick up on a point in there, it's not going to be complete in one fell swoop. What I've been trying to drive home in so many ways is that many steps and much planning will be needed by industry, and predictability is going to be needed by government, by unions and by colleges and universities. There will have to be thinking about what we are looking for in the growth of our electrical grid and what we will need to do.

It's not going to be done in one fell swoop, but with respect to budget 2023, the question came up. I wasn't able to follow up on it to get another answer or to put these questions to witnesses. That's something I would have wanted to do. I didn't get that chance. I hope I will before we're done this sitting, before we get to the end of June.

If I get the chance, if this amendment doesn't go forward, I will be asking about that. It can't be done in one fell swoop, but how do the investments in budget 2023 translate into the needs, into the capacity? How do they help us get to the clean grid? Clearly it's a monumental task for our country. I was really interested in learning more about that piece.

We're still talking about budget 2023,and it was really foundational for clean electricity. As the president and CEO of the International Institute for Sustainable Development said:

The funding commitments in this budget for clean electricity and fresh water are unprecedented. Taken together with support for climate adaptation, this puts Canada on strong footing in the global race to net-zero while protecting the health of its people and the planet for generations to come

It would have been good to ask witnesses about that as well. The budget commitments put Canada on a strong footing. What does that look like in terms of the next steps? I hope we will get to ask more questions about that.

I mentioned the importance of unions. I'm really surprised...given Mr. Angus's deep interest in sustainable jobs and making sure we have unions and labour—the voices of workers—at the table. I think this study on clean electricity would give us a chance to hear more from our unions about what they need from workers and what they need to see as we move forward.

However, let's talk about budget 2023 again, because there was also the question of what we have done on electricity. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers also made a statement about budget 2023. They said:

The IBEW’s 70,000 members in Canada strongly support the Government of Canada’s 2023 Federal Budget which delivers the tools to tackle climate change and create well-paying, high-quality union jobs in Canada that can support Canadian workers and their families

That's quite the statement. When I hear that, I hear 70,000 members. That's a lot of people.

They're talking about how the 2023 budget, which had such an important investment in electricity, was delivering the tools not only to tackle climate change but also to create well-paying, high-quality union jobs in Canada to support Canadian workers and their families. We're talking about affordability, making sure we have a strong economy, and the future of our country. Those are all things we should be looking towards. Fighting climate change and making sure Canadians have well-paying, quality jobs to support their families build strong communities. When I have a chance to bring an amendment to the motion brought by Mr. Angus, I'll want to make sure those community voices are included in the study, because I think it's so important we do that. I think we need to take one peek more at that piece.

We have different perspectives, as I said, in different parts of the country. The president of the Business Council of Alberta was also able to comment on budget 2023. He said:

This budget takes some important steps toward unlocking the investments needed for Canada to meet its environmental and growth ambitions. These steps include not just investment incentives in areas like hydrogen and carbon capture (CCUS), but also positive early signals on important issues like accelerating regulatory processes and establishing contracts for differences.

By the way, “contracts for differences” are about carbon pricing, in case that needs some explanation. That's about making sure there's certainty in carbon pricing for industry when they're looking at how to move forward.

What I'm hearing from the president of the business council when I read this is that budget 2023, from this federal government, was supporting the environment. I've underlined a few times the importance of the environment and emissions when we're talking about electricity and our growth ambitions. When I think about the next generation, I'm thinking about how we make sure we support growth possibilities and job possibilities. How do we make sure we have a strong economy for the future?

The electrical grid is going to play an important role in that. It's literally the backbone to everything we do. We heard Mr. Schiefke talk about what was happening in his community of Vaudreuil—Soulanges to make sure there's a strong, reliable and affordable grid. That's what people in his community and all of our communities are asking for. That's an important piece.

I believe there was also a question about studies that were previously done on interties. What's happened? What's new? Well, I'm very happy that I get to make another comment about budget 2023. Again, budget 2023, put forward by our Liberal government, was foundational on electricity and clean electricity.

The Nukik Corporation said:

Federal Budget 2023 establishes an important pathway for major clean inter-tie transmission projects through, for example, the recapitalization funding for the Smart Renewables and Electrification Pathways Program to support critical regional priorities and Indigenous-led projects, and add transmission projects to the program's eligibility.

I'm going to talk a bit more about the SREP program, as it's called for short. The smart renewables and electrification pathways program is a bit of a mouthful. It has been such a foundational and important program. I hear about it all the time, actually, because of all the different little projects it supports right across our country that help build the building blocks we need for clean electricity. I wanted to highlight that because it's an important perspective that goes to the intertie question that was asked.

Another piece on budget 2023 comes from Andrew Weaver, the former leader of the B.C. Green Party. He said he was thrilled with the Liberal Party's budget, that it was “visionary & reflects the new reality that prosperity is local & grounded in cleantech, clean power, innovation and creativity. Building on our strategic strengths and the integrated North American market I give it a solid A!” I always like getting an A. It's like a gold star, and there we go; we got that.

This is someone who cares a lot about the environment. I've brought some perspectives from the Northwest Territories, from Alberta and from Ontario, and this is a perspective on budget 2023 from British Columbia, so that's right across our country, coast to coast to coast. We'll get a few chances to talk about some other parts of our country as we go forward.

People saw budget 2023 as a very exciting and important investment and building block for electricity. Again, if only we could ask questions of all these people as part of the study. Imagine all the people I have mentioned so far. If only we could hear from them and ask them what they see now. They saw the building blocks we put in budget 2023. They've seen the programs. What now? What do we do now to support those good-paying jobs, make sure we reduce emissions across our country and do what we need to do? On clean electricity, what are the opportunities they see for those jobs? What are the opportunities they see for attracting investment to our country? Unfortunately, I can't get to that right now, but I'll have an opportunity, I'm sure, to talk about how so many industries from other countries, when they're making a decision about where to invest, consider that a clean electrical grid, a net-zero electrical grid, is an important part of that.

Really, this is about the environment. It's about growth. It's about jobs. It's about affordability. As I said, even the International Energy Agency supports this. These are important things for us to be thinking about, planning for, asking questions about and making recommendations on. We can't do any of that if this amendment goes forward. We won't get a chance to ask all those questions. We won't get a chance to put forward witnesses to share these thoughts. It's really too bad.

Let me also look at what some other people have said about budget 2023. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I'm so excited when I read these endorsements about our budget. This input makes me very excited about how foundational it was for clean electricity.

The question of what this Liberal government has done for electricity has come up, so let me keep reading, because more people have had some great statements.

Let's go with The Pembina Institute. The Pembina Institute said this about the federal Liberal budget of 2023:

This budget makes Canada competitive with the U.S.'s Inflation Reduction Act and Europe's Green Deal Industrial Plan, in terms of investment in climate. It ensures Canadian workers can benefit from the significant economic opportunities presented by clean electricity, energy efficient building retrofits, zero-emission vehicle manufacturing, and the production and refining of critical minerals.

It's another organization commenting about how budget 2023 supported Canadian workers, provided economic opportunities and was an investment in climate. These are the kinds of things I want to talk with my constituents about when I go home. What would I want to say? It's something of importance we've done to leave behind. These are the kinds of things I want to be talking about.

I want to be talking about how, yes, I took action on climate. Yes, I helped create good-paying jobs. Yes, I was part of a government that made sure we were growing the economy and doing all of these important things. These are the kinds of thing that, if this amendment had not been put forward, I would be asking more about.

On another piece, I think you had heard me talking earlier about the millwright program and that tremendous group of women millwrights who graduated and were getting jobs with Ontario Power Generation to work on the Darlington refurbishment. What did Ontario Power Generation have to say about federal Liberal budget 2023 and its investments and planning for the electricity of the future for our country? They said this:

OPG welcomes and applauds the Federal Government's support for clean energy initiatives, including for nuclear and hydroelectric projects. This is a tremendous step towards achieving our net-zero goals.

I've talked a few times now about the importance of nuclear in Ontario. It's not right for every part of our country, but there are parts of our country where it forms an important part of what a clean electrical grid needs to be. I would like to have been able to ask more questions about that. We just had a little snippet. It was gone. If we'd had the opportunity, I would have asked more about what that mix looks like in different provinces.

That statement by Ontario Power Generation also refers to hydroelectric. If you're from a province like Quebec or British Columbia, you have opportunities for hydroelectric. Other provinces and other territories might have those opportunities as well, but that takes planning. I mentioned the timeline for the Site C dam. What was it, about 10 years? It was about 10 years just on construction, right? Not in one fell swoop do you do this. You need the time and the planning and the figuring out of the right energy mix for each part of our country from coast to coast to coast.

Speaking of coast to coast to coast, I'm back to Alberta. Let's look at what the mayor of Edmonton, Amarjeet Sohi, said about budget 2023. He said, “The incentives to support renewable energy, hydrogen and growth in the clean tech sector will help grow and decarbonize our economy, while creating well-paying middle class jobs.”

Again, there's a focus on growth of the economy and well-paying, middle-class jobs. I think that should be something we all share as things that we would want to see and learn more about in terms of how we can keep investing in it.

The reason I'm going through these statements, Mr. Chair, is that a question was raised: Has this federal Liberal government done anything on electricity? Time and time again, as I'm going through this list, we're hearing from people who say, yes, they have. In budget 2023 we see that commitment. We see so much work being done. We see the opportunity. If the Conservatives decided to not go ahead with this amendment, or if we were to defeat this amendment, we would be able to continue with this electricity study and ask those kinds of questions and find out more about it.

I have more pieces about it. I've talked about the different unions that have responded to it. One thing that I thought was interesting—I'm an Ontarian, so I'm always interested in what's coming out from Ontario—was this from Rocco Rossi, president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce:

We welcome commitments made in Budget 2023 to unlock the potential of the green economy, advance economic reconciliation, mitigate supply chain challenges, and bolster health care resilience—all of which are fundamental to a strong economy.

Those are all the pieces fundamental to a strong economy and they're really important.

One piece I heard from the witnesses when they did come, the panel that I guess we'll have to recall.... Unfortunately, we weren't able to complete our rounds and really get to the bottom of all of the information and expertise they brought to us. I believe that at some point questions about supply chain were raised. What are those supply chain issues? How do we resolve those supply chain issues? What do we need to do? If we don't get the experts here, then we don't get to ask those questions and we don't get to make those recommendations. What are we going to have to do as our next steps?

I think that statement, that response to budget 2023 from the then president and CEO of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, Rocco Rossi, really highlights why that's important. It's all of the different pieces that come together.

I mentioned—and I think there's some value in this—that when I talk with industry and people looking to invest in Canada, one of the things they talk about is our clean grid. That's a draw. They look at it and say that we—I'm speaking as if I were a company when I say that—need to show that our business is ready to meet our ESG standards, that we're meeting ESG standards. If they are looking at their carbon footprint, one of the things that's important is the energy they're using to get there.

Certainly that's something we have seen over the past couple of years, and I think it's a real tribute to the work that's been done by Minister François-Philippe Champagne, but also by our government. We have seen massive investment in automobile manufacture in Canada. Really massive amazing investments have been happening that are transformative for Ontario. The fact that we are able to provide them with a very clean grid in Ontario is definitely a draw.

The other thing we have to think about—and I feel as if I'm going to get a chance to get to that a bit—is that knowing we're attracting such manufacturing to our province and to our country also means that we're going to need more electrical grid capacity to meet that. It's the double piece to this, right?

It's great news that we're attracting this investment. It's creating good-paying jobs in Ontario, when I'm talking about auto manufacturing. I know that in Quebec there has also been investment in the industry, particularly on the battery supply chain side. When we're talking about that and that draw, that's great news. It's great that we're able to attract those investments.

What are we also going to have to do? We're going to have to make sure our electrical grid keeps up. Again, if we bring those witnesses, if we get to continue with this study, we can ask those important questions.

Honestly, the time is now. They are building their manufacturing capacities right now. Those lines are going to be opening up for those battery manufacturers, for the electric vehicles, to build the vehicles. We need to be able to keep up and to keep doing the work we need to do, and the time is now.

If this amendment goes through, Mr. Chair, we're going to be putting this whole study back farther. We're not going to be able to ask those questions. We're not going to be able to really get to the nitty-gritty of what their needs are, to find out provincially and regionally what the needs are going to be. How is it going to change? How can we support each other across provinces and territories? We're not going to get that chance.

I'll go back to budget 2023, because it was such an amazing budget when we talk about things like clean technologies and electricity. As I think you will probably have seen by now—because I've been able to go through these statements—it was really well received.

The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association—that's what really got me thinking about the automobiles—said:

The 2023 federal budget recognizes the competitiveness challenges posed by the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act...and introduces several new measures in response that will help to level the playing field for automotive and battery supply chain investments...

That's an important piece.

My final quote about budget 2023, before I can talk a bit about some other pieces I had in mind, is from the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada, who said:

The upcoming launch of the Canada Growth Fund and the tax credit for green hydrogen could play a significant role in catalyzing Canada’s first offshore wind to green hydrogen projects, as well as the associated electricity infrastructure needed

Think about all those pieces right there in that first sentence. We're talking about green hydrogen. We're talking about offshore wind. We're talking about the associated electrical infrastructure. I'm going on. I'm sorry.

I'll go back to the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada, who said:

We are also pleased to see further support for other marine renewable energy technologies through the investment tax credit and commitment to improve regulatory processes. To achieve net zero goals, we know Canada will need 2-3 times more clean electricity—and this statement is a positive step towards meeting those climate goals.

Again, there's reference to the fact that we're absolutely going to need more electricity to meet our climate goals, but budget 2023 was a significant step forward.

One piece that really got me thinking when I read that is about Bill C-49. Bill C-49 was about offshore wind for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We worked with those provinces to come up with the regulatory framework we need to be able to develop that offshore wind industry. It brings so much opportunity to the Atlantic region and to our country. Again, we're talking about good-paying jobs. We're talking about clean electricity.

When I was talking about nuclear, I talked about Romania and how we are supporting nuclear there. On offshore wind, Germany, another one of our allies, came and talked with us and said they had this need. They know they need to transition from the forms of energy they're using, and they don't want to rely on Russian oil and gas. They want to make sure that they have allies they can work with. They said, “Hey, Canada, we're looking to you to help supply us with green hydrogen. We believe in you.” We were able to be those people, that country of opportunity and that ally, and Bill C-49 for offshore wind was a critical piece of that.

It was really quite unfortunate that it took us such a long time to pass that bill and that we weren't able to get the support I would have liked to see to get through this process more quickly, just because there was such opportunity.

Frankly, it's also about working with our provinces and territories. They wanted this. Bill C-49 was about agreements we had reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and with Nova Scotia. They said they wanted to partner with the federal government. That's our role. As a responsible federal government, our role is to be a good partner, so I was really happy that we were able, in this committee, to finally get Bill C-49 back out and to pass that through, because it's so important.

It's important to us. It's important for the opportunities in our Atlantic provinces. It's important in terms of the partnerships we have with our Atlantic provinces. It was an opportunity to see how we can also help internationally and how we can be that source of clean electricity. Like I said, the International Energy Agency itself points to the global need for clean energy. That's where the world is looking to build. It's an important piece.

Now, I was troubled when I heard this idea that Canada hasn't done anything in electricity. I've gone through multiple examples of organizations and unions that have looked at budget 2023—and not just budget 2023. They commented on budget 2023 and said, “Yes, Canada has done that heavy lifting when we look at electricity.”

I always love to refer to this page in the budget—I think it's page 76. There is a pyramid. It's Canada's plan for a clean economy described in a pyramid. It's a great way of looking at how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. I find it to be a helpful tool. At the bottom of the pyramid, one foundational piece is pollution pricing and the regulatory framework. That includes large-emitter pricing systems, contracts for differences and clean fuel regulations.

Then you take the next step and have the investment tax credits, which include clean electricity, clean hydrogen, clean technology adoption and clean technology manufacturing—all of those types of ITCs. They are the next part the pyramid builds on. They also form an important part. I read through some of those statements in reaction to budget 2023. They talked about how those ITCs were another foundational piece to the work our government is doing to support clean energy in our country.

Now, the next part of that pyramid—we're going higher up here—is the strategic finance piece. That's the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It's the Canada Growth Fund.

I'm sorry. I'm going to digress for one second, because a lot of people were asking what the Infrastructure Bank is going to do. One amazing project, if we're talking about clean electricity and energy, is the Oneida battery storage project in Ontario. I stand to be corrected, but I believe it is the largest battery storage project in North America. If it's not North America, it certainly is Canada. That is a project that shows strong partnership with Six Nations. It also shows an important investment by the Canada Infrastructure Bank to provide the battery storage we're going to need for our reliable, clean electrical grid.

Again, I would love to be able to ask more questions about the role of the Infrastructure Bank, the role of battery storage and what those pieces are. Unfortunately, those are not things I'm going to be able to ask about if we have this amendment go forth. I'm going to miss that opportunity.

Now, at the top of this pyramid is targeted programming. The target program includes the strategic innovation fund, the smart renewables electrification pathways program—I think I mentioned that a little bit earlier—the clean fuels fund and the low-carbon economy fund.

I'm going to use the example of a low-carbon economy fund. It has helped to fund projects right across our country, some very interesting and innovative projects. One of them that I thought was really interesting is at the University of Toronto, my alma mater. I graduated from the Faculty of Law at University of Toronto. They built a geothermal district energy system on their campus. The campus is like—

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

Okay.

Their goal was therefore to use parliamentarians’ time to keep talking about this motion. I am one of Mr. Drouin’s colleagues, and I find the way MPs behaved to be completely incomprehensible, especially after the fact. Of course, there’s always partisanship in the House of Commons and sometimes even here, at parliamentary committees. However, the show is over and now we have to come back to the necessary work of improving the situation of the French language and official languages throughout Canada.

Mr. Chair, we are both very proud MPs from the Maritimes and I congratulate you for chairing the Standing Committee on Official Languages. You know the importance of Bill C‑49, which seeks to amend the Atlantic Accords. I recently sat on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. There is a link between the motion we’re discussing and the way certain MPs take the floor. The Atlantic Accords are a source of pride for us in Nova Scotia, as well as Newfoundland and Labrador, of course. When oil was found in the Atlantic Ocean, there was a certain amount of concern, because we weren’t sure who, between the federal government and that of Newfoundland and Labrador, would be responsible for the resource.

I will now explain how it is all connected to the motion. Yesterday, Bill C‑49 passed at third reading stage, and I thank every MP who voted for it to be sent to the Senate. The Premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. Houston, clearly expressed his support for the bill. The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Furey, was also very clear when he said it was necessary to pass the bill, because it’s the counterpart to provincial legislation. When the legislation is amended in Ottawa, provinces have to amend their own legislation as well. In this case, it’s the St. John’s and Halifax legislative assemblies.

I was a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, and our natural resources are also a source of pride for us in the Atlantic. Even if it’s not the same thing, I understand that the French language and francophone culture are very important, not only for Quebeckers, of course, but also for Franco-Ontarians, including the citizens of Nickel Belt and Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

However, in the case of the bill, comments from Conservative MPs lacked a great deal of respect, unfortunately. They said it was not necessary to listen to the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador or to the witnesses who were there. Those comments were…. What is the right adjective for “lacking respect,” Mr. Chair?

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:20 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment of the member for Tobique—Mactaquac to the motion at third reading of Bill C‑49.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Natural Resources

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, our Atlantic accords bill would allow for the development of offshore wind projects. By investing in renewable energy, we are investing in a future for Atlantic Canadians that is green and prosperous, one where we fight climate change and create jobs. The Conservatives are getting in the way of Atlantic Canada by opposing Bill C-49.

What is the government doing to ensure that Atlantic Canada can contribute to the green economy?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is right. Investors are looking at Bill C-49 and they are looking at Bill C-69. They see provisions in the bill before us that would give the very anti-resource Minister of Environment and the anti-resource Minister of Natural Resources power to arbitrarily kill projects, even after investors have invested billions. Who would invest billions into the country on any project knowing that at any time the same government that says it wants to phase out oil and gas can step in and kill a project on a whim for political gain?

This issue is no different, and we will continue to see a lack of investment in Canada while we have the current government in power.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-49. As I have mentioned in the House, I have had the pleasure of living across the country, from one side to the other, from Victoria to northern Alberta and even in Newfoundland for a while. Therefore, Bill C-49 hits a bit close for me, so I am very pleased to speak to it.

To sum up Newfoundland, I will tell members of an experience I had. One day in Edmonton, I was door knocking for the first campaign in 2015. A lot of Newfoundlanders live in my riding of Edmonton West, or as I call it, “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall”. A couple was in the garage. It was a hot day and the garage door was open. They were sitting having a beer inside their garage, and we started chatting. They said they were from Newfoundland, and I said I used to live in St. John's, so we started chatting. They invited me to have a beer, so I sat down with them. We had a nice beer together.

A couple of years later, during the horrible forest fires in Fort McMurray, where, of course, a lot of people from Newfoundland were living, the residents had to evacuate. This couple had taken in a couple from Fort McMurray, who also were Newfoundlanders. I was at an event one night at the Good Shepherd Church. It was a fundraising event. I ran into this couple, and they introduced me to this other couple who they were housing. They were complete strangers, but because they were Newfoundlanders, they were happy to take in this couple. We started chatting and they said they were from St. John's. I said that I used to live there and they asked where. I said I used to live on Bindon Place.

It turned out that they were my former neighbours. This couple lived in the lot right behind our house. Back then, if anyone has ever lived in St. John's, they would know it has very lovely winters with lots of snow. The first year I lived there, we had 22 feet of snow, a record amount of snow. It was not until June that I found out we actually had an eight-foot fence in our backyard. This couple was laughing about living behind us. I had to laugh because, at the time, we had this beautiful dog named Doonesbury. He was the world's greatest dog. He would wander on these huge snowbanks, from yard to yard because, of course, the snow was way above the fence. It turned out that he had often visited their yard to do his business, so it was years later that I had the opportunity to apologize for my dog.

There are a few things I would note about people from Newfoundland. They really never leave the rock. I worked in Fort McMurray for a while, and we had the largest club at the time, the Newfoundland club. When we would meet in Fort McMurray, they all had the same wish; they wanted to be able to go back home to work and to get good jobs, which of course were not available. That is why they were in Fort McMurray. When I lived in Newfoundland, every time I travelled to the mainland or away, usually to Nova Scotia where our regional office was, and then flew back to St. John's, I would land at about midnight at the airport, and there were always about 50 to 70 people, families holding up signs and welcoming back their family members, who were mostly coming from Alberta because of work. Since taking over this job nine years ago, I have probably returned to the Edmonton airport 300 to 400 times, and not once has anyone been waiting there for me with a sign. With Newfoundlanders, it was always like that. It was quite amazing.

It is a beautiful city. I enjoyed my time living there, although I cannot say the same about the weather with the massive amounts of snow. I remember that on the May long weekend, I was flying to Nova Scotia; I think it was May 21. The day before, in Halifax, there was a record high of 36°C. I was waiting in St. John's for my wife to come home with the car and drive me to the airport. We had a snowstorm, and she got the car stuck in the driveway in a snowbank. She walked in with our two kids, who were about one and two years old at the time. With tears streaming, she said that she was leaving me and was moving back to Victoria. That almost sums up the weather. However, I noticed a month later, in late June, that we were shovelling the snow in the driveway, and in the back of the house where there was sun, we were mowing the backyard. That is the weather in Newfoundland.

Everywhere I have lived, I have run into people from Newfoundland who want to get back to the rock, but they want good jobs. Bill C-49 I do not see delivering that. There are quite a few flaws in the bill. I want to go over some of them.

Clause 19 of Bill C-49 would open the door to more red tape and likely to delays. We have heard repeatedly about a lack of investment and productivity in this country. It takes 15 to 20 years to get a mine approval and years to get a housing approval. In Alberta, we see people not wanting to invest in the country because they know the red tape and the approval process make it so slow. Clause 19 is going to add to that and going to discourage investment. It would shift decision-making power and licence approvals to the federal and provincial ministers, while tripling the amount of time the decision can take.

The government often talks about how we need experts to make the decisions, yet this bill will take power away from experts and regulators and put it into the hands of the very partisan and biased natural resources minister. Can members imagine anyone who is involved in resource investment in this country looking at our current environment minister or natural resources minister and saying that Canada looks like a great place to invest in because they can trust their opinions? Of course not.

Clause 28 would give the federal minister, with the approval of the provincial minister, the power to outright ban drilling in certain areas and to even halt projects that are already approved and in progress. That sounds a bit like Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain. That was approved, and it was going to spend billions of dollars just to find out that the government can retroactively change the rules. Who wants to invest in this environment? Who wants to create good jobs in this kind of an environment? If the bill were to pass with clause 28 as written, it would put an end to offshore petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada, killing good-paying jobs for workers and further strengthening eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil imports from dictatorships like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

We have seen how the government treats resource projects in this country. Section 61 and 62 would invariably be abused by the government, and they would attach so many strings that approval for projects would become unfeasible. Does anyone remember energy east? We have TransCanada ready to spend billions of dollars so we can bring Alberta oil and Saskatchewan oil out east to get the eastern provinces off of U.S. oil and off of dictator oil. Instead, the government threw up so many roadblocks and changed the goalposts so many times, it ended up cancelling the project.

Section 61 and 62 would bring the unconstitutional Bill C-69 into the review process, allowing the minister to attach any conditions they see fit to an approval. Sections from the Impact Assessment Act, previously Bill C-69, also known as the no-new-pipeline bill, have been put into Bill C-49. On October 13, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled Bill C-69 largely unconstitutional. The federal government has not fixed those sections to date. If Bill C-49 is passed, as written, it would include 32 references to sections of Bill C-69 that the Supreme Court identified as unconstitutional.

Bill C-49 also includes the discretionary decision-making power of the minister and the entirety of the designated project scheme, both of which are unconstitutional, so components of Bill C-49 may also be unconstitutional. Section 64 of Bill C-69 was deemed unconstitutional, and is referenced throughout Bill C-49, which allows the minister to interfere in a project they think is in the public interest and create any conditions they deem necessary to which the project proponent must comply.

We, in Alberta, know full well what the government does to resource projects. We know full well how it works against resource projects. Of course, we had Bill C-50, the so-called just transition bill, which we called the unjust transition bill. It would be absolutely devastating to Alberta.

I want to give members some numbers the conference board put together. Bill C-50 would destroy 91,000 jobs in Alberta. That is a 58% increase in Alberta's jobless rate. There would be a decline in our GDP of almost 4%, and a 50% bigger hit than the 2008 financial crisis. Alberta revenue would be chopped up to $127 billion over 10 years. That is almost a 20% drop per year.

We see very clearly the Liberal government's intention toward our natural resources. It is kill the resources at all costs, send Canadians into poverty, hurt Alberta, hurt Newfoundland, and hurt resource-producing provinces, which is why we will not vote for Bill C-49.

The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for pointing that out.

Mr. Morneau said he had pointed out, on several occasions, to the Prime Minister that he had a focus on improving Canada's productivity. Mr. Morneau said, unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not interested in that. He was more interested in distributing wealth, rather than creating wealth.

I think that is one of the fundamental economic problems in Canada today. The person at the head, the Prime Minister, is not interested in these sorts of things. That is very evident with what we see in Bill C-49. There is no interest in talking about the things that drive our economy and that are going to improve our wealth and wealth for Atlantic Canadians.

What are the sorts of things that we can do to improve our productivity, our per capita GDP? We talked about investment already. Bill C-49, the old Bill C-69, scared investment away, and that needs to be reversed. The Conservative members are saying that we need to bring this bill back to committee. These are the sorts of things that we have to look for.

We also need to reduce red tape. That is another common-sense solution to Canada's lagging productivity. We need more innovation. We need to develop our natural resources.

I want to talk about something that is very important to my end of the country, the Pacific region, and that is liquid natural gas.

It was pointed out in earlier debates that Canada has an abundance of natural gas. That is how most western Canadians heat their homes and buildings, and it is used for a lot of our vehicles. Natural gas is much cleaner burning than coal or even oil.

The world wants it. How do we ship natural gas? We liquefy it, we put it into special containers and we ship it around the world. This is a proven technology, and Canada is ready and willing, but not able to do it because the Prime Minister has told other countries there is no business case for this. Unbelievable. He said there is no business case for liquid natural gas.

Other countries in the world, like the United States, for example, see that there is a business case. Where we dropped the ball, the Americans picked it up and they are supplying Europe with liquid natural gas, which is exactly what Canada should be doing. Our allies are asking for this kind of help. It is a perfect solution to their problems, to wean themselves off Russian natural gas, and it is a perfect opportunity for us to grow our economy and improve our productivity.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are talking about Bill C-49, an act to amend the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord. I am a member of Parliament from the other end of the country, the Pacific Coast, and it is a real honour for me to be joining in the debate about something that is so important to Canada. It goes to show that Canada really is a nation from sea to sea. I am from the other ocean, but it is wonderful to be here with my colleagues who are very knowledgeable about what happens on the Atlantic Coast. Listening to the speeches tonight, I have learned a lot about that part of my country.

Bill C-49 would impose, unfortunately, many of the Liberals' failed environmental assessment initiatives that have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada for infringing on provincial jurisdiction. It was a real surprise for me, as I delved into this bill, to see that the Liberals would take the risk of incorporating a lot of the failed clauses of Bill C-69, which we call the “no more pipelines” bill, into this very important legislation about improving the economy of the Atlantic Coast, and I wonder why they would do that. The last thing that investment dollars and investment entrepreneurs want is risk. It has been pointed out before that this bill poses a political risk that is going to drive away investment. Here is a proof point that I think is really clear.

In 2022, there were five offshore land bids in Newfoundland and Labrador at a value of $238 million. If we move forward five months to May 30, 2023, about a year ago, when Bill C-49 was first introduced, which is not law yet. Business people read it and said that they did not want to take that risk, and in 2023, there were zero bids. That is just a really clear example of what happens when the government introduces legislation that does nothing more than introduce a lot of uncertainty into the mix.

If we take a look at what happened with the TMX pipeline, Kinder Morgan, which is a risk-taking company with very deep pockets. It was willing to take on the challenge of twinning the pipeline that had been in existence for 70 years with very little environmental risks involved. It started the project to twin that pipeline, which seemed like a very common-sense project to undertake, and it was, until the federal government started imposing environmental regulatory red tape that really did not do anything but slow down the project. Finally, Kinder Morgan said that it was out of there because It did not want that risk anymore. It is a business that wants to make money, and it could see that there was way too much risk there, so it pulled out. It was willing to walk away from its multibillion dollar investment at that point.

However, the Liberal federal government said that it needed that pipeline and that it could not let it go unfinished. It picked up the project for $5 billion, which was going to cost $7 billion altogether to complete it. In fact, the project is now finished, finally, but at a cost of $35 billion. The federal government is now saying it is for sale, but who is going to buy it? Certainly, not for $35 billion. That is what happens when government gets into business. It should just stay out of business and should let private enterprise do what it does best, which is to undertake projects that have a very good opportunity for earning a profit. I know “profit” is a bad word with the NDP-Liberal government, but let me assure members that private enterprise runs on profit. Profit drives innovation, competition, investment and creates wealth.

This is very important to Canada because our productivity numbers are lagging compared to our trading nations, and this has been pointed out on many occasions. It was recognized by the former Liberal minister of finance, Mr. Bill Morneau, in the book he wrote after he left government, after he was released from the Liberal Party's talking points. He said he had pointed out to the current Prime Minister that one of Canada's biggest economic challenges was its lagging productivity numbers.

Here is a nice, neat example of what exactly that means when compared to the United States. For every American worker who pumps in $100 into their economy, their Canadian counterpart, doing exactly the same kind of work, pumps $70 into Canada's GDP. We are 70% as productive as the United States. Does that mean that we do not work as hard? No, of course not. We are very hard-working and industrious people.

However, we do not have the tools, investment, creativity and tax fairness here in Canada. That is what is causing our productivity numbers to lag. That goes to the wealth of the nation. It goes to the wealth of individual people. This is what Mr. Morneau had pointed out to Mr. Trudeau on what he said were numerous occasions. He said—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join debate in the House of Commons, even quite late on a Monday evening. We are discussing Bill C-49, a bill the government tabled to solve regulatory issues and bring them in line with other bills it had passed, in particular, the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 of the 42nd Parliament.

The problem with Bill C-49, as well as the sudden urge to ensure its passage by invoking closure and using procedural tools to force a vote on it, is this: Since the time the government tabled the bill at first reading to bring existing environmental regulations into line with the other red tape it brought in with Bill C-69, significant portions of Bill C-69 were struck down in court.

The prudent action any government would take in this situation would be to remedy the portions of its existing red-tape regime that have been found to be unconstitutional. The government has been found to have trammelled the constitutional prerogatives of provinces. This is what the Supreme Court found in its review of Bill C-69. However, the government is persisting, through Bill C-49, in taking the same unconstitutional framework and applying it to offshore projects, both oil and gas drilling projects and future renewable energy projects, such as offshore wind production or perhaps tidal electrical generation.

On this side of the House, we are the party of energy. Canadians need reliable, affordable and abundant energy. That energy could come from any of a variety of sources. We support all forms of energy that can deliver on those basic points of affordability, availability and reliability. Different parts of the country are able to produce energy in different ways. The potential for offshore in its oil and gas potential has brought, in fairly recent memory, tremendous economic benefit to Newfoundland and Labrador. For the first half or more of my life, this was by far the poorest region in Canada, with the lowest per capita GDP. It is a part of the country that really suffered economically and had the lowest standards of living in Canada.

We have seen in a generation what energy production can do for that part of the world and how so many people from Newfoundland and Labrador have also helped build Alberta and its energy projects. In addition to that, there is tremendous potential for offshore renewable energy. However, taking this unconstitutional model from the government's earlier bill and applying it to projects offshore, renewable or non-renewable, is not going to give affordable, reliable and available energy for Canadians or create the export opportunities that an abundance of energy may give. This is a flawed approach.

One would think that the Liberals would not need the opposition to move an amendment that would seek to refer the bill back to committee where it could be studied further and amended to deal with the reality of the Supreme Court's decision on renewable energy. However, they have even made it muddier still by tabling, in the House, a budget implementation act that further confuses regulatory issues and compliance and congruity between these different acts, by tabling a bill that overlaps and attempts to do some of these things the bill before us would do.

One would think that the Liberals would hold back on the bill before us and call the BIA tonight, and it is confusing because it is numbered Bill C-69, but have that debate instead and move that bill along. I mean, I will vote against it and I hope that other members will too and so that we can bring the government down and get on with the carbon tax election. However, either way, whether the bill passes or not, surely that is a more prudent present step than forcing through Bill C-49, which has obvious constitutional and regulatory problems to it. So, if they will not do it for that reason, if they will not do it for compliance or get the order right with the BIA versus Bill C-49, at least recognize that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the substance of the bill and found it unconstitutional. The bill belongs back at committee, or perhaps just not called at all.

The Liberals have tabled a lot of bills, and a lot of them do not go anywhere. In fact, over these last few weeks, they have tabled a number of bills that they have not called, and so I do not understand, in terms of the management of its legislative calendar, why suddenly the drive to call the bill before us.

We have seen the kind of red tape that this government has given Canadians. The Liberals have already hindered traditional and alternative energy development in Canada. Under Bill C-69, no projects get approved. It is the no-more-pipelines bill, and it is going to become the no-offshore-wind-development bill and the no-offshore-drilling bill. To top it all off, I understand from speaking to a number of Atlantic members of Parliament that they have also managed to upset the stability and the investment climate for the fishing industry, because they have not consulted those in the fishing industry who stand to be affected by the bill. This government is so consistent in its muddy, muddled approach to regulation and the creation of red tape. It is time for this government to maybe fire some gatekeepers instead of finding new ways to tie up Canadian businesses and scare away investment.

However, scaring away investment is exactly what these bills have done. Bill C-69 led to capital flight from this country. We have seen how Bill C-49, even its tabling, has also triggered capital flight from Atlantic Canada in terms of projects abandoned and the dearth of new applications for drilling or offshore projects in the wake of the bill. As my colleague for Calgary Nose Hill said earlier, Canada has become a country where political risk is driving away investment, because decision-makers, those who allocate capital, do not know from one year to the next just what this government is going to do. It piles on laws that do not stand up in court and then it is charging along here tonight by calling the bill before us and having a debate on it as if the Supreme Court decision did not happen. It happened, and it cannot be ignored. The bill was tabled before that decision, and it does not take that decision into account. It should be taken back to committee where maybe it can get sorted out, or it can just be held back and not called again.

The Liberals have so many other bills that they seem to want to get approved but have not called and have chosen instead to call Bill C-49. I would call on the government to get a hold of its legislative calendar, get a hold of its constitutional issues, and go back and fix the bill if it is going to call it again.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. At one point, I would have said that I do not understand what the government is doing, but after a while, one knows full well what they are doing. The Liberals and the NDP are antidevelopment. They are anti-Canadian jobs. They are doing everything they can to suppress investment in this country.

Look at what Bill C-49 would do. It is going to be caught up in the courts. There is going to be chaos and confusion. Look at Bill C-69 and what it has done to our natural resources sector. It has been devastating. It has been struck down in court. It will be the same thing here. The Liberal record after nine years is turning away investment in this country. We go through the laundry list and they keep saying they are proposing new ideas. It is the same failed approach that got us in this mess in the first place. It is time for a fresh start. Bill C-49 and their other efforts are not worth it.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here in the House and have many of my colleagues join to listen as I contribute some points to the debate we are having here tonight, particularly on our Conservative amendment. Many would argue it would be common sense. I look forward to getting into that tonight a little bit more.

However, Mr. Speaker, you are from Nova Scotia. The legislation here impacts that province. It also impacts the great people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I had the honour to visit, a couple of weeks ago, the province. I had some great visits, travelling many miles, all the way from St. John's and Mount Pearl in the Avalon region, all the way across to Clarenville, Grand Falls, Windsor, Corner Brook, Deer Lake, Stephenville, Kippens, and all points in between. I think the debate here is timely tonight, as we talk about what the priorities are for the good people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, I want to give some breaking news here in the House tonight, if I could; breaking news that is fresh, hot off the press of some by-elections, a by-election that just took place in Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals love intruding into provincial jurisdiction on issues, although they should not. They get struck down by courts and we have these prolonged problems. I am going to bring in provincial jurisdiction here because in Newfoundland and Labrador, in that by-election tonight, in the riding of Baie Verte-Green Bay, the votes are in. It was a carbon tax by-election.

After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, here is an interesting thing. Both of the PC and the Liberal candidates endorsed the Leader of the Opposition in Ottawa. The Prime Minister has become so toxic, even Liberals in Newfoundland and Labrador want nothing to do with him. The results are in tonight and it was very conclusive. The voter turnout in the by-election tonight in central Newfoundland was 57%. It was 15 points higher than it was in the last general election in that riding. It was a close riding in 2021. The Liberals got about 52%, the PCs got 47%. Tonight, the Conservative candidate who opposes the carbon tax got 80% of the vote.

Congratulations to Lin Paddock from Ottawa. I am thankful to him for fighting the carbon tax, fighting and standing up against the punitive measures that the Prime Minister and the NDP are imposing on his province.

That by-election followed, in Newfoundland and Labrador, a by-election that just took place about a month ago. Again, it was the same thing around central Newfoundland. There was a historically high voter turnout in that riding. It took a long-time Liberal riding and flipped it to the PCs; again, a carbon tax by-election. They are just building the momentum. If we go to Nova Scotia, in Pictou West, the minister of housing's own riding, right in that region, the PCs not only held that riding, but they drastically increased their vote share and the turnout there was very solid for a by-election.

There was another example, absolutely, in Preston only a short while ago. For the first time, in a long-time Liberal or NDP back-and-forth riding for the most part, there was a Conservative victory there as well, another carbon tax by-election.

I raise this point tonight because there is a theme developing in Atlantic Canada. It is going from Liberal to common-sense Conservative. Here is the thing that is interesting. It is building the momentum. The Prime Minister and the NDP and Liberals know they are extremely unpopular. They know that their plan for this country is more and more unpopular, the more Canadians learn about it. The priorities that they try to address are out of touch with the realities on the ground.

After giving colleagues these updates of these carbon tax by-elections in those respective provinces, I cannot wait for our carbon tax election here to take place all across Canada. Canadians are going to have their say. I think the turnout and the blue wave are going to be equal in every part of this country.

I want to talk about Bill C-49 here tonight. I do listen to what the member for Kingston and the Islands says, believe it or not. I have to because both he and the member for Winnipeg North speak quite a bit here in the chamber.

Just a few minutes ago, the member for Kingston and the Islands was trying to make this argument about the Constitution and how the Liberals listen to the Constitution, respect it and talking about their actions when it comes to their legislation and bills. This bill here, or more specifically, our Conservative amendment, actually just call it out for what it is, hypocrisy. It is saying one thing and doing the absolute opposite.

He goes on about how they do all this. Well, Bill C-49 has a lot of very similar provisions to Bill C-69, which has garnered a lot of attention when it comes to developing our natural resources and realizing our economic potential. It has done a lot of damage in every part of the country. It has turned away, turned down and cancelled investments by the hundreds of millions of dollars in this country. The thing about Bill C-69 was that, for months and for years, Liberal ministers would go out and say, “There is nothing wrong. The bill is constitutional. It is going to be upheld.” Well, the Supreme Court had its say, and guess what. It did not uphold it. The bill was struck down.

Now, moving forward, we have Bill C-49. Our Conservative amendment tonight is saying that we need to take this back to committee. There are serious flaws with what the government is trying to do because many of the same provisions that were struck down in Bill C-69 are embedded and repeated here in Bill C-49.

Mark my words. I am going to put it right here, in Hansard, in the blues and on video here tonight: This piece of legislation is going to be dithered and delayed for years. It is going to be challenged. Look at what happened with respect to Bill C-69. Liberals and then the New Democrats said, “Oh, it is all fine. Do not worry about it. The Conservatives are just talking negative about it.” The government ignored it, and guess what happened. It is the chaos coming around Bill C-69. The uncertainty, the lack of answers from that side and the lack of fixing the problem the Liberals were warned about in the first place are challenging the economic environment in our country. It is turning away investment. It is turning away projects that could be completed here at home, creating great Canadian paycheques. The Liberals are doing the exact same thing. Members could look and see that there are now the same inefficiencies that are here in the Impact Assessment Act, in sections 61, 62, 169 and 170. The list goes on about how they are constantly dithering and delaying.

If members do not want to take my word for it here with what I have said so far, let us just look at the number of projects already stalled under the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals are blocking projects with red tape left, right and centre. Bill C-49 would only make it worse. There is Beaver Dam gold mine in Nova Scotia. It has been nine years, and it is still not done. Fifteen Mile Stream gold project is going to be a massive $123 million investment. After six years, that project, 95 kilometres northeast of Halifax, is still being delayed, and with three years extension, it is still not done. Then we have the Joyce Lake direct shipping iron ore project, which would be a $270-million investment in Newfoundland and Labrador. After 11 years, it is still waiting and not approved. There is Cape Ray gold and silver mine in Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been eight years, and it is still waiting and not going through. The list goes on and on. It is the definition of insanity.

I have said it before about the budget, and I will say the same thing about the Liberals' efforts to remove red tape and unleash the economic potential of this country. We have so many natural resources. We have so many jobs that could be created in this country, and what the Liberals have done time and time again, and what they are doing with Bill C-49, is causing legal nightmares. They are going to cause red tape nightmares for years to come, and it is Canadian workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who are going to be hurt.

We are putting this amendment forward. We are opposing the constant red tape of the Liberals. After nine years, Canadians have had enough, and I do not blame them.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here this time of the night, and I do want to congratulate Lin Paddock, who won the Baie Verte—Green Bay by-election in Newfoundland. Kudos to him, a progressive Conservative, as he won with an almost 80% victory. Actually, two years ago, in a by-election, he had 48%. The Liberals went from 52% to 24%. So that is Newfoundland, the Maritimes, but there has been a plethora of polls the past year that have the Liberals trailing. I know that we do not count our chickens before they hatch, but this one did hatch this evening. I think that the Liberals and the NDP should get this message that they are out of touch with Newfoundlanders, Maritimers, British Columbians and everyone in between. What is the problem? Is it just because people like the change of colour? No, the issue is that the Liberals' policies are hurting Newfoundlanders, Maritimers and all Canadians. They are putting a squeeze on Canadians.

Now, the member for Kingston and the Islands just finished talking about bringing down inflation. Well, he fails to recognize that all those past number of years when inflation was extremely high have not gone away, and Canadians are struggling to pay for the increases that have been happening because of the out-of-control spending.

I have been in Newfoundland. I was in Labrador once in Goose Bay in 2016. I was very impressed. I went to St. John's, rented a car, went down the Avalon Peninsula, and I was surprised at the wealth. I saw a lot of construction, a lot of nice houses and it is a beautiful part of the country. It has been transformed from a have-not to a have province. However, that was in 2016, and already there were starting to be some problems. With the anti-energy policies of the Liberals, the Newfoundlanders and the Maritimers had a lot of flights going directly to Fort McMurray, but their policies squeezed that and those direct flights and that income were cut off, which has hurt. So, a tip for the government is that it should listen to the Conservatives, which might help it a little bit, because we are listening to the people of Canada.

However, the problem that we have with Bill C-49 is that it is essentially just going to be adding more regulations and more red tape to an already cumbersome, if not impossible, process. Yes, it is pretty much impossible to get projects approved in Canada, and that is very unfortunate.

I think the comments from the member from Nova Scotia a little earlier bear repeating, about the tidal project in the Bay of Fundy that was ready to roll. It was tested, they were bringing electricity into Nova Scotia, and then it got cut off. It got cancelled by the Liberal Department of Fisheries.

This is a prime, and incredible, example of a potential project that could have been a reality with green energy, yet the Liberals cancelled it. It is just contrary. Looking at this bill, the Liberals are saying that it is pro-renewable energy. They had something right in their hands that could have gone forward and would have supplied hundreds of megawatts, and it was just cancelled. This is what the Liberals will also be doing with these other projects.

I am from British Columbia. We saw similar things happen for energy that is clean, for example, the LNG. The presidents of Germany and Japan wanted LNG and wanted production because of the invasion of Ukraine and their source of energy from Russia being cut off. They said that they needed it.

The Prime Minister's response was to see if there was a business case. That was basically flipping the bird. Then they went to Qatar, which is a sponsor of many terrorist organizations. This is something that we could have gotten. These are jobs. The biggest private project in history is happening right now in Prince Rupert, the LNG. That was approved under the Harper Conservative government. It reduces global emissions worldwide.

However, the Liberals have blocked everything else from happening. They talk about consultation with indigenous people. The northern gateway project was supported by all the different first nations along the route. The Liberals thought about it and asked what they were going to do there. The first nations wanted it, but what were they going to do? They decided to find a few elders who were not even part of the leadership and put everything upon them.

Then the Liberals cancelled the project because those elders were against it, even though the first nations, the Wet'suwet'en First Nations and everyone else, wanted it. The Liberals blocked it. This is just a sham, as far as what the Liberals say toward the first nations, that they really want to consult and work with them. This is just a way to block and not allow first nations and Métis people to really benefit.

As far as the energy projects, it seems what the Liberals are really just building more regulations, more red tape and more bureaucracy. The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development worked with the Auditor General to do a study on the net-zero accelerator initiative, a $7.4-billion project. Their conclusion was that there was no due diligence happening. They could not even determine if emissions would go down. The contracts were not clear. It is just a mess.

It is the same thing with the $1-billion green slush fund. The Liberals appointed Liberals to a board, and those Liberals directed hundreds of millions of dollars to their own personal companies. This is the type of mess that we are facing here in Canada. It is all about what is in it for me, or what is in it for the Liberals. We saw that with the WE Charity, where the Prime Minister's family got significant money for contracts. We saw that with former Liberal MP Frank Baylis with the COVID contracts. We see it all the way through.

We just have to question if that is the Liberal objective, to build bureaucracy and build more opportunities to give money to their friends and family.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands undoes himself with his own arguments. He says inflation is not as bad as it was three years ago. He says the Liberals are getting a little better than they were. The Liberals want to tell us they might be bad, but they are getting a little better, and they are not doing as badly as they used to.

To the member's comments on the Constitution, the Liberals just show complete disregard for the Constitution. They just ignore it. They violate the law routinely. We see that with Bill C-69. The anti-energy, anti-development Bill C-69 has been found, in part, to be unconstitutional, and rather than responding to it, they are resuscitating provisions in Bill C-49.

While I am on my feet, I just want to say the lack of extending the rural top-up to the people of Pefferlaw is a grave injustice. I stand with the member for York—Simcoe in calling for the immediate redress of that injustice.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to address the House this evening, as always, and to follow my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, who knows a bit more about Atlantic Canada than I do. Nonetheless, I am pleased to support his view and the view of my Conservative colleagues that Bill C-49 needs to go back for further study, that it is a deeply flawed bill.

Fundamentally, for those who are just joining us at home, Bill C-49 is about furthering the government's anti-energy, antidevelopment agenda. In that context, let us talk a little bit about the state of this beautiful country. We are here because we are fighting for Canada, this country that we love and believe in. Canada is a cold frontier nation built on hard work. People who came here as immigrants or people who have been here since time immemorial did not come here or stay here because of the weather. They worked hard in a cold frontier nation to build beautiful things that lasted for themselves and for future generations. They have always taken pride in their hard work. Canadians have understood that it is not the easy life we seek, but it is through striving and struggle that we build and expand a beautiful country for those who come after us.

When I talk to people working in this country, that is what they want. They want to be able to work hard, to use their God-given creativity and genius to create new things for their families and for the future. The government, unfortunately, gets this country totally wrong. This is evident in the way it has approached economic policy and so many other areas over the last nine years. It thinks Canadians are just waiting for that next handout from government. While some Canadians do need to rely on social supports and assistance from time to time, the desire of Canadians is to be able to work, produce, and provide for themselves and their families and, indeed, for posterity.

The government's approach to energy policy, then, is completely disconnected from the desires and aspirations of the people of this country. Canadians want to be able to work, produce and create. People who work in the energy sector, in some cases, face cold, harsh elements, working outside and striving for opportunities for themselves and their families. However, they do this with joy and relish because satisfaction comes from that production; this gives them joy, strengthens their sense of meaning and purpose and allows them, again, to be connected to something greater than themselves.

The government does not believe in the energy economy. It does not think that it is part of the future of the country's economic potential. It has come up with this concept, a so-called just transition. It wants to sell people on the idea that they might no longer, under the managed anti-energy transitional policies of the government, be able to work in these highly productive sectors of the economy. Instead, the government promises that there might be social assistance payments available to them.

This misunderstands the realities of our fiscal situation and the fact that one cannot promise endless spending on borrowing and think it is just going to go on forever. Of course, we see the effects of the government's economic policies with the accumulation of debt and deficit as a result of more and more spending promises. There is no meaningful fiscal anchor, just continuous expansionary spending promises. This has been the hallmark of the government.

Moreover, these promises of moving people out of productive sectors of the economy and onto social assistance ignore the essential nature of the Canadian worker and the aspirations that have defined this country. People do not just want to work for the money, although the money helps. People derive a sense of value and meaning from their ability to produce, create and contribute constructively to the economy. That is why so many have come to this country and built our country into what it is. Nonetheless, after nine years of the policies of the NDP-Liberal government, we are, of course, weaker than we have been for a long time.

The government has more than doubled the national debt, if we can imagine that. The Prime Minister is responsible for more than half of this country's national debt. We see crime, chaos, drugs and disorder reigning in our streets, as many people feel a sense of desperation.

Many Canadians feel that doing the right thing, working hard and living a good life no longer pays in this country. People who are trying to take advantage of the system are getting ahead, whereas those who are trying to work hard and do what is right fall further behind. This has increasingly become the reality in this country after nine years under the Prime Minister.

However, the good news is that this is not truly what we are as a country. It is not what we are as Canada. It is not what we were before 2015, and it is not what we will be after we have restored the kind of responsible leadership this country needs.

The economy is not just about money. It is really about providing people with the opportunity to engage in meaningful work and to have the joy, sense of purpose and mission that comes from working hard and providing for the next generation. With that in mind, we have an agenda.

The Conservative Party is proposing an agenda that is based on restoring the country's enthusiasm for development. We are a country that has, in the past, undertaken great nation-building infrastructure. We are a country that builds things. In the process, we give jobs and opportunity to each other, and we strengthen our sense of national unity and purpose.

In the 19th century, it was our cross-country railroad. Today, in the 21st century, we need to become a country that builds great things again. We need to build homes and national energy infrastructure. We need to support the development of energy infrastructure in all parts of this country, and that includes, of course, in Atlantic Canada.

However, instead of recognizing the urgent need to once again become a country that builds things, the government continues to propose antidevelopment, energy-blocking legislation, such as Bill C-49.

Our plan is based on axing the tax to unleash the creative potential of the economy and building homes at a micro level. We are not building enough homes in this country. I do not mean “we” as in the state, I mean “we” collectively. The government has put itself in the way of new home construction. It is time we axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget so we do not have inflationary spending getting in the way of development and, of course, stop the crime that is holding back our communities from reaching their full potential.

Our plan to restore Canada is based on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime. It is an agenda that seeks to build beautiful things that last and build the nation-building infrastructure of the 21st century, that is, homes at the micro level, and at the national level, the energy infrastructure, the mines and the development opportunities in both traditional energy and new green energy.

The problem with the Liberal government, in terms of its rhetoric on green, is that it misses how its antidevelopment, red-tape-driven agenda is actually holding up green projects as well.

If we have an economy where people want to invest, where we can unleash opportunity and where we are attracting investment with the right tax policies, as well as pulling aside red tape, this would have an impact on both traditional and green energy.

The Liberal approach is to pile red tape on and then hope that an additional subsidy is somehow going to help move certain preferred projects in preferred sectors along. They do not understand that the government's role should not be to pick winners and losers; rather, it should be to create an environment where all businesses want to invest and pursue opportunity.

That is what our country was before 2015 and will be again under responsible, Conservative, pro-development leadership. Despite the challenges our country faces, I know that there is great excitement about what is to come. I hear it from constituents across the country. There is great hope for the restoration of this country to one where we see the good in each other, where we see the opportunity in our natural resources and where regions wish for each other's success.

Under the current government, there has been a pitting of regions against each other. There has been a desire to create division between, for instance, Atlantic Canada and the west, with a carbon tax policy that seeks to create a temporary fake break to the carbon tax in eastern Canada while not having the same kind of changes happen in western Canada. Nonetheless, the carbon tax is expected to go way back up again in eastern Canada. Liberal ministers have made incredibly divisive comments on this. This is the Liberal approach. It is to see economic development as a zero-sum game. They have to tear down the west in order to build up the east.

What we say in the Conservative Party is this: Let us encourage and be excited about the opportunities for growth and development in every part of this country. As an Alberta MP, I want to see Atlantic Canada succeed. I want to see Atlantic Canada become incredibly prosperous and create jobs and opportunities for people in Atlantic Canada. I want the same thing in Quebec, Ontario, the north and every region of the country. Conservatives want to see every family, community, region, province and territory prospering and building itself up. We want to end the division. There is hope for this new vision of a strong Canada made up of strong individuals. The Liberals are bent on a government that is constantly gorging itself and growing at the expense of citizens. Conservatives want a smaller government and bigger citizens. That is our vision, and that is how energy development connects to that vision of what a brighter future will be when the current Leader of the Opposition becomes prime minister.

Why is it important to support energy development? It is important on four grounds, which I would like to go through: on economic grounds, on reconciliation grounds, on environmental grounds and on global security grounds.

I have spoken about the economic grounds already, but we can build a strong national economy driven by the private sector if we focus on removing the barriers that prevent investment and development from moving forward. I believe in the inherent creative potential of every human being, wherever they live, whatever their background. We do not create economic opportunity through central state planning, but rather by unleashing the creative genius of every individual. We need to build systems that emphasize subsidiarity, which is decentralized decision-making that unleashes the creativity of more and more individuals as part of economic development. That is why our focus should be on removing gatekeepers, removing red tape, identifying those things that prevent development and investments from taking place, and removing those barriers. It is only through the creative genius of individuals with new ideas and taking risks through investment that we will truly see economic growth and opportunity.

This government seems to believe that it is about the government making bets on specific sectors, without taking any kind of risk itself. The Liberals are not spending their own money, after all, and they are only applying the creativity of the central state system. This is not how we build a powerful modern economy, and all the evidence shows that. We have the current government, frankly, trending towards the most left-wing economic philosophy in a government that we have seen in decades. This is not the John Chrétien-Paul Martin Liberal Party. This is a government that loves centralized state planning as its approach to the economy, and it clearly just does not work.

Energy development has incredible potential for facilitating reconciliation. Canadians want to see each other succeed. We all want to see success in economic development that will provide jobs and opportunity for indigenous peoples. A big part of that is going to be economic development in the area of energy, and many indigenous nations are eagerly engaging with and investing in this opportunity.

We have a number of prominent indigenous leaders who are joining the Conservative Party and running in the next election. In the Edmonton area, we have Chief Billy Morin, who is a great champion of energy development. He will, of course, be joining our caucus after the next election. Indigenous leaders such as Ellis Ross, Billy Morin and so many others understand the potential for economic development, for prosperity and for ending poverty in indigenous communities through energy development.

Many indigenous communities are asking for this, yet the Liberal approach is, on the one hand, if someone is proposing a development project, to pile on consultation processes, but then when they want to stop development from happening, they do not consult at all. We have had many instances in which the government has proposed antidevelopment policies and has shut down development opportunities that indigenous nations wanted, and the Liberals did not feel like they had to consult at all. How do they explain that? The government, on the one hand, wants to constantly pile on more red tape if a project is going to move forward, but it does not feel any need to consult with indigenous nations when it is imposing antidevelopment projects on communities who want the opportunity and want the prosperity to come from that.

Conservatives believe in the benefits of development, and we believe that consultation should be meaningful consultation. It should be required and a part of the process, within reasonable parameters and a reasonable time frame, and it should be part of the process if they are moving forward with a pro- or an antidevelopment policy. Either way, the people should be listened to and consulted.

In terms of the environment, Canada's energy sector is continually improving its environmental performance. This is part of who we are. This has always been part of who we are. We live here. We live on this land. We breathe the air. We are all working together on environmental improvements. However, that environmental improvement surely cannot mean shutting down highly productive sectors of the economy and moving those jobs to other jurisdictions that do not have the same environmental standards. Given the global need for energy, either Canada can fill and respond to that global need, or we can leave it to other countries that do not have the same standards that we do. I submit that it is better for the environment if Canada continues to develop and improve its environmental performance while sharing the technology that it develops with the rest of the world. This is good for our economy. It contributes to reconciliation. It is also good for the environment.

Finally, I want to speak about global security. This is the biggest issue being talked about around the world. We are in a new cold war. The world is an increasingly unstable place, and access to energy will be a critical part of that global struggle as it unfolds. Canada could play a critical role. Most of the world's free democracies happen to be geographically small, more densely populated nations that rely on the import of natural resources. This is the reality for our democratic partners in Europe as well as in the Asia-Pacific. In the vast majority of cases, they are geographically small, densely populated nations that struggle with energy security and have to constantly be thinking about how they could position themselves to have a secure supply of energy imports.

Canada, relatively uniquely in the democratic world, is a geographically vast, sparsely populated nation blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We are that cold frontier nation within the community of democratic countries. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to develop those resources for the benefit not only of our own domestic economy, but also for the benefit of our partners and contributing to global security.

When European countries have to rely or have chosen to rely on imports of energy from Russia, they fuel the aggressive, violent, genocidal designs of the Putin regime. Canada can be strategic and displace and replace that Russian gas. Particularly when we are talking about energy development in Atlantic Canada, of course, which has greater proximity to Europe compared to western Canadian resources, there is a great opportunity for us to be excitedly engaging with the opportunity in Atlantic Canadian energy development and using that opportunity to not only support Canadian prosperity, but also contribute to global energy security. This is good for us, but it is more fundamentally the right thing to do in this new cold war struggle to ensure that our democratic allies around the world do not have to rely on strategic foes for energy, that they do not have to calibrate their foreign policy positions for fear of losing access to the fuel that their people need.

This is Canada's vocation. This is Canada's opportunity in this new struggle. Let us step up to seize it. Let us do what is right for our country and for our people. Let us also play our essential role in the world by rejecting Liberal antidevelopment bills and standing up for Canada and for freedom everywhere by developing our natural resources and creating jobs, opportunity and prosperity for the Canadian people.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I especially liked the part about the tidal energy industry in the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world. As for the bill before us, we supported Bill C‑49 at second reading because we expected a collegial approach, and we thought we would be able to discuss it and improve it in committee. However, the government rejected all of our amendments.

In the hon. member's opinion, is that how this government operates, even with a minority of seats? Is that not the same way it behaves toward its provincial counterparts?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his wealth of knowledge of history, not only in his province but also in this country.

It is probably not in the Standing Orders for me to do this, so I want to be careful, but I will make a bet or a wager. Several Conservative members have consistently stood up and made a case based on the government's history, based on Bill C-69 and based on many of the same provisions that are in Bill C-49, which we are dealing with. There is an amendment that would send the bill back to committee to fix some of what I think is going to be deemed unconstitutional, dragging the process out and creating an investment climate in this country that is going to go in the wrong direction.

I want to make sure one more time that my colleague can get on the record again, as the Liberals and the NDP seem to be blind to the idea that this could even happen. Can the member talk about what he predicts would happen in the future if the bill passes in its current form and does not go back to committee?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to rise tonight with respect to Bill C-49, which would amend, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the offshore petroleum board's mandate from petroleum to regulating overall energy. We have proposed an amendment at this stage to deal with the fact that parts of this bill would implement elements of the Impact Assessment Act, IAA, that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

I would like to start by addressing some of the concerns that I have heard over the last few weeks from Liberal members from my part of the world in Atlantic Canada. One of them, the member for Kings—Hants, has an agriculture riding, so he is expert at spreading manure. He has very much pushed the envelope on what this bill is about. It almost makes us believe that maybe he had not read it.

I am going to talk a bit about the issue of tidal energy to start, which was mentioned a little earlier by one of my NDP colleagues. The good news is that the first North American tidal project that was able to produce actual electricity without being destroyed by the tides of the Bay of Fundy worked. The bad news is the project is dead. Why is that project dead? It is dead because of the natural virtue-signalling tendencies of the current Liberal government; the Liberal government killed it, if members can believe it.

Sustainable Marine Energy started developing the alternative energy project in the Bay of Fundy. If members do not know, I will tell them that the Bay of Fundy's tides, every day, push more water in and out of the Bay of Fundy than all other rivers in the world combined in their flow in one day. That is the power of the Bay of Fundy. Many attempts have been made to put turbines at the bottom of the ocean, millions and millions of dollars in the Bay of Fundy, and within about 48 hours they are blown apart by the actual power of the sea and those tides that rise 48 feet and drop 48 feet every day. They are the highest tides in the world.

Sustainable Marine Energy developed a different approach, basically put the turbines on the top of the water, and that energy project in the Bay of Fundy was licensed in 2012. Who was the government in 2012? I think it was the Conservatives. The first energy tidal project producing clean, renewable energy was approved by the Conservative government in 2012. That is when the green energy bonanza, which could have been a bonanza, was started in Atlantic Canada. What happened? The tidal project would have provided nine megawatts of clean, green energy to Nova Scotia's electrical grid and could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, which is the equivalent of taking 3,700 cars off the road. It sounds pretty good to me and it sounded pretty good to the Harper government, and that is why it was approved to go ahead with the experiment.

If the Liberal government really cared as much about combatting climate change and about green energy as the Liberals claimed to, one would think that they would have continued to license this project, to develop it and to draft this offshore power that we have. However, they did not; one would be wrong.

For its trail-blazing efforts, this is what happened to Sustainable Marine Energy. It was awarded, I would say, a red tide. In the ocean, a red tide kills everything. A blue tide, everything lives in; and the red tide in the ocean actually kills all fish. The company was awarded a red tide of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. For those familiar with the energy projects out west and the power of DFO in preventing energy projects in western Canada, the government of course decided to use this in the ocean as well when it came to Sustainable Marine Energy. The government repeatedly delayed the permits and rejected permits, even after being provided reams and reams of science about how the fisheries were not impacted by this project.

The last project, which is the straw that broke the camel's back, was last year. After five years of the regulatory challenges by DFO, the project in Digby county, and I know the Speaker is very familiar with it since Digby county is in his constituency, that would have gone a long way to fighting against climate change was cancelled by DFO.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise on behalf of the people of Skeena—Bulkley Valley and speak to what I believe is a Conservative amendment to Bill C-49, which in turn amends two other pieces of legislation, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and makes consequential changes to other acts.

I see my friend from Nova Scotia is already yawning. I promise the speech is about to get quite a bit more exciting.

We are talking in part this evening about renewable energy, about this really exciting industry that is growing in leaps and bounds and is going to very quickly take over as the primary energy source, powering countries and economies around the globe.

I thought I would start by first going back to my home province, to the west coast. Tonight we are talking about Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If we go some 4,000 kilometres westward, we get to the islands of Haida Gwaii. I was there just a couple of weeks ago and met in Masset briefly with the folks from the Swiilawiid Sustainability Society, which is a grassroots organization on Haida Gwaii that, among other things, is working on a project called Project 0% Diesel. Being a remote archipelago, Haida Gwaii gets most of its energy from diesel generators. This, of course, produces a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions and is something that folks on Haida Gwaii want to move off through the generation of renewable energy.

The folks at Swiilawiid are going to be hosting this year's renewable energy symposium on September 21-22. That is an opportunity for Haida citizens and people living on Haida Gwaii to come together and talk about the myriad options and opportunities for renewable energy generation as part of tackling the climate crisis, as well as creating economic development, jobs and innovation right on Haida Gwaii.

There are two other projects I will mention. Haida Gwaii has emerged as a real leader in northern British Columbia when it comes to renewable energy. There is a really exciting tidal power pilot project that is moving ahead, I believe, with some federal funding. The village of Masset has installed what was at the time the largest solar installation in British Columbia, a two-megawatt solar farm at the Masset airport. I had a chance to see it when I flew into Masset about a month ago. This is exciting stuff on the west coast.

However, the bill we are debating this evening is dealing with the east coast and the development of, among other things, offshore wind, which is a tremendous opportunity. I will just briefly review that. I know we have been debating this for some time, so people know what the bill does. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are nodding that we have been debating it for quite a while, because there are certain people who would rather that this bill did not pass through the House in a timely manner. However, I digress.

Essentially, this bill is going to update legislation and help facilitate the development of an offshore energy industry. This is something that the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have been calling for. There are agreements between those provinces and the federal government to do just that. My understanding is that the premiers of those provinces want this to happen in a big way, because there is a tremendous economic opportunity at stake here, and it is something that is going to come with a huge number of benefits. That is not to say that there are not important questions to be asked.

I, for one, am not a member of the natural resources committee, so I was not party to all of the discussions that have taken place there, but I have been present for some debates about offshore energy and tidal energy. The member down the way will remember when we sat together, I believe at the environment committee, where we talked about a certain tidal project in the Bay of Fundy that was withdrawn by the proponent in part because of government processes. I see that he is shaking his head, so maybe I got some of the details wrong, but at the time Conservative members were bemoaning the loss of this project and calling for the government to do more to incentivize these renewable energy resources. Here we have a bill that, at least according to those provinces and the industry in those provinces, does precisely that, yet we do not see that same call for things to move ahead.

I have listened with interest to all of the speeches this evening. They have covered a bunch of ground. I listened with particular interest to the remarks made by my colleague from Provencher. Several Conservative speakers have indicated that they support this bill in principle, and I think that is admirable if, in fact, it is true. The reason I question whether that is indeed the truth is that if we go back to the vote at second reading, which is a vote on the principle of the bill and a vote to move the bill ahead to committee, where it can be studied and amended, my recollection and the information I have suggest that they voted against it at second reading. Perhaps they could correct me if that is wrong.

It does seem that this is a bill that will move things ahead, and it is something that we support. There are, of course, questions that have been raised about the impact of offshore development on the marine ecosystem. This is a matter that is of utmost importance. My understanding is that the government has suggested that issues related to the impact on specific areas should be properly dealt with through the assessment process on a project-by-project basis. Similarly, there are questions about the impact on fish harvesters who rely on areas that could be developed in the offshore for wind resources, and those are very valid concerns that must be addressed in a proper way.

My hope is that the government would do just that, that it would take those concerns seriously and seek to mitigate those impacts and compensate any fish harvester who is affected by the development of any offshore resources.

What we are talking about is tapping into an area of economic development, an area of renewable energy generation that is burgeoning around the world. If we look at some of the statistics, in January of this year the International Energy Agency report said that wind and solar are going to generate more electricity this year than hydro power, and by 2025, renewables are going to surpass coal as “the largest source of electricity generation” around the world. By 2028, renewables are going to “account for over 42% of global electricity generation”.

This is a massive opportunity. It is an energy revolution that is happening, a transition that is happening. It behooves Canada, our federal government and us as parliamentarians to ensure that the frameworks are in place so that we can take advantage of this as a country, so that provinces like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador can get good projects moving ahead as quickly as possible, can offset or reduce their reliance on fossil fuel sources of energy, and can pursue other opportunities for export, like green hydrogen. We heard about Germany's desire to have green hydrogen exported to it, and if there is a surplus of electricity beyond domestic needs, that is something that should be investigated thoroughly and delivered on.

Again, we hear frequent protestations about the constitutional jurisdiction of provinces. I was at committee when several premiers were invited to attend and talk at length about the perceived infringement on provincial jurisdiction. This idea that every province has a right to determine its economic future is something that we have heard from the Bloc as well. However, in this case, we have maritime provinces that very much want to move forward in an accelerated way with renewable energy development. They want the kind of legislation that is before us to set a predictable framework so that the industry can, in an efficient way, move forward with developments, produce renewable electricity, address the climate crisis and develop the economy all at the same time.

I am pleased to rise tonight and speak to this legislation. I look forward to the questions from my colleagues.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I do know is that we cannot be stalling on real solutions to the climate crisis and on moving forward with renewable energy. As a matter of fact, I have in front of me an article put out by CBC News quoting the Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey. It says, “Newfoundland and Labrador is positioning itself as the primary benefactor and regulator when it comes to offshore wind developments in the province—but the deal hinges on federal legislation passing in Ottawa.”

The federal legislation that is pending is the bill that we are debating this evening, Bill C-49. It is time that we see this go through so that we can see these projects move forward.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am on the natural resources committee, and there were two bills that came to our committee. There were Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 came to us first. The government and the NDP were adamant that we had to do Bill C-50 first and then Bill C-49, but we knew that the Supreme Court had made its reference ruling that C-49 had unconstitutional elements to it, so we proposed to get the Impact Assessment Act right first and do that first and foremost. That way we could pass Bill C-49 because we know that the provinces are looking forward to getting something like this done, and then move on to Bill C-50.

The Liberals basically programmed the committee so we had to do Bill C-50 first and then do Bill C-49. It was done in such a fast fashion. We had industry representatives come in to say that they were not consulted. It is a complete dumpster fire.

I am wondering if my colleague has any explanation as to why the government would want to ram forward something rather than doing our job as parliamentarians, which is to make sure that we get the bill right and make sure we pass a constitutional bill in the first place.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my understanding, and I would have asked my colleague to avail himself of the opportunity to look through the committee evidence from those meetings, is that this concern did come up. I also want to say to him that this is all fresh. This is actually what debate should be about in the House of Commons. The government's tabling of its amendments to respond to the Supreme Court ruling did not come out until the budget implementation act was tabled, which we are all in the middle of reviewing. I am not even sure. I am looking at my colleagues from the finance committee. I do not think they are in the middle of that yet.

The fact is that at finance committee, the BIA amendments on the Impact Assessment Act have not been debated yet, so when the member is saying he is sure that other provincial governments would have raised this, how would they have? This is super fresh, and I am not sure because the government has not made a statement. I do not think it has thought of this. I do not think that its members have said how the Impact Assessment Act could harmonize with the relevant sections of Bill C-49.

My colleague is right. It is not every part of Bill C-49 that is impacted by this, but there are material sections that are, so because the amendment is tight in scope to those relevant sections, he should be able to support it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, since I have some time this evening, as the spouse of a U.S. Army combat veteran and as the stepmother of someone who is currently active within the U.S. Army, I would like to extend my gratitude to the United States of America for its strong allyship towards our country. I do so as the United States observes Memorial Day today.

It is about to get technical in here. Are members ready?

My colleague from Provencher just noted that we are debating an amendment to Bill C-69. I want to read the amendment and then make arguments to colleagues in here, as well as potentially any legislative staff from affected departments who might be listening to this, on why I think the House should avail itself of the opportunity to accept this amendment and do what the amendment says it should do. The amendment reads:

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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 61, 62, 169, and 170 with the view to prevent uncertainty and a lack of clarity caused by the inclusion of similar provisions contained in Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which would insert unanticipated conditions and requirements beyond existing legislation and regulations...

The reason Conservative members have put the amendment forward is that a substantive part of Bill C-49, which this amendment refers to, contains sections of Bill C-69, which were deemed largely unconstitutional.

There is something I do not think anyone has raised in debate in this place, as to why this amendment should go forward. Bill C-49, the substantive bill, was tabled on May 30, 2023. The Supreme Court ruling on the relevant sections in Bill C-49, which could be impacted by the relevant sections in Bill C-69, happened in October of last year.

Something else happened since this was put forward. The government tabled the budget implementation act, which we have been debating. In the budget implementation act, on page 552 through page 577, there are amendments to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, that the government says are in response to the Supreme Court ruling, in an attempt to bring that piece of legislation into alignment with the Supreme Court's decision. The district I represent is in Alberta. The Government of Alberta does not think that the amendments will be constitutional.

However, there is a problem. Everyone needs to consider supporting the amendment for this reason: Although the amendments to the Impact Assessment Act are in the budget implementation act, I cannot find any coordinating or harmonizing amendments between those amendments and what is in Bill C-49. There is a problem with that. Let us put all the debate on the topic aside for a minute. If the budget implementation act is rammed through without our going back and reconsidering the clauses that are in Bill C-49, what is going to happen to the bill? Everybody should do the math on this. It is going to be unconstitutional.

What happens in that circumstance, where there has not been a harmonization of one set of amendments to another? What happens to anybody who is looking at potentially investing in these projects? What would they say? They would say that this is a huge risk and that it is going to be held up in litigation. Therefore, this is the reason the House should support the amendment.

Everybody should put their feelings on the topic of the bill aside and think about House procedure for a second. Unless the bill goes back to committee to consider harmonizing two things, we are going to be in a battle. These things are, first, whether the bill actually captures the spirit of what is in the budget implementation act and, second, whether the provinces deem it constitutional. The government is going to be in a battle over this, and that is antithetical to what the bill is supposed to do, which is to attract investment in these projects.

What has happened here, I think, is that the government members did not think that the Supreme Court was going to rule against the government; that is why they tabled Bill C-49 in May 2023 with the same type of language that was deemed unconstitutional in the original bill, Bill C-69. However, the Liberals are now trying to fast-track the bill through the House of Commons without its going back to committee to consider that harmonization, and that is a huge problem. At the very least, the government members should be doing a technical briefing to show how the amendments they have proposed in the budget implementation bill would impact the relevant sections that are mentioned in the amendment. That is the bare minimum that they should be doing. I am not sure about anyone else in here, but I did not get the invitation to that briefing. I do not think it happened, because I do not think that the Liberals have actually done this work.

Therefore, the rationale that I just set out here is poor planning on the part of the minister. Beyond that, the reason I would like to implore some of my colleagues from the Bloc, perhaps the NDP and perhaps even members of the Liberal Party is that the minister and their parliamentary secretary should never have let it get to this stage. This is a failure in their parliamentary affairs component. Beyond that, there is another component, which is that now we are going to gear up for another fight with the provinces. This is not just about Alberta; we know that all the provinces had concerns with Bill C-69.

In fact, in debate on the Bloc opposition motion earlier this week, Bloc members talked about the fact that they wanted clarity on ensuring that the government was not going to reach into the jurisdictional area of Quebec and of other provinces. I want to read to members a statement from the government of my province of Alberta on what was in the budget implementation bill. This is the statement, titled “Impact Assessment Act remains unconstitutional: Joint Statement”:

Premier Danielle Smith, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz and Minister of Justice Mickey Amery issued the following statement on the federal government’s amendments to the Impact Assessment Act:

Alberta has completed its review of the federal government’s recently tabled amendments to the Impact Assessment Act.

For colleagues who are following along, that is what is in the budget implementation bill. It starts on page 552; that is what they are referring to in the statement. The statement continues:

Even with these amendments, the act is still unconstitutional.

The [federal] Minister of Environment and Climate Change...still has the ability to meddle in projects that are within provincial jurisdiction.

That is how they are describing the amendments. They do not find that constitutionality. It continues:

This will put projects [and they list a bunch of different resource projects and highways] at risk.... This is simply unacceptable and Alberta, when it comes to intra-provincial projects, will not recognize the Impact Assessment Act as valid law.

The situation could have been avoided if, following Alberta’s Supreme Court victory, the federal government agreed to meaningfully consult with the province, rather than sending vague letters and blank templates. The federal government did not even inform Alberta when they were tabling these amendments in the House of Commons.

This failure to work collaboratively with Alberta is a choice made by [the] Prime Minister...and [the environment minister].

Choices have consequences. Alberta has won in court twice in the past year and we are ready to win again.

We are not at a point or a juncture in our nation's history where we can afford to be purposefully and knowingly picking battles with the provinces when our economy is barely sputtering along on life support.

We need investment into major natural resource projects. We need clarity in this type of legislation. We do not need more fights with the provinces.

What I see here is a hot mess that has not been adequately vetted by the parliamentary affairs people of the minister, and it has clearly not gone through cabinet with this type of scrutiny. When I was a cabinet minister, one of the things I always thought about when considering proposals for new legislation was how it would impact other areas of proposed legislation so that we would not get into harmonization issues that would create instability for investment.

That is exactly what we have here. Again, I know that people have issues with the Alberta energy sector. Members can park all of that for a second and put that aside. If this was the Government of Quebec or any other province, I would still feel the same way because it is counterproductive for the government to ram legislation forward knowing that there is going to be a fight on their hands, particularly when the province likely has a valid case.

I will just back it up to explain why this amendment to send it back to committee should be supported. If Bill C-49 is sent back to committee, it could be reviewed very quickly in coordination with the amendments that are in the budget implementation bill to ask if they harmonize. Does one equal the other?

We can argue whether or not they are good amendments, but the reality is that I do not think that exercise, in and of itself, has happened in any substantive way. Certainly, Parliament has not had the opportunity to do that, which is crazy. It is actually crazy that these are changing. If people have never sat around a board table, if they have never evaluated political risk in terms of making a major capital investment, this is the exact type of instability that people look at and say, “No, the capital is not going there.”

Number one, Parliament should have the right to scrutinize whether or not these major pieces of regulatory changes actually harmonize with one another. Number two, to the case that my colleagues from the Bloc just made, we should be discussing whether or not they are good.

The budget implementation bill is also being rammed through the House of Commons by the Liberals and the NDP. This is a major substantive piece of legislation. There are so many other pieces in here that there is no possible way that the finance committee is going to be able to get into the granular details of this component of the legislation to see if they harmonize with each other.

I am looking for colleagues that are on the finance committee here. Are they going to have time to do this? No, of course not. It is not going to happen. That is a huge problem. By not having this happen, it is basically sending a message to the entire legal community and the entire investment community that we do not know what we are doing. We need to just back it up and take it to committee.

The last reason this exercise would be good is that it would be an opportunity to do meaningful consultation with the provinces on this very topic. Here we have a very heated statement from the premier and the environment minister of one of the top grossing economies in the province, and they are saying that the government did not talk to them. Instead, they sent “vague letters and blank templates.” Do members know what vague letters and blank templates say to the investment community? They say, “Do not invest here.”

There needs to be meaningful consultation with the provinces. Again, it should not be one province or another. Particularly if my colleagues from the Bloc are going to argue for provincial sovereignty within the area of their jurisdiction, then the principle of meaningful consultation with every province should apply. If this went back to committee, it would give an opportunity for meaningful consultation with the provinces on the areas where there needs to be harmonization and discussion, so that we do not end up in another protracted constitutional battle. This is what our job is.

The last thing I want to emphasize is that the clauses the amendment refers to are not minor clauses. It is not like the short title of the bill. These are substantive clauses that were already found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Clause 62 deals with “The Regulator may, on application containing any information required by the Regulator or prescribed, issue an authorization with respect to each work or activity proposed to be carried out in relation to an offshore renewable energy project.” These are substantive clauses that I am not satisfied, as a parliamentarian, are harmonized.

Often when I stand here in this place and talk about stuff like this, I feel like Cassandra, that Greek myth of the woman who is doomed to know the future and nobody believes her. I want to be proven wrong on this, but if we do not walk this back to committee and sort this out, I guarantee members that there will be a constitutional challenge on both of these bills, there will be less investment, and this is going to end up in the Supreme Court anyway. Why would we not just do our job as parliamentarians and get it right to begin with? That makes a lot of sense to me.

This does not have to take a lot of time. I mean, this is what parliamentary committees are for. It should be to consider these exact things. We should be getting the officials who wrote the relevant segments in the BIA into committee to ask, “Hey, do these jive with each other? Show me how. Walk me through this.” That would also give opportunity for the provinces to have input, and then consider it in clause by clause.

Now, why is getting this right so important? It is because the bureaucrats should not run Parliament. That is our job, right? What I have seen here is a lack when ministers do not do these sorts of things. Right now, the minister should be reaching out to party leaders or House leaders and saying, “Hey, you know what? Let's go do a quick study on this. Let's get this right.” However, what is happening is the ideologically rigid idea that we have to ram this through. I think that comes up through the bureaucracy because they are just not on top of parliamentary affairs, and procedure matters. The rule matters. At the end of the day, one of our key functions as members of Parliament is holding the government to account on technical things like this. When we do not show the public that we have the capacity to do this, they do not want to invest here. They do not have faith in us as parliamentarians.

That is why this amendment is common sense. We have gotten it to a certain point of debate in the House. There's various viewpoints on the subject matter and the outcomes, but at the end of the day, there is a legitimate Supreme Court ruling that Parliament needs to consider in the implementation of this bill, which may not have been considered.

If we do not do this, and this does end up in a fight with the provinces, and this does end up in a Supreme Court fight, and we do chase investment away, what does that mean? It means that our economy continues to shrink. It means that we are not getting on top of renewable energy projects. It means that we are not developing the economy at all, and we cannot afford to do that.

Our country is broke right now, right? We cannot afford to make mistakes, or allow the government to make mistakes like this, and that is why we have to support amendments for additional legislative scrutiny, which is exactly what this amendment is calling for. It is very neutrally worded. It is not even referring to the whole bill. It is referring to the specific clauses that could be impacted by the Supreme Court ruling on Bill C-69.

I ask members to please let sanity prevail. Let us take the bill back to committee. Let us show the legal and investment community that Parliament is serious, that we can do something that resembles work, and let us get this right.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a bit of a point of order. I indicated earlier that I would be supporting Bill C-49 in my speech. I support the amendment, but I will not necessarily be supporting the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, 275 years ago, humankind went from using primarily wood-, peat- and coal-based energy to using steam energy, though it was often still produced using coal. That enabled first England and then other countries to enter the industrial age. The steam was mainly produced using coal. Oil was discovered and mainly used by industry. Today, other energy sources are available, thanks to the ever-changing state of knowledge.

Bill C-49 seeks to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. We are talking here not only about offshore oil and gas development but also about the implementation of offshore energy sources that could accelerate the energy transition. The second part has the potential to be useful.

Nonetheless, it is disappointing too. Our role in Parliament is to study bills, improve them in committee and pass them at various stages. I hope I am not telling anyone here anything new. The purpose of studying bills is to hear different points of view on how to improve the bills so that they meet the needs and realities experienced by our constituents. We represent all the constituents in our ridings, not just those who voted for us. As much as possible, the ideas that are heard have to help in reaching a consensus.

A minority government is wonderful because it is the most democratic of governments. Under such a government, everyone must sit down at the table and negotiate in good faith, and that is what we did. We negotiated in good faith. We voted for Bill C‑49 at second reading so we could improve it to create a vision for the future, a gateway to the future. Unfortunately, during the study in committee, the supposed benefits of a minority government did not pan out. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the bill at second reading, but all our amendments were rejected in committee.

Admittedly, the bill puts forward some interesting energy transition ideas. However, the oil and gas elements remain problematic for us. Some say that Canada is just a tiny drop in the world's ocean of greenhouse gas emissions, but our oil and gas are intended for export. They are intended to encourage the rest of the world to waste even more resources and further pollute the atmosphere. That is not how we envision the future, and that is one of the problems.

I would like to point out some other problems. Some examples include clause 4, which changes section 2.1 in the original act, and paragraphs 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b), which give powers to the Governor in Council, including “amending the definition offshore renewable energy project” and “prescribing lines enclosing areas adjacent to the Province”. This can be done without consulting the elected representatives of these provinces, particularly if they are not part of the government of the day. These decisions can be made by the Governor in Council without any democratic consultation, either with parliamentarians or with the provinces concerned. That lacks transparency.

How can anyone believe that this is going to be done transparently? The government can tell me that this process will be transparent, but during the pandemic, drilling permits were issued in protected areas without consultation. What is more, the government said that it was going to resolve that problem by changing the boundaries of the protected area. From what we have seen in the past and from what we can read in the bill, we know that we will be seeing the same things today.

There are also some consistency issues. Perhaps I can expand on the answer that my colleague gave earlier.

This government claims to be green. It says that it will plant two billion trees and that it is encouraging the country to make the transition, and yet it continues to invest heavily in petroleum development and open the doors to that industry.

I think that we can all agree that we will continue to need petroleum because hospitals, especially, cannot do without it. It is used to create plastics that have helped us to save a tremendous amount of time when it comes to sterilization and safety in hospitals.

However, just because we still need petroleum does not mean that we have to continue with large-scale oil development until we are down to the last drop, just so we can make a pile of money. The day when we can eat money instead of food, then we can talk about it. Perhaps money will become more important than everything else, but that is a long way off.

Quebec, on the other hand, was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. It was a societal choice. Was it an easy choice to make? Of course not. Every government wants royalties and more money, but at some point, being a statesperson means protecting the dignity of the weak. There is no one weaker than a fetus, than an unborn child, than the future generation or generations to come. There is no one weaker than that. We must ensure they are protected. We must ensure they have a future. If we develop every last drop without consideration for the next two, three, four and five generations, we are no longer worthy of being called statesmen and stateswomen.

I am still talking about consistency. On the one hand, the government wants to implement slightly greener energies. On the other, it wants to continue developing oil and gas. Developing oil and gas to send to international markets will cancel out any transition efforts. If the government want to be consistent, it needs to invest in the transition first and in oil and gas if necessary.

It is of the utmost importance, but I am not sure that people understand that. Speaking of inconsistency, Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double oil and gas production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels a year. That is nearly one million barrels a day. That takes 100 new wells. How many offshore wind turbines will it take to make up for that? It simply boggles the mind. I could point to Bay du Nord, Trans Mountain and so on.

Offshore wind turbines, yes, but not just anywhere or any which way. There needs to be impact assessments and those assessments need to be done by independent organizations that are free from influence. Where is the promise to protect 30% of the oceans? How are we going to protect them, by drilling wells? How are we going to protect them when the definitions can be changed depending on which influences are being exerted on the governor in council or according to ideologies that are not based in facts?

Our role is to prepare and protect the future for future generations. Bill C‑49 could have lined up with our role of preparing and protecting the future, but it is unfortunately rooted in the past. It is a flying Dutchman that will cripple future generations and their quality of life.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am very pleased to be here this evening to once again debate Bill C‑49. I already spoke to this debate during another stage of the legislative process. We have come to the end of the process in the House. It should be said that the Bloc Québécois has acted in good faith from the start. It has contributed to the debate. In any case, it tried to contribute to improving the bill, but its efforts were not fruitful.

As a reminder, Bill C‑49 seeks to modernize the administrative regime and management of the marine energy industry in eastern Canada. This mainly concerns oil and gas development, which the Bloc Québécois regularly denounces, but also future activities related to the renewable energy sector, namely, offshore wind power off the east coast of Canada.

As I was saying, we were in favour of the principle of the bill, provided that marine biodiversity conservation requirements were met. We therefore supported the part concerning the development of renewable energy in eastern Canada. We were also in favour of tightening the rules around oil and gas development, although in my humble opinion, oil and gas development should no longer exist. From an energy transition perspective, the offshore, non-renewable energy sector needs to decrease, and decrease fast.

It is quite simple for the Bloc Québécois. We believe that no new offshore oil and gas exploration or development projects should be approved, regardless of any specific conditions that might accompany them. That is the approach that Quebec has chosen to take, and we believe that the other maritime provinces should follow suit. The Quebec nation has put a definitive end to oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction, notably by passing an act that puts an end to both those activities and an end to public funding for them as well. This is not the first time I have said this in the House: Quebec was the first government in North America to ban oil and gas exploration and development in its jurisdiction. We obviously think that Canada should follow Quebec's example; however, it is still failing in its duty to protect marine ecosystems by authorizing dozens of new drilling projects in ecologically sensitive areas, particularly drilling inside marine refuges. We know that offshore drilling can and does threaten marine life.

Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the Liberal government continues to promote offshore oil development and authorize drilling that it knows could harm marine biodiversity. This government has a double standard when it comes to protecting marine biodiversity. There is one vision for oil and gas development and a completely different vision for the fishing industry, for example. Just last week, when a right whale was spotted off the north coast of New Brunswick, Fisheries and Oceans Canada immediately announced the closure of lobster fishing areas to Acadian lobster fishers. Understandably, this sparked complaints from lobster fishers. They threatened to demand the resignation of the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard. They also decided to defy the department's decision by leaving their traps where they were in the water, against Fisheries and Oceans Canada's instructions. Once the government realized what was happening, the Minister of Fisheries called an emergency meeting with the lobster fishers. Afterwards, she gave a statement that I will read, considering its bearing on our context.

Following the sighting of a North Atlantic right whale in shallow waters off the northeast coast of New Brunswick last week, Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) instituted a 15-day temporary fishing area closure in Lobster Fishing Area (LFA) 23 C. This decision was based on DFO's sighting data at the time, and in consideration of our international commitments towards marine mammal protection, which are in place to ensure Canada's world-class seafood products continue to be recognized as sustainable and export markets remain available.

Since the initial sighting, DFO has reviewed various data sources to determine the whale was in slightly deeper waters than previously thought. With this new information, I am pleased to see DFO has adjusted the closure requirements and harvesters can now set their traps up to the 10 fathom shallow water protocol management line for the remainder of the 15-day period.

I have asked DFO to convene a meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee on North Atlantic Right Whales which includes representatives of the industry and whale experts to review the existing protocol.

That decision just created an interesting precedent, because this is not the first time that right whales have been seen in the gulf or that their presence has had an impact on fishers. Usually, the result is that fishing areas are closed. However, this time, the minister appears to have backed down. Perhaps she heard the rumours that lobster fishers in New Brunswick were going to call for her resignation. Perhaps DFO made a mistake in its study and did not see the whale at the depth it thought it did. That raises questions about the process that is in place when a whale passes through fishing areas.

Members of the Bloc Québécois are forward-looking. We thought about this issue well before last week. In 2022, we organized a round table on marine biodiversity and another one on fisheries and the right whale. We also made recommendations to the government. We consulted fishers, fishing industry representatives, scientists and experts like Lyne Morissette to get their recommendations. We decided to create a document setting out those recommendations and hand it to the government on a silver platter. The Liberals could do what they wanted with it, but these are worthwhile recommendations that actually come from the industry. When I see that the Minister of Fisheries is currently calling an advisory committee meeting to discuss this subject, I thought that it would be a good idea to bring up the recommendations that we made in 2022, because they are still relevant. I am going to read them.

With respect to the first proposal, my colleagues will recognize our hand in this. We asked:

That the Government of Canada abandon all offshore oil and gas exploration and development effective immediately, both in the North Atlantic and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and halt any such operations that are in progress or that have been announced.

This relates back to what I was saying earlier. The second recommendation is as follows:

That the government authorize a pilot project for the snow crab fishery to open on April 1 each year, on the understanding that, given the abundance of this resource and the certainty of meeting quotas, this measure will reduce the amount of time during which the fishery and whales in transit use the same space north of the Magdalen Islands on their way to the feeding grounds at the tip of the Gaspé Peninsula [and that icebreaking operations to open harbours in New Brunswick be studied];

I will mention it anyway, although I know that improvements have been made in this regard. The crab fishery on the Gaspé Peninsula, at Matane, opened at the end of March this year. I know that icebreaking operations took place in New Brunswick. At the same time, there was not a lot of ice in the gulf or on the St. Lawrence this year. We also have to adjust to the new climate reality.

The third recommendation is the following:

That the government reduce the closure period for marine sectors (quadrants) during the transit passage of right whales to the north of the Magdalene Islands, given that it has been established that the duration of the whale's presence there is roughly 24 hours and that the closure is two weeks, and that the mandatory removal of fishing gear within 48 hours be reassessed since it poses more of an increased risk of disruption than a reduction in the risk of entanglements;

That is entirely true. Often, when the DFO tells fishers to remove their fishing gear, the whale has already gone by, but for two weeks, the fishers cannot continue to fish even though the whale is already gone. There is this whole question of timing that needs to be respected in this case.

Unfortunately, I see that my time is up. We made other proposals in 2022 and they are still relevant. I will be sure to forward them to the Department of Fisheries for inspiration.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was right. Almost all of my speech was critical of Bill C-49. It was intentionally that way because there is a lot to criticize. At the end of the day, I made it very clear that we would be supporting the legislation, but there is a lot of opportunity to improve it. I wish that the Liberal government would listen to and accept the amendments that were presented not only at committee but also here on the floor. Therefore, absolutely, my speech was focused on the criticisms of the bill, because it is deeply flawed. However, in principle we support it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House and 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, which also makes consequential amendments to other acts.

One cannot say much for the government, but it sure knows how to write a catchy little title, does it not? Personally, I would have opted for something more straightforward, like “Bill C-49, the confuse, delay and deter investment in Canada act”. I agree that it is a bit too on the nose, especially for the Liberal government, plus, I think that it has already used that one several times over.

Bill C-49 would build on the existing petroleum regulatory scheme to establish a new regulatory scheme for offshore renewable energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, through their respective accord acts.

I want to be clear. As Conservatives, we are not opposed to this legislation in principle. Despite the nonsense that we so often get from others in the House, Conservatives are not opposed to renewable energy. We are actually in favour of protecting the environment. In fact, to that end, I would remind members of the House of the numerous occasions when Conservatives have called out the Liberal government over its policies regarding pollution. One of its very first acts when they formed government in 2015 was to allow the City of Montreal to dump 8 billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. There was no price on pollution there. Conservatives have called out the government on sending our garbage overseas. There are lots of different examples. The difference here, though, is that when it comes to environmental protection, Conservatives are driven by pragmatism and not by fear.

We love our planet, the good creation that God has blessed us with, and we recognize, as does, I think, any rational person, regardless of creed, that we have a responsibility to be good stewards and to preserve it for future generations. However, rather than give in to alarmism and ideologically motivated climate extremism that we see from many others in this chamber, we recognise that the role that Canada plays in overall emissions and pollution is globally very minor.

If one would take every car off the road, shut down every factory, shut down our entire energy sector, solar panel every roof, heat pump every house, “veganize” every kid and “diaperize” every cow, we would have reduced global emissions by a whopping 1.5% because 98.5% of the problem, or at least the perceived problem, would still exist in other countries. Moreover, the so-called green policies of this and other western governments do nothing to stop climate change but are, in fact, a smoke-and-mirrors job to help governments and wealthy investors get even richer. They do that off the backs of not only the shrinking middle class but also the poorest and the most vulnerable people on our planet.

That being the case, I am always shocked to see the NDP giving the government its full-throated support on these exploitive and unjust policies. Rather than giving in to climate alarmism and enacting these policies that really just make global billionaires and Liberal insiders richer and make everyone else poorer, Conservatives believe in measured, common-sense environmental protections that actually address pollution in proportion to Canada's role in creating it and that protect our beautiful planet. I think that is the common-sense approach, and I think common-sense Canadians agree.

Secondly, we do not entirely oppose this legislation in principle because the provinces are largely in favour of it. The affected premiers, Premier Furey in Newfoundland, Premier Higgs in New Brunswick and Premier Houston in Nova Scotia, of which the latter two are both Conservative, by the way, have all expressed their support for this bill's overarching aims, and we want to respect that.

Unlike the Liberal government, Conservatives respect the Constitution. We recognize that some things are provincial jurisdiction, and as much as we at times would like to meddle, it is not the federal government's job to do so: work in partnership, yes; but dictate, no. I am sure the majority of our premiers are very excited for that wonderful day next fall when that kind of relationship can and will exist again.

However, in the meantime, the question of constitutionality is where this bill falls short. Conservatives agree that there are economic, social and net environmental benefits to promoting alternative or, in some cases, transformational energy sources. We believe government should allow for arm's-length regulatory processes to ensure safe and environmentally responsible development of these resource, including in our coastal waters.

That is all good, but here is the problem. The bill makes these decisions subject to the environmental Impact Assessment Act, also known as Bill C-69. This creates two problems. Number one is that the Supreme Court has ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional; that is a problem. Number two, the fact remains that any relationship between the two bills will lead to inevitable delays because there are going to be court challenges.

Bill C-49 directly references clauses 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, which are precisely the clauses that have been ruled unconstitutional. I don't know, but maybe if the Liberals had bothered to read paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court of Canada decision, they could have avoided this type of blunder, or maybe it is intentional. However, Bill C-49 has also incorporated the Minister of Environment's proposed decision-making scheme into several clauses. Given that this decision-making power and the entirety of the designated project scheme are also unconstitutional components of Bill C-49, they are likely to be ruled, or at least challenged, as unconstitutional as well.

It is inevitable that, in its current form, Bill C-49 will be challenged in the courts, and we have said this throughout the committee study and throughout all the debates. The bill is not watertight. We have tried to amend this legislation so that we could work together on it. The Liberals have always complained that Conservatives will not work with them, yet here we have tried, but the Liberals would not hear any of it. It is part of the Liberals' agenda; they want to control.

In the meantime, while these delays are taking place, what happens to the traditional energy sector jobs in the region? Mining, oil and gas account for 31%, or approximately one-third, of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP. This bill, as it is, could end traditional petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada. What happens to those economies? We already had, in Bill C-55, a provision where a fisheries minister can unilaterally designate a section of ocean as a development-prohibited area, an MPA, a marine-protected area. Now, the government sneaks in provisions in clauses 28 and 137 of this bill, allowing for cabinet to end offshore drilling and, for that matter, even renewable projects.

Even if we give the government the benefit of the doubt, which we should not because it has a proven track record over the last nine years of trying to destroy everything in our energy sector, and even if we ignore the unconstitutionality of this bill, this legislation is still deeply flawed. Like with our traditional energy sector and resources, which we absolutely still need if we want to invest in our success and in our renewable sector or any other sector, there needs to be clarity and efficiency, and right now we have neither. This bill would impose uncertainty and would extend timelines that, regardless of court challenges, could and would hinder the development of that sector.

It takes 1,605 days. That is almost four and a half years, and that is about what it takes to get an approval done. That is ridiculous. Imagine someone wanting to start a small business, willing to invest millions of dollars in a community, to create jobs and to spur the economy, and the government comes along and says that it would be great, that it would love to have them do that and that they could start in four years. They would not come.

The bill also comes with royal recommendation. It would require some level of federal funding, but no specific funding has been allocated. Therefore, now, on a separate piece of legislation that will need to be tabled, debated, studied and passed before this thing can get rolling, again, we are going to see uncertainty and delays, but it is going to take another bill to actually implement this.

There are questions over the consultation requirements with indigenous peoples, and again, we have learned that this is almost a guarantee of court challenges, equalling more delays and more uncertainty. We need to have a reasonable and a responsible regulatory framework in place, but too often what the government gives us are gatekeepers, folks who just want to delay and to create confusion so that nothing ever gets done.

Ideologically motivated decisions, as more and more authority would wind up with the minister, is what we can expect from the bill. Unlike the NDP and Liberals who roadblock, make traditional energy more expensive, and drive out new opportunities, Conservatives are committed to getting rid of the gatekeepers. We will reduce approval timelines and remove unnecessary, restrictive red tape and taxes so companies can and will invest in Canada, and major energy products can actually get built in Canada again.

When we look back at how the government has handled past energy projects, we just have to shake our head. We have to look no further back than the TMX. Kinder Morgan had the wonderful idea of expanding the pipeline. We needed an additional pipeline that would run to the west coast, to bring it to tidal water, so we could export more of our energy. What happened with that? The government had its initial approval through the National Energy Board. Then, of course, it was challenged, and a further delay of two years was added. That brought up the cost by another $2 billion. The initial cost of the TMX was pegged at $5.4 billion, and the two-year delay brought it up to $7.4 billion. Then along came Bill C-69, which just put more uncertainty into the whole equation.

Kinder Morgan threw up its arms, went to the government and asked it to buy the pipeline. Kinder Morgan could not get it done because there was going to be way too much going on for the company to accomplish that. The government said it was going to be an energy hero and buy the TMX, the expanded pipeline project, and get it done. The government paid $4.5 billion to Kinder Morgan to buy the rights for the pipeline. In addition to that, the government was committed to spending another $7.4 billion in constructing the pipeline. That would have been a cost of $12 billion.

That is what the government told us at the time: “For $12 billion, we got ourselves a pipeline. The Government of Canada is going to be in the energy business. We are going to be claiming all of these royalties from energy companies. This is a good deal for Canadians.” Guess what? That was in 2019. We are in 2024. The pipeline has now cost $34 billion. From the original estimate, before there were any delays, it should have been a $10-billion project. Now it is a $34-billion project. That is an additional $24 billion of cost into the TMX pipeline.

Who else but a Liberal government could screw up things so badly as to increase construction costs by 500%? That is right. Members do not have the answer either. I cannot figure it out. Who else could do that? The government says it is due to construction costs. It says it is due to unforeseen terrain. Is the government kidding me? It did not know where the pipeline was going? Liberals should give their head a shake, because they knew all along that the pipeline would have to cross the Rockies and make its way down to the west coast, yet that is what they are blaming some of the costs on.

The government is also attributing some of the delays and cost increases to inflation in contractor expenses and construction costs. I know that. I am in the heavy construction business myself and understand that costs have gone up probably 50% in the last five years, but 500%? I would only dream of being able to charge those kinds of numbers. Who got rich in this scheme? Who got rich building the TMX pipeline? To go from $12 billion to $34 billion without explanation, there is something wonderfully wrong with that.

The NDP has put a motion forward at the natural resource committee right now, exactly where Bill C-49 was discussed, for it to be a priority of the committee to study the TMX pipeline, to find out what went wrong and how the government could end up with a $34-billion pipeline. Only a Liberal government could do that. I think that is what the study will clearly show, that somebody has gotten rich here and that something is way offside.

Bill C-69 created the kind of uncertainty such that a company like Kinder Morgan took its $4.5 billion, marched it south of the border and used the $4.5 billion to invest in an environment that was more friendly and more conducive to energy projects.

The member for Vaughan—Woodbridge stated that the Netherlands, Germany and Japan have been begging for cleaner energy. What he neglected to say is that they have been begging for LNG, liquefied natural gas. Our government has turned them down. There was an opportunity to develop LNG projects. There were 18 of them on the drawing board when the Liberal government came into power, and not one of them has been completed to the point where it is exporting any liquefied natural gas.

In the meantime, we have turned away all kinds of opportunities for Canadians, the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian citizen, to benefit from receiving royalties from the sale of our LNG. We could have created thousands and thousands of jobs, and we could have solidified our economy and many of the communities that have suffered. However, no, we let the opportunity pass and instead are trying to convince them they can buy renewable energy from our wind turbines that hopefully will produce hydrogen gas that they can put into storage and ship over to some of the economies begging for our cleaner energy.

We will have to actually wait and see whether that happens, because so far today, we are way behind the eight ball when it comes to actually being able to export any energy. Countries have been begging for energy, and instead we actually continue to import energy from dictators and despots from the Middle East and from places like Venezuela. We keep bringing their oil here, and that is the oil fuelling our economy when it could be our own natural resources fuelling our economy. We could be keeping the wealth right here in Canada, and we have not been doing that.

Bill C-49 is another tool the government can take full advantage of to continue to stress out our existing oil and gas economies not only in Atlantic Canada but also in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and of course Alberta. We agree with Bill C-49 in principle because the premiers want it, and what the premiers think it would do for them is allow them to develop renewable energies in coastal waters.

While we were in committee, many witnesses were there, and many witnesses were not there. Most notably, the testimony we were not able to properly process as a committee was testimony from lobster harvesters and from fishers in the area who would be affected. The bill would provide the government, by decree of the minister, the ability to declare the MPAs, the marine protected areas, which would in fact sterilize fishing opportunities and lobster harvesting opportunities. A significant portion of Atlantic Canada's economic benefit, economic revenue, is from those two industries. They are closely related; they are under the fishing umbrella, I suppose, in the fisheries, but the two industries are very concerned there would not be adequate protection for their resources.

We all know that lobsters and fish like to hang around shelves. As well, we know that is where the turbines that the proponents are talking about are also going to be constructed, because that is the closest place to a solid base that they can be built. The least amount of construction is in areas where there is a shelf, and we know that is where the fishing is often very good.

Bill C-49 is a flawed piece of legislation. It references Bill C-69several times. Bill C-69 has been proven unconstitutional, and we tried to argue that at committee. We need to take Bill C-49 back to committee and fix it. We are in support of the bill, but let us fix it. Let us not have something that is not going to be constitutionally compliant. I would urge the government to continue to do that; let us fix the bill where we know it is not watertight, and let us make it right.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑49 has passed the committee stage. We now see that the government has chosen not to implement a real environmental assessment process for future energy projects. These offshore projects ought to undergo robust, effective, transparent environmental impact assessments to ensure that they are part of proper marine spatial planning to identify and prevent adverse cumulative effects and contribute to sustainability.

Does my colleague believe that the government should adopt such a measure? Why was it not done in Bill C‑49?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for Edmonton West, whom I consider a colleague and a friend.

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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts is a lifetime opportunity because it is a catalyst for investment in an offshore wind industry to take hold off the east coast of Canada. It represents economic opportunity. It represents jobs, investments, fighting climate change and helping middle-class Canadians in that area. I am so excited to support it on this side of the House, and I ask my Conservative colleagues to join in supporting this great piece of legislation.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful and an honour to rise in this most honourable House to speak on various pieces of legislation. I am honoured to stand in the House tonight, on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples, to emphasize the importance of Bill C-49 and the offshore wind industry.

The global industry is rapidly expanding, and it is crucial that the government seize the opportunity it presents to Canada, including in the provinces of Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Last fall, the executive director of the International Energy Agency said that “of all the power plants built in the world, more than 80% is renewable electricity. And this is not coming only from Europe, it is coming from China, India, Latin America, United States. It is a big move. So it is feasible to have a tripling of renewable capacity in the next seven years.” Investors around the world are racing to develop clean energy sources, including in the offshore wind industry. This represents a $1-trillion economic opportunity globally.

That brings us to Bill C-49. With this legislation, Canada has a chance to demonstrate to domestic and international investors that we are completely committed to the growth of the low-carbon economy, and to ensure it is Canadian workers who can seize this opportunity. When putting together this bill, the government worked closely with its provincial partners in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador, who fully support Bill C-49.

In collaboration with the provinces and their respective premiers, the government worked collaboratively with Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and found consensus and moved forward with Bill C-49.

Andrew Furey, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, who is on record talking about his support for this particular piece of legislation, said, “The possibilities for renewable energy are endless in our province, and I look forward to this significant step forward in achieving our shared goals and diversifying the economy.”

Nova Scotia's Progressive Conservative government has also vocally supported this legislation, calling it necessary. It is therefore shocking that the federal regressive Conservatives are holding back this vital piece of legislation that would benefit Nova Scotian communities, and that includes benefiting indigenous communities.

Attending a committee hearing on this legislation, Chief Terry Paul of the Membertou Development Corporation of Nova Scotia stated, “Traditionally, indigenous Canadians were not invited to participate in major industry projects. I am proud to say that is changing. When we all work together, great things happen. We truly believe that an offshore wind industry can coexist with other industries in a sustainable manner.”

Outside of our provincial partners, this legislation was also influenced by meaningful engagements that were carried out with many stakeholders who contribute to Canada's success every day, such as fishers, the energy industry and environmental groups. We will continue this engagement and seek feedback as we work toward the implementation of the legislation.

During the committee process, we worked across the aisle and strengthened the legislation in consultation with both provincial governments that need to pass identical, mirror legislation. I would like to speak briefly to those amendments right now.

The amendments strengthen this legislation. The amendments enable specific clauses related to the Impact Assessment Act in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's October 2023 decision. The amendments also reaffirm federal and provincial governments' joint commitments to considering the impacts of offshore energy projects on fisheries.

I can assure members that, unlike the official opposition party, the Conservatives, who mismanaged the offshore and tried to rip up major investments, this Liberal government has great respect for the fishing industry and it is our intention to continue to support this sector as Canada's renewable energy industries continue to grow.

More specifically, the fishing industry-related amendments would add a new paragraph to the two Atlantic accord implementation acts, reaffirming the need to consider the effects on fishing activities during the land tenure process. These amendments recognize the potential impacts that offshore renewable energy projects could have on fishing, and we take this very seriously.

Lastly, on the amendments, the government made a few administrative adjustments, in consultation with our provincial partners, which would improve general consistency and clarify agreements with regard to boundaries.

The amendments made at committee stage have the full support of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is time for us to move forward with this legislation and unlock the potential of the Canadian offshore wind energy industry. The longer that Parliament waits to designate a new regulatory body for permitting offshore wind, the more opportunities Canadian workers will miss out on.

Major offshore wind projects are already being developed in the North Sea and on the American east coast, attracting significant investment. Countries like the U.S., Taiwan and several European nations, including Poland, are making significant progress in the offshore wind industry. France recently increased its goals for deploying offshore wind farms, while Ireland has published its national plan for offshore renewable energy. The global scenario is evolving rapidly, and Canada cannot afford to wait.

Costs are coming down. The price of electricity generated by offshore wind has dropped significantly. The cost curve, as we say in economics, is broken, making it more affordable. Countries like Germany, the Netherlands and Japan have all expressed interest in buying clean energy, including hydrogen, from Canada. Germany and the Netherlands have put their interest in writing, including through the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, an exciting alliance.

Canadian businesses are more than ready to get involved when Canada is ready to launch this industry. They are already investing in offshore wind projects abroad and are eager to participate in the industry domestically. One Canadian company, Northland Power, is currently building offshore wind off Poland.

To be clear, this bill is about establishing the legislative and regulatory framework so that an offshore wind industry can be developed in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It is the catalyst. Central to this bill is the establishment of regulatory bodies for this industry using boards that are already in place to oversee oil and gas activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore areas. They have both indicated they are ready to change their name and enact a broadened mandate. They are more than ready to get the job done, as both have decades of experience in offshore energy regulation to ensure all legal and regulatory criteria are met.

Other allied nations such as the U.K., Denmark, Norway and the U.S. have gone before us in this type of strategy and have incorporated offshore wind into the authorities held by existing offshore petroleum bodies. Unfortunately, the climate deniers in the Conservative caucus are willfully ignoring the opportunity for communities across Atlantic Canada. Their tactics are aimed at delaying the passage of this bill, which means risking a greater portion of the trillion-dollar industry that is at stake.

As the government strives for a future that is focused on generating and using increased amounts of renewable energy so that we can stand up to climate change and create thousands of jobs, there is no reason to turn down Bill C-49. The fact is that the only roadblock to unlocking massive new economic opportunity for Atlantic Canadians is the Conservative Party of Canada. Just like its ideological opposition to EV manufacturing in Ontario, solar development in Alberta or even investments in natural disaster response, it is clear that the Conservatives will always vote against any measure that is related to fighting climate change, which is a shame, even when it has a clear and significant economic benefit. Unfortunately, the Conservative leader would rather sit back and watch the planet burn while investment and opportunities pass us by. It is baffling and, yes, shameful, but not surprising.

On this side of the aisle, we are rolling our sleeves up and getting to work. It is time to pass this bill so we can get to building the Canada we know exists. It is out there.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Request for Office of Speaker to be Vacated

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pretty critical point in the legislative agenda that has come up.

I agree with the Bloc Québécois member and her argument that there are many bills we would like to discuss.

I appreciate that this is a critical time right now. We have a lot of legislation that we need to discuss in the House, legislation that our constituents have sent us to this place to get through. It is serious things that are so important, such as Bill C-49, Bill C-59, Bill C-70 and Bill C-64. We have two opposition day motions just this week. We are trying to deliver the help that Canadians so desperately need, including through legislation like the fall economic statement, which the official opposition has filibustered at committee for months and which is something that would deliver a great deal of support in terms of housing.

Something I am particularly proud of as a part of that piece of legislation is actually the removal of the HST on psychotherapy and counselling services. It is something that would help those who are working within that profession, and something that I actually had a conversation about just yesterday with a psychotherapist who asked me when we would be getting the legislation passed. I said we are working on it and trying to make sure it goes through. The person I spoke to needs the fairness for the removal of the federal tax to occur. She spoke to me about how important it was for her clients to have equality within the services that are provided to them. We know, of course, that we are in a mental health crisis and that every bit of assistance helps in that regard. That is one piece of legislation that the official opposition has filibustered at the committee.

There are, of course, amendments to the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia accord act that we need to get through. There is the foreign interference act, which is of course becoming more and more important as we move through this parliamentary session.

I do not know how many times New Democrats have to talk about how incredibly important pharmacare is. We certainly know that the official opposition does not believe that. I think about the millions of Canadians who rely upon that piece of legislation to help them afford the medications they need, diabetics in this country, and I believe there are 3.7 million of them, who need the legislation to go through so they would not have to worry about the cost of their diabetes medications and devices. So many constituents have written to me thanking me for moving that forward.

Those are the key pieces of law that we need to get moving in the House. Yes, we are sitting until midnight most nights to do that. New Democrats believe in that absolutely because it is for people that it is important. There is an opposition party determined to delay every single one of the bills. Time again, the Conservatives have obfuscated, filibustered, screamed and yelled in outrage and then attempted to delay and stall all of that progress, all of those supports. I find it unacceptable.

The fact is that what the Conservatives are now calling out, in terms of their outrage, is that the Speaker seems to have been caught up in supposed partisan activity that clearly was not of his doing. He did everything he was supposed to do, ran through the permissions that he was supposed to get, and yet mistakes were made. The partisanship that the Conservatives are so outraged about actually fuels their own partisanship fire of trying to find yet some other thing that they can hold on to, so much so that it will delay again all of the incredible supports that we need to get to people.

I see this every day, whether I am at the procedure and House affairs committee or here in the House. The Conservatives are desperate to cling on to anything they can, and destroy whatever we are trying to do in the process, to show that this place does not work, because that fits into their communication strategy. I am sorry, but I am not going to allow something to fit into their communication strategy to disrupt what needs to happen for my constituents.

The member across the way for Winnipeg North did quote the letter, but I want to mention it again. We are here, in this case, over a tweet that was sent out by the Liberal Party without having consulted the Speaker. The letter is very clear. It is from the national director of the Liberal Party, apologizing very clearly to the Speaker. It states, “The Liberal Party of Canada unequivocally apologizes to you for this mistake, and we take full responsibility.”

Was there a mistake made? Absolutely. Is it horribly unfortunate? Absolutely. Are we punishing the right person in this instance? No. Should there be more vigilance on this issue? Absolutely, of course. However, calling for the Speaker's resignation is clawing to the communication strategy that benefits one group. It does not benefit the entire House. I do not agree with that. We on this side of the House do not agree with that.

We have to work on the legislation that the people have sent us to work on. We have a very important job, and I have no time for all of the bickering and squabbling. Canadians need this place to work. They need us to get to work. We can make this all about ourselves or we can make it about them. Canadians deserve that. New Democrats want to help deliver the supports they need. The work is urgent, and the official opposition just wants to delay. That is all I have to say on this matter.

Third Reading

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, I want to express my support for Bill C-49 and say what a rousing speech my colleague just gave in the House of Commons. Bill C-49 is allowing Atlantic Canadians in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to kick-start a new economy and to lead a new initiative that will bring jobs and wealth to our provinces.

Why are the Conservatives so dead against Atlantic Canada leading the way in this new technology and this new energy sector?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is simple: The truth hurts. When Conservatives hear the truth, it hits them and it hurts, because some of these individual members care about Atlantic Canada, but their leader does not, so they cannot. It is a simple game. This is what we are witnessing as they keep screaming on the other side and not supporting our government simply because their leader does not support our government and does not support Atlantic Canadians.

Our amendments are very clear and very straightforward. We can get this done very fast. As a matter of fact, tomorrow afternoon Conservatives are going to get their opportunity to show their colours. I am asking for at least the members on the other side who are from Atlantic Canada to do like the former member Bill Casey did. He stood up for his principles and stood up for Atlantic Canadians. That is what I am asking them to do. It is not complicated. We are asking to modernize and expand the mandate.

By passing Bill C-49, both provinces would follow mirror legislation. They are ready to go. Nova Scotia will launch a call for bids in 2025. The federal government and the provincial government are working together to support Canada, to support Atlantic Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the people of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing time with the member for Nepean.

I am very happy to speak on Bill C-49. As an Atlantic Canadian, I am, of course, a strong supporter of this bill, which talks directly to the Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord and the Nova Scotia petroleum resource accord.

The first question I ask myself is: Why is the Conservative Party still, today, against Atlantic Canadians, against prosperity and against sustainable jobs for Atlantic Canadians?

I think of my colleague, Bill Casey, who was a Progressive Conservative, and not a Conservative that we see today. He defended Atlantic Canadians and the Atlantic accord. I will read what Mr. Casey, who was elected in 1988, said in an interview at the end of his career. The article said that “a rather significant hitch disrupted his career when, in 2007, he voted against the budget tabled by the Stephen Harper government,” progressive conservative government, “saying it broke the Atlantic Accord.” It was “the most unforgettable moment of his time in Parliament.”

He said, “I managed to get my vote in and a second later I was thrown out” of the party. He was expelled from their party. He had to sit, of course, as an independent and continue to fight for Atlantic Canadians as an independent.

Again I ask, why is the Conservative Party against Atlantic Canadians? Why is it against Nova Scotia? Why is it against Newfoundland and Labrador? It is because the Conservatives are doing the exact same thing. Here we are three days away from a year since the introduction and first reading of this bill, and still we are not able to get this bill done. Why? It is because the Conservatives spent seven weeks talking about everything else except the bill that was to be debated in committee. It was seven weeks wasted in filibustering, which is pretty sad when we think about the importance of getting legislation across to help Atlantic Canadians.

Why is this offshore renewable energy so important? It is important on many fronts. First, we are seeing emerging growth, twentyfold since 2010. Clean energy is the way to the future, and the world is moving toward that future. Where is Canada? We need to get there.

The International Energy Agency is saying that, from now until 2040, the sector is going to attract up to $1 trillion of investment. Canada has a major opportunity to be a leader in this renewable energy. Of course, it will also help us achieve our net-zero emissions by 2050, which is a very important piece of our work, but not the work of the Conservatives who are okay to let the planet burn. It is also going to give us good, sustainable jobs, which is very important to Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada and my riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

We want jobs. We have seen, with the Irving shipyard 30-year contract, that people are coming back home from various parts of the country. They know they can get good, sustainable jobs, which is really important for them to move back to Atlantic Canada.

It is also important because Canada has the longest coastlines in the world and the fastest wind speed in the world. This is the industry for Atlantic Canada. This is why we need to move quickly on this project. We are well positioned for local and international markets, and it is going to allow provinces to decarbonize the electricity grid. However, today, still, there is not a single offshore wind farm in Canada.

Is this a federal-led project or a provincial-led project? It is the provincial government asking us to move this bill forward as quickly as possible, because it represents economic growth. It is Nova Scotia's Premier Houston, and Houston of course is a Conservative, as well as the Liberal government in Newfoundland. They are asking us to move on this as quickly as possible.

The Premier of Nova Scotia, last year, said, that they are setting targets to offer leases to make sure that they are supporting offshore wind energy. He said, “Setting this target sends a clear signal to the world that Nova Scotia is open for business and becoming an international leader in offshore wind and green hydrogen development.”

Contrary to what the Conservatives are saying, we are taking every opportunity to develop our renewable energy market, not only to fight climate change, which Conservatives do not even believe exists, but also to create green jobs for Nova Scotians. Again, the provinces are asking us to move forward, and this government, working closely with provinces, intends to do just that.

It was not so long ago, last August, that I attended an announcement in Halifax about two companies, DP Energy and SBM Offshore. These global leaders in the world in this industry are set to establish Canada's first offshore wind farm, which is really important. Think about it; there are trillions of dollars to be had. It means great positioning in the world and an opportunity for sustainable jobs, and yet the Conservative Party is voting again against Atlantic Canadians. It is very difficult to understand. This bill—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, when Bill C-69 was in the House a few Parliaments ago, the Mining Association of Canada came out very strongly in favour of the bill. I questioned the Mining Association of Canada in advance of the 2019 election as to why it would support this legislation. It has since rescinded its support for the approach taken by the NDP-Liberal government. It did that primarily because what the unconstitutional Bill C-69 does, and by extension its provisions in Bill C-49, is provide opportunities for the minister to make unilateral decisions that would create a level of uncertainty that most Canadian and foreign capital companies that want to invest in Canada are not willing to take a risk on.

What we need to do, and what this bill has shown us, is that we need to provide certainty. We do need to have strong environmental reviews, but that needs to be coupled with a degree of certainty to allow investment.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, what Bill C-49 would do, which the member articulated very well, is bring the no capital bill, Bill C-69, into offshore energy in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. To give an example, every summer, as the member for Avalon would know, the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board puts out a call for exploratory licences, and every summer it gets applications. This past summer, four weeks after this bill was tabled in the House, how many applications did Newfoundland get? It got zero, because of the provisions in this bill already on the IAA, which is driving capital into the Gulf of Mexico, where all of those capital investments went.

I would like the member to tell us a bit about the experience he has had with how the IAA elements, the environmental review elements, of Bill C-69, which are now in this bill, have shut down jobs in his part of the world.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, after nine years of the Prime Minister, life is unaffordable. With energy bills through the roof, Canadians are struggling to afford to heat their homes and keep the lights on. Not only has the carbon tax driven up the cost of energy, but the government has launched a war on Canada's natural resources and energy sectors.

Bill C-69, which was deemed largely unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada last October, created burdensome red tape, drastically increased approval times and drove away resource exploration and extraction projects. Now the Liberals seek to revive parts of that unconstitutional bill through this attack on both traditional and renewable offshore energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Bill C-49 will drive away investment through more uncertainty, red tape and longer timelines.

In 2022, the environment minister reluctantly approved the Bay du Nord offshore oil project, calling it one of the most difficult decisions the government had ever made. This project will create more than 13,000 jobs: 8,900 in Newfoundland and Labrador, 2,200 in Ontario, 900 in Quebec and 700 in Alberta. It will also add about $97 billion and change to our national GDP. However, thanks to the government's reckless deficit spending, costs have increased, and burdensome red tape has created uncertainty. Thanks to these factors, the project was delayed by three years, and it is still unclear whether the project will ever be completed at all.

In Nova Scotia, a private company was set to generate electricity from the massive tides in the Bay of Fundy. However, the project was eventually cancelled due to the mountainous red tape. That company shut down its operations in Canada entirely, costing jobs for workers and affordable renewable energy for Nova Scotians.

Over the last couple of years, multiple countries have pleaded for Canada to provide them with LNG to help end their reliance on Russian gas. What did the Prime Minister say to those countries? He told them that there was no business case for Canada to export LNG from our east coast. Germany went on to sign an LNG deal with Qatar and built a massive receiving port in just a matter of months. What could have been powerful paycheques for Atlantic Canadians turned into more dollars for dictators. That is shameful.

Of course, as a British Columbian, I would be remiss if I did not talk about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, which Kinder Morgan at the beginning was prepared to complete on its own, without taxpayer funding. After the government made the project unfeasible, Kinder Morgan pulled out, and the government bought the pipeline. From there, costs exploded and taxpayers have now spent more than $30 billion on a project that was estimated to cost just $7 billion only a few years ago. This is the NDP-Liberal government's record on energy and resource projects: Delay, drive up costs, and eventually drive projects away.

I have talked a lot about the woeful lack of productivity in Canada's economy recently, because it is truly an emergency. Even the Bank of Canada said that. Canada produces just 79% of what the United States does per hour. That ranks us behind all of our G7 peers, maybe save for Italy right now. Adjusted for inflation, Canada's GDP per capita now sits lower than it did in 2014. Meanwhile, businesses are closing at an alarming rate, and the data does not even capture the full story for small businesses.

The most recent statistics from the superintendent of bankruptcy showed a 66.2% year-over-year increase in business insolvencies for the year ending March 31, 2024. A recent article in The Globe and Mail highlighted that many small business insolvencies are not even captured under business insolvencies, as many small business owners have to take personal liability on leases and loans. When they go bankrupt, it is considered a consumer bankruptcy, of which Canada saw 33,885 in the first quarter of 2024, an increase of 14% year-over-year during the same period.

Driving away investment and development of energy and resource projects will only make things worse. In a time when businesses are struggling and Canadians cannot afford to pay their bills because their paycheques do not go far enough, the government is chugging ahead with another attack on energy, jobs, economic growth and even the Constitution.

Clause 19 of Bill C-49 would open the door to more red tape and lengthy delays. It would shift decision-making powers on licence approvals to the federal and provincial ministers, while tripling the amount of time that decision can take. Clause 28 would give the federal minister, with the approval of the provincial minister, the power to outright ban drilling in certain areas and even halt projects that are already approved and in progress. If this bill were to pass with clause 28 as written, it could put an end to offshore petroleum drilling in Atlantic Canada, killing good-paying jobs for workers and further strengthening eastern Canada's dependence on foreign oil imports from dictatorships like Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

Clauses 61 and 62 bring the unconstitutional Bill C-69 into the review process, allowing the minister to attach any conditions they see fit to approval. I would be remiss if I did not mention that, back in 2016, I was a political staffer, and I went over this bill at the environment committee. At that time, it was very clear that the intention of the government with this legislation was to give the minister unilateral power. It was to give the government more control over the private sector. It was to give the government the ability to halt projects through delay tactics. We have seen that now, and we are living it now. The last thing we need to do is to include those measures in this legislation.

We have seen how the government treats resource projects in this country. Clauses 61 and 62 will invariably be abused by the government to attach so many strings to approvals that projects will indeed become unfeasible, as we have witnessed. Canadians simply cannot afford any more of the current government and its anti-energy, anti-job and anti-economic growth policies. The government has shown time and time again that it is dead set on killing Canada's natural resource sector. If the environment minister had his way, not a single resource would ever be extracted in this country again. He would take away people's right to have a gasoline car as well.

While the government is focused on killing jobs and increasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, Conservatives are focused on creating powerful paycheques for Canadians and getting Canada's bountiful resources to market so that our people can prosper.

I will be joining my Conservative colleagues in voting against this NDP-Liberal attack on Canada's resource industries.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, this divide-and-conquer approach seems very typical of the Liberal government. The Liberals say one thing, do another and it pits group against group and region against region. I wonder if my colleague could comment further on whether Bill C-49 is about that; not about building prosperity, but rather playing politics with our federation.

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

Madam Speaker, as indicated earlier, Bill C-49 is all about economic growth and prosperity, and it provides a great deal of hope. I know that because many of my Atlantic colleagues talk about how important it is to see Bill C-49 pass.

We have many people wearing barongs today on Parliament Hill, recognizing that June is Filipino Heritage Month. Part of growth is seeing how communities have been able to participate in growing in Atlantic Canada. The type of growth that Canadians want to see, I believe, is of an economic nature, providing opportunities for all people to grow and be a part of a community.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to resuming my speech and to hearing what my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has to say, as I am splitting my time with him today.

I work on the natural resources committee, and we are the ones who went through the study of this bill. From that perspective, in my speech before, I was setting the record straight, because there was some misrepresentation as to how we went through the entire process of the bill.

Having gone through it, as I had said, and I will say it again today, the Liberal government has made a mess and it continues to refuse to clean it up. It did that with its Impact Assessment Act, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, and now those same Liberals are once again right on track to interfere with local industry and provincial jurisdiction.

In this case, we are talking about the Atlantic fishing industry. We have heard from many fishing groups that are deeply concerned about a lack of consultation and a lack of protection for their livelihood. They do not feel that enough has been done to rule out the potential for major irreversible damage to their industry. The government is ignoring them, but we need to hear what they have to say for themselves. I am going to continue sharing what a few more witnesses told us at committee.

Michael Barron, from the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said:

In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia.

Dr. Kris Vascotto, from the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, said:

Historically, members have relied on the federal government to protect the interests and viability of their enterprises. They have worked to support science and refine rules for the fishery, and they have tried to be part of the solution. In turn, they rely on the government to make good decisions.

Perhaps this is why members are surprised and dismayed by the content of the bill before you. Collectively, we understand that, as a planet, we are facing profound challenges related to climate change risk, and we realize that we all have an important role in finding a viable solution. However, rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters and lacks proper safeguards to ensure a viable and resilient coastal economy is myopic.

There are some important things that so many fishing groups mention consistently. They made it clear that they were absolutely not against renewable or wind energy per se, but they wanted acknowledgement that there were still many unknown factors and potentially negative impacts on ocean wildlife and their ecosystems. If that happens, it would devastate their industry and it may not be reversible. There is a witness who addressed this concern.

Dr. Kevin Stokesbury, dean of the School for Marine Science and Technology, shared his thoughts at the committee. He said:

Developing the wind farms will add hard structure, thousands of small islands, throughout these areas, islands that pull energy out of the system. This will change the environment: the sea floor makeup, the current structure, the acoustics both during construction and operation, and the electromagnetic field. All these will impact the associated flora and fauna of the areas. This will happen on the scales of the individual turbine, which is centimetres to kilometres; the wind farm fields, from tens to hundreds of kilometres; and the entire eastern seaboard. It will affect the fisheries. Some will be able to harvest within the wind farms; some will not. All will have to navigate through or around them.

Right now, some wind farms are beginning to monitor the marine environment and the animals associated with them, but it is a disjointed effort. There is no overall framework to coordinate the different scientific research or push for broader ecosystem understanding.

What we have heard from local witnesses in Atlantic Canada is that Bill C-49 has been rushed and lacks the necessary safeguards for the fishing industry.

The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Bill C‑49—Time Allocation Motion

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a bit of tortured logic there. This debate is supposed to be about Bill C-49, not about the price on pollution.

My hon. colleague might want to read the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a specific mechanism requiring that a province and the federal government agree on everything and that provinces introduce legislation that is exactly the same as what is going through the federal House. It is something on which we must collaborate. It is something that was attacked by Stephen Harper. It is extremely important for the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

With respect to the price on pollution, we have had this conversation many times. Provinces and territories are very capable of coming up with pricing systems that they can put in place in their jurisdictions if they think they can do it better, as Alberta does with the industrial pricing system and as British Columbia does with the retail pricing system. Provinces have flexibility.

My hon. colleague may deny the reality of climate change. He may continue to put his head in the sand and pretend that he is an ostrich. However, as I said before, at the end of the day, climate change is real. We have to take steps to address it. We have to work in a manner that will enable us to seize economic opportunities, as countries around the world are doing. The Luddite-type behaviour on that side of the House is shameful.

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

Madam Speaker, I am so happy. I have been listening to the minister's reasoning for pushing this bill forward and bringing in time allocation. It is because the premiers of two provinces agree with his position. I am so glad that the Liberals support premiers when premiers have the same position as other premiers.

I would love the minister to apply that lens to the seven out of 10 premiers who are against a carbon tax. Will he apply the same lens to that as he is applying to Bill C-49, or is that only for special occasions when the Liberals agree with some provinces, while other provinces continue to fight tooth and nail?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, fish harvesters, and the views of fish harvesters, are obviously extremely important.

I would say to my hon. colleague that these kinds of industries coexist in many countries around the world. This is not rocket science. However, it is important to listen. It is important to ensure that we are addressing the concerns that are raised, which is exactly what the regional assessment and environmental assessment is for. It is to hear those questions. Fish harvesters will absolutely be directly engaged in those conversations.

However, it is rich for the Conservatives to actually stand up after filibustering this bill for seven weeks in committee, talking about muscle cars and a range of things that had nothing to do with the bill, simply to try to block its progress. It is a shame.

If the member wants to actually listen to Atlantic Canadians, let me read for him some of the comments from Nova Scotia Conservative Party, Minister of Natural Resources, Tory Rushton, who said:

Offshore wind is Nova Scotia's greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail. There are tremendous opportunities for our coastal communities, for our province and for our country. We cannot afford to wait.

He also said:

In years to come, I think people are going to look back at this. Once this gets moving along, once Bill C-49 is passed, people will look at this decades from now and say, “Here was a move that made Nova Scotia a capital of renewable energy in the world.”

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely important that the legislation move forward. As folks who understand how the Atlantic accords work would know, we worked on this in lockstep with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador: every word, every period and every comma. It requires mirror legislation to be introduced in both legislatures after it actually goes through the parliamentary process here in Ottawa.

I will quote the two premiers, in terms of their anticipation of this act. Premier Furey said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”

Premier Houston of Nova Scotia said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary...step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”

Bill C-49—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always entertained by my hon. colleague across the aisle, with whom I work regularly. With gas at about $1.50 a litre in Ontario, if I am not mistaken, it is a lot cheaper than it is in Alberta, where Premier Danielle Smith unilaterally hiked the cost of gasoline by 13¢. She did not provide, of course, the very substantial rebates on the price on pollution we have put on and that the Conservatives would take away.

Of course, that was not his question. Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-58, concerning replacement workers, at report stage and at third reading. On Monday, we will resume third reading debate of Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Wednesday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑70 on countering foreign interference, which is already a strong response to the issues being investigated by the Hogue commission. We will hear from the Minister of Public Safety at second reading of Bill C‑70.

I would also like to inform the House that Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Finally, as is only proper, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during the debate on the business of supply pursuant to Standing Order 81(4) later today:

(a) the time provided for consideration of the Main Estimates in committee of the whole be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each;

(b) members speaking during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with one or more other members; and

(c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

There are some possibilities there with geothermal and projects that are under way, with more opportunities to come.

We also had talked earlier in our discussion about large-scale projects, and I don't think we fully explored the offshore potential. At this committee, we spent a lot of time on Bill C-49. We talked about how the Atlantic Loop will benefit. However, can you speak a bit more on the unrealized potential that we have for offshore energy production, and what that may mean to providing the power that we need as a nation?

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

Thank you.

It's not dead. It's just pining for the fjords.

Part of what was supposed to make the whole connection work was going to be, I think, a 50-year loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I think the feds were going to put up about $4.5 billion.

What I'm hearing now, now that we have Bill C-49 coming through, is that the province is looking to meet its net-zero goal by moving to 1,000 megawatts of onshore wind by 2030, which would give it 50% of the province's capacity. Those would be big projects that would have to get under way. We know the Americans are easily doing it, but this is Canada.

Are the feds talking about loan guarantees to help get these offshore wind projects up and have that as an alternative to the original Atlantic Loop?

Indigenous Affairs

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we found out at committee that, for Bill C-49, the Liberals did not even bother to consult first nations when they were pushing the Atlantic accord bill through. It is no surprise.

If we look at what Canadians think, 65% of Canadians think the government does a very poor or a poor job at developing a shared long-term vision for Canada's energy future. This is from a survey that was released just today.

Liberals are out of touch.

The Indian Act also takes control away from indigenous communities by giving reserve land and all dollars to the federal government, so they have to go begging to the federal government to get access to those funds from projects on their own land.

The first nations resource charge is something that can make a huge difference for communities who decide it works for them. Conservatives want to deliver this for indigenous people. Will the government?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is pretty tough to follow the production we just saw from the member for Winnipeg North. He is something else. We will just leave it at that.

I am a member of the natural resources committee, and I think it is really important that we talk about the process by which we have arrived here today.

There were two bills that were sent to our committee: Bill C-49 first, and then Bill C-50. What is important here is this. For a number of years, across multiple parliamentary sessions, Conservatives have been warning the government about its unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act, and over time the Liberals kept denying it and saying it was not unconstitutional. Then the Supreme Court comes along and in a reference case ruling says that the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69 from a previous parliament, is largely unconstitutional.

It is important to note and make mention here that in the history of Canada no government has ever ignored a reference ruling from the Supreme Court. As we have this debate here today, I think it is extremely important that we start out with that particular point. I think if we were to ask my colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, when he gives his speech after me, because I will be splitting my time with him, he might even agree that for a very long time the government has ignored this particular point.

The government needs to take this opportunity at report stage to be absolutely clear about the date and time when it will fix the Impact Assessment Act, because a big part of the issue around Bill C-49 is that it contains no less than 35 direct references to the unconstitutional parts of the Impact Assessment Act. It is as if the Liberal government has a desire to pass unconstitutional legislation and regulations. We have seen that with its plastics ban, which was also ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Conservatives also warned that it would be a problem.

When we are tasked with passing a piece of legislation that is required for Atlantic Canada to be able to develop its offshore wind resources, we need to make sure that we are passing a piece of legislation that is abundantly clear and would create all the absolute certainty that is needed in Atlantic Canada.

Of course, there is a consultation process that needs to go on. At committee, all we heard from witnesses, one after the other, was that they were not consulted. This is particularly true of people who are in the fishing industry, which as we know is the absolute staple industry of Atlantic Canada.

That is an important place where we need to start. I hope that at some point here we will get some clarity and certainty from government members about when that will happen. We gave them many opportunities at committee to tell us when, yet we never got an answer from them.

I want to go back to the fishing organizations that spoke at great length to us at committee.

I will start off by quoting Katie Power from FFAW-Unifor, who stated:

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

I have another quote, from Ruth Inniss from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, who stated:

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry.

I have more quotes that I would like to read, but I realize I am near the end of my time for today. I will finish with one quote, quickly. Ms. Inniss added:

Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should get some bonus time for the interruptions from across the way. It is 100% relevant. I do not quite understand how the Conservatives do not see the relevance to the issue.

Members opposite need to recognize the damage they are causing to Atlantic Canada because of their filibustering. It means MOUs could be signed that are not being signed, because the provinces need the legislation to pass. If the Conservatives want to support economic activity and Atlantic Canada, they need to at least get out of the way. If they do not want to vote for the legislation, they should not vote for it, but they should allow the legislation to pass. That is what is in the interests of Atlantic Canada and all Canadians. Conservatives are standing in the way because they are listening to the far right as opposed to what is in the best interests of Canada, specifically Atlantic Canada.

I would encourage members opposite to think about what they are doing, to think about their Atlantic colleagues who sit in the Conservative caucus and will, ultimately, have to go to the polls in 2025 when they are going to be asked why they filibustered and stalled Bill C-49, a bill that has been encouraged by two premiers, the government and New Democrats. Ideally, Conservatives should support the legislation, but if they are not going to, they should step aside and allow it to pass. This way, the potential of the legislation's impact on economic development could be realized.

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

Members know there is a lot of leeway, and the member has been debating Bill C-49 too.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware, the debate is about Bill C-49. The member has been going on for a couple of minutes now about Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a simple question of relevancy. He is talking about another bill processed through the House of Commons, and not about Bill C-49.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an interesting process. We are talking about Bill C-49, substantial legislation that would enable the potential development in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, in things such as wind energy. I was quoting two premiers who want the House of Commons to pass the legislation, and talking about the frustration members no doubt have because the Conservative Party, instead of listening to the premiers of the provinces, has chosen to listen to far right-wing organizations, extremists, and not allow the legislation to pass.

To demonstrate that, let us talk about what Conservative Party has done. The legislation has been on hold in committee. Bill C-50 was just ahead of it, and the Conservatives used AI to come up with 20,000-plus amendments on Bill C-50, which delayed the clause-by-clause of Bill C-49. When we finally got it through the committee stage, they attempted to bring in amendments at report stage, which were accurately ruled by the Speaker as being out of order. Then the Conservatives brought forward an amendment that would kill the legislation, while at the same time—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the reaction from the members opposite, when there is a responsibility for the leader of the Conservative Party to do consultations, to look at ways in which legislation is impacting Canadians. Instead of listening to premiers, he is visiting trailers and dealing with issues of Diagolon. That is the reality. The leader of the Conservative Party is more concerned about what the extreme far right has to say than what the premiers have to say on important pieces of legislation. Bill C-49—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

To my Conservative friends, yes, I am going to tell them.

Madam Speaker, it was a Progressive, and I underline the word “progressive”, Conservative government member in Nova Scotia, Premier Tim Houston. He is the individual who said that. We have to wonder why the Conservative Party of Canada is not listening to what the Premier of Nova Scotia, a Progressive Conservative, is saying.

There is another quote I would like to share. It states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition.... We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.” We have another premier of a province who is saying that all members should get behind and support this legislation, Bill C-49.

The legislation deals with and highlights two Atlantic provinces specifically: Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Both premiers of different political stripes are saying that they want this legislation to pass. We have the NDP and Liberals trying to get the legislation passed, and we have the Bloc and Conservative coalition trying to prevent it from passing.

I do not fully understand the Conservatives. They are obviously not listening to the premiers of provinces that are directly impacted and what they are saying. It does not surprise me, because they are more interested in organizations such as Diagolon.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-49 was introduced quite a while ago. I would have honestly thought that even the far right Conservative element would get behind and support this bill. I am quite surprised that the Conservative Party today, along with its friends in the Bloc, have decided to vote against Bill C-49. I have a question for each and every member, particularly those from Atlantic Canada: Whom are they listening to?

I would like to provide some quotes. Maybe members can guess who said them. In regard to the bill, someone said, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.” Who would have said that?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, before going any further, I want to acknowledge that I am sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

It is a pleasure to rise to join in the debate tonight on 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill will enable the development of offshore renewable energy by expanding the federal-provincial offshore regulatory regimes in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. This is really critical because it will not only create an incredible opportunity in the clean economy by enabling offshore wind electricity as well as the massive opportunity in green hydrogen Atlantic Canada has at its feet, but it will also allow us to take important steps in decarbonizing our economy and fighting climate change.

The imperative to act has never been clearer on fighting climate change. Last year, 2023, was the hottest year on record and each of the last eight months were the hottest such months we have ever seen recorded. Last year was the worst wildfire season that Canada has ever had, with wildfires from coast to coast to coast, some of which were never extinguished over the winter. We are already seeing the makings of what could be a very bad year for droughts. In my home province of B.C., we had the lowest snowpack ever recorded, and next week we are going to see water restrictions come in.

Over the last few years, we have seen some of the most devastating natural disasters, fuelled by climate change, such as hurricanes in Atlantic Canada, atmospheric rivers in British Columbia and much more. Therefore, we need to act to ensure that we prevent the worst outcomes of climate change from occurring, because Canada is one of the top 10 largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world and because, in acting, there are incredible opportunities for investments, the economy and jobs.

Just last year, the International Energy Agency noted that clean energy added $320 billion to the world's economy in just one year and that, by 2030, we are going to require $4.5 trillion in global investments to meet our climate targets. In the offshore wind industry alone we know there is an opportunity for $1 trillion by 2040. This really represents the greatest economic opportunity of our lifetime.

Canada has a huge potential to seize an outsized share of these investments and jobs. We have the critical minerals, whether copper in British Columbia or lithium in Quebec. We have the manufacturing know-how in Ontario so that we can build a full value chain for battery production and electric vehicle manufacturing.

We are the only G7 country that has free trade agreements with every other G7 country. We have a world-class potential for clean electricity that would allow us to leverage our legacy of hydroelectric power and supplement it with the cheapest electricity in the world right now, which is solar and wind energy, provided we do what we can to ensure the infrastructure can be built.

We are also seeing a massive interest in Canadian green hydrogen, which is hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. We need to be able to meet that demand.

Bill C-49, along with the 150 measures in Canada's emissions reduction program, are helping Canada seize these generational economic opportunities. Just in the last year, we became the number one per capita recipient of foreign direct investment and the third country overall behind the U.S. and Brazil. We have seen massive investments in electric vehicle manufacturing from Stellantis, Volkswagen and most recently Honda, which is the largest private sector investment in Canadian history. There are also multi-billion dollar opportunities in the hydrogen sector in Atlantic Canada alone.

We are helping to attract this investment through targeted incentives, including through investment tax credits in clean technologies, clean manufacturing, clean hydrogen and clean electricity. It is clear that these measures are not only creating jobs and growing the economy, but having a material impact on reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.

Earlier today, Canada tabled its greenhouse gas inventory, which shows what greenhouse gases were in 2022 and that they have been reduced by 44 million tonnes since 2019. This is the equivalent of taking 13 million cars off the road, and it is the lowest that Canada's emissions have been since the O.J. Simpson trial or the year Connor McDavid was born.

The Canadian Climate Institute says that this shows “clear evidence that Canada continues to decouple emissions from economic growth”, but we still need to do more. This includes by finalizing some important regulations that would advance climate action, including the regulations on methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, the electric vehicle availability standard and the clean electricity standard.

However, despite having the longest coastlines and some of the best wind speeds in the world, Canada does not have a single offshore wind project to date. This is due, in part, to the lack of a comprehensive lifestyle regulatory regime, which has led to uncertainty and impeded the pace of development. That is where today's bill comes into the spotlight, because Atlantic Canada is well positioned to be a leader in offshore wind energy and in green hydrogen.

The Public Policy Forum says, “Offshore wind could be for Atlantic Canada what oil was to Texas or hydro power to Quebec. We are talking here not of something incremental, but monumental.”

To help address this gap, the Government of Canada introduced amendments to the accord acts to expand the existing joint management regimes established with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to include offshore renewable energy. These amendments would also modernize the existing petroleum land tenure regime, align the accord acts with the Impact Assessment Act, further support Canada's marine conservation goals and allow for increased consultation with indigenous peoples. This would help us to seize this tremendous opportunity.

It is hard to understand why any party would be against such a measure. Why would anyone not want to create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada, attract investment in wind energy and help meet Europe's demand for hydrogen as it rapidly decarbonizes?

However, we see that the Conservatives are opposed to this investment in jobs. In fact, they have filibustered this legislation for seven weeks, blocking it from even being discussed at committee. We see this with the amendment they have tabled today that would simply send it back to committee, where they would continue filibustering again.

When I ask why, the only reason I can see is that the Conservative Party is diametrically opposed to any measures that would reduce Canada's reliance on the fossil fuel sector. Its members want Canadians to be subject to the commodity roller coaster of prices and to deny Canadians the benefits of lower and more stable heating bills from clean electricity. They will not even admit that climate change is happening or that it is caused by humans.

While filibustering the bill, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires as a “narrative”. He said that this narrative leads people to believe in climate change, but the “facts don't bear it out.”

The Conservatives even invited the leader of the official opposition's close ally and adviser, Ches Crosbie, to tell the committee that human-caused climate change was “bogus”.

Let us call it like it is: The Conservatives do not believe in climate change or in the benefits of climate action, and their obstructionism is holding us back, not just in Parliament and not just in Atlantic Canada, but right across the country.

In Alberta, we recently saw Danielle Smith imposing a hard stop on renewable energy projects, jeopardizing $33 billion in investment and far and away the cheapest form of electricity out there. The recent proposals from the Alberta government would make it nearly impossible to get renewable energy built across the province.

As such, we see what a Conservative government would do. They do not believe in climate change. Moreover, they will do anything to stop renewable energy projects from breaking the hold that the fossil fuel industry has on Canadians. They put forth that the only way Canada can contribute to reducing emissions is by producing and burning more fossil fuels.

They say it is “technology, not taxes”, but this is greenwashing. Actually, just a couple of days ago at the finance committee, we passed forward some amendments that would require companies, when they make an environmental claim, to provide the evidence to back it up. I just wish the same measure would apply to the Conservatives, because then we could have an honest debate.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Regina—Lewvan makes a lot of common sense. He is exactly right. The red tape that would come in as a result of Bill C-49 is driving investment out of our offshore petroleum industry already. It was proven last year in the number of bids that were sold. I would also like to point out that the NDP-Liberals are saying that they have changed the processing time from 900 days to 90 days. I would like to let the people of Canada know that the 90 days is for exploration projects and the 900 days is still in place for development.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Kings—Hants and his costly coalition have quite the track record of destroying the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. With Bill C-49, they will continue right down that path.

This morning, I heard the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl talking about all the people who were trained in our offshore. Yes, they were trained in our offshore, but does the member know where 5,500 of them have gone since the government took power in 2015? They have become international offshore petroleum workers. They commute all over the world and use the skills they learned in our offshore petroleum industry.

I listed quite a lengthy list of industry stakeholders in his province, from the largest industry in Nova Scotia, and the member made fun of us, ridiculing us in his speech earlier. He ridiculed us for standing up for the fishing industry. I cannot believe it.

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

Madam Speaker, let us be clear, common-sense Conservatives stand with the fishing industry and with the offshore petroleum industry, as well as with those workers and those families, and those industries that rely on the spinoffs from those powerful Atlantic Canada industries.

Stakeholders like the FFAW, Brazil Rock Lobster Association, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, just to name a few who presented at the natural resources committee a few weeks ago.

We heard from Katie Power with the FFAW, which represents 14,000 people who make their living from the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. She shared a critical perspective with the rest of the fishing industry stakeholders who appeared, who submitted briefs and who were from Atlantic Canada, which is that offshore wind energy expansion will have direct impacts on fish harvesters, who will be faced with having to compete with the offshore wind energy sector for ocean space. Space for fishers who have to harvest their catch is not unlimited space; it is a finite space.

When Dan Fleck of Nova Scotia's Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association was asked how many lobster traps could fit in a proposed 4,000 square kilometre wind farm, just east of Cape Breton, he told us thousands and thousands. Chances are there would be 50 to 60 independent owner-operators displaced, and the crews who depend on them for their livelihood, and all their families, would be impacted, as well as the local coastal communities that rely on the spinoffs. Dan simply echoed the concerns of Katie.

Very little consultation was had with the fishing industry. We heard the testimony. However, there was a bit of a difference of opinion among NDP and Liberal members on the committee. They felt that they had consulted heavily with the fishing industry, but that was shot down solidly when we had those stakeholders appear.

We took the testimony of the fishing industry stakeholders, and we set out to make amendments to try to ensure that the development of offshore wind does not destroy livelihoods in the fishery. In fact, we consulted directly with them, coming up with those nine amendments, which we tried to get votes on here today, and a number of other amendments that were shot down in by members of the natural resource committee, including NDP members who voted against amendments that were written for us by Unifor. Again, across the way, they tout their wonderful relationship that they have with organized labour.

Unifor, one of the biggest unions in Canada, provided common-sense Conservatives with amendments to support the FFAW to protect the livelihoods of those members of the FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador who feel threatened because they are not a part of the process. They have not been a part of the process. If someone wants to get up here and challenge me on that, they can go back and look at Hansard and all those committee meetings where those fishing industry stakeholders came to committee and pleaded with the costly NDP-Liberal coalition to bring in amendments to support them and to give them peace of mind so that they would not feel that their livelihoods were threatened.

I am very saddened that the NDP and the Bloc did not support the stakeholders in these existing industries. The bird in the hand is worth two in the field. The bird in the hand is the petroleum industry offshore, and it is our fishing industry. They are proven. The fishing industry is over 400 years old in Atlantic Canada.

I am very saddened, but what saddens me the most are the six Liberal MPs across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador and the eight from Nova Scotia who did not support the amendments put forward by people in their own ridings who earn their living from the sea. They did not support amendments that would recognize and mitigate the harmful effects that wind energy can have if we do not have the right consultations with the fishing industry. These industries can coexist. Conservatives are not against wind energy. The only copper mine in Atlantic Canada is in my riding. Every wind turbine uses 1.5 tonnes of copper for every megawatt produced. My goodness, what is the world coming to?

Conservatives tried to get amendments through to support the stakeholders who pleaded with us, and the costly coalition shut it all down. Our amendments to Bill C-49 would have ensured that conflicts between the offshore wind energy and the fishing industry would be kept at a minimum. This would have increased investor confidence in the development of offshore wind and would have given the fishing industry assurance that it would have a viable seat at the table throughout the development of this future renewable resource.

Bill C-49 was void of details on compensation for fishers who could be displaced from their fishing grounds, and displacement will be inevitable without proper consultation. Our amendments aimed to address this. Common-sense Conservatives worked hard on behalf of the fishing industry and the offshore petroleum industry to amend Bill C-49 so we could support it. We do not want to have to vote against something that could be good, but if it is going to kill two industries for another one, it does not make sense. The NDP-Liberals slapped the FFAW-Unifor and its 14,000 members in Newfoundland and Labrador right in the face and did not consider the amendments they wanted.

There was great testimony from the fishing industry, but, in addition to that, there was expert witness testimony from the offshore petroleum industry. One such witness was Mr. Max Ruelokke, with a career of nearly 50 years in the offshore oil and gas industry. Mr. Ruelokke obtained a vast amount of knowledge from working in the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore oil and gas industry and through his interactions worldwide. It cannot be denied that he is a pre-eminent expert in the offshore petroleum industry. Most pertinent to his experience is the fact that he served as the chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for six years.

In his submission to the committee, he made some pretty strong statements. I will read Mr. Ruelokke's testimony into the record today in this place. It is entitled “An Informed Opinion on Certain Aspects of Bill C-49”, and it states:

I have studied Bill C-49 from the perspective of my 40+ years engagement in the offshore oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, offshore Brazil and offshore India. Details of my engagement are contained in my CV, which accompanies this document.

The offshore oil and gas industry is a very competitive business on a world-wide basis. Operators such as the major oil and gas companies decide where and when to invest in exploration and production activities based on a variety of factors. One obvious factor is the potential existence of sufficient resource to allow for production. Another is the viability of production on an economic basis. The resources offshore Newfoundland and Labrador have been proven time and time again to meet both of those tests.

Another significant factor is the existence and certainty of an appropriate regulatory regime. Up until now, we have met that test as well. However, with the potential passage of Bill C-49, this situation will change drastically. Specifically, Section 56 of this Bill puts any and all offshore areas at risk of being rendered unusable for resource development, even though such activities may already be underway, and with appropriate regulatory approval.

Corporations have to risk assess any and all potential investments to ensure that such investments made can deliver appropriate returns. In the case of the offshore oil and gas industry, these investments range into billions of dollars.

This is where it gets interesting. He says:

If Bill C-49 is enacted, it will ring the death knell for any potential future offshore oil and gas developments in Atlantic Canada.

That is pretty powerful, “the death knell”. I will talk a little bit more about what a “death knell” means for Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore petroleum industry. He says:

This will be the case since no corporation will risk investing in an area where their exploration or production activities can retroactively be banned simply because Governments believe that the area in which they are occurring may, at some point in time, require environmental protection. This is a terrible piece of legislation!

These are the very words of Mr. Max Ruelokke. He goes on to say:

If we do not continue to explore for, find and produce the relatively environmentally friendly oil under our seabed, we will have to rely on oil and gas from other, much less stable and more environmentally risky areas. The International Energy Agency's 2022 Report estimated that, in 2050, the world will still need approximately 24 million barrels of oil per day. Those of us in Atlantic Canada deserve the opportunity to provide our fair share of those 24 M BBI/day. Please remove Section 56 from Bill C-49 to make this possible!!

Respectfully submitted.

Max Ruelokke

What does a ”death knell” mean for Newfoundland's offshore petroleum industry? Let us take a look at it. The offshore petroleum industry in Newfoundland and Labrador contributes 25% to 30% of our GDP every year, depending on the price of oil as it fluctuates. It is an industry that supports nearly 25,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs, nearly $2 billion of labour income, $1.4 billion of consumer spending and $1.4 billion of tax and royalty revenue to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I am quoting 2017 figures, when oil was only about $30 a barrel. Today, it is $90, so one can imagine what that does to these figures.

It certainly is an industry that we cannot risk destroying by the amendments that Bill C-49 would make to the original Atlantic Accord.

Many in the industry feel that we are seeing the effects of this legislation already. Bill C-49 was tabled last spring and, at the time, there were about 10 companies that were looking at putting together bids to explore in our offshore. However, whatever happened, last year, with a record number of offerings, we received zero bids. Historically, there have been bids up to or even exceeding $1 billion per year to purchase land leases for exploration.

This strikes me as a little peculiar, but not for Mr. Ruelokke. He says this is because of proposed section 56 creating so much uncertainty, basically stating that if an area may be deemed as a future environmentally sensitive area, the government can pull past, current and future exploration and development permits. With the amount of uncertainty created by Bill C-49, especially with proposed section 56, it is a disaster. It is absurd.

While we received no bids in our offshore for parcels for exploration, the U.S. Gulf of Mexico had its largest auction since 2015. I will put it in Canadian dollars: $523 million of bids were taken.

We tried to get that horrible proposed section 56 out of the bill, and we were shot down completely. The uncertainty is brewing with Bill C-49, together with Bill C-50, Bill C-55 and the unconstitutional Bill C-69, for which the government has had six or seven months now to come forward with something. The bill that we are going to be voting on mentions Bill C-69 over 70 times. How can this bill be valid? How can this bill be deemed constitutional?

I challenge the members opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador and from Nova Scotia to vote with us and the Bloc—

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

Madam Speaker, the Atlantic accord has delivered powerful things to Newfoundland and Labrador and to Nova Scotia. I heard the member for Kings—Hants reference the late prime minister Brian Mulroney, who said that he was not afraid to inflict prosperity upon Newfoundlanders. The NDP-Liberal coalition has a completely different stance toward the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and toward those who make their livings in the fishing industry and in the offshore petroleum industry.

It is a privilege to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-49, which would destroy the original intent of the Atlantic accord. It would make changes to laws surrounding the offshore oil and gas exploration off Nova Scotia and off Newfoundland and Labrador, and the development of the same. At the same time, it sets out a necessary framework for the development of an offshore wind industry.

We are way behind the rest of the world. After nine years of the NDP-Liberal coalition, we are in last place in renewable green energy in the G7. That is where we are sitting. The government has quite the record on greenhouse gas emission reductions. We are almost at the bottom of the countries that were laid out in COP28.

At the same time, while laying out a framework for the development of offshore oil and gas, Bill C-49 attacks our offshore oil and gas industry.

Common-sense Conservatives are going to push back against the proposed legislation. We have been doing it ever since it was tabled. We have been in contact with the stakeholders in the fishing industry and in the offshore petroleum industry from day one, and these stakeholders have voiced their concerns. They have come to committee, and they have submitted written briefs. We have been there for them.

Contrary to what the member for Kings—Hants just said in debate, that we are weak and disgraceful, standing up for the largest industry in that member's province of Nova Scotia—

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

Madam Speaker, if it was me, I would not be bragging about approving a project like Bay du Nord. The Liberals are clearly talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Still, we think that Bill C‑49 is worthwhile. It provides for the development of offshore wind farms, which is compatible with the energy transition. Compared to the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries, Canada lags behind a bit when it comes to offshore wind farms. I think this is a step in the right direction. Wind farms can coexist with the fishing industry and fisheries. I think we can draw from the European models and do both things at once: respect fishers and operate wind farms in maritime zones.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Kings—Hants as he gave his speech about Bill C-49 and why Liberals think it is the be-all and end-all for Atlantic Canada.

The member mentioned a regulator. Max Ruelokke, with over 40 years in energy regulation in Atlantic Canada and throughout the world, the chair and CEO of the C-NLOPB for six years and an outstanding authority on offshore petroleum, put forward an amendment that said that Bill C-49, if enacted in its current form, would be the death knell of Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore petroleum industry. I challenge the member to contradict Max Ruelokke.

The member said we were fiercely opposed. He called us weak. Will he stand up and tell the fishing industry in Nova Scotia that it is weak, that people we were fighting for in committee, the members of The Maritime Fishermen's Union—

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

Okay, I withdraw.

Madam Speaker, they say, “Technology, not taxes.” I am disappointed the Conservatives put out those slogans and do not actually have a credible plan on how to bring it forward. This is technology. This is the ability to leverage billions of dollars of clean energy investment, and they are gatekeeping it. They are gatekeeping against Atlantic Canada.

I am one of the younger members of Parliament in the House. About 10 years ago, when I was coming through university, there was frankly a large exodus of young people who were going elsewhere in the country, and they were going out to western Canada. I have great affinity for the resource economy in western Canada. It matters to the entire country. There are people I went to high school with who went, and it helped them to build their early careers. They either still live in western Canada or have been able to come back and start a family.

I have nothing against western Canada, but if there were an opportunity to have good-paying jobs in the trades in this sector, why would we not want to make sure people have an opportunity to stay home in Atlantic Canada and have a good job in a good industry? That would a difference, not only at home, but also around the world.

First and foremost, this is about jobs. Second, it is about important investment in our region. Third, it is also about the environment. We want to reduce emissions. We know climate change is real and that companies around the world are driving the technology that is needed. We need to make sure they have the legislative runway to do this. That is why I stand here proudly to say the government, and thankfully a majority of parliamentarians in the House, are going to see this piece of legislation through.

I anticipate that at some point I will listen to the member from central Newfoundland, who will stand up and suggest he is against this and talk about the fisheries. The fisheries are an important component of Atlantic Canada. It is a crucial backbone to our economy and our rural communities. I heard suggestions from the Bloc that the reason its members may not be supporting this is because somehow there is not enough protection for the fisheries.

I want all colleagues in the House to know there is an ongoing process right now with the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada working with fishing groups to identify ocean parcels that are appropriate for offshore wind development. We will not be able to move forward and undermine a traditional industry. That is not what is on the table.

Notwithstanding some of the fearmongering that might be going on, there are processes in place. Allowing this legislation to move forward would give further authorities for that consultation to continue to happen if we are serious about creating the energy opportunity that exists for Atlantic Canada.

This is not just for Atlantic Canada, by the way. I stood here proudly and talked about what western Canada resource looks like. Potash in Saskatchewan and oil and gas in Alberta and Saskatchewan matter to our country, so this is not just about Atlantic Canada. Yes, I stand here proudly, and this will matter for our region, but this matters for the whole country. This matters for everyone in that the investment matters to this country. Again, the Conservatives stand here and stand in the way.

I hope that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will understand the importance of this bill. I hear a lot of talk in the House about the importance of renewable energy, clean energy, clean electricity and a transition away from fossil fuels and the oil and gas industry.

This bill is the very important foundation of our economy in Atlantic Canada, but it is also an opportunity to work with Quebec.

I really hope that this will be something that the Bloc reconsiders, because at the end of the day, Bloc members do stand up in the House to talk about the importance of green transition. I heard questions about that in question period today.

I really hope that at the end of the day, they can take a harder look at what is on the table and understand that it will not be a threat to coastal communities. It will be an opportunity to leverage economic opportunities for our coastal communities, for the Atlantic region but also for the region of Quebec and east of Quebec.

I certainly understand the importance of the fishing industry and our fishers.

The Impact Assessment Agency will work with fishers and with industries and organizations to ensure that the approach that is taken strikes a balance between the wind industry and the fishery. The traditional fishing industry is more important and vital for our communities, for Nova Scotians, for Newfoundlanders and also for Quebeckers.

Again, I want to fundamentally talk about the work on the environment and how the environment and energy go together. It does not have to be one or the other. In fact, smart parliamentarians need to say that we have to tackle both at the same time.

It is vital that the Conservatives see how important progress is for the environment but also for the clean energy industry and our communities across Canada.

They are not really identifying this.

I mentioned the Progressive Conservatives. Premier Houston is a Conservative, but he is a moderate Conservative and believes in the opportunities that are available in Nova Scotia for a clean energy future. The Conservatives here in Ottawa want to stand in his way of creating those economic opportunities. They are going to reference, I expect, during questions, the former Bill C-69, which was the Impact Assessment Act. As part of the ways and means motion, and I give a compliment to the government, there are actually provisions to address the constitutionality of that particular piece of legislation. We do need to be able to make major projects happen in this country more quickly.

Conservatives will often reference that and say that this is why they do not believe in the bill before us, but there is something fundamentally different between Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords and the tension I mentioned between the jurisdictions where provinces are responsible for resource development on land, and what we are talking about here today. The difference in what we are talking about here today is that the provinces would be in the driver's seat. They have worked the legislation with the Government of Canada. They are in full support, and yet the Conservatives want to stand in the way.

I just want to draw the attention of Canadians and maybe the attention of some of my newer colleagues in this place back to the history of the last Conservative government in the country, the Harper government.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time was a guy named Bill Casey, who was a Conservative. One will note that he withdrew from the Conservative Party, sat as an independent and then ultimately joined the Liberal Party. For those who might ask themselves why, it was because Harper did two things. The last Conservative government actually tried to amend the Atlantic accords to reduce the revenue available to our provinces, and Casey fundamentally disagreed and voted against it. He was then subsequently booted out of caucus.

Harper and the Conservative Party also said that Atlantic Canadians have a “culture of defeat”. Think about that for a second. The Conservative Party of Canada, in its current form, has told Atlantic Canadians that they have a culture of defeat. Here we have an opportunity with billions of dollars attached to it that can create good jobs and a clean energy future, and allow Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and indeed the entire region to export clean energy across the world. That is extremely important. That does not sound like a culture of defeat to me. That sounds like progress. Guess what? The Conservatives are standing in the way of it. What would they say then? Would they say they know better than Atlantic Canadians? That is amazing to me.

We do our work here in the House. Canadians are going about living their lives every day. They are worried about getting by. They are taking their kids to sports tonight. They are going to see a loved one. I will make sure that I remind my constituents, indeed every Atlantic Canadian I can, that the Conservative Party has stood against progress in Atlantic Canada. Conservatives have stood against two elected governments, and they have not been willing to actually see them go forward.

That begs the question: What is the Conservative environmental plan? It is lacking, non-existent frankly. For the last two elections that I have been a part of, when I went door to door in my riding and my constituents raised the prospect of needing to do more on the environment and to be a part of the global solution, one of the things that was a constant was that they highlighted the fact that the Conservatives did not have an environmental plan. I see some disagreement, perhaps, on the opposition benches. We will see; time will tell. That is ironic because, of course, the Conservatives have disavowed carbon pricing but all ran on a price on carbon. Each of the 121 Conservative members in the House actually ran on that platform in order to be here.

In conclusion, I have a couple more points. We have to talk about indigenous reconciliation at the same time. I have the privilege of representing three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, Annapolis Valley and Glooscap first nations. One of the best examples of how the potential offshore and the wind to hydrogen play in Atlantic Canada is the way in which companies have been working and partnering with indigenous communities, creating important revenue opportunities for those communities, important economic opportunities.

I think about companies like EverWind. I think about World Energy GH2 in Newfoundland and Labrador. I think about companies like Bear Head. There are tremendous opportunities. There is DP Energy and SBM, which are world-known companies in terms of their involvement. They want to invest in Atlantic Canada. They want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, on projects, but we have to get the legislation through. Every day that the Conservatives continue to delay hurts Canada's global competitiveness. We hear the Conservatives talk about competitiveness in other contexts, but I guess in clean energy and I guess for Atlantic Canada, that need not apply. Why not support the bill?

For fisheries, we have a plan to make sure that there is constant engagement and that turbines will not happen in crucial fishing zones without there being proper scientific belief in terms of what is possible and what is not. There are premiers who have helped to develop the legislation. The bill would not be opposing the premiers; it is actually something that would make a difference and that the premiers want.

The Conservatives suggest that the bill would be somehow a backdoor way for the government to stop oil and gas development, the same government that approved Bay du Nord and actually built the Trans Mountain pipeline. Now I will go completely in another way. Renewable energy is important, but we are the fourth-largest oil producing nation in the world. How many pipelines did the Conservatives build in their time? Zero.

Despite the distaste for the Prime Minister and the government that the Conservative opposition members may have, they should at least be applauding the pipeline because we have actually made sure there is a crucial piece of infrastructure to get our resources to market. We will do it on that side. We will also focus on this transition as well. We are focused on energy across the board, and the Conservatives want to stand in our way.

I look forward to questions. I know that the member from central Newfoundland is chomping at the bit and I cannot wait to be able to take his question and engage. Here we go.

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

Madam Speaker, I will try this again. It is great to be here in the House. It is always a privilege to be able to bring the voice and perspective of my constituents from Kings—Hants, from rural Nova Scotia, to the floor of the House of Commons. Today, we are debating a piece of legislation that really matters to the region I represent in Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada: Bill C-49.

Over the next 20 minutes, I have a great opportunity to highlight the importance of the bill and where it is coming from. It is also a great opportunity to perhaps address some of the misconceptions that might be held within the House by some of the members I have heard speak to the passage of this bill and to talk about why it really matters and draw a contrast. That is part of what we do here. We present, to Canadians, different options about the pathway forward, and I hope to be able to draw some of those points out.

Before I get too far, I will mention that it is Gaelic Nova Scotia Month. I am proudly wearing my Nova Scotia tartan tie, and I have a Canada Scotland pin on to show the connection between Canada and Scotland, and our Gaelic culture and history. Nova Scotia is the jurisdiction with the most Gaelic speakers outside of Scotland itself. It is a great pride.

[Member spoke in Gaelic]

[English]

It is Gaelic history month and Gaelic awareness month in Nova Scotia, and I am very proud to be able to say just a couple words in Gaelic here in the House.

What are the Atlantic accords? I mentioned Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accords. Let us go back into history and understand the jurisdictional dynamic. It would have been begun in the late seventies, early eighties, with the discovery of offshore oil in Atlantic Canada. There was some uncertainty about the constitutional dynamic of who was responsible for managing that resource. This was a period of uncertainty. Brian Mulroney was the prime minister at the time. There was an idea that there should be a comanagement of that resource in the Atlantic offshore.

The Minister of Labour and Seniors has talked about the Atlantic accords and the importance to his province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Although it was actually before my time, I will say, in Nova Scotia, it carries the same level of reverence in terms of what it means for our region. Ultimately, two things came of the Atlantic accords. One was shared management in how the offshore activity took place and how permitting would go forward, and the other was the revenue sharing of the resource development in Atlantic Canada. Of course, it has been extremely important for our region, for our communities and for our workers, and it is a program that has worked.

We have tremendous opportunity in Atlantic Canada. It is often windy in our part of the country. We have an opportunity in the development of offshore wind, which goes toward green hydrogen and toward renewable electricity. These are the types of technologies that are becoming available, that are becoming cost affordable and can help drive our transition toward a lower-carbon economy. For offshore wind to be approved, we actually need to give the legislative licence for that to happen. There are existing bodies: the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

What this legislation proposes to do is quite simple. It would allow those boards to have the authority to approve offshore wind projects, and the opportunity to harness wind to drive renewable energy. I have to be honest, I remember when this bill was being tabled in the House, I actually thought we would get unanimous consent, that we would find all members of Parliament from all corners saying that this makes sense and we do not want to duplicate the regulators.

The Conservatives often talk about reducing red tape. I do not know what their plan is to permit this type of activity, but they do not want to see this type of initiative move forward. I guess they want a secondary body. We are of the view that we already have an entity that works, that has permitted in the offshore. Let us allow that to be the entity to also move forward. It also has buy-in from the provinces.

Some of our western colleagues will talk about tension between federal and provincial relations around resource development. That is not at play here because, as has been mentioned in the debate, two provincial governments and two legislatures are in support of this piece of legislation. We have the Premier of Newfoundland, Andrew Furey, and the Premier of Nova Scotia, Tim Houston. Andrew Furey is a Liberal and Tim Houston is a Progressive Conservative. They are both calling on all parliamentarians in Ottawa to help pass this legislation.

Perhaps not to my surprise, there has been fierce opposition from the Conservative Party. I had the privilege of sitting in on the natural resources committee during the appearances of two natural resources ministers, and I listened to the arguments put forward by the Conservatives. To say it best, they have been weak. They have essentially been non-existent about why this legislation is bad.

I have said it before; I will say it again. The Conservatives are standing against Atlantic Canada today by continuing to oppose this legislation. When there are two provincial governments begging parliamentarians here to move this as quickly as possible, they have delayed the piece of legislation. They have stood in its way. In fact, the amendment to Bill C-49 we are debating right now would send it back to committee.

Is it not ironic? I believe the amendment is not even from a member of Parliament from Atlantic Canada. They want to actually send it back. A member of Parliament who is not from our region, who has no connection, thinks they know better than two duly elected premiers from Atlantic Canada. It is disgraceful what this represents.

Thankfully, we have the NDP who, in this case, believes in jobs, believes in clean energy and believes in investment in Atlantic Canada. There are billions of dollars of potential investment, and the Conservatives want to stand against that.

Technology, not taxes, my rear end. I hope that is not unparliamentary. I will withdraw if it is.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am highly critical of the Conservative approach under the party's new leader, the member for Carleton.

The reality is that there used to be this ability in the House of Commons, particularly in minority governments, and the NDP, in minority governments, has pushed hard to make a difference. We have seen the results in universal health care, and are now looking forward to the results of dental care and of pharmacare for people with diabetes. Six million people across the country, 17,000 in each and every riding, would finally have their diabetes medication, which costs over $1,000 a month in many cases, being paid for. All of those things, as well as anti-scab legislation and affordable housing, were all blocked by the Conservatives.

The Conservatives seem to have taken an approach of blocking everything that comes before the House. It is almost like they do not want to see any benefits going to their constituents. I find it surprising. I find it tragic that parliamentarians elected with the commitment, as we all make during election campaigns, to come to the House of Commons and do the best for their constituents, would do the exact opposite.

Then we come back to Bill C-49, where there is a notable benefit to start moving forward with clean energy projects. There are 1.5 million new jobs in the United States, and in Canada, we are talking about tens of thousands of new well-paying jobs that could come from those good investments. We did not see any under the Harper regime.

Tragically, we have not seen any from the Liberal government. However, at least with Bill C-49, we are seeing the foundation that would allow for the investments to be made, so we would be able to create those jobs.

In the end, Conservatives will have to defend their record when they go back to their ridings when the next election happens.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, the real slogan of the Conservatives should be “tackiness, not technology”, because we saw in Alberta Danielle Smith blocking $33 billion worth of clean energy projects, which would have meant so much for energy workers in Alberta. We know that other jurisdictions around the world are making the investments in clean energy. In Conservative-run provinces, it is an absolute lockdown on any new technology that actually provides for clean energy. Now we see their fervent opposition to clean energy in Atlantic Canada by their blocking of Bill C-49, which they have been doing now for months.

The reality is that we are talking about a party of Luddites within the Conservative caucus. They simply refuse the clean energy prosperity that comes from making the investments in clean energy. Bill C-49 is one of the first steps that need to happen.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Business of the House

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on that question I can assure the hon. member that whatever we do, we will do with the elected premier of British Columbia and not the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

On the Thursday question, this afternoon we will continue with debate on Bill C-49, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act, which has had great support obviously from my colleagues from Atlantic Canada.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-20, concerning the public complaints and review commission act.

On Monday, we will begin debate at second reading of Bill C‑69, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024.

I would also like to inform the House that Thursday, May 9, will be an allotted day.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, during the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 on Motion No. 54 to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair and at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred pursuant to Standing Order 66.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand my Conservative colleagues are asking why Mr. Harper failed. I am more than pleased to talk about that.

I will start with the $30 billion Conservatives gave to overseas tax havens every year, through the Harper sweetheart tax haven treaties. That is $300 billion that Conservatives used to splurge on overseas tax havens over the course of the dismal decade when Mr. Harper was in power. Not one Conservative has ever been able to explain what good it did for Canada to give away a third of a trillion dollars to overseas tax havens. The Harper government stopped pensions, forced seniors to work longer, slashed health care funding and cut services to veterans. It did all those bad things. It was a terrible decade, with $116 billion in liquidity supports going to Canada's big banks to maintain their profits and $300 billion, according to the PBO, given away to overseas tax havens. Conservatives' financial management is an oxymoron. They are simply not good at managing money; they are terrible at it. It is unbelievable.

If one does not believe me, one just has to look at the fiscal returns actually tabled by the Ministry of Finance, federally. It is hardly a hotbed of social democrats in the federal Ministry of Finance, but it has been saying, year over year, for the last few decades, that the worst governments, in terms of managing money and paying down debt, are the Conservative and the Liberal governments.

The governments that are best, of course only provincially, up to this time, at managing money, at paying down debt and at the same time ensuring we have effective education programs, effective health care programs and effective investments in our youth, and have better programs for seniors and for families, and this is from the fiscal returns of the federal government, are NDP governments. It should not be a surprise to anybody that we are not only the best at managing the services that Canadians need in every province that we have governed in, but also the best at managing money. That comes from the federal Ministry of Finance, no less.

I wanted to take just a few minutes to talk about, as the member for Timmins—James Bay has done so eloquently, the climate crisis that we are in.

Scientists who are monitoring the collapsing ice shelves of Greenland have noted how soot from fires, which lands on the ice shelves, draws more heat and leads to ever faster disintegration of the ice fields. This is raising water levels, causing ocean instability and leading to more storms. We are at a tipping point. It is essential that we act fast and take the magnitude of this crisis seriously.

The first step is to take on what the member for Timmins—James Bay has called a pathological obsession of big oil to extract as much profit as possible from the burning of the planet. Big oil has shown no interest in limiting the damages it has done and, in fact, is pushing for an increase in production.

Scientist David Archer states, “The climatic impacts of releasing fossil fuel CO2 to the atmosphere will last longer than Stonehenge...longer than nuclear waste...longer than the age of human civilization so far.”

It also does not make economic sense. Last week, the International Energy Agency stated that we are at “the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era”, as “demand for oil, natural gas and coal” are all going to “peak” over the next few years. Therefore, we need to prepare to ensure that we are actually putting in place all those fundamental issues, programs and foundations and to ensure that we can benefit from the clean energy economy to come.

The reality is that the declines, in terms of production and emissions, are nowhere near steep enough to put the world on a path to limiting global warming to 1.5°C. We are going to have to work more steadily, and there has to be faster policy action by governments.

That is why it is so important to move on Bill C-49. I am pleased, on behalf of the NDP caucus and on behalf of the member for Timmins—James Bay, to support this legislation.

It is not a panacea. It does not get the job done, but it is a first important step that allows us to move forward for the clean energy economy to come, to allow energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to do the important work that they can do to ensure that we have growth and development of clean energy and that we have more jobs in Atlantic Canada.

It is for all those reasons that the NDP is supportive of Bill C-49.

Now, should the government be doing more? The answer is yes.

We have had two decades of inaction, first with the Harper government, then with the current government. These two governments did not make the investments other countries made. In our opinion, it is essential that we put all the tools in place, including, of course, Bill C‑49.

It is extremely important that we implement the bill, and that we invest in order to create jobs and prosperity and to lower the price of energy in Atlantic Canada, ensuring that everyone can benefit from clean energy in the future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the member for Timmins—James Bay for all the work he has put into Bill C‑49. He pushed hard for a transition to clean energy. I think that his work should be recognized by the House.

We support Bill C‑49 because we finally see the Liberals taking the first small steps toward clean energy. Anyone who travels outside Canada can see how other countries around the world are investing in clean energy. They see that things are beginning to change in Asia. They see things are beginning to change in Africa. All anyone has to do is fly over Europe and the North Sea to see all of the wind power projects making a huge difference.

I visited the island of Samsoe in Denmark. The government of Denmark is making the necessary investments in clean energy. The island of Samsoe has converted all of its heating and electricity, and has almost finished converting its transportation system. Everything works on clean energy.

In the United States, with President Joe Biden and the Inflation Reduction Act, there are successful investments everywhere. The potential for Canada is enormous. When we look at the U.S. market, where states and municipalities are demanding clean energy, we can see the potential for the production of clean energy in Canada.

What we have is a grid that has not been set up, as some European grids have, to be able to include the potential of clean energies from a variety of sources. Scandinavia and Germany have already converted. Canada lags far behind.

There is work to be done. That is why the NDP and our entire caucus supports Bill C‑49. We can see the potential, and we think it is important to make these investments. This bill is a first step toward this clean energy potential. We need to see leadership on the part of the federal government in this area so that we can have clean energy projects across Canada.

When the member for Burnaby South becomes prime minister, we will have a New Democratic government and we will see the difference. We can make the transition that other countries are already engaged in.

Bill C-49 would modernize the Atlantic accord acts, notably by establishing a framework for the development and regulation of offshore renewable energy projects in both provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and their offshore areas. Currently, the Atlantic accord acts implement agreements between Canada and these two provinces on the joint management of offshore petroleum resources.

Under the proposed bill, regulatory authority for offshore wind power would be granted to the two existing jointly managed offshore boards that are currently exclusively responsible for regulating offshore oil and gas projects: the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. They would effectively be put in place as regulators for offshore wind power.

This is extremely important, because we know that there is much to do in terms of putting in place all the foundations for renewable energy sources, which can be a powerful driver of Canadian prosperity in the years to come. We have unlimited potential right across the country. I think of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where we could ultimately be seeing powerhouses of solar and wind power.

The export of renewable energy could make a profound difference, particularly because so many American states and cities require renewable energy as their feedstock. They simply will not accept energy that is not renewable. We need to modernize our grid and make these investments. We have seen, both under the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government, no investments in any meaningful way to modernize our electrical grid to allow for the import of renewable energy. We have seen, quite frankly, a couple of decades of stagnation when it comes to renewable energy. New Democrats support the bill because it is a first step forward, but there is much to do.

The reality is that we are seeing investment moving into clean energy. This is vitally important. There are energy workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; we cannot leave them behind. We need to make sure we put in place the investments that allow for offshore wind projects for which energy workers could use their enormous skills. Having been an energy worker and having worked at the Shellburn refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which is now closed, I can say that the skills of workers in the energy sector are enormous. If we are to really capture the immense potential that comes from renewable energy, we need to make sure we pass legislation such as this, as well as making the powerful investments that are so important and that other countries have made in order to ensure incredible prosperity.

During the hearings, the member for Timmins—James Bay said very clearly that strong concerns had been heard from fishers about ensuring that any new developments respect the fragile nature of North Atlantic fisheries. New Democrats share their concerns, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said so eloquently. We urge the provinces to work with the stakeholders to ensure that any new projects are developed with the recognition of the need to protect the fisheries. This is vitally important.

We know that we need to catch up with other countries. I will give two examples. Off Rhode Island, there is a new wind farm that is going to provide energy for a quarter of a million homes. That is as a result of President Joe Biden's leadership in making the investments for clean energy. Twenty-seven other major projects in the United States are on track to be completed by next year, 2025. For example, the Vineyard Wind project is creating enough power for 400,000 homes.

Atlantic Canada, with its high energy costs, could become a world leader in low-cost energy, including wind and green hydrogen. However, the reality is that we have not seen from the Liberal government, as we did not see from the Conservative government before it, any real effort to provide the kinds of frameworks and investments that are so important for building those massive opportunities in offshore wind.

There was a promise from the Liberals to put in place investment tax credits to kick-start clean energy. That was last year, and the credits are still nowhere to be seen. Investment is still flowing south, and we see Canadian companies looking to partner in the United States now, where investment is guaranteed. The reality is that we have CAPP holding meetings with the government to continue to get subsidies for the oil and gas sector, but for energy workers who are interested in the potential for clean energy, there are no opportunities being presented to them. This is because of the fact that the government has not acted, in the same way as the Conservative government did not act before it. Therefore, what we need to see is a federal government willing to step up.

In Alberta, there was incredible potential. My colleagues from Edmonton Strathcona and Edmonton Griesbach would agree that there was immense potential. I believe there were $33 billion in clean energy projects in line to be built. Clean energy has immense potential in Alberta. However, the premier, Danielle Smith, basically put a hold on all those projects. Why would anyone do that when there is potential for enormous growth?

Alberta could be the clean energy powerhouse of the planet. Why would the premier basically halt $33 billion in clean energy projects? It makes no sense at all.

Under the Harper government, we saw a hatred of clean energy. The one program it did put in place regarding home renovations was so oversubscribed that, basically, the government abruptly cancelled it. In the years following, when I was the energy critic, as the NDP was the official opposition at the time, I went across the country—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Provencher for his question. It is true that we do not always agree, especially when it comes to straws and gas guzzlers. I do not agree with him on these matters. I do not agree with him that Canada’s oil and gas sector is one of the most ethical, either. Oil from the tar sands is probably one of the dirtiest oils in the world. However, let us set that aside for now.

On the issue of consultation, we do agree.

On the issue of the purposes of use, several groups of fishers testified that the federal government’s consultation process was botched. They feel that they were not heard and that the measures that should have been taken to help the fishery and ensure sound management of the different users were not put in place. Indeed, the consultation process was inadequate. It is not that the government did not have enough time. It had plenty of time to work on Bill C-49.

The government even planned to have the committee travel to Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island, but, because of poor management or I do not know what, the visit never happened, and we were unable to speak with the people on the ground except during committee meetings, when witnesses were called. I totally agree that it would have been better to have a much more robust consultation process than we actually did.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can speak with the same passion as my colleague, but I have to admit that I am not an oil and gas enthusiast, far from it.

I want to begin by saying that Bill C-49 was introduced to us as a bill that seeks to promote renewable energy, but such is not the case. Before I explain why I do not think that is the case, I would like to give a bit of background. It feels like groundhog day to me, because I am often repeating the same thing here in the House, that Canada is trapped in the oil industry's stranglehold.

We could take that one step further and say that Canada is an oil monarchy and wants to stay that way. We are among the four biggest polluters in the world, and we share that enviable position with Russia and Iraq. I do not know whether the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources planned to become a “petromonarch”, but unfortunately, that is what he is. Today, with the Trans Mountain pipeline in place, Canada is going to be producing an additional 600,000 barrels a day, when Alberta is already producing a record number of nearly 4 million barrels per day.

From an environmental perspective, we can all agree that that is awful. If we look at the government’s actions in recent months, we again see the same thing, a willingness to financially support the oil and gas sector. I remember that the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said he wanted to put an end to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies in 2023, but he did not know what an ineffective subsidy was. How can we put an end to something we do not know about? That is rather difficult. I would simply point out to him that, in 2023, the federal government invested $18.5 billion in the oil and gas industry. We are a long way from ending fossil fuel subsidies.

I would also point out that he should put a cap on emissions by 2026. Of note, the emissions cap prosed by the federal government is a limit on emissions but not on production. Canada will therefore produce more oil but reduce carbon intensity. Basically, I see this as a person on a diet eating poutine. If someone goes on a diet, they should not eat poutine. If the government wants to reduce carbon intensity, it should not help produce more oil.

It is a bit of a pipe dream to say we will reduce the carbon intensity of the oil sector by investing huge amounts of public money in technologies that are questionable and unsound, technologies that are assessed by several experts as doomed to fail. Nevertheless, the government’s big strategy in its budget is to invest no less than $83 billion by 2035 to promote this pipe dream of lower carbon intensity oil. That is not counting the $65 billion that have been invested in the oil and gas sector in recent years.

I see that all these numbers are making your head spin, Mr. Speaker. I could not agree with you more. I too find it alarming. I am saying that because this is the context in which Bill C-49 is being proposed.

I am a well-intentioned guy. My mother always says that about me and she is right. I am a person who means well. At first reading we told ourselves we should give it the benefit of the doubt. The first stumbling block we saw was the possibility that Bill C-49 interfered with provincial jurisdiction. From a constitutional perspective, management of offshore energy is a federal jurisdiction, but previous agreements were signed to manage the oil and gas sector with Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. New agreements were presented to us as agreements aiming to include renewable energies.

At first reading, we decided to give it the benefit of the doubt because there were no jurisdictional issues. We therefore voted in favour of sending the bill to committee. I was prepared to participate in committee discussions and to try to improve it. This was the goal of the Bloc Québécois and its approach to studying the bill.

However, the main problem soon became clear. Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. The government refused every amendment proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I will present some of them shortly, since I am sure I will have time. We proposed possible solutions while remaining totally open. All were dismissed outright.

Here is why I say Bill C-49 is not about renewable energy. In committee, we heard from Normand Mousseau, Scientific Director of the Trottier Energy Institute. No one is more qualified to talk about energy and energy transition. Mr. Mousseau said that there is a fundamental principle when it comes to engaging in energy transition. This fundamental principle is quite simple: Renewable energy must be given priority over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. We decided to use this as the starting point for our amendments. The idea was to determine how Bill C 49 could favour renewable energy over fossil fuels or carbon-intensive energy. Unfortunately, the government was completely against this approach. This is why I say the bill is not about renewable energy.

I talked about Normand Mousseau, but we heard from another very interesting witness, Ches Crosbie, who was invited by my Conservative colleagues. Mr. Crosbie came to talk to us about his vision of energy in Canada. What is interesting about Mr. Crosbie is that he does not believe in climate change. The Conservatives invited a witness who does not believe in climate change and who is convinced that all the money invested in new technologies is a waste of time and a scam. I am translating freely. He told us that it was bogus, and his testimony, along with the questions I asked him when he appeared before us, was picked up by the CBC. I am not a big fan of the CBC; not being anglophone, it is a bit more difficult for me. In any case, the leader of the Conservatives in Newfoundland was forced to defend himself. Tony Wakeham was forced to say that he believed in climate change and that the witness who had appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources was a bit off base. I wonder on what basis my Conservative friends chose to invite someone who is prepared to deny the reality of climate change, which is accepted by everyone. It is a bit like deciding to invite to the Standing Committee on Health someone who defends the idea that cigarettes do not cause cancer and are actually good for athletes. We would say that is completely far-fetched. However, Ches Crosbie, the Conservative witness, shamelessly said before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that we should stop talking about this bogus climate change theory and stop investing money in new technologies because that would not do any good. I think we all get the picture.

I said our goal from the outset was to improve Bill C‑49 to better govern offshore energy activities and better plan the energy transition. Everything we proposed was roundly rejected by our Conservative friends.

I would like to review some of our amendments. This will clarify why we will vote against Bill C‑49. We have said this already, but we will vote against Bill C‑49 because it is incompatible with the energy transition.

The first type of amendment we submitted aimed to foster the Bloc Québécois's general vision, which is energy transition and fighting climate change. Earlier, I talked about Normand Mousseau. We wrote our amendments based on his words, stressing, among other things, the need for the federal government to follow the example of Quebec and of other countries, which have halted new oil and gas development projects.

We thought that if we could change the bill to prevent new oil and gas projects and instead focus on renewable energy, we would have done our job, and we could vote in favour of Bill C‑49. However, the Liberal government responded that, while Bill C‑49 deals with renewable energy, there would be no prioritization of other types of energy, as Normand Mousseau recommended in his testimony. We felt this undermined transition.

With the amendments we proposed, the government could have built the regulatory foundations to gradually phase out oil and gas by voting, among other things, to reform the system governing them. Our goal was to ensure that adequate regulation of current oil and gas projects would end the approval process for new ones. The government dismissed this outright. We also wanted to help create a new offshore renewable energy regulatory system that would have allowed effective planning that considered the needs of all users of the sea and required a proper environmental assessment.

For example, we proposed that the regulator be responsible for preparing a strategic plan for gradually reducing petroleum-related activities, consistent with Canada's commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% to 45% below 2025 levels by 2030. These are commitments the government itself made. If it had taken this direction, it might not be in the situation it is in today, when it was announced that our emissions increased by 10 megatonnes between 2021 and 2022. How are we supposed to reduce our carbon emissions when our main economic sector is still oil and gas? It is completely impossible. We suggested in good faith that the government focus on renewable energy, but it refused.

We also made certain proposals because what most surprised me about Bill C‑49, which would amend the two acts governing offshore energy, namely the one for Newfoundland and the one for Prince Edward Island, is that the regulators have no expertise in renewable energy. Witnesses told us straight out that they know how to develop and analyze fossil fuel projects, but they have no idea how to develop renewable energy projects. We therefore moved amendments aimed at developing the appropriate expertise for planning and assessment processes, but these amendments were also rejected out of hand by the government. Our amendments were consistent with the briefs and testimony that numerous environmental groups and energy sector specialists provided to the government during the study in committee, but the government obviously did not listen. The government turned a deaf ear and refused to listen to the people who have the expertise needed to develop this type of renewable energy project.

Lastly, we submitted amendments aimed at ensuring that, if one or more energy projects are commenced in an area where no other projects are under way, low-carbon energy projects should automatically get priority. For example, in an offshore area, if there is a choice between a wind power project and an oil project, the analysis should be based on the carbon intensity of each project. That would have been essential, but the government did not agree to our amendment. It dismissed it out of hand. This proves what I have been trying to say all along, which is that Bill C‑49 is not a renewable energy bill. It is just greenwashing, an attempt by the government to ease its conscience by saying that it is working on implementing wind power projects, but without actually making them a priority.

In fact, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island currently have no infrastructure to distribute the electricity that the wind turbines will produce. Developing this kind of infrastructure requires resources, and the construction costs involved are astronomical.

The federal government, however, continues to invest heavily in the pipe dream that I talked about earlier, which calls for lowering the carbon intensity of the oil and gas sector. However, the government is not investing in clean technology the way it was supposed to. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑49, and it will never lose sight of the fact that the energy transition cannot be carried out while the oil and gas industry are receiving support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that we are debating Bill C-49 on offshore wind, but for my hon. friend for Tobique—Mactaquac, I am surprised to see a Conservative MP wanting to go to bat for SNC-Lavalin getting more work with its shady practices.

SNC-Lavalin bought Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. for the bargain basement price of $15 million back in, I think, 2013. It is behind Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, and if there ever is a small modular reactor built in the member's home province, it will be built by that same corporation and not Moltex, which has never built a reactor and does not plan doing one. It will leave it to its partner, formerly known as SNC-Lavalin. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting story. I would say to the member that, yes, he can. He can realize the potential by passing Bill C-49, which has the premiers of the provinces that are most affected recognizing the true value of it, as it is. I would ask the member to reflect on the great potential Atlantic Canada, in particular the two provinces in question, would have through the passage of this legislation.

I saw the passion in the speeches of the minister and others, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, when they talked about the future and how wonderful the future is, as well as the potential of this legislation. They are joined by the premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why does he not say that, yes, he can convince his Atlantic caucus colleagues, at the very least, to get behind Bill C-49 and do the right thing by supporting it? By supporting it, he would be supporting Atlantic Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise again in the people's House and to address this important bill that is before our consideration here today.

Bill C-49 shows a continued lack of true consultation by the current government with stakeholders and on-the-ground industry workers, who have continuously come out to speak out against this bill with fervour. This is the furthest thing from bottom-up legislation, legislation based on feedback given by the people who would be most affected by these decisions. Good legislation would have taken that into consideration and made sure the voices of those who are most impacted by a certain piece of legislation are truly considered and implemented into the government's approach. That is clearly not the case here.

Industry stakeholders, fish harvesters, those in the offshore industry and residents of those provinces are raising legitimate concerns. What we, as His Majesty's loyal opposition, are doing is bringing those concerns to the fore. We are using every tool available to us to make sure that those concerns are heard, whether that is through amendments or through making sure that due diligence is done at committee and in this chamber. Those voices have a right to be heard, and our job is to make sure those voices are brought to the fore. That is how we get to better legislation. Our aim is to fix the bill. Our aim is to help the legislation become what it should be.

The Liberals have ignored those legitimate, absolutely positive amendments that were brought forward. They are not considering those things that the stakeholders themselves and the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are bringing forward. I think it is so important that the government take the time to consider those very legitimate concerns.

I am a proud member from the region of Atlantic Canada. I am excited to represent a region in New Brunswick. One thing that has frustrated me and, I know, other colleagues from Atlantic Canada on this side of the House is the fact that we have so much potential that has yet to be realized. There is so much potential that has yet to be fully tapped into. Those in the industry and those whose livelihoods depend upon this are clearly saying there are a lot of things that we could do.

Our provinces could take advantage of a lot of the resources that are literally under our feet and in our waters, if we only had a government that would listen to our concerns, get off our backs, get out of the way and allow us to do what we do best. Instead, we are putting up more roadblocks and we are putting undue power in the hands of one minister who, with the strike of a pen, could veto a lot of tremendous potential development that could take place in our region.

Atlantic Canada, like other parts of this country, many times has felt ignored, isolated and marginalized by the current federal government. Atlantic Canadians are speaking loudly and clearly. They want the government to hear that they have concerns with this bill as it is written: “Fix the bill. Make the bill better. Make sure it reflects the legitimate concerns of those whose opportunities and future livelihoods truly depend upon it.” We have heard it from fish harvesters, we have heard it from oil and gas workers and we have heard it from various stakeholders.

Mr. Scott Tessier, chief executive officer for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, said that the petroleum sector and the fishing sector “are absolutely critical to our province and the economy of Canada, so it is absolutely critical to have an effective consultation and engagement framework in which fisheries interests are at the table with a meaningful say and a full voice.” We need to make sure that people's voices from those sectors are being considered and reflected in this type of legislation that is brought forward.

Mr. Michael Barron, the president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, said that “a more involved in-depth consultation needs to be had with other primary users of this space moving forward.”

What will accompany this bill will strain the energy sector and give the minister the ability to veto energy projects brought forth by industry workers. We are hearing this coming from across sectors. They are raising concerns, and the real, legitimate problems, as has now been borne out by a federal court saying that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional, are once again being raised in regard to Bill C-49.

If a bill is being built on the back of a bill that has already been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court, the Liberals may want to go back to the drawing board to reconsider it, and see that this may be a little bit of a stretch and they had better address the concerns so they do not run into the same legal problems of implementation they are having with Bill C-69.

It is worthy of consideration, and it is worthy of going back to the drawing board to make sure we get this right. It is more important to get a piece of legislation through that is good and right than it is to just get a piece of legislation through for the sake of saying that we got it through. These concerns need to be heard and need to be brought forward.

There is so much potential. This is an area of passion for me, whether it was when I was spending my time on the natural resources committee or on the fisheries committee. One thing I hear from industry stakeholders in both sectors is how much potential there is within each of their sectors that is unrealized and untapped. They feel like, every time they go ahead to take advantage of the opportunities within those sectors, there is a big, heavy hand of government and bureaucracy that comes down on their backs, saying that they cannot do this, go there or expand in this area, and the only way they could grow and develop is the government's way, as old Frank Sinatra famously used to sing, do it My Way, and if they do not, then it is the highway. Quite frankly, we need to get them at the table so they have the opportunity to expand, grow, develop, and realize the potential that is theirs.

When I was preparing my remarks today, I could not help myself, and I had to go to this famous old story. It is one I heard years ago as a young man. I hope the House will indulge me. Members may recognize it as I read it. There is a reason why this old story came back to me today, and maybe members can relate to it somewhat. When I think of Atlantic Canada and our potential, and I think of the frustrations that we have felt as Atlantic Canadians, oftentimes being overlooked, this story comes to mind. It says:

In a world of hills, so steep and high,
Lived a little blue engine, reaching for the sky.
With a heart so bold and wheels that could,
The Little Engine faced a challenge understood.
On a sunny day, with a load so grand,
A shiny new train was stuck in the sand.
The passengers fretted, their spirits so low,
They needed help to make their journey go.
The shiny trains, big and strong,
Said, “We can't help, the hill's too long.”
But the Little Engine, with a gleam in its eye,
Stepped forward, ready to give it a try.
“I think I can, I think I can,” it said,
Climbing the hill with hope widespread.
Coal-fired determination, puffing and chugging,
The Little Engine's spirit was truly tugging.
The hill was steep, the challenge immense,
Yet the Little Engine, with confidence,
Chanted its mantra, clear and loud,
“I think I can, I'm strong and proud.”
Up the hill, the Little Engine strained,
Raindrops falling, courage gained.
“I think I can, I think I can,” it cried,
As it chugged along with a sense of pride.
Passing others who doubted its might,
The Little Engine pressed on with all its might.
“I thought I could, I thought I could,” it sang,
As over the mountains, its triumph rang.
A tale of courage, resilience so true,
For the Little Engine, and for me and you.
A journey of belief, where dreams unfold,
“I knew I could,” a story retold.
To the little ones, with dreams so wide,
The Little Engine whispers, right by your side,
With “I think I can” echoing through the air,
You'll conquer any hill, if only you dare.

What is the lesson of the little engine that could, and how does it relate to Atlantic Canada and Bill C-49? It is that we have so much potential and so much we can do. We have so much we want to do. The last thing the little locomotives of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador need is a great, big locomotive called the federal government saying “No, you can't. No, you can't. No, you can't.”

What we need is someone to stand on the side of the little provinces to say, “Yes, you can. Yes, you can. Yes, you can. There is hope. Yes, it can get better.” Let us tap into our potential, utilize our resources and climb the hills of challenge that face us by utilizing all of the above, as well as the renewable energy and existing energy resources, to expand, grow and do all that we can.

With this, I must introduce an amendment.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be not now read a third time, but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for the purpose of reconsidering Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 with the view to prevent uncertainty and a lack of clarity caused by the inclusion of similar provisions contained in Bill C-69, an Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which would insert unanticipated conditions and requirements beyond existing legislation and regulations through these clauses.

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

moved that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑49 today.

People in Newfoundland and Labrador have relied on the ocean's resources for centuries. It is what we know. It feels somewhat historic when we talk about the Atlantic accord. Someone not from Newfoundland and Labrador might not realize the significance of the agreement. Particularly for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic accord is fundamental to the respect and recognition shown between federal and provincial governments.

The accord 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 natural resources. The Atlantic accord recognized what my province brought into this country. It recognized the historic resource strengths of Newfoundland and Labrador, and today it recognizes that strength for the future because now the accord would apply to renewable energy, to wind energy.

A Newfoundlander's talking about wind may come as a joke to some. We do have a huge opportunity in harnessing the wind in our province. We have a lot of it, wind that will power not just the grid but also some groundbreaking hydrogen projects. The province knows it and so do we. It is why we work so closely together to manage and develop that resource. The bill before us represents a moment of opportunity, and down my way, we know how to seize opportunity when it comes.

Times were bleak after the cod moratorium until “first oil”, until Hibernia, when we really did not have a clue what we were doing. I remember “first oil”. We knew, though, that it was possible. We knew it could be done. Jointly managed and regulated through the soon-to-be-former C-NLOPB, we stayed the course and people prospered. We did this in what the president of ExxonMobil told me was one of the harshest environments in the world to operate, but we did find a way. More important, we built up one of the most skilled labour forces that the world has ever seen. and people noticed. 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, which was $3.3 billion of secure, long-term and predictable payments that run from 2019 to 2056. More important, it also recognized the province as the principal beneficiary of its resources. I am very proud to have helped negotiate the agreement, and I stand by the document.

Now is the time to renew the accord again. In fact, to call the amendments “amendments to the accord” feels a little wrong. It is a natural evolution because the world is evolving. Where we get our energy is evolving and investment is evolving. The Atlantic accord would include renewable energy so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could be the principal beneficiaries of that too. We would not be losing what we built on the offshore. We are very proud of it actually.

People of my province and the government there are hand-in-glove with this when it comes to the energy mix. We accept the world as it is. We embrace it. We applaud the engineering skills that built a West White Rose gravity structure, because they are the same skills that will help construct wind turbines and the monopiles that are stored next door in Argentia.

Let us think about all the jobs that come with this work; as Minister of Labour, I know I do. When we have a good management structure in place, the more projects that we attract and build and the more jobs that they bring, the better. They are good, well-paying jobs. Right now there are oil and gas companies across Canada that are making sure that the expertise of our workers can be used to build renewable energy projects, and we are going to need every worker we can get because big things are happening and they are happening quickly, but they will not happen as quickly if we do not have the workers.

I have said this before: If someone grows up on a rock in the middle of the ocean or if they grow up in a small town in Labrador like I did, they 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 accept opportunities for what they are, and they are clear-eyed about it.

Between the Minister of Rural Economic Development, the member for Avalon, the member for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, the member for Labrador, the member for St. John's East and me, we knew the accord would need to reflect the changes in the times. As companies and markets look to renewables, Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be well managed. It needs to be well positioned, and when it comes to energy, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not like playing catch-up; we like to lead. Even our province's oil and gas industry association's biggest champion, Noia, changed its name to reflect the global shift in energy; it is now Energy NL. Sustainability and reducing emissions has become the name of the game, so Energy NL's vision is a sustainable and prosperous lower-carbon energy industry.

With all of the wind, we are now seeing big hydrogen projects on our doorsteps, first-of-their-kind facilities. When I was the natural resources minister and we were developing Canada's hydrogen plan, never did I think I would see the German chancellor's plane one day land on the west coast of Newfoundland at Stephenville airport, carrying the CEOs of Seaman and Mercedes. They were saying that they could invest in and create a green hydrogen facility anywhere they choose to, and that they chose us.

If people have not been out my way, I can tell them that it can get windy. The winds off 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 the leaders in an energy sector of the future, to support our region's industrial future and create good jobs that will exist for generations to come.

It is expected that the offshore wind industry will attract one trillion dollars' worth of investment by 2040. We would be out of our minds to think we would not be ready for that kind of money and those kinds of jobs. We are talking about renewable energy. That is a change, one that sometimes makes people anxious. However, this is not about politics; it is about markets, investments and jobs. Industry understands something that skeptics do not, which is that the world is looking for renewable energy, wind and solar, in the overall energy mix.

We can sit on our hands and let those industries be built in other countries and let their workers get the good jobs, or we can get in on the ground floor and make sure that workers here get the jobs. We can make sure that Canadian workers, Atlantic Canadian workers, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, are the ones who will be selling renewable energy to the world and taking home the profits.

We are going to ensure a great future for the people of my home province, Newfoundland and Labrador.

By passing Bill C-49, we would secure Newfoundland and Labrador's and Nova Scotia's futures as forces to be reckoned with in the global offshore wind and renewable energy sectors.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are nine motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-49.

Motions Nos. 1 to 9 will not be selected by the Chair because they could have been presented in committee.

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Natural Resources

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House with amendments.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier I heard my colleague from Lakeland answer my question by stating that politicians have to be honest. It seems to me that Bill C-50 may in part address this issue of honesty. If we want to be honest with the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces, whose economy depends mainly on oil, we must tackle climate change and find solutions. That is what I originally thought a bill on the just transition would do. I thought it would help us find solutions to figure out a way to minimize the impact of a necessary transition on workers.

Everyone recognizes that fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate warming and climate disruption. Everyone recognizes that, except maybe certain Conservatives. Everyone recognizes it, but the way to prove that is by taking action. When my colleague says that politicians should be honest, that applies to everyone. I suspect some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are going to wake up 10 years from now with a pretty bad headache after blowing up the endless balloon of an oil- and gas-based economy.

As far as I am concerned, Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. I mentioned honesty earlier because I feel that political processes are powerless in the face of the oil and gas sector, which is kind of steering the Canadian economy. As a dispassionate observer, I see the oil and gas sector as a symbol of Canada's identity, such a strong symbol that it makes dialogue on the energy transition impossible. These positions are irreconcilable.

I saw this at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where I witnessed blatant filibustering, incivility, and tactics that I believe are totally unworthy of parliamentarians. That is why the Liberals responded in a way that may have been less than optimal—perhaps one of the worst ways possible, in fact—when they took the undemocratic step of shutting down debate. Did they have any other choice? History will not tell us, but this is how the Liberals responded.

The Liberals are not without their faults, either. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is a good minister. He does not seem too partisan to me, and he is open to dialogue. However, he too is in the stranglehold of the oil sector, so there is only so much he will do to move ahead with the necessary transition.

The minister found another dance partner, the NDP. It was only natural. The NDP even swallowed several bitter pills. I saw members go along with certain things on the energy transition at committee. That kind of undercuts their claim that standing up for the fight against climate change is part of their values. I may come back to this later when I talk about the difference between a just transition and sustainable jobs.

I was saying that Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. With this bill, we saw the full scope of what I call the Carleton method, the member for Carleton's method, which has been in place for a while now. This method can be summed up in one word: intimidation.

We witnessed some fairly major intimidation at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Sometimes, when the Conservative members heckled others during the proceedings, it seemed to me that they were acting like influencers rather than lawmakers. Their goal was to wreak havoc in committee. Then some members recorded themselves on video to show viewers what a great job they were doing defending the public's interests. What an utterly pointless exercise. That is the way things went at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why am I saying this? It is because it feels like Bill C‑50 was never really debated in committee.

Our chance to have a debate by presenting our amendments and getting to discuss them was stolen from us by the Conservatives' attitude. I will repeat this ad nauseam: This attitude of the Conservatives can be explained by what I see as an all-consuming passion for the oil and gas sector.

At the Standing Committee of Natural Resources, I learned that the member for Provencher's argument against Bill C-50 boiled down to the fact that he likes muscle cars and would rather drink his milkshake through a plastic straw. When I learned that, I thought to myself: Our future is guaranteed, this is the way to go, in other words, more muscle cars—I see my colleague nodding his approval—and plastic straws. Is there anything worse than drinking a milkshake through a paper straw? I mean, really.

I also learned from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View that oil could be used to create peace in the world. In my former life, I taught political science, and I used to talk to my students about colonialism. Now I have learned a new concept: eco-colonialism. Apparently, it is eco-colonialist to stop indigenous peoples from developing oil. That is pretty shocking. Can there be a more pernicious reasoning than that? They are basically trying to secure social licence by saying that refusing to develop new oil projects that are affiliated with indigenous communities is a new form of colonialism. Rarely have I seen such twisted logic. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View also suggested that oil can bring peace to the world. Supposedly, Canadian oil and gas could stop the conflict in Ukraine and maybe even the conflict in Israel. Apparently, the answer to all the world's problems is oil.

All that is nothing, though. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which includes the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is a world champion at making us go around in circles, spent almost a month arguing over whose turn it was to speak. As members know, each committee is made up of one member of the Bloc Québécois, one member of the NDP and four members of the Conservative Party, and the others are all Liberals. However, five or six Conservatives showed up, all demanding to speak. They started causing a ruckus, saying that their parliamentary privilege was being breached because they were not being allowed to speak. We spent a month on that. If that is not wasting time, I do not know what is.

The worst part was when we did the clause-by-clause study. The member for Brantford—Brant flew into such a rage that I feared for my whip's safety. I had never seen anything like it. He snapped. He just lost it and started yelling. He really loves the oil and gas industry. In my view, he simply lost it. At one point, I was afraid for my whip's safety. All that happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

In my opinion, a legislator's job is to calmly study bills in order to improve the society in which we live, to change the direction in which society is heading. How can we do that in an atmosphere like that? How can we do that when some people's prime objective is to derail the process and make dialogue impossible? In politics, the watchword is “dialogue”, meaning a discussion among people who have different visions but who are able to reach a consensus. It was absolutely impossible to reach a consensus on Bill C‑50.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry was only confirmed by Bill C-49. They invited Ches Crosbie, an eccentric character who does not believe in climate change and who thinks that all the investments in fighting climate change are bogus. We have it on video. He was invited to testify by the Conservatives, who thought he might contribute something important to the debate by spewing absurdities. Maybe one day we will hear testimony from someone trying to convince us that the Earth is flat.

The Conservatives' all-consuming passion came to the fore in committee. I see that as the member for Carleton's method. The Conservatives' decision to reject everything that has to do with the fight against climate change can be seen in their never-ending attack on carbon pricing. We have actually started saying that the Conservatives are obsessed with the “carbum” tax, because they are acting like bums. Anything goes. They can say one thing, then contradict themselves. They can say for weeks that a tax applies to Quebec when it does not. They can say for weeks that carbon pricing is responsible for skyrocketing food prices. We saw them say that many times. The worst is what I saw them do in recent weeks, when they exploited the increase in the cost of living and the misfortune of the most vulnerable to help big oil push its agenda.

What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is keep the economy stuck in the 20th century. He certainly does not want to end our dependence on oil and gas. We see the proof here every day. When someone asks a question about the oil and gas industry, they get a huge round of applause. No, that is not true. There are two things the Conservatives applaud. The first is the oath to the King. They perk right up when that subject comes up. The second is anything having to do with oil. That makes the Conservatives really happy. That is their bread and butter.

There is nothing more ironic than to hear them say we need to deal with inflation and help low-income people, while at the same time defending the agenda of the most wealthy. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that giving $82 billion in tax credits to the oil industry between now and 2034 is ridiculous and that we should use that money to help people in need. I have never heard a Conservative say that. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that investing $34 billion in an oil pipeline is absolutely ridiculous. These are the issues that should get their blood boiling, not a potential tax on the greedy oil and gas industry. I would just like to remind the House that, in 2022, this greedy industry raked in $200 billion in profits.

Far be it from me to remind my Conservative colleagues that their former leader, Mr. O'Toole, believed carbon pricing was one of the best ways to fight climate change. I will not do that. Rather, I will focus on the reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-50.

The first reason is that, in my opinion, the bill is not actually about a just transition. Just transition is a concept. Everyone in the western world uses the term “just transition” to describe the efforts we should be making to plan a carbon-free economy while mitigating the negative impact on workers as much as possible. Everyone agrees, except Canada.

Why is Canada the only country that does not want to adopt the concept of a just transition? Some less charitable souls told me that one possibility is that we could make a pun with the Prime Minister's name. In fact, our Conservative friends made a not-so-clever pun with the Prime Minister's name and inflation. If that is why, it is pretty childish. I hope that is not it. The other possible reason why Canada uses “sustainable jobs” instead of “just transition” is apparently because the Premier of Alberta cannot stand the thought of talking about a just transition. For that reason, Canada chose to talk about sustainable jobs rather than just transition.

I figure that if we do not call a spade a spade, that makes it difficult to take the bold measures that need to be taken immediately if we want to deal with climate change. How bold can we be if we cannot call a spade a spade? That made it difficult for us to support the bill on just transition.

What made it impossible to support the bill is the federal government's calculated abandonment of the asymmetrical agreement on workforce management between Quebec and Ottawa. Quebec has the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which allows Quebec society to hold debates between the government, the major unions and employers. We thought that, in Quebec, the concept of a just transition should be debated by these partners and abide by the asymmetrical agreements reached between the governments of Canada and Quebec.

Unfortunately, I have had many discussions with the minister. I thought that at some point we could get there. I had a lot of discussions, I met several times with unions to discuss the bill on a just transition. I will admit that some unions were on board. I have friends in the unions who were prepared to put water in their wine and go for sustainable jobs, as a gesture of compromise. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the federal government did not accede to their demands that the asymmetrical agreements between Canada and Quebec be respected and that the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail be given a more important role. That is why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately not be supporting the bill.

However, there are some necessary steps that could have been taken. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is in the oil and gas industry's economic stranglehold. What can we do to make a just transition? What action can we take?

First, the government needs to do away with the strategies that it is currently proposing. When I hear talk of a low-carbon economy in Canada, it is immediately clear to me that the government's and even the opposition's proposals are flawed. Among other things, I am talking about blue hydrogen, which uses carbon capture and storage. That is a key piece of the government's plan to fight climate change.

Many witnesses came and told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it is unfeasible to use carbon capture and storage technologies for the volumes that the government is talking about. Many witnesses also told us that it is unfeasible to produce blue hydrogen, or hydrogen from gas, because it is so expensive, and yet the government is investing massive amounts in tax credits and research support for the oil and gas industry's pipe dream.

In Canada, there is talk of developing low-carbon oil. The majority of experts we talk to say that is impossible. However, the Canadian strategy, as I was saying earlier, with its big tax credits, is focused on the pipe dream of producing low-carbon oil. I always tell the same joke: low-carbon oil is like diet poutine. It does not exist. If we want to fight climate change, then we simply cannot insist on economically supporting the oil companies. If we want to go on a diet then we cannot eat poutine. It amounts to the same thing.

I will close with an anecdote. I joined the minister in Berlin where we attended a meeting with people from Siemens. The minister asked them whether Siemens would be interested in producing the technology for blue hydrogen. The people from Siemens answered rather honestly, saying that the production cost would be so high that they would need government support. In addition to that, the technological costs are so high that it is practically impossible. Yet the government's entire strategy is based on a similar pipe dream.

I see that my time is up. Basically, the Canadian oil and gas sector's stranglehold has led us to a dead end. Unfortunately, we will not be able to produce legislation consistent with our goals and a just transition.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. This is the third time I rise in this place to move forward the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and I am frustrated that it has been such a difficult journey to get us to third reading on this legislation.

It is a bill that is only about a dozen pages long and that has been supported by workers and industry. However, it seems to have touched a nerve with the Conservative opposition, so we have had to overcome a massive amount of obstruction to get to this point. Just last week, we faced a voting marathon that took over 12 hours of voting time as resources were taken up with recorded votes forced by the Conservatives. This bill matters, so Liberals did not hesitate to stand up and vote for each one, but let us be clear that the result of that Conservative charade was wasted time and taxpayer resources.

I was not surprised, because this voting marathon was just one more example of the obstruction that we, and I, have faced in this place and at committee. In December, the natural resources committee, on which I sit, faced over 20,000 amendments put forward by the Conservatives, and this was on a bill that is only about 12 pages long. The amendments were not serious proposals, and in all of my years in this place, I have never seen such awful behaviour at committee.

At these meetings, the Conservative members were loud and disruptive, and their tone was like nothing I have ever seen. It was not just a filibuster. That is a normal tool for opposition members. It was repeated, loud yelling of “point of order”, so that nothing could be said or heard. It was filming a video at every point of suspension in pursuit of a social media click and social media videos, rather than in pursuit of getting the policy right.

All of this was while workers from across the country were telling us over and over again that they wanted to see us move forward with the sustainable jobs act and that they wanted the Conservatives to end their obstruction.

At a conference last week, the Conservative energy critic stated that for her, with respect to this bill, a mutual and evidence-based middle ground is not a thing. So much for developing policy on the evidence and for working with each other to get the best results for our communities.

Why does the Conservative Party look to oppose a bill that would empower workers and a bill that acknowledges a need for workers to be at the table as our country charts a path toward a net-zero future? That is what this bill would do. Let me set out quickly what is contained in the sustainable jobs act. It has five parts.

The first part sets out principles guiding a coherent approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help create sustainable jobs, while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to play a leading role in the emerging world of the clean growth industry.

The second part aims to create a sustainable jobs partnership council to provide independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and to engage with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts, including workers, indigenous leaders and industry representatives, are at the table to guide government action.

The third part sets out a requirement to publish action plans every five years, drawing on input from stakeholders and partners as well as expert advice from the sustainable jobs partnership council.

The fourth part is designed to establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action to implement the law across the federal government.

The fifth and final part designates the minister or ministers responsible for implementing the legislation.

Those five things are what have given rise to all of the Conservative furor. This is why they have put up so much time and energy to oppose. That is what it is, legislation that helps workers to seize the opportunities and have a say in how it can be done.

On Thursday, the Minister of Labour asked, if they are not listening to industry or workers, or the environmental community, who are they listening to? That is a good question, because it certainly is not the many who have spoken publicly.

The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.”

The International Union of Operating Engineers said, “The Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act is a step toward a future that puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.”

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents millions of Canadian workers, said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act signals a crucial milestone in our fight against climate change and the protection of workers' interests. Canada’s unions stand committed to working alongside all stakeholders to ensure effective implementation towards a sustainable and equitable future for all.”

Those statements confirm to me that workers in industry see in the sustainable jobs act an unlocking of opportunities; they see it as a part of our country's commitment to seize global opportunities in sustainable jobs, all the while making sure that workers are at the table as we work together to fight climate change and slow the natural disasters that are impacting our communities through wildfires, floods, droughts, hurricanes and other events.

As we strive to reduce the emissions that fuel the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure that our young people have a thriving future in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy.

Both are possible, and they go hand in hand.

All of our communities are feeling these impacts on our clean air, and floods and fires that damage homes, farms and industry. It has been shocking, in this bill's very long journey, to hear the Conservative colleagues from across the way say that they do not believe in climate change. For example, the Conservative MP for Red Deer—Mountain View, during his filibuster of this very bill, claimed that climate change is having no impact on the frequency or severity of wildfires, which is entirely false. The Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, in a newsletter to constituents, simply said that “the global warming gig is up”.

These statements explain why the Conservative Party's plans have been to just let the planet burn. That is not only frightening; it is also out of step with the rest of the world, because the world is looking for clean energy and renewables and to build their businesses in Canada because of our clean electrical grid. These are the opportunities we could seize with the sustainable jobs act.

We have a target to hit net zero, and many subsectors, like cement and electricity, have similar pathways and road maps based on modelling and market trends. All of this means expanding and deploying new technologies using skilled Canadian labour. These range from installing electric arc furnaces for steelmaking, like at Dofasco; finding ways to harness solar and biomass in remote communities, like in Old Crow, Yukon; or using deep-lake cold water from Lake Ontario to cool downtown Toronto's hospitals and buildings through a district energy system operated by Enwave. There are hundreds of examples across this country of innovative projects that are being advanced to create clean power and sustainable jobs.

RBC estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required.

Last summer, I had the chance to talk with people working on wind turbines in Ontario. One of these workers told me how he had chosen to train to work on wind turbines, because he liked the opportunity to be outdoors while doing the technical work he enjoys. He was making a better living, and he was living better.

I met people at George Brown College who are part of a program to provide certification for electric vehicle mechanics. A large percentage of the people who were studying the certification were new to the field of mechanics. One person commented that the workplace for EVs had cleaner air than a traditional shop. Given that my grandfather worked in an autobody shop as a mechanic, Dabrusin Motors, it hits home how no emissions in his shop would have been a much healthier workplace.

On International Women's Day this year, I had the opportunity to join the Millwright Regional Council, AECON and Ontario Power Generation at the graduation of a group women. They had been part of a special program to encourage women to become millwrights, and upon graduation, they were able to get jobs working on the refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear power plant. It was inspiring to meet these graduates and the people who had come around them to create this special program.

We are talking about good-paying jobs in nuclear energy, a form of energy that has helped Ontario move away from coal-fired electricity and that is bringing cleaner air to our communities across the provinces. Through the sustainable jobs act, we want to make sure that workers help chart the course to make sure that women, such as those in this graduating class, can find good-paying jobs that are a part of our country's future.

In fact, these are the jobs of our planet's future, and investment is flowing to clean technologies. In 2022 alone, over $2 trillion went to clean technologies globally. This bill would help support coordinating the labour force's development needs in these fast-growing industries. As we rapidly look to expanding Canada's advantage in clean technologies to meet our domestic and global needs, we must also expand the skills and training of Canadians to ensure that high-quality jobs are created here.

I will ask members to allow me to provide two examples of how we are creating sustainable jobs in Canada for Canadian workers and communities while supporting our allies around the world. If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made through a low-carbon manufacturing process, let us attract that investment that helps our workers to fill that gap.

The first example is our nuclear financing agreement with Romania. Romania has been a NATO ally of Canada for 20 years now, and it is strategically placed as a leader in Eastern Europe to supply zero-emissions power to its neighbours with Canadian CANDU reactors at Cernavoda's power station.

Nuclear power and technology is a vital part of Canada's legacy as a tier 1 nuclear nation. We are providing $3 billion in financing to Romania to develop two new CANDU reactors. That is a good deal. It is one that will be paid back with interest, which will flow entirely to Canadian companies. It will create good jobs across Ontario, help Romania to phase out coal several years ahead of schedule and displace Putin's energy blackmail with a steady supply of reliable, zero-emissions power. That is a win for climate action, a win for our allies, for our economy, for workers and for Canada.

The second example is about hydrogen. A few weeks ago, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources led a delegation to Hamburg, Germany, where Canada became the first country in the world to cement a hydrogen window with the Germans, making the first deal of its kind between any two countries. Part of the reason Vice-Chancellor Habeck had such confidence in Canada is the enormous clean power potential presented by our Atlantic offshore.

As the Minister of Labour mentioned last Thursday, offshore wind power and the hydrogen that it can create represent the largest economic opportunities for the region in a generation. They present us with the potential to economically revitalize entire coastal communities across both provinces. That is an example of strategic investment and partnership being used to create thousands of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers on the path to net zero here and around the world.

If I go back to my frustrations, it has been deeply frustrating. The Conservative members of the natural resources committee have repeatedly talked down the offshore opportunities and stated opposition to Bill C-49, the bill that would allow these offshore wind projects to proceed and create that green hydrogen that is sought after by our allies. These are good opportunities to create good-paying jobs.

We are standing up with provinces to make sure Canadian workers can seize these new opportunities. Workers are at the centre of the sustainable jobs act, and as I have pointed out, unions have strongly supported this bill. When workers organize, they do not just ask more of their employers. They expect more from government too, and that is a good thing. We are advancing replacement worker legislation and investments in union-led training centres because we believe in unions.

Just this weekend, I talked with a unionized worker in my community who was telling me about the importance of his union and his strong support for our replacement worker legislation. He wants a government that supports unionized workers and collective bargaining, and I could assure him that our Liberal government does support those things.

That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative government, in which the Leader of the Opposition was a cabinet minister. As a cabinet minister in the Harper government, the Leader of the Opposition championed two of the most anti-union and anti-worker bills the House has ever seen: Bill C-525 and Bill C-377.

Bill C-377 was an unconstitutional bill to silence unions by burying them in onerous reporting requirements, including forcing them to show their strike funds to employers, which would weaken the prospect of deals at the bargaining table. Bill C-525 was similarly an attack on workplace democracy, making it very difficult for workers to form unions and easier for the then Conservative government to arbitrarily decertify unions.

In 2017, our government repealed both of these bills, and since then, we have continued to stand up for unions. Despite all of the Conservative games, we have been pushing forward, and we will continue to fight for workers. This is precisely what our sustainable jobs plan and act would deliver.

I will conclude by highlighting the widespread support that exists for this legislation.

First, Equiterre had this to say about the bill: “It is an essential step toward more cohesive climate action and there's absolutely no reason to delay the adoption of this bill. Building a sustainable workforce starts now—not in 2050.”

The executive director of the Pembina Institute stated the following:

Passing the Sustainable Jobs Act and getting the new Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council working will deliver the message, loud and clear: Canada is a great place to invest, with workers who are second to none and ready to get the job done.

A youth-led organization called re-generation said it supports the plan and the bill because:

This Act will help ensure that green jobs are available for anyone who wants one. It will establish a partnership council to directly involve workers and communities in the transition, and allocate critical funding to green skills development and training.

Finally, the vice-president of IBEW International said that, through this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.”

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that would allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best.

I sincerely hope that every member in the House agrees to choose the first path because, as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure we have a sustainable future and sustainable jobs for future generations.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my hon. colleagues in this most honourable House.

As we continue the debate at report stage of Bill C-50, it is imperative to note that what we are seeing across the world is being driven by technology in response to the climate crisis, what is happening in our environment and the weather: droughts, floods and temperatures increasing, attributable, obviously, to man-made causes. It is an economic opportunity for all Canadians, for all provinces, from coast to coast, that is being seized today by companies here in Canada, whether Cameco, BHP or, in Ontario, with nuclear. There is just so much innovation happening.

We know right now that the lowest cost to generate electricity is actually through solar and wind. It is true. We also know that we need to be able to store the electricity that is generated, and we are getting there. In my years in the private sector, I was learning quite well about the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. We are now adding a fourth dimension, which is storage. That is going to help us to decarbonize Canada and our electrical system. Bill C-50 is a part of this process, to ensure that the workers in Canada would have the tools, the skills and the resources to participate in this. It is an economic opportunity.

As we gather here today, it is crucial that we recognize the evolving nature of the global economy, driven, yes, by the need to address the climate crisis but also by the technological innovation that is occurring across the world. We can look at companies like Brookfield Asset Management, which was on the Hill this week. It has 33,000 megawatts of generating capacity, almost entirely renewable; it has solar, wind, hydro and nuclear being done right now. That capital is being deployed. As someone who loves the private sector, capital, wealth creation and all of that, I am excited by this. It ensures that we will have a profitable and successful future for our kids. The IEA estimated that in 2022, $2.4 trillion globally would need to be invested as we continue this.

We know that climate change and the actions required to fight it are fundamental economic opportunities for Canada's workforce. The world is rapidly moving toward a future powered by clean energy and sustainable technology. This global shift is not just about reducing emissions; it is also about unlocking new avenues for economic growth and job creation. Around the world, countries are seeking clean energy technologies and supplies to power their economies well into the coming decades. Canada is stepping up to support them. A great example is the work we have been doing with Romania to build Canadian CANDU reactors that will help them to both phase out coal, wean eastern European grids off Putin's energy, create jobs here in Canada and in eastern Europe. All of the financing will go back to Canadian companies, creating sustainable jobs here in Ontario.

Unfortunately, Conservatives let down Ukraine by opposing the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think we need to note that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament this week. We will always stand beside the Ukrainian deputies, the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and its freedom.

Beyond nuclear, the Minister of Energy recently signed a hydrogen accord with the vice-chancellor of Germany, in which Canada is unlocking the first direct hydrogen trade window into a major European market. Partnerships like this will support thousands of good jobs in Atlantic and eastern Canada to produce renewable hydrogen and ship it to Europe to displace Russian gas. Unfortunately, rabid climate denialism has made the federal Conservatives blind to this opportunity that the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia is championing with us.

Beyond hydrogen, Canada built the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance with many global partners to export the Canadian minerals that are building blocks to clean energy technologies, supporting thousands of great jobs in every part of this country. In British Columbia, for example, the clean energy sector is booming, with investments in hydroelectric power, wind farms, and battery factories like E-One Moli. These investments are both creating sustainable jobs and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, while positioning B.C. as a leader in the development of a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the party on the opposite side is opposed to all these investments and continues to attack the Government of British Columbia for its climate leadership.

Similarly, in Alberta, the shift towards hydrogen and other forms of clean energy is creating opportunities for workers in the oil and gas sector to use their skills to help build new plants. I visited the industrial heartland in Alberta a couple of years ago and saw the investments that are taking place, literally $10 billion or $20 billion of petrochemical and chemical investments, net-zero investments, are taking place. We are going to ensure that they get done. We actually partnered with the Government of Alberta and invested in these projects, and we will continue to do that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and their UCP allies are holding back Alberta's full potential through their job-killing red tape on the renewables industry.

The Conservatives are holding back Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador by filibustering and delaying Bill C-49. Actually, I should take that back. Today at the natural resources committee, we finished Bill C-49 and have sent it back. Bill C-49 would build an offshore renewable industry in Atlantic Canada. Meanwhile in Ontario, investments in energy-efficient building retrofits are creating jobs for construction workers by reducing emissions and lowering energy bills for homeowners.

We know that in Bill C-50, the creation of a secretariat to coordinate action and the creation of a sustainable jobs partnership council would really bring industry, labour and indigenous organizations to the table, ensuring that workers have a place at the table.

We know that investments are being made in electric vehicle manufacturing plants and battery plants, not only for today but for decades. All the auto companies know that this transition is happening and that EV production will occur. It may not occur smoothly. It may not occur without some bumps along the way, but it is going to occur. They are all going that way, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Toyota or Honda. We see the exciting things happening in Oxford, and in St. Thomas with Volkswagen. I hope the member opposite who represents Oxford gets on board and supports that investment. It means tens of thousands of Canadians will be working, directly and indirectly, around this plant.

As we can see, there are so many new developments across growing clean industries at the moment. Canada is attracting billions of dollars of direct investment, and Canadian innovation is driving new opportunities. As we grow, we cannot allow a shortage of skills, training and tools to stop our workers from achieving their goals and reaching their full potential in building generational economic drivers. The sustainable jobs bill is fundamentally about supporting hard-working Canadian workers and their families in all 338 ridings that we represent, and ensuring that our and future governments will be accountable to deliver for these workers.

Clearly the Conservative opposition to the bill is founded either in opposition to workers or to accountability, or in being anti-union. Unfortunately I can confirm, based on their statements, that it is based on all of those scenarios. The legislation would ensure that workers have access to training programs, job opportunities and fair wages in the emerging low-carbon economy, as they rightfully should. Yet despite the clear benefits of the sustainable jobs bill, the opposition remains steadfast in its opposition. Its stance is not just completely divorced from reality but is also downright dangerous economically.

I love the 100,000 energy workers in this country who go to work every day. We are going to need them, and we are going to need the resources for years to come. However, we know that capital around the world is being placed in the renewable sector. We know that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are here to stay. We need to continue displacing forms of higher GHG-emitting sources with lower GHG-emitting sources. We will continue to do that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in the process of passing legislation, we have consistently seen a certain behaviour pattern from the official opposition. That behaviour is dictated by the leader of the Conservative Party. It really is a destructive force. The Conservatives try to, as much as possible, make the House of Commons a dysfunctional place. We see that.

The member just finished saying how a lot of hard work is done at the committee stage. For this particular legislation, and I asked the member about this in a question, there were 20,000-plus amendments to an 11-page bill.

That is not Conservative hard work at play. That is artificial intelligence, AI, being utilized as a weapon of destruction, if I can put it that way, to try to prevent legislation from passing.

I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not recognize that climate change is real. At the end of the day, on the legislation the Conservatives are trying to prevent from passing, they should be talking a little more to Gen Z and Gen X. These are the types of jobs that are going to be there in the future.

Members can take a look at what the legislation actually does. What is wrong with forming a council that would provide advice on policy for the government and, ultimately, a five-year action plan? This is such an important issue. It is about transitioning and being able to see those jobs of the future, in multiples of hundreds of thousands. What is wrong with ensuring that there would be a secretariat there to coordinate?

The Conservative Party will pop in to say something, whether here or in committee. Conservatives will filibuster. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting.

I invite members to think of Bill C-49. Bill C-49 was the Atlantic accord legislation. The committee just finished it earlier this afternoon, maybe half an hour ago, or however long it was. Do members know how many days and weeks ago we passed this in the House, and how we had to drag the Conservative Party to get the bill out of second reading? The Conservative Party opposed the legislation. Conservatives oppose it because, at the end of the day, they want to be able to prevent legislation, good, sound legislation, so they come up with all sorts of excuses.

Bill C-49, from my perspective, is a prosperity piece of legislation that would help Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the province of Nova Scotia. It is mirror legislation for those provinces, which are waiting for Ottawa to ultimately pass this bill so they can get on board with moving forward on renewable energy. It seems this is something that the Conservative Party just does not understand. Conservatives want to be stuck in the past and not recognize the future opportunities for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector.

It is not just Liberals who are saying this. Bill C-49, which they opposed, involves two premiers, and one of them is a Progressive Conservative premier. I will highlight the fact that I put the word “progressive” ahead of the word “conservative” because, as Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, the current Conservative Party has amputated any sense of being progressive from its name.

Former prime minister Joe Clark has said that he never left the Conservative Party, but that the Conservative Party had left him because it had gone so far to the right. Kim Campbell's remarks reinforced what Joe Clark said, and more.

We just cannot trust the Conservative Party when it comes to the important issues of jobs, our environment and being there for Canadians in a very real way. We want an economy that works for everyone and a sense of fairness. We want Gen Z and Gen X to be engaged in a very proactive way. By voting against this legislation, members are not thinking of future generations of workers. The Conservative Party is turning its back on green jobs, and its members are demonstrating that by voting against this legislation and voting against Bill C-49. These are opportunities for us to grow.

Members can take a look at the legislation itself and ask why the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it. It would create a sustainable jobs partnership council, which is, in essence, what the legislation is primarily there for. The minister would have an advisory group that would help set policy and be there to do some research and support Canadians, all so we would be in a better position to capitalize on renewable energy jobs. What is wrong with that? Why would the Conservatives feel so compelled to not only vote against the legislation, but also propose 20,000 amendments at the committee stage?

When I asked that question, a member said, “Well, I had a few of those amendments”. Let us look at the amendments, which the member actually knew a few of. I can guarantee members that there is not one Conservative who knows all 20,000-plus amendments because the Conservative Party did not come up with them. Rather, it was computerized artificial intelligence that ultimately produced that number of amendments so that the Conservative Party of Canada, in its official opposition role, could prevent this legislation from passing. Why is that? It is because it does not want workers, community members or indigenous communities to be engaged in providing ideas on how we can produce government policy. Why not?

This is not just about these two pieces of legislation. We can take a look at some of the budgetary measures we have to support renewable jobs. I think one of the largest and most significant announcements that was made was on the Volkswagen plant. We are talking about thousands of direct jobs, and even more indirect jobs. It is not just going to be for one area for the country, as a plant of this magnitude is going to require all sorts of materials.

Whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures, members of the Conservative Party of Canada continues to stand up and want to filibuster to prevent good, sound policy. This is done at a substantial cost, which is the cost of future renewable energy jobs and the substantial cost to our environment. I say shame on them for not recognizing that. At the end of the day, they are there not to oppose and prevent things from passing, but to take policy positions for the betterment of Canadians. I am still waiting to see evidence of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes, I can do that.

I would like to thank our witnesses for participating in Bill C-49, working with us for the last few months and doing a great job. Thank you so much.

You are released from today's meeting. Thank you.

I would now like to go to Mr. Angus.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

[Abigail Lixfeld]

We do feel that there are adequate tools within Bill C-49 and within the regulation-making powers to be able to address expected co-operation, coexistence and mitigation of effects related to projects, and that further changes to the legislation or introducing new regulation-making powers is not required at this time.

In the future, if there are new technologies that have different impacts or if the landscape changes and governments feel the accord acts do not provide the strength they need, governments absolutely have the discretion to make further changes to ensure the regime is sound.

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Thank you for the question. I don't mind providing a response.

Joint management gives us a really strong foundation to work with the provinces on finding common solutions as we move forward with implementing and regulating projects. The accord acts, which have been in place for decades, have a fair degree of flexibility, both within the instructions that are provided to the regulator to respond to the specifics of each project, and for the broad regulation-making powers.

If an issue arose that the provinces or the federal government felt was not adequately addressed in the accord acts, and if both governments felt that legislative change was required, then we would always have the opportunity to go back and make changes.

That said, both levels of government and both of the provincial governments do feel that Bill C-49 as drafted, and with the further strengthening of the subamendment that was discussed at a previous meeting, does provide the flexibility and the tools that are necessary to be able to manage our understanding of both the environment and potential impacts on the fishing sector, and to be able to introduce mitigation measures and other tools that are necessary to promote co-operation and coexistence and manage potential effects.

We also recognize, as governments, that there are a number of things that need to happen outside of legislation that are within the responsibility of government. Mr. Patzer referenced some of the testimony. Some of it has been reflected in the interim report of the regional assessment committees, around the importance of good research, good data, science, and working collectively with different stakeholders to make sure that we have a common understanding of how the fishing industry is changing as a result of climate change and how we need to be responding as technology evolves.

We do feel there are opportunities and mechanisms, and the strength of the co-operation that we have with the provinces through joint management gives us a really strong foundation to work from going forward.

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Yes, in our view, and in particular the view of the provinces, to include any language in Bill C-49 that has not been agreed to by both levels of government goes against the spirit of joint management, which is really to do everything together and to set aside what would ordinarily be unilateral decision-making in favour of common decisions.

All of the clauses and all of the provisions that are in Bill C-49 were agreed to by the provinces. Once the federal version of the bill is complete, the provinces would need to mirror the same legislation in their own legislatures. It would be quite problematic, and I believe unprecedented, for the federal statute to include provisions that are not replicated in the provincial bill, and it could create quite a degree of administrative uncertainty, where basically we would be giving the regulators competing instructions and putting them in a rather untenable place.

[Abigail Lixfeld, Senior Director, Renewable and Electrical Energy Division, Energy Systems Sector, Department of Natural Resources]

I apologize that I can't be in the room with you today.

We did discuss the previous discussion with the provinces, after the meetings on March 21, and we did reflect further on the testimony that was provided during the hearings. Both the provinces and Natural Resources Canada recognize that the principal section in Bill C-49 could be further strengthened to ensure that potential effects on fishing activities are considered during the submerged land licence issuance process.

However, we feel that the language that was adopted by the committee in that subamendment is sufficient, and the provinces were not supportive of making further amendments.

They did provide a number of supporting points as to why they felt concerned about making additional changes, including “maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area”, in part because of the role and purpose of the regulator, which is of course to ensure the responsible development of offshore energy projects.

They raised some additional considerations that the term “environmental characteristics” is not well understood. It doesn't have a common definition or accepted meaning in common law, and we were not able to find any other federal legislation that uses this terminology. There were a number of concerns raised on the part of both governments and the provinces about establishing such a broad and open-ended requirement that doesn't have established tools or guidance to support the regulator in carrying out that duty. Ambiguity like that often increases the risk of challenge, creates a great degree of uncertainty for both the regulator and industry, and when we're looking to develop a new industry with offshore renewables, it is quite challenging.

That said, government does recognize the importance of the fishing sector, and of course the importance of the environment. We do feel that the provisions that are already set out in both part II and, particularly, part III of the accord acts, and in Bill C-49, which is all about regulation of specific projects, are the appropriate place to assess and consider the potential impacts on fish.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 92 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although the room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. I believe one of the witnesses, Ms. McNeil, is having some technical issues, which I hope will get resolved with our technology ambassadors as we proceed with the meeting.

With us today to answer your questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel; and also Jean-François Roman, legal counsel. From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, by video conference; Annette Tobin, director, offshore management division, fuels sector, by video conference; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

As well, we have the legislative clerks from the House of Commons: Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

Today we are resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49.

(On clause 221)

We are at clause 221.

At the last meeting, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to allow Ms. Dabrusin to move her amendment, the new G-25, which starts on page 75 of the package.

Ms. Dabrusin.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax Emergency Meeting

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

Madam Speaker, I will start with the member's last question. We do not need to incentivize natural gas. Free enterprise can invest in LNG, build pipelines and send LNG to countries in the world that are burning coal, in order to get their emissions down really fast, to half of what they produce right now.

The fishing industry has grave concerns with Bill C-49, including six fish harvester groups I have been consulting with that the costly coalition did not consult with in forming the bill. They are counting on us. The FFAW in Newfoundland and Labrador worked with us to build the amendments to Bill C-49 that the member's side voted down in committee three weeks ago.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to invite the hon. member to take out a pen. I have two quick questions. I know he can handle them, and I will let him take some notes.

First, he talked about the Atlantic provinces' being part of the clean energy solution to reduce emissions, yet he stands in the way of Bill C-49, a bill that is supported by his home government in Newfoundland and Labrador, without reason. It is a bill that would actually drive really important results for energy jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. He talked about technology, not taxes, but then voted against the bill. Can he explain his position there?

Second, can he give an indication to his constituents and the House as to whether or not he believes climate change is real and that we ought to do something to reduce emissions? How would he incentivize the technology he is talking about? Would he spend taxpayer dollars in an inefficient way to do it? How would he go about that?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Shall clauses 191 to 209 carry?

(Clauses 191 to 209 inclusive agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Now we will proceed to part 3 of Bill C-49.

There are no amendments submitted to clauses 210 to 219. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

The reason we're stopping at 209 is that clause 210 starts part 3 of the bill, so we will go to 209, and then we will shift to part 3 of Bill C-49. We'll then start again with clause 210 and onward.

Does that make sense? Does that clarify things for everybody around the table?

[Lauren Knowles]

I would say no, because they can still introduce and pass the same amendments that you see in the rest of Bill C-49. They can take the same approach to introduce, if they wish, the same amendments related to impact assessment and provide for a separate coming into force of those amendments so that we can work in lockstep together.

No, I don't see that any uncertainty on Bill C-69 will prevent the rest of Bill C-49 from proceeding, or the provincial mirror amendments, because we have an administrative approach to allow for the bill to proceed and to allow for those IAA amendments to come forward and ensure consistency without impacting the rest of the amendments in the bill.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Those same premiers have also written a letter to axe the carbon tax. We're still waiting on the government to do that, too. I would appreciate members' support for the premiers on that one, too.

The point, Mr. Chair, of why we are here.... The amendments the government is proposing are to delay the implementation of the act. They have to consult with the provinces, because they haven't done their job yet, and they have to fix the Impact Assessment Act, because it's been ruled largely unconstitutional. That's the problem.

Why not take this bill and make sure that there are no unconstitutional elements to it and that we're passing something that will withstand the test and not have to go before the courts as the previous Parliament's Bill C-69, now known as the Impact Assessment Act, has done? It had to go to the Supreme Court, where it was ruled unconstitutional.

I don't think the provinces and industry want this bill to suffer the same fate. We know they want updates to the accords. We know that and we get that. That's what we're here to do. We support that. What we don't support is passing an unconstitutional bill. That's why Conservatives are doing the work here and now, at committee, to prevent the same result for the bill we're working on here today, which is Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord implementation acts is to prevent the same fate as that of Bill C-69.

We are trying to do the best we can now so there's certainty in the long run. I understand that this might be hard for some members to get, but that is the point of this exercise here today. It's to do our job as legislators.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We always seem to have to start again with simple explanations.

Bill C-49 is updating the Atlantic accords. The Atlantic accords are a long-standing piece of legislation that was negotiated with Newfoundland and Labrador and with the Province of Nova Scotia. There have been attempts to undermine the Atlantic accords by the previous Conservative government. Pierre Poilievre was in that government. The attack on the Atlantic accords didn't go well.

When we get letters from the premiers of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Nova Scotia calling on the federal government to update the language of the Atlantic accords, so we can move ahead with new employment opportunities and new energy projects, our responsibility is to make sure the language is updated so it can do the job it has done. It has never been challenged as unconstitutional. It hasn't been opposed.

We keep going back to square one, because the Conservatives want to fight about Bill C-69. My concern is that the longer we delay, the more we're guaranteeing that workers in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia are being undermined, because the projects that are getting off the ground are going to jurisdictions where they have the certainty that legislation is actually going to be passed and not filibustered.

Bill C-49 is constitutional. It has been constitutional. It has never been opposed. I would hope that we can get this done so we can move on to other pressing matters.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

If it helps, I would suggest, through you, Chair, that the parliamentary secretary for natural resources could perhaps enlighten this committee and all Canadians, including senators, investors, provinces, municipalities and indigenous communities, who have all challenged Bill C-69, including every single premier and territorial leader who either opposed it outright or called for major overhauls.

Moving forward, of course, the Supreme Court decision that less than 6% of the bill is constitutional and the vast majority is largely unconstitutional was made in December. Many of those clauses explicitly declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49. If the parliamentary secretary to the minister is suggesting that these senior qualified experts in the public service, who are trying to give the elected members of the government the rationale to cover for their own mistakes.... Perhaps she as the parliamentary secretary can actually give the answers that all of us need to know, about when the government will be bringing forward new legislation or amendments. I don't know how that works for a law that's already a law and no longer an act. It has been a law unconstitutionally for half a decade already under these NDP-Liberals. I think it would behoove her to answer, for clarity for the elected members here and all Canadians, when those changes would be happening.

I'll reinforce the point my colleagues are making, which is that it is ridiculous that we are being asked to pass this legislation, brought forward by the NDP-Liberals, when we made the proposal in December that they could take the time to get Bill C-69 fixed first. Then we would move to Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 after that. However, here we are in April and the government is saying they're still promising legislation. That hasn't happened.

The point my colleagues are making is that, obviously, if this bill gets passed with those sections unresolved, it will come into force with a lack of certainty and clarity about its constitutionality and legality. It will automatically invite legal challenges by the same groups, or by other groups involved in the challenges to Bill C-69, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I give kudos to the public servants for doing their jobs. This isn't their mess to fix, but it certainly is the minister's. Since the parliamentary secretary is here, and she is saying that the officials shouldn't answer any more of these questions, perhaps she can.

Thanks, Chair.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I have the same question swirling around in my head: Why are we moving forward on this when we're referencing a piece of legislation that, in fact, may not even exist anymore because it's been ruled unconstitutional? That's what we're being asked to do here. It doesn't matter whether other jurisdictions are asking us to do it—if it's unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. I just don't understand why everybody seems to be okay with Bill C-49 referencing Bill C-69, which we know has been deemed to be largely unconstitutional. It doesn't make any sense why we wouldn't fix that first, before we move ahead, or delete the references—which is what this amendment is doing—to something the Supreme Court of Canada has decided is unconstitutional.

Why would we reference a document that's no good?

[Jean-Nicolas Bustros]

I'm sorry about that.

The intent of these provisions is to coordinate and, as mentioned before, to make sure that when the Impact Assessment Act amendments come into force, they work with what is found in Bill C-49.

When Parliament adopts the provision, the expectation is that it will be constitutional, but the only intent in this case is for both pieces of legislation to work together. It's not something that is related to the Impact Assessment Act, in this case, in this bill.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Bustros, you're from the justice department. I suppose I should have directed it specifically there.

I understand what you can do within the legislation and the thoughts about that, but I'm talking about unconstitutionality. Does that then make Bill C-49...? If we are addressing that and cannot come to any agreement there, as has been suggested by your departmental officials, what does one have to do to Bill C-49 if the unconstitutional aspect of Bill C-69 continues to work its way into it? In terms of the conflict that occurs with Bill C-49, what remedies does the justice department see for this situation?

[Lauren Knowles, Deputy Director, Department of Natural Resources]

As you are aware, a group of motions have been brought forward that would provide for a separate coming into force of certain clauses in Bill C-49 to allow for consistency across the statutes, as the government intends to bring forward changes to the Impact Assessment Act at the earliest opportunity this spring. This gives us the flexibility to ensure that, if amendments to the IAA require amendments to Bill C-49, we have the ability to bring those forward and ensure alignment across the statutes.

That's what I can offer as an answer.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you.

I brought this up earlier with the folks from the justice department who are here today. My question is for them, if we could have some clarification.

Once there is legislation that is deemed unconstitutional and it becomes embedded in future legislation, what recourse does the government have? If Bill C-49 is also considered to be unconstitutional, then do we have to go back to the very beginning and deal with this legislation prior to dealing with the unconstitutionality of the previous bill, Bill C-69?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This is a pretty straightforward and simple one, as follows:

That Bill C-49, in Clause 170, be amended by deleting line 23 on page 119 to line 12 on page 120.

There's obviously the long-standing position of the Conservative Party that the reference to the unconstitutional implementation act, Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament, is problematic and needs to be addressed. It needs to be dealt with, and the fact that it hasn't been dealt with is problematic and will create and cause more uncertainty for people looking to build projects in this country.

I really think that the fact that this has not been done and fixed yet leaves this committee no choice but to delete it, because at this point we need to be passing bills and laws that are constitutional and that wouldn't be deemed to be largely unconstitutional, as Bill C-69 was. I think the committee can do the right thing today by deleting this portion. That way, we can provide some certainty and clarity going forward so that provinces and investors have a chance to do this right.

Thank you.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We're going to vote against this clause and the amendment, but I would just take the opportunity to again impress upon Canadians and all elected members of this committee that it behooves the government to fix their catastrophic, unconstitutional Bill C-69, which should have been done even before members were in a position to try to assess Bill C-49 adequately, given how many clauses from Bill C-69 that were designated by the Supreme Court of Canada as being unconstitutional are in Bill C-49.

That's a responsibility of and an error on behalf of the anti-energy NDP-Liberal costly coalition, and the Conservatives will vote against that for these reasons. It's the government's job to fix the mess they made.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

We are back.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will continue to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly, to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner of the pages to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and the subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment to an amendment is moved, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage. Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. That report contains only the text of any amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

With us today to answer your questions, we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel, and Jean-François Roman, legal counsel. From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, with Lauren Knowles, deputy director, and, by video conference, Cheryl McNeil, deputy director. From the House of Commons, we have legislative clerks Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

At the last meeting, the committee agreed by unanimous consent to stand clause 147 and also to reconsider and stand clause 38. Therefore, clauses 147 and 38 will be considered after all other clauses of the bill have been disposed of.

There are no amendments submitted for clauses 148 to 155. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote? Okay. Thank you.

(Clauses 148 to 155 inclusive agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2)

(On clause 156)

We'll go to amendment G-16.

Ms. Dabrusin, go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Before I begin, I'd just like to wish everybody a happy Sikh Heritage Month and Vaisakhi diyan lakh lakh vadhaiyan. That's just bidding Vaisakhi wishes to everybody here in Canada and around the world.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the motion adopted on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We, therefore, ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

I remind everyone that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

I would like to provide members of the committee—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I suspect that MP Patzer will want to respond after, but I'll just take this moment to say this: Let's spare the sanctimony around here with the crowing about listening to provincial premiers, if we will, since the NDP and Liberals actually have zero problem ignoring the Liberal Newfoundland premier who has asked over and over that they spike the carbon tax hike on April 1.

We have already demonstrated our willingness to work in good favour by accepting the two subamendments. MP Patzer has summarized exactly why we are engaging the will of the elected members of this committee to consider including the Conservatives' specific language on protecting and maintaining the environmental characteristics in the case of offshore renewable development and explicitly include this in Bill C-49.

Here is why. It is because it is not enough at this point, after nine years, for the Liberals, propped up by the NDP, to say, “Just trust us.”

I will give this example. It has been five months since the Supreme Court of Canada said that the law based on Bill C-69, which has been in place for half a decade, is largely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court said that less than 6% of the law based on Bill C-69 stands up, including, as we've discussed multiple times in the debate on this rushed bill, the dozens of references that are here in Bill C-49 to Bill C-69. This will automatically cause this bill, if it's passed as written, to be vulnerable to litigation and challenges, causing even more uncertainty for offshore petroleum developers, obviously, but also for any private sector proponents who want to launch into offshore renewable development too.

This is why—so Canadians understand—Conservative MPs on this committee are trying to compel the NDP, Liberal and Bloc members of this committee to be explicit about our elected representatives' priority to protect and maintain the environmental characteristics according to the expanded new scope and scale of the mandate that Bill C-49 will provide for regulators. Also, in addition to my colleague's tough but fair and accurate comment on the Conservatives' 20,000 amendments to Bill C-50, the just transition bill, let me just say for the record—because I heard him quip it—that those were not generated by AI.

Second of all—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I want to thank MP Patzer for the points he has made regarding our Conservative intention to insert the consideration of environmental characteristics through the process of issuing submerged land licences.

Of course, the whole point of Bill C-49, I would remind all colleagues and Canadians, is precisely to expand the scope, the deliverables and the mandate of the regulators through the bill. The regulators, of course, have decades of history and expertise and a skill set dealing with offshore petroleum development. The entire point of Bill C-49 is to add the regulatory scope, mandate and enforcement powers around offshore renewable development.

For the life of me, I certainly would not understand why a Liberal or Bloc or NDP MP would vote against including the principle of the regulator in addition to the other improvements that have been made through the subamendments, or why an MP of any party would vote against inserting the importance of the regulator, under the new scope of its mandate for offshore renewables, considering the protection of environmental characteristics, in particular, as MP Patzer and other Conservative MPs have said here, and as we heard in the witness testimony during the albeit rushed and shortened timeline that the Liberals and NDP forced on the bill.

The amendment, of course, just reflects those principles, which witnesses have also said. It seems to me that we can achieve all of the things that we appear to agree on, or that I think we appear to agree on, by keeping in, as Conservatives already just did, the support of the subamendments dealing with points (a) and (b). Certainly, I would urge colleagues to accept this subamendment, if MP Patzer is able to provide it to us, which would maintain the Conservative inclusion that the regulator maintain the environmental characteristics in consideration of issuing submerged land licences for offshore renewable development.

Thanks.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is similar to CPC-7. While agreeing with the intent of the motion, I'll be opposing it.

I think that it's worthwhile for us to look at the letters that have been sent to our committee by Minister Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Minister Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables from Nova Scotia, which say that they actually oppose this amendment.

Specifically, I would go to the letter from Minister Parsons, which says:

We do, however, have several concerns with this amendment as drafted above. Ensuring the sustainability of the fishing industry involves a comprehensive understanding of the environmental fact of shaping it, extending beyond the purview of the Accord Acts and encompassing considerations beyond interactions with energy projects. This amendment also fails to recognize the evaluation of potential impacts from energy projects is already assessed through spatial planning, such as Regional Assessments, and regulatory review processes outlined in the existing Accord Acts and Bill C-49.

Most notably however, the acceptance of this amendment does not align with the principles of joint management.

It goes on, but I think that gives you an idea.

That opinion is reflected in the letter from the Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables from Nova Scotia as well.

I will be opposing this CPC amendment, but I will be proposing a subamendment to ensure that fishers are given importance through the licence issuance process associated with this principal section, while keeping the language in the scope of the purpose and mandate of the accord acts and the responsibilities of ministers and regulators under the acts.

I believe there is a copy of the subamendment, which can be distributed to the members.

I move that motion CPC-12 proposing to amend clause 147 of Bill C-49 be amended by adding text after line 27 on page 107, and it be amended by (a) substituting, for the reference to “importance”, a reference to “during the submerged land licence issuance process, importance”; and (b) substituting, for the reference to “development of measures to assist in the preservation of the fishing industry, including measures to assist in understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry”, a reference to “consideration of effects on fishing activities”.

I'm going to ask the government officials if they can maybe provide to us some greater clarity on the issues with the language in CPC-12, the previous CPC-7, and what this subamendment does to capture the spirit of CPC-12 while respecting the joint management principles that were raised in the letter I just read, the scope of proposed division V and the acts more broadly.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

Our CPC-12 amendment would be that Bill C-49, in clause 147, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 107 the following:

(c) importance shall be given to the development of measures to assist in the preservation of the fishing industry, including measures to assist in understanding and maintaining the environmental characteristics of the offshore area that support that industry.

This is, of course, because there are countless livelihoods and small businesses of generational families in Atlantic Canada in the fishery and lobster harvesting sectors where the habitat and marine ecology in the area may be impacted by developments. The CPC amendment has been proposed to ensure that this bill includes those considerations and these clear principles in favour of the natural environment and the balance for existing ocean users building their livelihoods and their businesses off of the ocean.

The balance in those principles could, we believe, be easily achieved by including this amendment in the bill.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

I can certainly see that the NDP is propping up their Liberal masters and will defeat this amendment, but to my colleague's comment, I would just remind him that if he truly is concerned about the difference in the treatment between offshore petroleum and renewable development in Bill C-49, then of course he should have agreed with our amendments that would have dealt with the fact that, in Bill C-49, the decision timing for a call to bid for licences under Bill C-49 will be triple the time for offshore renewables as it currently is for petroleum, which will also be maintained in its current timeline in Bill C-49. However, I can see that they've already decided what to do with this particular amendment.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 90 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when their microphone or their neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

With us today to answer your questions, from the Department of Justice, we have Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel; and also Jean-François Roman, legal counsel. From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector; Annette Tobin, director, offshore management division, fuels sector; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director; Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

As well, we have, as the legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

We will proceed.

At the last meeting, the committee adopted clause 125. There are no amendments submitted to clauses 126 to 135.

Do we have unanimous consent to group them for a vote?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Sure, if we'd like to do that. I just felt that it was 5:30, Mr. Chair, but of course, that is your prerogative and your call, as always.

I will move this amendment. It is that Bill C-49, in clause 125, be amended by adding after line 25 on page 89 the following:

(5) Any evaluation of offshore renewable energy projects should be done similarly to evaluations of offshore petroleum projects.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, yes.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 111, be amended by replacing line 26 on page 85 with the following:

or 45(7), section 67, subsection 70(2), section 98.2,

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Now we will be moving to part 2 of Bill C-49.

No amendments to clauses 107 to 110 have been submitted. Do we have the unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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, and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I will make few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French, and for those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although the room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and that they avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind members that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

I will provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will continue to proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there are amendments to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package each member received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee. The chair will go slowly to allow all members to follow the proceedings properly.

Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once you have moved an amendment, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and a subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved or the committee may consider the amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself, and an order to reprint the bill may be required, if amendments are adopted, so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

With us to answer your questions today are, from the Department of Justice, Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector; Annette Tobin, director, offshore petroleum management division, fuels sector; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

As well, we have, as the legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

At the last meeting, the committee adopted clause 62 as amended.

Now we proceed. There are no new amendments submitted to clauses 63 to 75—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I'll be opposing Mr. Simard's amendment, as it would be redundant.

The regulators' authorities are already clear in the bill. To give the member a fulsome answer, Bill C-49 would only provide the regulators with the authority to conduct regional and strategic assessments under the accord acts. Similarly, the Impact Assessment Act clearly outlines who can conduct regional and strategic assessments. This does not include the offshore regulators. In addition, there are currently no equivalency provisions to allow regional strategic assessments under the accord acts to be deemed equivalent to a regional or strategic assessment conducted under the Impact Assessment Act, or vice versa.

I'm opposing BQ-18.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Again, to remain consistent with what we have said from the start, I move that Bill C‑49, in clause 62, be amended (a) by replacing line 5 on page 41 with the following:

138.017 or a strategic environmental assessment under section

(b) by replacing line 14 on page 41 with the following:

Strategic Environmental Assessments

(c) by replacing line 25 on page 41 with the following:

138.018(1) The Regulator may conduct a strategic environmental as‐

(d) by replacing line 33 on page 41 with the following:

conduct a strategic environmental assessment of any proposed or exist‐

(e) by replacing, in the English version, line 38 on page 41 with the following:

gic environmental assessment.

The purpose of this amendment is quite simple. The Canadian Energy Regulator must be empowered to conduct strategic environmental assessments, and not just strategic assessments. The term “strategic assessment” comes from the Impact Assessment Act, where it has a specific meaning that doesn't apply to Bill C‑49. The amendment would clarify this aspect.

[Lauren Knowles]

With respect to the first part of your question on section 65 of the Impact Assessment Act, unfortunately I'm not an expert in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court. I can't speak to the details of that opinion or decision, but what I can say is that all of the clauses we have been discussing and the motions that have been put forward are to allow for coordination with the Impact Assessment Act so that we can ensure consistency across the statutes.

With respect to coming into force, there are a number of things that need to happen for Bill C-49 to come into force. It needs to pass through this parliamentary process. The provinces also need to table and pass mirror legislation in their provincial legislatures. The clauses that have a separate coming into force would be brought in at a date to be determined in the future, in consultation with the provinces.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 62, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 36 on page 38.

Once again, this deals with the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. When it's already creating problems across the country, I don't think it's good to be imposing the same problems on a couple more provinces. They are going to run into all kinds of issues.

We propose that this entire section be deleted. Erase it.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I'm going to get his name right this time.

Mr. Simard, I would like to welcome you.

With regard to BQ-14, much as with BQ-12, the intent of Bill C-49 is to build an offshore renewable energy sector and to support offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. The intent of Bill C-49 is not to cease oil and gas activity or oil and gas production. Thus, this proposed amendment or motion is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely that the provinces would support it.

With that, I will be opposing BQ-14.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The proposed wording is as follows.

(1.1) Section 138 of the act is amended by adding the following after subsection (1): (1.1) A new application for a licence or authorization shall not be made to the Regulator after this subsection comes into force.

The idea is quite simple. The Governor in Council must enforce regulations to ensure that no licences are approved or issued for any new offshore oil and gas exploration projects in the areas covered by the accord. I gather that the spirit of Bill C‑49, as I have said a number of times and as we have heard from witnesses, is to promote clean energy. I don't think that fossil fuels are part of the picture. This would send the right message.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Dreeshen, for your comments.

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, for your commentary.

With regard to BQ-12, I will be humbly opposing this proposed amendment.

The intent of Bill C-49, obviously, is not to cease oil and gas activity. It is to continue to build offshore renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada. It is the responsibility of governments to make strategic decisions regarding the pace and scale of development in the offshore for both petroleum and renewable energy. In making these decisions, it's obviously the responsibility of government, not the regulator, to consider broader policy objectives and commitments. This is beyond the scope of what was negotiated with the provinces, and it is unlikely the provinces would support it.

With that, I am opposed to BQ-12.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We feel for the position that the officials are in. It's blindingly clear that the Liberals have failed to bring in changes to remedy the Supreme Court's finding that less than 10% of the Impact Assessment Act is in fact constitutional—the Supreme Court said “largely unconstitutional”—even though that bill has been law for the last five years. I can say personally and on behalf of my Conservative colleagues that nearly every single issue the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out as a problem in the Impact Assessment Act we pointed out during the debates on Bill C-69. In fact, it often happened that I personally did so during the debates on Bill C-69 in committee and through each stage.

Kudos to the officials for doing their best in this position that unfortunately the elected members of Parliament have caused for them.

I would note, of course, that it's been 139 days since the Supreme Court said that the Impact Assessment Act, including all of the provisions here in Bill C-49 relating to decision-making power and the project scheme, was unconstitutional. That was why, of course, as you'll recall, Chair, I moved a motion, which was rejected by the NDP-Liberal coalition, to first deal with fixing the unconstitutional sections of Bill C-69 so we could then move on to an analysis and assessment to ensure that legislators could deal properly with Bill C-49 and would not be facing what obviously will be delays, uncertainty and litigation, even once this legislation passes.

This entire scenario illuminates the failure of the Liberal government. They did not listen to experts in the first place during the democratic debate on Bill C-69. They have also ignored us and held up this bill, while also creating the potential for uncertainty and litigation and even less clarity for the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and any private sector proponents who want to get involved in offshore renewables as a result of Bill C-49.

Again, kudos to the officials for being in an uncomfortable position and making a good-faith effort to answer these questions and deal with the mess that the elected Liberal members of Parliament have created for them, backed by their NDP cohort, when we tried to deal with this in November.

Of course, the official is right that Bill C-49 was introduced on May 30, at the end of the spring session, always an indication of the government's priorities, with no debate and no assessment by legislators at that time. It was only brought back in September, with fewer than nine hours total of debate by all members of Parliament from all parties. Then of course we heard, from witness testimony during the limited hours the NDP and Liberals forced on this piece of legislation, that there are gaping holes in the existing and unconstitutional Bill C-69 provisions that are in Bill C-49, and that there may have been a catastrophic lack of consultation, during the development of the bill, with various entrepreneurs, business owners and generational family businesses in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Imagine the time that has been wasted at this point. Imagine how much further ahead we would be if the federal government had just done the right thing in the first place and gotten Bill C-69 right in the first place and not created a mess that has to be completely untangled.

Of course, if they had just listened to us in November instead of playing games and delaying to hold this bill up, we wouldn't have to be in this ridiculous scenario where we're having this conversation about having to bundle amendments to fix problems that are of their own making.

Thanks, Chair.

[Jean-François Roman]

In terms of the discussion, as you know, the accord acts are joint legislation. We jointly manage the resources with the provinces. The agreement between the federal government and the provincial government here was to bring forward Bill C-49 with the proposed amendments and motions to carry on the work on Bill C-49.

That's how far I can go in answer to your question.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

The suggestion we've been making that maybe Bill C-49 could have been looked at later, once you had all of that done, would have some merit.

[Jean-François Roman]

The only answer I can provide you with at this time is that we introduced Bill C-49 on May 30. As my colleagues from the legislative sections have been working on a revision of the IAA, we've been asked to make a few amendments to this bill to ensure we will bring these provisions into force only once the revision of the IAA has been done.

[Jean-François Roman, Legal Counsel, Department of Justice]

I work for NRCan legal services, not the Department of Environment.

What we're proposing here is creating a distinct date for the coming into force of proposed subsection 119(9.1) so that when the Minister of Environment is ready to introduce the revision to the IAA, we'll be able to bring into force this provision at a distinct time without slowing down the coming into force of all other provisions proposed in Bill C-49.

[Daniel Morin]

We believe that Bill C-49 has many tools to evaluate the impacts, even the tools we use prior to the call for bids being launched to issue licences, such as the regional assessments that are ongoing and spatial planning. All those tools are used to address the impacts on fishers from offshore energy.

This clause in particular is very broad and is not limited to the impacts on fishers from offshore renewable energy. It's just preserving the fishing industry writ large. That's partially beyond the scope of this act. That would be our assessment of the clause.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 88 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming the clause-by-clause consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged in and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

With us today to answer your questions we have, from the Department of Justice, Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Annette Tobin, director; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

We also have legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

(On clause 38)

Now we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration, resuming debate on clause 38, BQ-11.

I have a point of order by Mrs. Stubbs.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Angus has gone off topic here. This bill is about wind energy in the ocean, and amendments to the original Atlantic Accord that are all about destroying offshore oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. It has nothing.... Absolutely nowhere is onshore development of oil and gas mentioned in Bill C-49.

I don't know why he's hanging up.... He's wasting time and trying to cut down an amendment that FFAW-Unifor desperately wants so that their stakeholders, the people they represent, have a say in this process. It's absolutely disgusting, and it's an utter insult to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the way he's getting on over there.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

On the point of order, colleagues, I would just ask you to make sure that we are not using language that's saying that something was said that may have not been said and using words that could also mean something else. I would ask colleagues to focus on Bill C-49 and what we're discussing today on the motion and to try to keep our attention and focus there.

Mr. Small, you had the floor before the point of order. I'm going to go back to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 38, be amended by adding after line 26 on page 20 the following:

89.1 The Regulator may make a call for bids only in relation to an area that has been identified for potential development following a regional assessment conducted under section 138.017 that

(a) was conducted less than five years prior to the call for bids;

(b) included a study of the regional and cumulative impacts of development of the type and quantity that is to be proposed under the call; and

(c) included all the prescribed information and prescribed studies.

Also, after line 21 on page 21, it would add the following:

(4) The call for bids shall also include a description of the area’s suitability for development.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with that, and I also want to reiterate once again that as much as my colleague Mr. Simard would like to see this bill cease all oil and gas activity, that is not the intent of Bill C-49. It really is to ensure the development of renewable energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. I will oppose the motion.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I guess I will just get straight to it. I move the motion that was submitted on Friday:

That, given that,

a) According to Statistics Canada: “In Saskatchewan, the collection of the carbon levy ceased in January 2024, contributing to the province's year-over-year price decline of natural gas (-26.6%).”; and

b) Saskatchewan's inflation rate dropped to 1.9%, a full percentage point below the national inflation rate,

The committee call on the Liberal government to immediately axe the carbon tax.

Given that this deals with a provincial matter, I think I would have support from Mr. Simard, in that provincial jurisdiction is a common theme for him.

I think it's imperative that we send the message to the House on behalf of this committee, especially since we heard testimony.... Well, we saw in the Order Paper question, and we've seen repeatedly, that the government doesn't actually track any emissions reductions from the carbon tax. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that it is not an emissions reduction scheme. It's just simply a tax and redistribution scheme.

Therefore, I think it would be good for this committee to really send a strong message that we support the resource sector and the development of the resource sector. Also, I think it would be great for the folks who pay their gas bills, their power utility bills, their fuel bills and their home heating bills to see that this committee takes the affordability crisis seriously.

It would also be for people who want to invest in Saskatchewan, in Alberta and in Newfoundland in the offshore that removing this unnecessary tax that is.... It removes a competitive advantage that Canada has. I think it would be important for us to send that note.

Also, seeing that the House did pass Bill C-234 previously, I think it would be good to just be consistent with that theme, and I think that this motion would allow us to do that. I think the proof is in the pudding here when we look at what Statistics Canada has to say about the price decline on natural gas for ratepayers but also about what it did to inflation in Saskatchewan, which is now below the 2% target that the Bank of Canada set out.

Also, the CPI went down 0.1%, which is the first time it has actually trended downward since May 2020. I think that's a key factor, as well—seeing the impact it actually does have on consumers and seeing that the needle is moving in the right direction in Saskatchewan when it comes to affordability by simply axing the tax.

I think it would send a good message to people if the committee would just approve this quick, simple motion. We can send it to the House, and I think that would be a good, quick little report from this committee.

I don't think I have too much more to say. I think we have a good piece of legislation ahead of us. Obviously, we have some issues with Bill C-49 that we still wish the government would address. However, overall, it's important to my good colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador, here, for his province to do some things that they want.

With that, I think I will wrap up my remarks.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously, the intention of Bill C-49 is not and never was to cease oil and gas activity. It's to ensure that we develop the offshore renewable energy sector. A clause in the agreement has already been negotiated and agreed upon by the provinces, so I oppose the motion.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll be more specific.

Do any provisions of Bill C‑49 require the minister to do this?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I move that Bill C-49, in clause 12, be amended by adding after line 13 on page 5 the following:

17.2 His Majesty in right of Canada or in right of the Province may rely on the Regulator for the purposes of consulting with the Indigenous peoples of Canada respecting any potential adverse impact of a change to a work or activity in the offshore area on existing Aboriginal and treaty rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Regulator may, on behalf of His Majesty, if appropriate, accommodate any adverse impacts on those rights.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

While I appreciate the intent of the amendment that has been brought forward by my colleague, the objective of Bill C-49 is to expand the duties of the regulator to regulate offshore renewable energy. It's not to impose a duty on the independent regulator to reduce petroleum activity. I think it's really beyond the scope of what the provinces expected, asked for and negotiated with the federal government. I would think that they would likely not support this type of amendment or motion.

For those reasons, I am opposed to it.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Yes.

As I said in my preamble, the purpose of our amendments is to bring Bill C‑49 closer to transition. In the idea of transition, there's also the obligation to take into account changes that are quite rapid in terms of climate change.

Proposed new section 17.01 reads as follows:

17.01 Every five years after this section comes into force, the Federal Minister shall cause to be undertaken a review of the duties and functions that this Act confers or imposes on the Regulator to ensure those duties and functions allow for (a) meeting Canada's commitments to gradually reduce petroleum‑related activities and its national greenhouse gas emissions targets for the milestone years set out in the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act; and (b) conserving Canada's biodiversity and achieving the targets set out in the Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and any national biodiversity strategy.

As I said in my introduction, the climate situation is changing. Canada's progress towards its targets—as we know and have seen on many occasions—is uncertain. So I think the regulator's targets should be reviewed every five years. That would be a good mechanism to ensure that we can keep up with the reality of climate change.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Monsieur Simard.

The amendment seeks to add a preamble to the bill, but as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774, “if the bill is without a preamble, the committee may not introduce one.”

Bill C-49 is without a preamble. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

There is no debate on this. It is inadmissible. We can move forward to the next item.

No amendments have been submitted for clauses 1 to 6. Do we have unanimous consent to group them for the vote?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to quickly come back to something that has been raised by some witnesses, namely, that Bill C‑49 isn't necessarily part of the energy transition. For many stakeholders, the energy transition is about putting low‑carbon energy ahead of fossil fuels. However, there is no clear indication of that in the bill.

We would therefore benefit from including a short text in the preamble that would enable us to both give the bill an intent, that is to say to be part of the energy transition, and to meet Canada's commitments with respect to meeting emissions reduction targets. We could also talk about reforming certain oil and gas frameworks.

I will read you the proposed text:

Whereas Canada has ratified the Paris Agreement, done in Paris on December 12, 2015, which entered into force in 2016; Whereas the goal of the Paris Agreement is to keep the increase in global mean temperature to well below 2^oC above pre‑industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5^oC above pre‑industrial levels; Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to achieving and even exceeding the target for 2030 in its nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with the Paris Agreement; Whereas the Government of Canada has committed to achieving net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050; Whereas the Canadian Net‑Zero Emissions Accountability Act entrenches the commitment to achieve net‑zero carbon emissions by 2050 in Canadian law; Whereas, in December 2022, the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, known as “COP15”, adopted the Kunming‑Montreal Biodiversity Framework; Whereas Canada has committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030; Whereas marine petroleum exploration and exploitation projects pose a direct and indirect threat to marine biodiversity; Whereas the oil and gas production sectors are the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in Canada; Whereas, in order to cap and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil and gas production sectors, their total production must gradually decline; Whereas, in order to reach net‑zero carbon emissions, states must cease making new investments in petroleum research and production; Whereas the first step in the energy transition is to stop approving new petroleum exploitation projects; …

If we added this text to the preamble, we could resolve a major problem that makes me reluctant to support Bill C‑49, namely, the fact that, as part of the transition, fossil fuels are being treated the same as renewable energy.

In the amendments we've proposed, this reading will come up again and again. It was also shared by many witnesses we've heard from, including Normand Mousseau of the Trottier Energy Institute, who is probably the most credible person in Quebec, if not Canada, when it comes to the energy transition.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure they speak into the microphone that their headset is plugged into and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed their required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

I would like to provide members of the committee with some instructions and a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49. As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively. Each clause is subject to debate and a vote. If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it. The amendment will then be open for debate. When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on.

Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the bill or in the package that each member has received from the clerk. Members should note that amendments must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee.

The chair will go slowly to allow members to follow the proceedings properly. Amendments have been given a number in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it is moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. These subamendments must be submitted in writing. They do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended. When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Once every clause has been voted on, the committee will vote on the title and the bill itself. An order to reprint the bill may be required if amendments are adopted so that the House has a proper copy for use at report stage.

Finally, the committee will have to order the chair to report the bill to the House. The report contains only the text of any adopted amendments, as well as an indication of any deleted clauses.

We have a few witnesses today to answer your questions.

From the Department of Justice, we have Jean-Nicolas Bustros, counsel, and Jean-François Roman, legal counsel.

From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Annette Tobin, director; Lauren Knowles, deputy director; Cheryl McNeil, deputy director, by video conference; and Daniel Morin, senior legislative and policy adviser, renewable and electrical energy division.

We also have the legislative clerks from the House of Commons, Dancella Boyi and Émilie Thivierge.

Before the chair calls clause 1, there is an amendment, on pages 1 and 2 of the package, seeking to introduce a preamble to the bill.

Monsieur Simard, would you like to move BQ-1?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

I want to thank all the witnesses for joining us today. If you'd like to submit a brief, please do so through the clerk. Thank you for your testimony today and for appearing for the study.

This concludes our hearings regarding Bill C-49. I have a final reminder for our members regarding the committee's study of the bill. As per the updated memo, all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk by Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at 4:00 p.m.

Should you wish to propose amendments during the clause-by-clause consideration, please send the legislative counsel, Marie Danik, your written instructions as soon as possible. She will ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

We will commence the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill on Monday, February 26.

That concludes this meeting. Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Secondly, as we all know, we need a robust regulatory system in place to allow that development to occur, and Bill C-49, I take it, would be a large piece of that regulatory apparatus.

[Alisdair McLean, Executive Director, Net Zero Atlantic]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the invitation to offer some input into Bill C-49.

I am a professional engineer and the executive director of Net Zero Atlantic, which is an independent, not-for-profit research association with a mission of enabling the transition to a carbon-neutral future in Atlantic Canada. We lead applied research, contribute to projects, and provide credible and objective data for public discussion.

Net Zero Atlantic supports Bill C-49. We specifically support expanding the mandate of the offshore petroleum boards of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to be offshore energy regulators. We encourage the rapid passing of the legislation.

In 2020, our team at Net Zero Atlantic was curious as to why offshore wind wasn't part of the conversation about clean electricity in Nova Scotia, so we dug into the numbers. In the spring of 2021, we presented our results at a conference in Halifax.

We found that by the 2030s, offshore wind could produce electricity at lower costs than onshore wind in Nova Scotia. Since then, we've contracted experts to produce reports on topics that include how to simulate offshore wind development, access to U.S. electricity markets, and best practices for stakeholder and rights-holder engagement.

We have a request for proposals open now for an expert to study how the offshore wind industry would impact the Atlantic Canadian electricity grid.

Further, for the past two years we've been extending our research with community engagement, starting in Nova Scotia. Together with Mi'kmaq leaders and our other partners, we've been building local capacity in Mi'kmaq, rural and other equity-deserving Nova Scotia communities with respect to offshore wind.

Canada's offshore Atlantic coast and the research needed to identify and reduce the risk of human activities in the area require dedicated, careful and knowledgeable attention. Before we became Net Zero Atlantic, our geoscience research focused on the exploration risk for offshore oil and gas in the Atlantic. As OERA, we contributed to a thorough evaluation of Nova Scotia's offshore geology. The analysis helped to track $2 billion in work commitments from multinational energy companies, some of which are now active in the offshore wind space. It was during that work that we first engaged with the staff at the CNSOPB, so we've known them for years.

The CNSOPB has experts on staff with prior knowledge of the likely areas for offshore wind development. The organization has decades of geological survey, weather and ocean data. They also have excellent data storage and retrieval tools, thus reducing the cost and complexity of future data storage and analysis.

Although it's outside our field of expertise, we've seen that they have professionally run land‑tenure processes and regulated, safe offshore industrial activities, including exploration, construction, operation, maintenance, decommissioning and abandonment. These are all activities that are directly related to offshore wind.

Aegir, a Danish offshore wind expert that we engaged for one of our studies, shared the following recommendation: “One-stop-shop concepts of one authority coordinating key permits make for an efficient process with less delays and lower market risk perception.” That one-stop shop is what the CNSOER and C-NLOER would provide.

Through Net Zero Atlantic's research and engagement, we know that offshore wind can contribute to Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets while also generating economic opportunities for Canadians. Atlantic Canada is blessed with strong winds, large areas of shallow water, suitable geology and an active maritime economy.

Electricity from offshore wind in Atlantic Canada can be produced at a similar or lower cost than that in the United States. Green ammonia produced from offshore wind energy could be delivered to Europe at similar or lower cost than production in Europe. Given this, Atlantic Canada is well positioned to become a global player in the industry.

However, the market for investment is competitive. There are at least 19 countries with offshore wind targets for 2030. Canada is the only G7 country without an operational offshore wind industry today.

Developing an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada will bring significant economic opportunities to a region that currently has a lower than average GDP per capita. Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador need an offshore wind regulator and a regulatory regime in place without delay.

Net Zero Atlantic supports the proposed amendments to the accord acts, as outlined in Bill C-49.

I would like to finish by observing that in September of last year, a Canadian company, Northland Power, secured $5 billion in funding for a one-gigawatt offshore wind project in Taiwan.

If we put the elements in place for a sustainable, equitable offshore wind industry, perhaps their next project will be at home.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide my statement. I look forward to any questions.

[Chief Terry Paul, Chief Executive Officer, Membertou Development Corporation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak to the committee.

Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here with you to talk about Bill C-49.

As chief in Membertou, our Mi’kmaq community located on Cape Breton Island, I can tell you we are focused on two things. The first is creating economic opportunities for our community and the Atlantic as a whole. The second is investing in projects that will generate long-term stability for our people.

At the core of everything we do are the people we do it for: our community members. With every major project we take on, we do our due diligence to ensure that it aligns with our Mi’kmaq values while also pushing our community forward. This is why we support the intent of Bill C-49.

Through this bill, we can enable the development of offshore wind in Nova Scotia. Membertou is an equity partner in proposed offshore wind developments that have the potential to positively shape the entire landscape of our island.

Traditionally, indigenous Canadians were not invited to participate in major industry projects. I am proud to say that is changing. When we all work together, great things happen. We truly believe that an offshore wind industry can coexist with other industries in a sustainable manner.

Membertou has operations in sustainable seafood, as well as offshore and inshore commercial fisheries, which will not be impacted by these developments.

It is important to note that broad consultations, including comprehensive environmental assessments, will be undertaken before offshore proponents will receive the necessary approvals from all levels of government. Ensuring that habitats are protected is at the heart of these processes, and that is made clear in the proposed legislation. This is a value that is very close to us and of the utmost importance.

As Mi’kmaq, we want to be part of the solution in fighting climate change. We recognize that the development of this industry is needed in the global climate crisis and to meet the net-zero targets put in place by the government.

As a major harvester in the offshore fleet, we know that any forthcoming plans for offshore wind development will be developed thoughtfully and to fully protect this and any other sensitive areas.

We will continue to work with all interested and involved parties to ensure that we create new opportunities for our people while also protecting the industries that remain critical to our way of life.

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to speak to you today.

Wela'lioq.

[Elisa Obermann, Executive Director, Marine Renewables Canada]

Good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for inviting me to attend today's meeting. I am really appreciative of the opportunity to provide some insight on how critical Bill C-49 is for the offshore wind industry and the members I represent here today.

My name is Elisa Obermann. I am the executive director at Marine Renewables Canada, or MRC. It's a national association representing the offshore wind, tidal, wave and river current energy industry. We represent about 180 members, including technology and project developers, suppliers, researchers and communities.

Many of those members are focused on realizing offshore wind development opportunities in Canada, including companies already developing offshore wind projects internationally, as well as numerous suppliers with decades of experience working in Atlantic Canada's offshore and marine industries. To support these interests, MRC has been advocating for a supportive and predictable regulatory path that can both catalyze growth and ensure sustainable development in the sector.

With some of the best offshore wind resources in the world, developing this new sector could help address several of Canada's clean energy and net-zero goals, spur economic opportunities and create new jobs. We view Bill C-49 as being critical to realizing these opportunities and advancing offshore wind in Canada for several reasons.

First, time is of the essence. Canada is already competing against many other jurisdictions that have mature regulatory frameworks for offshore wind in place. Investors will go to the countries that have both an attractive energy resource and a clear regulatory regime. Bill C-49 establishes the regulatory path and certainty that are needed in Canada now.

Delays in establishing a regulatory framework not only impact Canada's competitiveness but also delay the economic opportunities, local jobs and clean electricity that would result from offshore wind development.

Second, amending the accord acts builds upon existing and proven frameworks that will allow Canada to develop offshore wind efficiently and effectively. Leveraging the regulatory experience of the offshore boards and working within a framework that the provinces are familiar with and helped to establish creates a strong foundation for this emerging sector. This approach is not unique. Other jurisdictions seeking to diversify their energy mix and enable a transition to cleaner energy resources have also leveraged offshore oil and gas regimes and regulatory experience to support offshore wind.

Third, establishing a regulatory framework is a critical first step amidst the other initiatives under way. We recognize that Bill C-49 is not designed or intended to cover every aspect of the regulation of offshore wind, but it will impact how and when offshore wind can be developed in Canada. Delays to enacting this law have ramifications on parallel initiatives, including Nova Scotia's target to begin leasing offshore wind in 2025.

I also want to say that, while we believe it is critical to move swiftly to have a regulatory framework established, we also recognize that this is a new industry for Canada. It must be developed responsibly, with the scientific rigour required to maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems and with respect for the inherent legal and treaty rights of our indigenous communities. That same respect must be extended to local residents and other ocean users. To that end, MRC and its offshore wind developer members have been working to foster an early two-way dialogue with fisheries, communities, environmental organizations and indigenous groups to understand concerns, share information about offshore wind and find areas of co-operation and collaboration.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that, given the critical importance of establishing a regulatory framework for offshore wind, Marine Renewables Canada supports Bill C-49 without any additional amendments and encourages the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to adopt the bill in a timely manner and move it to the next stage of review and consideration.

We are confident that the contents of Bill C-49, along with parallel processes and initiatives under way at provincial and federal levels, establish the regulatory certainty that is needed by industry to make critical investment decisions and, ultimately, develop offshore wind in Canada.

Thank you very much.

[Shannon Arnold, Associate Director, Marine Programs, Ecology Action Centre]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to address the committee.

My name is Shannon Arnold. I am the associate director of marine programs at the Ecology Action Centre. We're based in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

For over 50 years, the Ecology Action Centre has taken leadership on critical environmental issues, from biodiversity protection to climate change to environmental justice.

I have worked in the fisheries, aquaculture and seafood worlds in Canada and globally for 15 years. Our marine programs support sustainable fisheries and ways of living off the ocean with the aim of keeping coastal communities thriving and the ocean we all depend on healthy for generations to come. We sit on regional, national and international fishery advisory committees and on marine planning and protection tables. Together with colleagues in our energy program, we are currently involved in the regional assessment for offshore wind development in Nova Scotia.

We would like to express our overall support for the much-needed amendments that Bill C-49 brings to the accord acts. We are facing a climate crisis that calls for a swift transition towards renewable energy.

In Atlantic Canada, or Mi'kma'ki, rapid shifts in our waters due to climate change are already affecting our coastal communities. More intense storms are damaging infrastructure and posing greater risk to those at sea. Fish and lobster are relocating to new areas, altering traditional fishing grounds. Changes in whale migration routes are leading to increased interaction with fisheries and shipping, and these impacts are being felt economically, socially and culturally.

While new and cleaner energy sources like offshore renewables will impact some fisheries, these impacts will pale in comparison to the far-reaching consequences of unchecked climate change on our marine ecosystems. Offshore renewable energy will likely play a critical role in our energy transition, and Bill C-49 ensures that the regulatory regime needed to support this transition is in place. As we adapt, though, equity, community benefits and the rebuilding of biodiversity must be centred.

To that end, we are pleased to see provisions in this bill that will allow regulators to prohibit offshore energy, both oil and gas and renewables, in marine conservation areas, as well as the ability for the federal and provincial ministers to jointly cancel existing oil and gas interests in conservation areas. This power is critical in enabling Canada to meet its international commitments to protect 30% of our oceans by 2030 and to ensure that this marine protection is strong and of high quality. We're also pleased to see provisions introduced that support increased public hearing options for the offshore boards.

However, if offshore renewable energy is to deliver on the promise of a sustainable energy future for the region, the government must ensure that this bill and the assessment processes on projects to come are an improvement on ways we have evaluated industrial development in the past. We would like to see the bill ensure that calls for bids are issued only in areas with a completed strategic and regional assessment. These highest-level assessments must consider socio-economic and ecosystem impacts, cumulative effects and long-term sustainability objectives. This planning and assessment stage is essential for fostering participatory decision-making and establishing clarity on shared use and priorities for all rights holders and stakeholders. Individual project-specific impact assessments should follow. The bill should require that these strategic and project-level assessments be conducted.

Clear provisions for full and meaningful participation in planning and assessment processes must be included alongside dedicated funding to support this requirement. Strong planning with inclusive participation will be crucial for minimizing conflicts and achieving coexistence and shared use.

We support the submissions of our colleagues at East Coast Environmental Law with regard to further details on any proposed amendments.

The nascent offshore renewable energy sector offers an opportunity to depart from the exploitative and destructive legacy of previous industrial uses of our ocean. We cannot repeat patterns of energy development profiting large corporations at the expense of ecosystems and local community well-being.

As an environmental advocacy organization, we do not take lightly the potential social, cultural and ecosystem impacts of offshore renewable energy, and we share some of the concerns expressed at this committee by others.

However, the climate and biodiversity crises compel us to act urgently yet with care. We reaffirm our general support for Bill C-49 and emphasize the crucial need for both the bill and the broader government climate strategies it is a part of to address concerns and impacts from the outset. This includes guaranteeing stringent ecological protection, safeguarding coastal livelihoods and habitats, providing extensive opportunities for participation and collaborative planning, involving fisheries expertise from the outset and prioritizing the greening of our regional energy grid first for local community energy benefits.

Thank you for this opportunity, and I welcome questions.

[Daniel J. Fleck, Executive Director, Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by thanking the committee for inviting the Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association to provide our testimony on Bill C-49.

The membership of Brazil Rock represents thousands of hard-working families plying the waters of lobster fishing areas 33 and 34. These are lobster fishers who call the waters of Nova Scotia home. Of the $2.6 billion in seafood exports from the province of Nova Scotia, our members toil in the most productive regions of the fishery, meaning that any impacts would reverberate across the economy of the province.

The Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association is an active participant in the fisheries advisory processes operating in the region, including the fisheries advisory committee of the C-NOSPB, which was much lauded in last week's testimony. We feel it is important to highlight that our ability to get answers relating to the real-world implications of Bill C-49 for our sector has been highly challenged by the apparent approach that the fishing industry should be spoken to only after the bill had been tabled and purely in an informal information session with limited accommodation by staff of the responsible departments. In short, we were asking important questions but not receiving the answers that shed any sort of real insight on the issues before us.

Many of our questions you have already heard from other witnesses associated with the fishing industry. For instance, how is the legislation that is before you appropriate for offshore wind energy or other marine energy production? During the initial drafting of the accord legislation, the only energy projects being pondered in the offshore areas were restricted to oil and gas, and there was incredible focus on the development of suitable legislative tools to ensure that development was safe and well thought out. However, the legislation before us merely amends the initial legislation to accommodate renewables, so it is fundamentally unchanged from the original legislation, with the content applicable primarily to the oil and gas sector and failing to realize the advancements made around the world.

How does this legislation empower outcomes of processes such as regional assessment, which the industry is actively engaged in? As the legislation reads, any guidance from those processes is only loosely being considered as a guidance. Why should I ask my association members to take time away from their enterprises to inform an assessment process that can be ignored by the regulator when selecting areas for development?

The legislation is also mute on impact agreements and otherwise for anyone outside the provincial or federal governments. In other jurisdictions, offshore energy proponents undertake real legal agreements with local fishers and/or communities to ensure that any potential lost income resulting from development is acknowledged and accounted for on the front end of a development process. This legislation is intentionally silent on the matter. We have an opportunity to create a legal requirement that robust, transparent and public agreements be achieved that would be to the benefit of those most impacted by the development. We should take that advantage.

Furthermore, any damages needing consideration for compensation are restricted to incidents, namely when an event such as an oil spill or a piece of infrastructure negatively impacts a piece of fisher infrastructure. This creates a glaring gap for fishers who may directly be impacted by reduction in fisheries productivity caused by the offshore wind development. This issue has long been a concern of the fishing industry related to oil and gas development, and we are dismayed that this input has again been ignored by this piece of legislation before you.

We have much to learn from other jurisdictions on what to expect from an offshore wind development that fails to be considered in the development of this legislation. For instance, we find that while some regulators and developers suggest harvesting activity can be undertaken in an offshore wind farm development, the insurance industry in other jurisdictions refuses to provide coverage for those operations, citing unacceptable risks. No harvester would risk their multi-million dollar investment under such conditions. Where can mitigation of this issue be found or even pondered by the current legislation?

Our members are not opposed to reasonable, responsible offshore wind development in any way, but we can only move forward when the legislative framework that supports development is sufficiently robust to ensure that the interests, livelihoods and communities of existing users of the marine environment are maintained.

We realize that this legislation is being rushed to completion, but we encourage you to take the extra week to develop a framework that highlights Canadian leadership on the issue. A few short weeks of effort will not lead to profound delays in development off our shores, nor will it imperil commercial interest in the Canadian development.

The wind isn't going anywhere, and the technology to harness this wind in a safe and reliable fashion is only improving day after day. Take the time and build good legislation that is appropriate for the matter at hand.

In short, on behalf of our members, here is our ask of you: Please consider in the legislation the development of a royalty- or revenue-based fund that can be held and employed to support and compensate harvesters and communities that may be directly or indirectly impacted by large-scale renewable energy developments off our shores.

Thank you for this opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of either floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots and taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

With us today for the second hour, we have the Brazil Rock 33/34 Lobster Association, with Daniel Fleck, executive director; the Ecology Action Centre, with Shannon Arnold, associate director, marine programs; Marine Renewables Canada, with Elisa Obermann, executive director; the Membertou Development Corporation, with Chief Terry Paul; and from Net Zero Atlantic, Alisdair McLean, executive director.

Welcome.

We will now proceed with opening statements, beginning with Mr. Fleck from Brazil Rock for five minutes.

The floor is yours, sir.

[Tory Rushton]

There's no application before this government for that to move forward. We don't have the amendments passed here in Bill C-49 to move forward, to even have that conversation. There's no application; there's nothing we're looking at as a government.

I believe the staff have certainly heard the concerns from those fishers, and we'll continue to have the conversations with that group.

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

Mr. Parsons, I'll end by asking you the same question, because to me and other New Democrats, we have to ensure that if we're building big projects, even if they are to help the climate crisis and create jobs and diversity, we're not impacting the fragile fish stocks and we're making sure fishers are viable. Again, it's unfortunate that some of these great witnesses were filibustered so they weren't allowed to speak, but are you hearing from them and are you committed to moving forward? Should this be done at the provincial level, or do we need to do it in amendments in Bill C-49?

[Tory Rushton]

I guess what I would say to you is that we agree with the amendments to Bill C-49. We worked very hard. It was co-created with both provincial and federal counterparts, with both departments working very steadfastly on this.

We have a board that we want as the regulatory regime for offshore wind and that we have total faith in. We believe that things can coexist on a waterway—from this board and its decisions.

[Tory Rushton]

Thank you very much for that. I certainly appreciate it.

It's very important. I was a tradesperson before politics, so I know how many people left the province within my own trade, and now they're looking to come back.

On the speed of this, I'll be quite honest. There are people in the sector who have been watching this committee over the last couple of weeks. There are probably people who have put projects on hold along the strait in Cape Breton to see how things are going today.

You asked how important this is. Passing this bill is very important for the economy in Nova Scotia. There are people from all over the world, stakeholders who are coming to Nova Scotia and looking at the wind regimes that we have in Nova Scotia and the ability and expertise that we have in offshore to make this home and to help Nova Scotia grow. Our population is growing by great numbers for the first time in many years.

People are looking at Nova Scotia as a leader in many things, but something we're very proud about is that Nova Scotia is being looked at as an opportunity for green jobs and a green economy. In years to come, I think people are going to look back at this. Once this gets moving along, once Bill C-49 is passed, people will look at this decades from now and say, “Here was a move that made Nova Scotia a capital of renewable energy in the world.”

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Parsons, I'm a Bloc Québécois member. I focus on respect for provincial jurisdictions. I don't think that Bill C‑49 poses any problems in this area. However, I do want to explain my reservations about this bill.

Witnesses have come here to share their perspective that fossil fuels and renewable energy are on an equal footing. Some people may consider this an issue. As a result, it can't be said that this bill aligns perfectly with the energy transition. In my opinion, the energy transition means moving from an economy based on carbon‑intensive energy to clean, low‑carbon energy.

In your presentation, you spoke about what the transition means for Newfoundland and Labrador. I have a simple question for you. Shouldn't the bill include clear statements that we're committed to clean energy? That isn't the case right now.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

On Monday, we had testimony from Mr. Ches Crosbie, the former leader of the PC Party of Newfoundland and Labrador. He made two accusations. One is that your provinces have failed the accord. I'm looking for his exact words here. He said, “to defend the Atlantic accord”. He also said, “climate change is bogus”, indicating that legislation or amendments to Bill C-49 are unnecessary at this time if they're being done to meet changing climate targets.

Can I ask you both to comment, first of all, on how critical this legislation is to clean energy in your provinces? Will it support a growing economy and jobs in your provinces? That is certainly not the testimony we've heard from some witnesses at the committee.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

First of all, let me start by saying that earlier in the committee sessions, the Conservatives on the committee made a statement that they felt the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Nova Scotia had been “hoodwinked” into supporting Bill C-49 and its amendments.

Can you tell me if you had full knowledge of what was going in this bill and what was an integral part of negotiating the terms and conditions of the bill, or were you in fact hoodwinked, as the Conservatives say?

I'll go to you first, Minister Parsons, and then to Minister Rushton.

[Tory Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, Government of Nova Scotia]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone.

I'm happy to join you virtually today from Mi'kma'ki, the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the importance of Bill C-49 for Nova Scotia's transition to clean energy.

Our province has some of the most ambitious climate change goals in the country. These are legislated goals, and we're determined to reach them. By 2030, we'll be off coal and have at least 80% of our electricity from renewables. By 2050, we'll be at net zero. There is no silver bullet to achieve these goals. It takes a suite of solutions to make them a reality. We're focused on made-in-Nova Scotia solutions as much as possible, and Bill C-49 is key to helping us advance them.

We've released a number of plans to help us reach our goals. The clean power plan focuses primarily on greening our grid. The offshore wind road map focuses on harnessing the power of the world-class offshore wind of this province. The green hydrogen action plan focuses on the clean fuel that can help with the transition both at home and abroad. They all work together to move us towards a sustainable future, but offshore wind and green hydrogen in particular really go hand in hand.

Nova Scotia's offshore wind speeds are among the best in the world. They rival the winds of the North Sea, where the world's offshore wind sector started. We have an incredible opportunity here. That's why we set a goal of offering licences for five gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. We're planning the first call for bids in 2025. We want the world to know that we are open for business, not just for offshore wind but also for green hydrogen. These sectors are tied very closely together.

We anticipate high demand for renewable electricity for green hydrogen production, so developers know they can pursue offshore wind projects at a scale that make them worth investing in. We're nurturing the development of both these sectors. They are key components of our plan to meet our 2050 climate change goals.

New sectors require new regulation to make sure they are safe and responsible for the environment, for workers and for other sectors working in the offshore. That is why Bill C-49 is so important for Nova Scotia. It will bring us into a new era of offshore energy regulation, an era that brings untold new possibilities for clean energy and for green jobs, not only in offshore energy but also in the broader ocean-tech sector.

My premier, my government and I fully support this bill. It will expand the role of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to include renewable energy and will rename it the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore energy regulator.

The board will be well positioned for this expansion in regulatory authority. It has more than 30 years of experience in responsibly managing the health, safety and environmental aspects of our offshore developments. It has the technical expertise and the administrative capacity to regulate highly complex marine environments. This skill set will be easily applied to offshore renewables.

Together with Natural Resources Canada, we'll continue to review the board's budget and capacity, and we'll make sure it has sufficient resources to effectively and responsibly regulate this new sector.

Further, we're working with our federal partners on the regional assessment for offshore wind, which focuses on identifying where and how these projects can be optimally developed. It will inform governments on future planning for this sector, and it's an opportunity for Nova Scotians to have their say in how the sector and projects should be planned. We've been encouraging Nova Scotians to take part in this process, and we're listening to their feedback. That's why we made a decision in the fall to pause any consideration of wind development in our provincial waters until we have a framework in place for our jointly managed waters. We're confident that with that framework in place, offshore renewables and traditional industries such as fish harvesting can coexist, just as we've seen with natural gas projects and with wind projects in other parts of the world.

Finally, I want to emphasize that Nova Scotia welcomes all the appropriate scrutiny to make sure that offshore wind projects are done safely and responsibly and that they can coexist with other sectors and interests. That will involve review and approval at federal and provincial levels, and there will be a lot of opportunity for public input and engagement with our first nations.

Again, I will state that Nova Scotia fully supports this bill. It is key to advancing our clean energy and climate change goals. We have complete faith in the board's ability to help safely advance these goals, and we urge the speedy passage of this bill so we can meet our timelines in Nova Scotia.

We cannot afford to wait till Christmas. Developers are weighing their investment options right now as this committee debates, and we still need to make amendments to our own mirror legislation in time for the call to bids.

Offshore wind is Nova Scotia's greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail. There are tremendous opportunities for our coastal communities, for our province and for our country. We cannot afford to wait.

Thank you.

[Andrew Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador]

Thank you very much.

My name is Andrew Parsons. I'm the Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. I appreciate the invitation to present today with respect to amendments to the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, or Bill C-49.

Our province is pleased that the proposed legislative amendments to the Atlantic accord implementation act ensure joint management of our valuable offshore wind resources, recognize exclusive jurisdiction of waters lying between the jaws of the land and certain coastal waters, and modernize provisions relating to the offshore oil industry.

Our government is committed to supporting offshore renewal energy projects that have the potential to contribute to the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. Electrification and increasing opportunities to support decarbonization of the economy are essential to achieving these goals.

I would be remiss if I didn't state early on in my remarks that during the global transition to a net-zero economy, as the world transitions from hydrocarbons to renewable energy sources, it will continue to require non-renewable energy sources such as oil and gas.

Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas sector is a major contributor to our provincial economy. We have made significant progress in positioning the oil and gas sector to meet the world's energy needs during the transition while taking steps to decrease the carbon intensity of the sector by participating in projects, initiatives and groups focused on decreasing carbon sector emissions. With high ESG standards and performance, our offshore is an important and reliable supplier during the energy transition. We also have so much to offer when it comes to renewable energy resources, whether it's meeting net-zero commitments, mitigating the impacts of climate change or growing clean energy jobs and supporting economic development.

The proposed legislative amendments to the act are significant for our province as we work to develop our renewable energy offshore. They will ensure that necessary measures are in place to support offshore renewable opportunities and allow for a fiscal regime that provides the maximum economic return to Newfoundland and Labrador. It will rename the C-NLOPB as the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore energy board and expand its mandate to become the lead regulatory body for offshore energy in the offshore area. This furthers joint management of the offshore area and builds upon the extensive expertise the board has in managing offshore projects. It will define the offshore area for offshore renewable energy that excludes areas within provincial jurisdiction to ensure that we can move forward to regulate developments within provincial jurisdiction waters. Finally, it modernizes provisions regarding the regulation of our offshore oil industry.

Using our wind resources, we have an opportunity to develop some of the first large-scale projects that will produce green hydrogen for export for global demand and for some of our own commercial operations. As early adopters in this industry, we are taking every step we can to move in the right direction.

As a province, we have the right ingredients to competitively produce and export green hydrogen, from strong wind to fresh water, deep seaports and proximity to markets. [Technical difficulty—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute it when you are not speaking.

For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor audio, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur, and these can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injury. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they're not in use.

Remember that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Additionally, screenshots and taking photos of your screen are not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of this meeting.

With us today for the first hour, from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the Honourable Andrew Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, by video conference. Also joining us by video conference is Craig Martin, associate deputy minister of energy development.

We also have, from the Government of Nova Scotia, the Honourable Tory Rushton, Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, by video conference. Also joining us by video conference are Kim Doane, executive director of the subsurface energy department, and Melissa Oldreive, manager of strategic priorities.

We will now proceed to our opening statements.

I will acknowledge for everybody online that I use these two cards. Yellow means you have about 30 seconds left. Red means your time is up. I will try to not interrupt you mid-sentence, but I will try to guide you when we get near the end.

We will start with Minister Andrew Parsons from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, for five minutes.

Minister, the floor is yours. Welcome to committee.

[Kostantina Northrup]

If you're speaking about the Inceptio licence that was set aside in the autumn, those set-aside powers exist already under the accord acts as they stand now. They certainly are important powers, but they're not powers that exist specifically to deal with marine conservation and protection issues. Certainly, new powers being brought in through Bill C-49 are important in that regard.

However, I would say that powers to prohibit licensing in certain areas, or powers to cancel licences, although important, cannot do the full job of marine conservation and protection if you don't also have, built into the law, good processes for informed decision-making and informed planning at a high level, with public participation and the participation of all stakeholders who can bring the information and knowledge needed to help make good decisions in the space.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to note for the record that the MOU between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada has been signed. I want witnesses to know that.

I also want them to understand that this is a regulatory bill, and this bill does not openly sanction any offshore wind development without going through the proper environmental processes. I'm not sure if the three witnesses we've had today from the United States understand how that process works in Canada. Obviously, it's much different from how it works in their states. I want to note that for the record.

I would like to turn my questioning to the Canada offshore petroleum board. We heard testimony in the committee from Mr. Small that CAPP may be opposed to this legislation. I didn't hear that in your testimony.

Could you clarify for us where CAPP stands on Bill C-49?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to remind MP Jones that her party tried to put Bill C-50 in front of Bill C-49.

[Ches Crosbie]

That's a pretty hefty question.

Mr. Small, as you're aware, I took a high-level approach to the bill. There's plenty of scope for getting into what might be more technical legal problems.

One of them would be that we've just seen the Supreme Court of Canada—last year—shred Bill C-69. This piece of legislation, Bill C-49, in dozens of places wants to coordinate itself with the statutory scheme and regime of Bill C-69, yet how can it do that when Bill C-69 is lying in tatters on the cutting-room floor? That is a major legal problem that perhaps some other people with legal backgrounds might want to express an opinion on.

Otherwise, as I've said, I just tried to take a high-level view of things. To my mind, this is an abrogation: an abrogation of the historic Atlantic accord, the accord between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada, which has served Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada so well for 30 years.

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

To Mr. Crosbie, in the development of a bill like Bill C-49 to change the Atlantic accord, is the tone and messaging as important as the legal jargon that's in it, in terms of potential investment in wind energy and petroleum energy projects?

[Ruth Inniss, Fisheries Advisor, Maritime Fishermen's Union]

Thank you very much. I'm very happy to follow Bonnie on this, as I represent a fishing organization that's quite afraid.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak this evening and to provide our testimony to the natural resources committee on Bill C-49. We, Duane and I, are here tonight on behalf of the 1,300 multispecies harvesters who make up the Maritime Fishermen's Union. Our members fish lobster, crab, tuna, scallops and herring, along with many other commercially viable species along the shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Currently, the fishing industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick accounts for a combined $5 billion in revenue and well over 30,000 direct jobs, which help to fuel the economies of many coastal communities. Our membership is gravely concerned about the impact that rushed legislation, inadequate consultation and the lack of wind energy science will have on the fishing industry. The fishing industry has long been a partner in the marine space, sharing waters with each other, other industries and other nations.

The bill, as it stands before us, is sorely lacking in protections for the fishing industry, the aquatic species we depend on and the livelihoods that depend on fishing. Simply put, while we support the expansion of clean energy, it should not be at the expense of the fishing industry. The legislation, as drafted, covers damages to gear and equipment resulting only from safety incidents or infrastructure failure, as well as damage from the release of materials or spills. There is no consideration of damages that may be incurred based on changes, resulting from water temperature changes, electrical pollution and displacement from traditional fishing grounds, should the wind energy industry have a detrimental effect on dispersal, productivity or availability of the species we depend on—in short, the livelihood of our members.

Harvesters cannot respond to industrial developments of this magnitude by simply moving from one area to another. Restrictions established by DFO for boundaries, gear and other regulations restrict the ability of harvesters to adapt, confounded further by the unknown impacts of wind energy on the very resources that they access.

Additionally, while harvester groups have joined together to identify a number of areas as “low impact” to the fishing industry as part of the regional assessment process, there have been no guarantees that the results of our efforts will be considered when evaluating areas for wind energy development. Wind energy developments will require vast tracts of ocean area, and there is no guarantee that the fishing industry will be consulted on the complex task of spatial planning.

Moving a bill through that could potentially harm the fishery is irresponsible without proper consultation, proper science and a collaborative approach with all the stakeholders affected. The industry has consulted, partnered with and, in many instances, led efforts in conducting science when working with government agencies. Our organization has a world-class science arm called Homarus, which frequently leads or is consulted on matters of marine conservation.

Our industry is facing profound challenges related to climate change. Fisheries and stock migration patterns are changing and evolving, and we do not have enough scientific evidence of what this will look like in the future. Rushing poorly thought-out legislation to govern an industrial marine development that remains largely in an experimental stage for Atlantic waters, and legislation that lacks proper safeguards to ensure a sustainable, viable and resilient coastal economy, is extremely irresponsible.

There are fundamental differences between the offshore petroleum industry—which this legislation was originally intended to apply to—and the burgeoning offshore wind industry, which is dramatically different in structure, function and effects. We are extremely concerned that the redrafted legislation fails to account for or to even consider this fact. In short, decisions that affect the fishery must include the individuals who harvest the fish and provide the protein and the economic drivers in communities.

We have a process in place to share information and receive input from our members. We conduct meetings, pass resolutions, conduct workshops and convene annual conventions to engage our membership. The timing required to have fulsome discussions and deliberations on this extremely important bill, Bill C-49, is woefully lacking.

We have the time to collectively develop good legislation and a responsible world standard for offshore wind development. We have the responsibility to make it the best possible legislation for our members, the marine environment that supports them and the communities that depend on this successful industry.

Mr. Chairman and committee members, we ask you, number one, do you think it is responsible to push legislation through that does not consider the effects on historical and current stakeholders? Do you fully understand how this legislation will affect the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada? Have you considered—

[Bonnie Brady, Executive Director, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association]

Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, thank you for allowing me to join you virtually to offer my experience from the U.S. as you discuss Bill C-49.

My name is Bonnie Brady. I am the executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, which represents all gear types of commercial fishermen on Long Island in New York.

In 2003, we became involved with offshore wind, when 100 offshore turbines were slated for our state waters. That project was killed when the real cost of the project to ratepayers was revealed in 2006.

I am here to join the chorus of warnings about offshore wind. No matter what you have been told about Canada being the new Saudi Arabia of wind, there are far more threats lurking ahead from offshore wind to commercial fishing and its coastal communities, your domestic seafood production and infrastructure, mariner safety, national security and the ocean itself. I implore you to not move rapidly without being aware of the pitfalls.

To begin, you must protect commercial fishing, fisheries and benthic habitat by removing fishing grounds from offshore wind lease areas, including where cables are placed. Without having specific language within your fisheries law, and perhaps also in Bill C-49, you may be unwittingly signing an economic death warrant for fishing communities and possibly the ocean's productivity itself.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has had minimal to no contact with commercial fishing experts in the siting process here in the U.S. It only included them after the project design was locked in via state power purchase agreements. Best management practices are a mirage.

The consolidation of federal decision-making power under BOEM means that other agencies have been ignored and fisheries are considered at the last stages of its federal review. By then, alternatives are severely limited by developer and state decisions, even though the lease is in federal waters. Our NOAA fisheries—which is our main regulator, like your DFO—is not a lead agency. As such, it cannot say no to a project. BOEM has full authority.

Federal agencies are instead deferring to multinational or foreign government-owned energy companies, advertising the permanent installation of turbines as solely a good thing for our oceans, and prioritizing build-out goals at the expense of our nation's wild-caught seafood security. By losing access to fishing grounds for multiple fisheries and direct access to ports throughout our coastlines, our entire commercial fishing industry and its infrastructure will be gutted.

As of late, we've seen procurement agreements cancelled, but with new mandates and rebidding right around the corner, development is all but guaranteed, shutting out ways to protect our industry and the environment. As Ms. Lapp mentioned, our only recourse is to sue.

The U.S. has no language to protect or compensate commercial fishermen for the taking of their fishing grounds for offshore wind, unlike Denmark, whose law states, “No obstacles may be placed in the way of legally practiced fishing.” They will tell you that compensation was only because, in Denmark, they closed wind lease areas to fishing and here you won't be prevented. What they won't tell you is that it's dangerous to enter wind farms because marine radar will not work.

Fishermen from Thanet, England, told us the same in 2014. Their 10-metre boats are now forced to travel around the Ørsted-built offshore wind farm to cod grounds much farther from port because the cod are no longer in the lease area. In 2016, we began telling U.S. regulators about false ghost targets on radar, using the example of the Block Island wind farm, which is a small, five-turbine, six-megawatt site off Rhode Island. We were ignored. In the spring of 2022, the National Academy of Sciences corroborated fishermen's long-standing radar interference concerns.

As Ms. Lapp mentioned in earlier testimony, Rhode Island lost the fishing vessel Mistress and two of its three crew in the early hours of New Year's Day in 2019. The U.S. Coast Guard report described clearly that the Sikorsky Jayhawk helicopter that was sent to look for survivors returned to base after arriving offshore, as they were “unable to conduct search due to high winds, low [visibility], hazards (windmills) and low ceiling”.

That's for five turbines far smaller than the more than 3,000-plus U.S. offshore wind turbine planned assault on the Atlantic Ocean.

In 2020, the offshore wind turbine radar mitigation workshop webinars made clear that a one-foot error in ocean current height based on high-frequency radar will become a 24-kilometre error in the search zone for a lost soul. The entire search and rescue operations' SAROPS model, which is used to predict search zones, will be rendered useless.

Another reason that Thanet fishermen must travel farther is that their former fishing grounds, now the Thanet wind farm, are churning up constant underwater sediment plumes up to six kilometres long and over 150 metres wide 24-7, with scour pits up to 40 metres deep behind each turbine. Those sediment plumes can be seen from space. I'm not kidding. NASA did a paper on it in 2014.

We do know, through European research, that offshore wind farms warm the sea surface temperature, mimicking climate change. They affect ocean circulation patterns, produce a substantial loss of wind for up to 60 miles past a lease area and impact upwelling and downwelling, which feed the ocean and all of its denizens.

Please do not rush forward as the U.S. has. If you do, you risk it all.

I look forward to any questions the committee may have.

[Paul Barnes, Director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide comments related to Bill C-49.

As the chair mentioned, my name is Paul Barnes, and I am director of Atlantic Canada and Arctic with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP. I am based in St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. I have over 30 years' experience in the offshore oil and gas industry and have worked extensively during that time with the Atlantic accord legislation, which is being amended with this bill.

CAPP is a non-partisan, research-based industry association that advocates on behalf of our member companies that explore for, develop and produce oil and natural gas throughout Canada. CAPP's members include several that are active in the Atlantic Canada offshore area and that will therefore be directly impacted by any accord act amendments.

One main driver behind Bill C-49 is to provide authority to the offshore petroleum boards in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to regulate offshore renewable energy. My remarks are not specifically focused on this aspect of the bill, as it falls outside of CAPP's oil and gas industry mandate.

My remarks will instead focus on the aspects of Bill C-49 that directly impact offshore exploration, development and production activities.

Before moving into my specific remarks, I want to note that there are several positive changes included in the bill that our industry supports, including providing clarity in the role of the offshore petroleum boards in the regional impact assessment process. Natural Resources Canada staff have also been extremely helpful in providing clarity to CAPP and our members on aspects of the bill that we highlighted in a letter to Minister Wilkinson in August 2023, which we provided a copy of to the committee on February 2, 2024.

To begin, clause 36 of the bill introduces a significant change for the oil and gas industry, which is the move to a 25-year, fixed term, significant discovery licence on future licences. CAPP recognizes the desire of the governments to find new ways to encourage the development of discoveries in a timely manner, but cautions that moving to a fixed term without adequate flexibility to extend the term could have unintended consequences.

The Atlantic Canada offshore is one of the most challenging operating environments in the world. Current projects have taken up to 30 years to develop. There may be unique cases in the future where more than 25 years are necessary to move from exploration to production. Flexibility in the fixed-term licence is critical in a jurisdiction with such challenges. Specifically, legal language on the ability to extend the term if an operator can demonstrate that they are diligently pursuing development should be included in the bill.

Should governments move towards a fixed-term licence, CAPP suggests they direct the offshore boards to remove escalating rentals in the terms and conditions of the licence.

Clause 28 of the bill, which proposes to amend section 56 of the accord act, leads to the prohibition of oil and gas activities in a marine protection, environmental or wildlife conservation area. CAPP and its members had concern with this section when we wrote our original submission to the NRCan minister in August 2023, as we viewed it as expanding the prohibition of oil and gas activities to other conservation or protection areas outside of the Oceans Act marine protected areas or national conservation areas. However, following discussions with NRCan staff and provincial Government of Newfoundland staff, we now better interpret the intent of the section and the role of both the federal and provincial natural resource ministers if there is to be any prohibition of oil and gas activities in any area.

Clause 71 of the bill allows government to make regulations to regulate access to offshore infrastructure, including to enforce tolls and tariffs. It is CAPP's view that in such a small operating basin in Newfoundland and Labrador, where all current offshore oil and gas activities are focused, access to infrastructure is not an issue that requires additional regulation, nor should it be included in this bill.

Offshore facility owners are open to considering adding production from others that wish to access their facilities. If a facility has extra capacity, allowing others to have access to it can reduce costs and extend the commercial life of a project provided, however, that those others share the responsibility of all related costs and liabilities, plus provide a fair return on risk investment.

Access to infrastructure is a commercial issue and is best left to facility owners and those wanting to access the facility to manage and negotiate. Moving towards a system whereby governments can regulate access and enforce tolls and tariffs adds uncertainty in an environment where there are a limited number of projects and where facility owners are open to negotiating directly with others.

As I see that I'm coming rather close to the end of my time, we will provide specific written remarks to elaborate on a couple of other issues that I wanted to bring to the committee's attention.

Thank you.

[Ches Crosbie, As an Individual]

Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to express my concerns about Bill C-49.

I oppose the bill both as a citizen of Canada and as a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, because it is a death blow to my province's ability to remain a contributing member of Canada.

Honourable members, in my respectful submission, Bill C-49 deserves to be known as the “no more offshore act.”

I'm a long-time member of the bar of Newfoundland and Labrador and a sometime leader of the legislative opposition. Now a non-practising member of the bar and retired from elected life, I'm involved in pro bono work for organizations like the National Citizens Inquiry.

My interest in Bill C-49, the “no more offshore act”, is not that of an industry spokesperson, of a fisher whose livelihood is affected or of a proponent or businessperson who hopes to profit. My interest is solely that of a citizen who wants a better Newfoundland and Labrador and, thereby, a better Canada.

In 1985, Prime Minister Mulroney and Premier Peckford came together over a deal enshrined in mirrored federal and provincial legislation to make Newfoundland and Labrador the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources of the subsea areas of our provincial shores to the 200-mile limit. This historic accommodation enabled Premier Peckford to proclaim that, “have-not will be no more.” This was the historic meaning of the Atlantic accord, that have-not will be no more.

The proposed change of title from Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act to the “Atlantic accord implementation and offshore renewable energy management act” tells us that a radical transformation of the Atlantic accord, the mainstay of jobs and prosperity in Newfoundland and Labrador for 30 years, is about to occur.

This radical transformation creates uncertainty about the viability of exploration permits and fishing rights over huge areas of the offshore and uncertainty even as to the availability of compensation for the expropriation it enables. As all know, uncertainty kills investment, prosperity and jobs. Uncertainty creates impoverishment.

The bill ensures that have-not will return, and have-not will return to stay because offshore natural resource development is drill bits in bedrock, but offshore wind-to-hydrogen heavily subsidized by government is pie in the sky.

Have-not will return because proposed section 56 of the bill imposes a reign of fear of the unknown on traditional energy developers, which will inevitably drive them away along with the jobs and tax revenues they generate. It has already driven them away. In 2023, these energy developers decided not to make a single bid for exploration—zero. Have-not will return because clause 8 of the bill says that the Atlantic accord does not apply to offshore renewable energy resources, which means that the principal beneficiary status of Newfoundland and Labrador, my home province, will not apply either.

The current federal government embraces a radical anti-carbon ideology to the exclusion of economics, so it may consider that killing the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore resource industry and the 25% of the provincial economy it generates is acceptable collateral damage. It may consider that ousting commercial fishermen from thousands of square kilometres of traditional fishing grounds is acceptable collateral damage.

More perplexing is the response of Newfoundland and Labrador legislators, provincial and those federal members not bound by cabinet solidarity. Only they can explain why they failed to defend the Atlantic accord and the jobs and prosperity it brings and could yet bring. Only they can explain to fishers why they failed to protect their livelihoods. Only they can explain why “have-not will be no more” will become “have-not will be again”.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Before I begin the second panel, I would like to provide some opening remarks for our witnesses who have joined us today.

Thank you for your patience.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating via video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. In terms of interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice, at the bottom of the screen, of the floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel. I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

With us today for the second panel, we have Ches Crosbie, as an individual. From the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, we have Mr. Paul Barnes, director, Atlantic Canada and Arctic. From the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, we have Bonnie Brady, executive director, by video conference. Also by video conference, from the Maritime Fishermen's Union, we have Ruth Inniss, fisheries adviser; and Mr. Duane Boudreau, fish harvester.

We will now proceed to opening statements for five minutes each. We will start with Ches Crosbie.

The floor is yours, sir.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, for any witnesses from the first panel and for those who are on the second, my comments will be brief, but I would like to begin by apologizing for this diatribe that we've all been subjected to by the lack-of-common-courtesy Conservatives. It is astounding that, every time we have credible witnesses here, this is the type of filibustering that we are subjected to.

I would like to make a few comments on the content of the motion. I would point out, first of all, that our government, the Liberal government, is intent on advancing reconciliation and supporting indigenous peoples in participating in and benefiting from natural resource projects, especially those on indigenous territories, and this remains a top priority for our government.

We believe that it is fully important to move forward with the full engagement of indigenous communities, including meaningful consultation. I'm very concerned that the Conservatives are trying to advance this motion. I'm curious about what kind of consultation went into it. At the committee here, we have not had any sort of study on this matter that's part of the motion being dropped on us. We've had no witnesses. There's been no report produced by this committee.

Reconciliation is an important issue that deserves fulsome and meaningful consultation and discussion with those directly impacted. In this case, it's with indigenous communities across Canada.

I would note that the first nations resource charge is not defined, and that's a problem. There's no mention of Inuit or Métis communities, so it's concerning that the Conservatives would omit those very important groups from this motion.

I find it also very concerning that this filibustering on a very important study comes the first day back after we had the first round of debate in the House on the first nations clean water act. We had a Saskatchewan Conservative MP, Kevin Waugh, who made extremely offensive comments and allegations during his party's first intervention on that legislation that first nations were burning down their own water treatment plants and that they weren't educated enough to operate them.

This is a completely baseless and offensive claim, but it's not surprising, because the leader of the official opposition himself has said that residential school survivors need a stronger work ethic. I'm not surprised that the Conservatives will resort to these kinds of baseless claims and use whatever straws they can reach to try to stall Bill C-49.

I find it particularly offensive that first nations are being used as pawns in this filibuster today by the Conservatives.

I would like to point out that the Conservatives had the opportunity to demonstrate through actions that they were meaningful supporters of indigenous issues in Canada, but they voted against $4 billion in indigenous housing. They voted against UNDRIP legislation. They voted against the indigenous loan guarantee program. They voted against first nations water and infrastructure funding. They voted against equity investment funds for indigenous governments. It's very concerning that these are the kinds of actions we see, although it's frankly quite unsurprising that these are their actions.

I really do believe that we have important discussions that we'd like to have today, so at this point I would like to move to adjourn debate.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Of course, the sooner people stop interrupting me, the faster I will be able to amplify and share the voices of the indigenous people who want this initiative, for the benefit of indigenous communities and all Canadians right across the country, as well as for the benefit of the future of responsible resource development in Canada, which is so integral to our economy.

Chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation, B.C., said, as I was saying before I was interrupted:

It is our responsibility to act as stewards and guardians of our lands and waters in a balanced way. Our connection to the lands and waters runs deep, but we also know the importance of economic opportunity. Homalco has projects and businesses that work towards this balance—whether it is forestry, tourism, or fishing. There is a proposed $10 billion hydroelectric dam in our territory. The Resource Charge doesn’t mean we won’t say no to bad projects where the costs to us are too high. It could mean, however, that good projects happen faster. This is what we all want. We want to continue to open up good, quality economic opportunities and participate meaningfully in projects in our territories.

Grand Chief Mike Lebourdais of the Whispering Pines First Nation in B.C., who has been a very outspoken leader about the importance of energy development to indigenous communities, including fighting for the pipelines that have been killed or delayed by this Liberal government, said:

The Resource Charge is a First Nation led initiative. Whispering Pines and many other First Nations want to be in the business of doing business. We don’t want to be in the business of negotiating how we should do business. The First Nations Resource Charges means less time negotiating and more time raising our quality of life to national standards.

Councillor Thomas Blank from the Tk’emlúps in B.C., with whom I had a wonderful conversation in Vancouver on Thursday, said:

Tkemlups has led First Nation tax initiatives for the last 50 years. The First Nations Resource Charge builds on what made our previous tax proposals work. What if instead of the federal government collecting money, and then negotiating with First Nations how much they get and how they spend it, we just let First Nations collect it and make their own decisions? It worked for urban First Nations, like [one of their communities] with property tax and property transfer tax. We know not all First Nations have a location advantage, but many have resource development opportunities on their territories. Let’s make it work for rural First Nations with the First Nations Resource Charge.

Jean-Claude Therrien Pinette, from an Innu community, said, “We recently participated in a conference on the initiation of the First Nations Resource Charge organized by the First Nations Tax Commission. This initiative makes sense for us. We have many industries on our traditional territories. Gone are the days when we simply received offers of low-paying jobs. We expect to receive a share of tax benefits and charges, as do other governments. That’s why we support the resource tax proposal.”

Let me close with comments from Dale Swampy, president of the National Coalition of Chiefs. He said, “We think it is the First Nations that should be leading the development of Canada’s natural resources to show how these partnerships with industry can ensure environmental protection and sustainable practices...more First Nations support the natural resource sectors, like oil and gas, than oppose it”.

I do certainly hope that all the witnesses get a chance to speak today and give their comments. I want to make sure they are invited—and know that they should and ought to, because it will allow them to give more comprehensive information—to submit written submissions and their recommendations for any amendments to C-49. We certainly will all take that into account.

As of right now, we very efficiently could resolve this, Mr. Chair, by putting a vote to the committee. To that end, I would ask the Liberal, NDP and Bloc members of this committee to support this common-sense motion. I ask for that full support in order to help bring home this optional step in the right direction, in a good way, towards economic reconciliation for indigenous communities to gain opportunities in ownership, equity, contracting and so many others in responsible resource development.

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

—about the legislation. Bill C-49 is very serious legislation for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The Conservatives are determined to block it, but our witnesses should not have to put up with this. They have better things to do. They're experts in their fields, and I apologize to them that they're witnessing this. I would ask that they send us anything that we can use so that, when we get this committee back on track, we can use their testimony.

Again, I'd like to apologize for this embarrassment.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's interesting to see MP Angus blocking discussion about an initiative that would benefit indigenous people in communities all across the country, when he talks about lots of things that are going wrong but chooses to prop up the Liberal government anyway.

I will just continue to wrap up my comments as efficiently as possible, which of course will happen better without interruption. I know that it's important to every Canadian and every community and person invested in energy development of all kinds in all parts of this country.

Before I talk about a couple more of those indigenous voices that Charlie Angus and the Liberals around the table are trying to silence, while they also don't acknowledge the fact that it's their own government motion that pushed Bill C-49 behind Bill C-50. In fact it was my November 1 motion that asked this committee to get the government to fix Bill C-69 and then immediately move to work to move on Bill C-49, so that the government didn't pass a bill as written that has multiple sections the Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional. It would obviously cause uncertainty and invite immediate litigation on a number of grounds if they passed Bill C-49 as it's written.

No doubt I certainly appreciate and value the opportunity to fix Bill C-49 so that it will do what its proponents say they want, except that as of now, of course, the bill is one of additional red tape, lack of clarity and uncertainty that will block both traditional oil and gas and renewable offshore energy development.

To explain why the common-sense Conservative endorsement of this first nations resource charge is important, let's talk a little bit about the organization. It is important to note that it will build on the most successful first nation-led legislative initiatives in history, the First Nations Fiscal Management Act and the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management, and of course there are now over 400 first nations using one or both frameworks.

I'm going to really put a fine point on why this optional tool is so important. It will especially help smaller first nations communities with capacity challenges and fewer resources to be able to bring home all of those economic and multiple other kinds of benefits from pursuing responsible resource development through this “reconciliACTION” initiative that Conservatives are proposing. It will help smaller communities to negotiate with big companies and law firms to secure benefits and opportunities.

To that end, I want to share the words of Chief Sharleen Gale who's from Fort Nelson First Nation in B.C. and she's the chair of the First Nations Major Projects Coalition. She says,

For too long, our people and governments have been left out of the resource bounty of this land. Many of our nations and members want to be part of the resource economy. They want careers, business opportunities, and equity stakes in resource companies. The First Nations Resource Charge finally means our fiscal jurisdiction over the resources on our lands is implemented. The Resource Charge will mean we can increase the economic benefits to our members and regions, improve services and infrastructure and close the gaps with the rest of Canada sooner.

The chief and other members of the Doig River First Nation in B.C. say it's ridiculous that the smallest governments must navigate the most complex negotiations. They say:

We want to implement a charge like other Canadian governments to streamline business. The Resource Charge is going to provide the kind of revenues we need to have the water, health care, education, and opportunities that every other Canadian takes for granted.

They also say:

We have many resource projects in our territory. The current process for negotiating financial compensation for First Nations takes too long, and it costs too much. We are small administrations. We cannot respond and negotiate in a timely way. It costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our time is scarce. It costs Canada tens of billions in lost investment every year. The FNRC changes this. It is a pre-specified standardized charge for doing business in our territory—whether that is forestry, mining, hydroelectricity, oil and gas or any other resource project.

That captures especially well why our common-sense Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative Party of Canada are urging the government to support this optional first nations-led tool.

Chief Donna Big Canoe, who was in Vancouver, from the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation in Ontario, says:

Confederation in 1867 divided everything between federal and provincial governments, treating us as if we didn’t exist—wards of the state—leading to poverty, dependency, and the existence of residential schools for years. The solution is to bring First Nations into the federation by granting us tax powers to exercise our own jurisdiction. The First Nations Resource Charge aligns with this goal.

I'm mindful of Councillor Strater Crowfoot from the legendary Crowfoot family from the Siksika Nation in Alberta, who also supports this initiative. He says:

In 1989, we passed amendments to the Indian Act that gave First Nations the option to assume tax room and service responsibilities on reserve lands. A lot of people thought it was minor and would never amount to much. Other people thought we simply weren’t capable of carrying out such responsibilities. That, to me, is the most dangerous form of discrimination. Other people thought it was some plot to hold First Nations back. But First Nations all over the country proved the naysayers wrong. A lot has changed since then and for the better. I was there in ‘89, so I know. And I’m proud to be here now. This is going to allow many First Nations who were unable to take advantage of that earlier initiative to become more self reliant and more self-determining. It’s also a major step in acknowledging our rights and obligations over our historic lands. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition for supporting this, and I hope every political leader in the country will support this. It’s the right thing to do for First Nations and for the country too.

I will conclude, Chair, with a couple of other comments by indigenous leaders who've been involved in the work of developing this proposal, and I urge the members of Parliament and the House of Commons to consider supporting it.

Chief Darren Blaney from the Homalco First Nation in B.C.—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to indicate to our witnesses how sorry we are that we are not able to get to their testimony. They have been an hour and a half in the room, but the Conservatives have delayed Bill C‑49 since the beginning, five months, by bringing forward other motions that are unrelated to this study or to the panels that are ongoing within the committee.

It's not that the motion is not an important motion that needs to be debated, but bringing it forward today is an intentional strategy on behalf of the Conservatives so that we do not get the chance to ask questions of the witnesses who are here, to hear their testimony and to hear their responses to issues that could impact them in the legislation and, to be honest, it's a very disrespectful practice that is occurring here.

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

Thank you.

I carry this work with respect and integrity for the job before us, which is the mandate of this committee to address Bill C-49. I would like to ask my colleagues that we perhaps write to the premiers in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to tell them that the Conservative Party are adamant. They said that they were going to block this legislation. We've tried to work with them. We've brought witnesses.

I think it would be fair to bring a letter to the premiers saying that we are dealing with a party that is using indigenous issues now to try to obstruct.... I think it's very low, but they're going to do what they're going to do.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to get clarification from my colleagues on the opposite side.

We know that both the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia, and both premiers from opposite parties, and many stakeholders, wish to see this move forward. Will we be able to undertake questioning of the witnesses, who have taken time out of their days and their schedules, to talk about Bill C-49, or are we going to have the member opposite continue on this tangent for the foreseeable future?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

Thank you to all of our witnesses here today to discuss, with committee members, Bill C-49.

Since we do have extended hours today, and everybody is here, with many here virtually, I would like to move the motion that I submitted and gave notice of on Friday, February 9.

I move:

That the Standing Committee on Natural Resources report to the House that it:

(a) recognizes that for hundreds of years, First Nations have suffered under a broken colonial system that takes power away from their communities and places it in the hands of politicians in Ottawa;

(b) recognizes the importance of enabling First Nations to take back control of their resource revenues from the federal government through a First Nations Resource Charge;

(c) recognizes that the Indian Act hands over all reserve land and money to the federal government and that this outdated system puts power in the hands of bureaucrats, politicians, and lobbyists—not First Nations;

(d) agrees with the First Nations Tax Commission and First Nations Chiefs from across the country that a First Nation Reserve Charge would result in economic reconciliation allowing indigenous communities to take back control of their lives.

For the information of all committee members, as I ask for your support for this motion, and for all Canadians, you might know that in Vancouver on February 8, the Honourable Pierre Poilievre, leader of Canada's common-sense Conservatives, committed to enable first nations to take back—

[Alex Templeton, Chair, Econext]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

As a quick introduction, my name is Alex Templeton. I'm from St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador.

Professionally, I'm a partner of the Atlantic Canadian law firm McInnes Cooper, where I maintain a litigation and regulatory practice. As a volunteer, I serve as chair of the board of directors of Econext, and it's in that capacity that I appear before you today.

Econext is a not-for-profit association of over 200 member businesses that are collectively focused on accelerating clean growth in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is to say environmentally sustainable economic development in our province. Our members include businesses that are engaged in the ocean economy, including the offshore oil industry, as well as businesses that are engaged in the emerging onshore wind and clean fuels industry and businesses that would surely engage in an offshore wind industry in our waters, should one develop.

As such, we've been following your committee's proceedings with keen interest. We attend today with the benefit of having seen much of the testimony you've heard so far. We thank you for the invitation to appear today as a witness.

Under Bill C-49, regulatory authority for offshore wind energy production in Newfoundland and Labrador would be granted to the C-NLOPB through an expansion of its mandate beyond offshore oil and gas projects.

Since the 1980s, the C-NLOPB has provided effective joint federal-provincial oversight of the offshore industry with a mandate that's focused on safety, environmental protection, resource management and industrial benefits.

The legislation that brought about its creation, the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, fundamentally altered the trajectory of Newfoundland and Labrador’s economy. The regulatory framework that was established enabled billions of dollars of investment activity into our province and Canada. However, the impact extended far beyond this. Investments made into the province helped to create and foster a world-class cluster of small to medium-sized businesses that have been developing state-of-the-art technologies and services that are world leading.

Econext members are active from one corner of the globe to the other, exporting their oceans-focused technologies. Research facilities at Memorial University and its marine institute—designed and financed in part to support the offshore industry—are among the best in the world, and innovators from all over travel long distances to access them.

The capabilities that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have developed are now being deployed internationally in support of offshore wind projects. Companies like Kraken Robotics, Rutter Inc., C-CORE and many others, which came in to being in part because of the opportunities provided by the offshore oil industry, are now using that knowledge to support the global energy transition.

Newfoundland’s Port of Argentia is a good example. It's North America’s first monopile marshalling port, supporting major U.S. offshore wind projects.

While offshore wind is still relatively nascent in North America, the fact is that it's a mature industry internationally with a considerable market value, and it's high time we welcomed some of this investment to Canada. The potential for offshore wind development in Newfoundland and Labrador in support of global commitments to net zero by the year 2050 is also significant.

However, without the enabling legislation and regulation in place, none of this will come to pass. Investors need certainty. Developers need clear pathways they can rely on. Offshore wind projects take many years to advance from concept to operations, and decisions are being made today about how long-term energy needs are going to be developed.

A modernized Atlantic accord could do it again: It could repeat the economic prosperity the original Atlantic accord achieved over the past four decades.

Whatever one's stance on renewable or non-renewable energy, the fact of the matter is that the C-NLOPB has the experience, technical expertise and a regulatory track record that are well suited to the offshore renewable energy sector. It's only logical to avail of this advantage. This approach is consistent with that seen in many other countries.

Joint federal-provincial jurisdiction is complex. Building on a strong foundation that both levels are comfortable with just makes sense.

Therefore, Econext is supportive of Bill C-49. It urges this committee to advance it expeditiously to the next stage in the legislative process. Delaying its implementation will only create uncertainty for investors and threaten the emergence of an industry that has great potential to transform Atlantic Canada's economy and allow for it to make a great contribution to Canada at large.

I thank you again for the invitation. I look forward to your questions.

[Kostantina Northrup, Staff Lawyer, East Coast Environmental Law]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My organization, East Coast Environmental Law, engages in federal and provincial law reform advocacy on issues that affect environmental health and sustainable development in Atlantic Canada.

We recognize the urgent need for a global transition from fossil fuels to sources of clean and renewable energy, and we know that we need good law in place to facilitate the transition and improve our ability to steward the environment we depend on as we undertake this Herculean task.

We have conducted considerable research on offshore wind regulation, looking at jurisdictions overseas and studying Canada's nascent regimes. We support Bill C‑49 in principle because we understand the benefit of jointly managed federal-provincial regimes for the planning, assessment and authorization of renewable energy projects in offshore Newfoundland and Labrador and offshore Nova Scotia.

We know that this bill reflects the shared aspirations of the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Government of Nova Scotia, and we can appreciate that a lot of hard work and dialogue had to happen to get agreement on the text of the bill as it stands. At the same time, we think there are some changes that need to be made to enable successful, stable and sustainable renewable energy development in the offshore with minimum conflict between ocean users and ecosystem needs.

The most important change we want to see to the bill is the inclusion of requirements for tiered planning and assessment to inform key decision-making stages in the offshore renewable energy regimes. We would also emphasize that those planning and assessment processes must provide meaningful opportunities for public participation.

More specifically, we believe that areas within the offshore should not be open to renewable energy development unless they have first been assessed at a high level through a regional assessment or a strategic environmental assessment. In other words, we believe that calls for bids should not be issued for areas that have not been studied through a regional assessment or a strategic environmental assessment that is focused on the impacts of introducing offshore renewable energy activities.

We also believe that all individual offshore renewable energy projects should undergo a project-specific assessment, whether it be a federal impact assessment or an environmental assessment conducted independently by an offshore energy regulator.

Requiring tiered planning and assessment creates opportunities for public participation and input by stakeholders, like fisheries groups, in the key planning and decision-making stages that occur from the highest levels down to the level of project-specific proposals. Doing so helps to ensure that offshore renewable energy projects are sited in suitable locations, where conflicts with other ocean uses and ecosystem needs are minimized.

Bill C‑49 gestures to the need for tiered planning and assessment by proposing to empower the offshore energy regulators to conduct regional assessments and strategic assessments. The bill also explains how offshore regulation would intersect with project-specific assessments under the Impact Assessment Act. What the bill fails to do is make high-level assessments and project-specific assessments required components of the offshore energy regime.

The bill proposes to give the offshore energy regulators discretionary powers—not clear responsibilities—to conduct regional and strategic assessments, and the bill is silent on whether the regulators can or should conduct project-specific assessments when federal impact assessments are not triggered.

Later this week, we will be submitting a written brief to the committee to describe in more detail the changes we hope to see. They include limiting calls for bids to areas that have undergone a focused regional assessment or a strategic environmental assessment, and they also include requiring project-specific assessments by the offshore energy regulators when proposed renewable energy projects do not trigger the federal impact assessment process. These changes would remove ambiguities from the regimes that have been proposed and help to create regulatory certainty. They would also enable more informed decision-making, and they would support wise and prudent stewardship of offshore resources, including not only our energy resources but also fisheries and the biodiversity of marine ecologies.

Finally, I'll close by noting that although we would like to see a cluster of key changes to the bill, we also support a number of the bill's provisions as they stand. In particular, we welcome enhanced federal and provincial powers to protect marine ecologies, particularly the proposed powers to prohibit offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy activities in areas that are or may be protected by law as areas for wildlife conservation or protection.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. I welcome the members' questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting 85 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Regarding the committee's study of Bill C-49, as per the updated memo sent earlier today, I would like to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk by Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at 4 p.m., eastern time. Should you wish to propose amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, please send the legislative counsel, Marie Danik, your written instructions as soon as possible. She will ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic. Please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, for those on Zoom you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.

Just as a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Our witnesses for the first hour today are Mr. Kevin Stokesbury, by video conference; from East Coast Environmental Law, Kostantina Northrup, staff lawyer; from Econext, Alex Templeton, chair, by video conference; and from Seafreeze Shoreside, Meghan Lapp, fisheries liaison.

Before we begin with opening statements, I would like to remind everyone that I will be using these two cards. Yellow gives a 30-second warning, and red means the time is up. I will try not to interrupt you mid-sentence, but please try to keep an eye out for me when I use these flashing cards.

Ms. Northrup from East Coast Environmental Law, the floor is yours for five minutes. Please proceed, and welcome.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to outline my support for Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accord, which has many opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Nova Scotians. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has led offshore oil and gas in this country for decades. It is now looking to lead offshore wind energy in North America.

We might be a small province, but we are an innovative province, one that is ready to move forward with good, environmentally sustainable energy projects. This is the opportunity of a generation to lead in offshore energy in Canada, creating nearly 30,000 skilled trade jobs and a stable economy at home.

I am disappointed that the Conservatives are against this bill. The last time Conservatives tried to axe the Atlantic accord, royalties, benefits and jobs for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was under Stephen Harper in 2006. It is quite obvious that the Conservatives do not support Atlantic Canada.

Oil and Gas Industry

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I will return the compliment and say I find the member to be quite a reasonable individual, too.

When it comes to our energy future, I would refer the member to the recent report of the International Energy Agency, which stated that global demand for oil and gas will continue in some form for decades, but overall demand for oil and gas will peak in this decade. At the same time, the deployment rate of renewables and uptake of electric vehicles are soaring.

To the member's original question, the Prime Minister responded by affirming that Canada will continue to push forward to meet our net-zero targets, including our commitment at COP28 to lower the production emissions and consumption of fossil fuels over the coming decades.

Part of that includes the proposed cap on oil and gas sector pollution in December. It was another step in our commitment to creating pollution caps on emissions that are both ambitious and achievable. The emissions cap is one that will ensure that the economic well-being of Alberta's energy sector does not come at the expense of our environment, by incentivizing investments in decarbonization, technological innovation and efficiency.

Canada is the first major oil- and gas-producing country in the world to have done this. Allow me to quote Dr. Robb Barnes from the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, who said, “This announcement marks a significant turning point. Canada is the first major fossil fuel-producing country to commit to capping emissions from oil and gas production. We recognize the Canadian government's leadership on this and urge other countries to follow.”

In addition to the cap on emissions from this sector, we are also supporting energy producers in driving down methane emissions by at least 75% through world-leading environmental standards. Despite fearmongering from the Conservatives in this House, 12 major companies said that, thanks to this regulation, they would nearly eliminate methane emissions by 2030. That is incredibly encouraging news for the climate and for the workers in these competitive industries.

We know that the responsible path forward is to invest in decarbonization and clean energy development to ensure that workers have a bright future and communities have clean air. Meanwhile, the Conservative Party's plan is to let the planet burn. Their plan is to axe environmental protections, axe job-creating projects and put moratoriums on renewable energy projects, as they have already done in Alberta and are trying to do in Atlantic Canada. While the Conservatives block vital legislation like the sustainable jobs act and our offshore wind bill, Bill C-49, Liberals are working hard to ensure that communities across this country benefit from the opportunities presented by a low-carbon future.

The Liberal plan has delivered over $200 billion of investment into clean energy and the clean economy, helping to create thousands of sustainable jobs for workers today and in future generations.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thanks very much.

Ms. Josenhans, I believe I understood from your presentation that you would like Bill C-49 to be passed quickly. I have some reservations about this bill. I see from reading it that it would put renewable energy and the hydrocarbon industry on an equal footing. If this is in fact a bill concerning the energy transition, I think it should contain clear indications of a gradual exit from hydrocarbons. However, that's not what we're seeing from the government, which in recent months and years has agreed to permit new drilling.

Would you have any ideas for amendments that would help balance that dynamic between renewables, wind energy in this instance, and the hydrocarbon industry.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

In Bill C-49, the amendments are around the regulatory process. We had the offshore oil and gas industry. We had a regulatory process that we set up, the C-NLOPB, in which they set up the One Ocean concept—of which you are a part of—and they consult back and forth.

This bill is basically focused on offshore wind. I know that, and there may be different factors. However, we are looking, again, at the regulatory process. You might want to have this discussion with them, but my understanding is that the reason the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador want the amendments in the bill is so that, if they decide to move forward with offshore wind at some point, there will be a regulatory body in place that can work with all the different groups and organizations to ensure that people's interests are protected.

In passing this bill, we're not saying that we are going to put a wind farm in Bonavista Bay tomorrow or in the gulf. I think what we're doing is laying a regulatory process, so that any wind development would still go through an environmental assessment process.

One of the things I want to bring up today is that there will be some amendments coming in the bill to ensure some stakeholder engagement. If there are other amendments that you'd like to look at for your members, we'll be happy to entertain those as well. We are open to suggestions and to making sure that we make it strong and protect the interests of fishers, as well as those who want to see clean energy grids and offshore wind developed.

I just wanted to let you know that and to let you know that there are other opportunities to strengthen this to ensure that your members are protected.

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

You may want to provide a written submission on this, but I'm going to ask you this: What would you and your stakeholders like to see in terms of consultation and a compensation framework built into C-49? What does that need to look like? If we're to have amendments to this bill that give stability to offshore wind and to the fishing industry, I think it's going to be very important for you to be involved in creating some amendments, which I would support.

Thank you.

[Jennifer Josenhans, National Coordinator, SeaBlue Canada]

Thank you, Chair.

On behalf of SeaBlue Canada, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input on Bill C-49.

For some context, SeaBlue Canada is a coalition of eight of Canada's most active and well-respected environmental non-governmental organizations. We work collaboratively to ensure that Canada’s marine protected area commitments are ambitious, equitable and ultimately provide meaningful protection to marine species and habitats. This is not only for the health of the animals and plants within the ocean. It's also for the people on the coast and beyond who rely on the ocean for their well-being.

I am the national coordinator, and I will speak on behalf of the coalition, outlining the key points from our written submission. While I am here to provide input through the lens of a coalition working on supporting the delivery of the government’s marine conservation targets, on a personal note, I am also a resident of Nova Scotia and more specifically the small coastal town of Lunenburg. I have a vested personal interest in maintaining the health of the ocean in Atlantic Canada and also beyond. Many livelihoods within my town rely on a healthy ocean. Our community can only thrive when the seas around us thrive.

Let me preface by saying that SeaBlue Canada supports the development of marine renewable energy as part of the clean energy response to the climate crisis. However, marine renewable energy projects must be managed responsibly and sustainably to minimize impacts to the marine environment and in a way that benefits local communities. Furthermore, to address the climate crisis, the introduction of marine renewable energy in Canada must be complemented by an equitable transition away from offshore oil and gas production.

SeaBlue Canada supports the amendments—specifically, the amendments proposed under clauses 26 to 28 and clauses 135 to 137 in the bill—that would protect the marine environment by enabling the prevention of offshore oil and gas and renewable energy activities within areas that have been identified for conservation or protection. These amendments are essential to protect marine biodiversity. They will also help to facilitate the clean energy transition through the development of offshore renewable energy while supporting marine wildlife. We strongly believe these two priorities can coexist and are indeed compatible.

Bill C-49 and the offshore accord acts that it amends form an important part of Canada’s ocean management framework and will contribute to achieving Canada’s conservation goals on the Atlantic coast. As you will know, and as was referenced earlier in the session, Canada has committed to protecting 25% of the ocean by 2025, to working towards protecting 30% by 2030 and to working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

In line with the federal minimum protection standard—incidentally, announced exactly one year ago today at IMPAC5—the federal government has committed to prohibiting oil and gas activities within all new federal MPAs and avoiding or mitigating industrial activities that pose risks to biodiversity outcomes within OECMs.

There is significant evidence to support that oil and gas activities are incompatible with marine conservation. As well, a growing body of evidence indicates that offshore renewable energy projects can have the potential to impact marine ecosystems without careful management. Notably, there is no legal mechanism under the current offshore accord acts to allow for the surrender or cancellation of oil and gas leases within areas set aside for environmental protection.

Bill C-49 would address this gap by enabling the federal and provincial governments to pass regulations that prohibit offshore oil and gas or renewable energy projects within areas that have been identified for protection. It would also allow the government to negotiate for the surrender of interests within these areas. The passing of this legislation with these provisions will allow the Government of Canada and provincial governments to demonstrate their strong commitment to marine protection and will assure stakeholders that the government has the legal tools required to ensure that protected areas are truly protected.

There is currently no explicit or clear law or policy in Canada that addresses offshore renewable energy in MPAs. Bill C-49 would provide Canada and the Atlantic provinces with the legal tools to sustainably and responsibly manage offshore renewable energy in the offshore accord act areas, and set a precedent for a similar legislative framework in the rest of Canada’s ocean estate.

In conclusion, SeaBlue Canada recommends that the committee pass Bill C-49 in a timely manner to ensure that these marine conservation provisions may be implemented as soon as possible and in time for Canada to achieve its conservation targets for 2025.

On behalf of the coalition, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the committee for the opportunity to present our views. We very much look forward to seeing the proposed offshore renewable energy provisions in Bill C-49 passed into law.

Thank you.

[Susanna Fuller, Vice-President, Operations and Projects, Oceans North]

Thank you for inviting me here today.

I'll briefly introduce myself. I work for Oceans North as the VP of conservation and projects, but I also grew up in rural Nova Scotia and I sit as an adviser to the Minister of Environment in Nova Scotia on the round table for the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act. Almost exactly 10 years ago, I had the pleasure of releasing an economic report for Nova Scotia that really spoke to having to take some leaps and bounds of faith as we moved forward to changing the economic outcomes and future for Atlantic Canada.

I very much appreciate speaking to you today on this important bill. I think we want to express our general support for the amendments to the Atlantic accord agreement as proposed in Bill C-49. We hear the concerns of our colleagues in the fishing industry and look forward to working with them to make sure there are adequate community benefits and consultations. There are many lessons learned around the world—from as nearby as Rhode Island to as far away as across the pond in Scotland—with respect to how to make sure that communities benefit and that fishermen are the beneficiaries of rather than being impacted by new industries in the ocean.

Our support comes from the following interests and areas of work: first, advocating for and demonstrating the potential for zero-emissions marine industries and the necessity of energy transition; and, second, strengthening the protection standards for the marine protected areas that we have put in place, often in collaboration with and working closely with the fishing industry.

On the first item, we are involved in the regional assessment process for offshore wind in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and we are advocating, again, as I mentioned, for community benefits but also thinking about the opportunities for the marine industries and inshore fisheries, in particular, to start to electrify nearshore work boats and then to build out this bidirectional charging infrastructure at fishing wharves. Offshore winds can help us do that, as long as the communities that are nearby are the beneficiaries of some of that energy.

We know we need to do energy projects differently from how we have done them in the past. The recent and landmark Blueberry decision in B.C. requires the Impact Assessment Act and project proponents to address cumulative environmental impacts at all stages of projects. We're not seeing this yet as part of the regional assessment, but we need to. Bill C-49 can help with this. We also must work with the communities, as we mentioned, to make sure they are benefiting from public resources. We know that electricity prices are going up, and we know that in Atlantic Canada we rely on oil more than any other—

[Katie Power, Industry Relations Representative, Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of over 14,000 of our members from Newfoundland and Labrador, thank you for the opportunity to address the standing committee on Bill C-49.

The Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union represents every inshore fish harvester in our province, encompassing approximately 3,000 owner-operator enterprises and over 7,000 crew members. As the union representing fish harvesters and processing workers, FFAW is a primary advocate for the economic and social growth of coastal communities throughout our province.

Today, as the sole fisheries representative from Newfoundland and Labrador to address the standing committee on this bill, I am here to underscore the concerns expressed by other regions and share a critical perspective for mitigating potential impacts to the inshore fishery of our province.

I will note that I was given approximately 24 hours' notice to speak today. This feels dismissive and rushed, which is comparable to the legislation to be discussed.

Our inshore fishery contributes over $1 billion annually to the provincial economy from a renewable and historically significant marine resource. Offshore wind energy expansion has a direct impact on fish harvesters, who will be faced with competition for ocean space and who will be absolutely affected by new infrastructure. Co-location and coexistence of the existing commercial fishery and new offshore wind energy represents a major unanswered concern for our province's fishing industry.

To clarify, FFAW, in its representation of the owner-operator fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador, has not been consulted or engaged, by governments or otherwise, on Bill C-49 but serves to be directly impacted by it. In the absence of the appropriate consultation framework not currently built into this bill for adherence, undue conflict amongst fisheries stakeholders, other ocean user groups, future investors and developers of offshore wind energy is inevitable.

FFAW has been thoroughly engaged in the ongoing regional assessment for offshore wind. Participation on both a staff and harvester level has been immense, reflective of the magnitude of potential impacts and indicative of a desire to be involved. However, this regional assessment has no application in this legislation, and the recommendations of the regional assessment committee to governments are not legally binding.

This, coupled with the complete lack of communication from local governments, leaves the fishing industry with no reassurance, no safeguards for mitigation and an overall lack of trust or faith in the process as it is presently being pursued.

Had our provincial government participated in any aspect of the regional assessment, it would be profoundly aware of the vocal opposition to offshore wind in our province at this time. Insufficient communication and the lack of transparency for offshore wind means we must look to other jurisdictions for support. FFAW has met with existing players in offshore wind to better understand the realities of fisheries interactions.

Most recently, we met with Xodus Group, a global energy consultancy, with interests in Boston and Scotland. Its take-home message was entirely in hindsight, explaining that it had done things wrong. In Canada, we have a great opportunity to learn from its mistakes. It said the fishing industry must be deeply engaged in the earliest phases of offshore wind to increase trust and understanding and to ensure all avoidance mitigation can proceed.

The fishing industry will be the most disrupted, as the succession of the industry relies on sustainable practices that preserve biodiversity and sensitive habitat conditions. Subversion of this habitat, which is often irrevocable, will directly cause the displacement of valuable fisheries. Governments must ensure they support locally relevant research initiatives ahead of any installations, and thoughtfully and meaningfully consider fisheries as a priority. From a Newfoundland and Labrador perspective, none of that has occurred.

Our province is unique in many ways, perhaps the most prolific being our geography as an island. Our rural and coastal communities have relied on fish harvesting to provide sustenance and economic stability for generations, and this practice continues as a vibrant industry. Insights and experiential knowledge provided by fish harvesters will serve as an invaluable resource. It is reckless and irresponsible to jeopardize this rural reliance, given the vast uncertainty of potential negative effects.

FFAW members in coastal communities will be negatively and disproportionately affected if their fishing grounds are displaced by offshore wind. Without a robust plan for potential workforce transitions, these communities risk collapse.

In closing, it is grossly dismissive of the adjacent fishing industry to assume a bill written for the oil and gas sector can be cut and pasted into a bill for an entirely new and fundamentally different renewable energy sector. Appropriate and concise language on how fisheries groups may be compensated for losses is virtually non-existent and discredits the value and importance of our industry completely.

As elected officials, you have a fundamental responsibility to protect the valuable resources that those affected rely on for economic prosperity. While I understand the CNSOPB has a fisheries advisory committee for fisheries consultations, no such entity exists in Newfoundland and Labrador or within the C-NLOPB. The ocean topography, the coastlines, the commercial species and their distributions in our respective provinces are vastly different and need to be approached as such. We have no mechanism to support imperative consultations for offshore wind and fishing industries, and to date, there have been none. We fear that the committee may pass this bill without sufficient, necessary and meaningful consultations.

As a key stakeholder, FFAW-Unifor is committed to all consultation that will be required moving forward in support of a just transition to greener, less fossil fuel-dependent technologies; however, the growth of one industry cannot be at the expense of another.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In accordance with our routine motions, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. We do have two witnesses who are providing testimony and are still undergoing their connection tests.

We will start with our first speaker today, while the others get everything in order. Hopefully it's in good working condition when they begin.

Our first witness for the second hour, from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, is Katie Power, industry relations representative. We also have Oceans North with Susanna Fuller, vice-president, conservation and projects. From SeaBlue Canada, we have Jennifer Josenhans, national coordinator.

We will begin with Katie Power from the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union.

You have five minutes for an opening statement. The floor is yours.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

He says, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”

That is coming from a Conservative premier.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Guilbeault, I know you had to accept the North Bay project, perhaps against your will, but there's something that really bothers me about that and it comes up in Bill C-49: non-compliance with marine biodiversity requirements. Permits would be issued for projects in marine refuges.

You and I have previously discussed the Quebec caribou issue on a number of occasions. I think there's a double standard here. In connection with the Species at Risk Act, you briefly spoke about the possibility of making an order in Quebec. I understand how complex the caribou issue is, but I believe the logging industry enables us to sequester carbon in forests, whereas the hydrocarbon industry makes no contributions to reducing the intensity of our greenhouse gas emissions.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that.

In addition, don't you have any concerns regarding the preservation of marine biodiversity?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Outside Atlantic Canada, would Bill C-49 have any positive impact on the economic development of Canada as a whole, more specifically on supply chain issues?

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister.

Many Canadians have shared their concerns with me about the capacity of our electrical grids, particularly in view of our objectives for electric vehicles. So I was happy to hear witnesses say this past Monday that offshore wind energy could power Atlantic Canada's grids from there to Ontario. That came as a surprise to me, but it also made me very happy.

Would you please tell us more about how offshore energy will make electricity more available? How would Bill C-49 help further decarbonize the grid while increasing capacity?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Chair, Ms. Jones wanted to yield the rest of her time to me because we appreciate each other.

Mr. Guilbeault, I'm glad to see you here. I'm going to ask you a similar question to the one I put to your colleagues.

Personally, I don't think Bill C-49 is about the energy transition. As far as I'm concerned, the energy transition is about switching from high carbon-intensive energies to low carbon-intensive energies.

To explain to you what I see in Bill C-49, I'm going to paraphrase what Normand Mousseau said when he testified before us. I'm sure you know him. Ultimately, Bill C-49 would put renewable energy sources and fossil fuel sources on the same footing. Nothing in this bill suggests that we're looking for a fossil fuel reduction plan. Instead we're seeking to develop wind, which is a good thing, despite all the stumbling blocks that entails. The experts we've spoken to, such as Mr. Mousseau, have told us that many elements weren't taken into consideration.

I don't believe that Bill C-49 is genuinely about the energy transition. Apart from the superficial amendment to change the name of the Offshore Petroleum Board to the Energy Regulator, I see no genuine willingness on the government's part to get out of fossil fuels.

I don't know whether you agree with me on that.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to be here with the members of the committee today to discuss Bill C-49.

Since you have already named everyone who is here with me, Mr. Chair, I won't repeat that information.

Before I begin, I would like to note that we are gathered here on the traditional lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, which has long been the guardian of the environment that we share today.

The accord acts have enshrined decades of close collaboration between the federal government and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, and benefit communities in both provinces and Canada's national interest.

The amendments now before the committee will secure many lasting benefits for generations to come.

According to the International Energy Agency, investment in clean energy has risen by 40% since 2020. More than 500 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity are set to be added globally in 2023, which is a new record. Renewables are set to contribute 80% of new power capacity by 2030.

Tripling renewable energy capacity, doubling the pace of energy efficiency improvements, ramping up electrification and slashing methane emissions from the fossil fuel operations together will provide more than 80% of the emissions reductions needed by 2030 to put the energy sector on a pathway to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is one of the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Offshore wind alone will be a $1-trillion industry by 2040. Effectively managing offshore petroleum activities has been key to protecting the environment while also capitalizing on an important resource. The Canada Energy Regulator estimates that wind power has the potential to provide about 30% of total electricity supply in 2050, compared to less than 6% in 2021. According to a recent study by the Public Policy Forum, offshore wind could be for Atlantic Canada what oil was to Texas or hydro power to Quebec. It could supply the region—6.5 million average homes—with almost twice the electricity currently consumed in Atlantic Canada annually.

Bill C‑49 represents an important shift towards accomplishing net-zero goals by unlocking our full power potential and building renewable energy projects in Canada's offshore.

My experience at COP28 this past fall made me realize that it is even more important to co-operate in achieving climate objectives. That is particularly important in Canada since the environment is a jurisdiction that the federal government shares with the provinces.

Bill C-49 is built on a spirit of co-operation with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, aligning jurisdictional processes, leveraging their decades of experience in petroleum management and strengthening our long-standing commitment to the joint management of the offshore, which includes a balance between ocean activities like energy production and the protection of our ocean's environment.

Bill C-49 will be important in clarifying the joint roles of the federal and provincial regulatory bodies in the impact assessment process, by clarifying opportunities for consultation between federal and provincial departments and agencies during key phases in the process. It will also help ensure that the positions of both management partners are reflected in the process, which will maximize co-operation.

Recently, the Supreme Court came out with an opinion on the Impact Assessment Act. It is important to recognize that the Supreme Court explicitly upheld the right of the Government of Canada to implement impact assessment legislation and collaborate with provinces and territories on environmental protection. Respecting these roles in partnership with provincial governments is a priority for the Government of Canada. These amendments to the accord acts represent a necessary and ambitious advancement of the principle of joint management in service to our shared economic and environmental goals.

This bill will also support the commitment that Canada made in the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to protect at least 30% of our oceans by 2030.

In conclusion, the amendments to accord implementation acts will strengthen the principles for the joint management of Atlantic offshore resources and provide a regulatory pathway to harmonizing the many uses of our oceans.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 84 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For interpretation, those on Zoom have the choice at the bottom of their screen of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

With us today for the first hour is Honourable Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We also have witnesses from the Department of Natural Resources. We have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, and Annette Tobin, director, offshore management division, fuels sector. From the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, we have Terence Hubbard, president, and Patricia Brady, vice-president, strategic policy and programs. From Parks Canada Agency, we have Ron Hallman, president and chief executive officer.

Minister Guilbeault, the floor is yours for five minutes. Welcome.

[Steven Schumann]

Let me be clear: Corporations and companies will always find loopholes.

In talking about Bill C-49, the government told us that, under the “Principles” component of this bill, industrial benefits should be covered. Principles mean nothing. If you look at the benefits plan, it says companies will give us “first consideration” for supply. Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders will be given first consideration. First consideration doesn't mean a guarantee.

If you look at the principles.... I'm pretty sure Stellantis was all good on the principles. Foreign workers got in. If you look at the offshore stuff.... Remember, offshore wind has two components: the stuff that's going to be built onshore and the stuff that happens offshore. Offshore is all done by massive ships, which we don't have. They'll come from Europe and other places. They'll come with foreign crews. They'll use loopholes to make sure their workers work. The European trade agreement will allow them to have specialized workers on these ships. They can argue it will be specialized because we've never done this work before.

That's our challenge. We need to figure out ways to close these loopholes, and there might be many.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Mousseau, I want to follow up on something you said in your presentation.

You flagged an inconsistency in Bill C-49, the fact that renewable energy projects and oil projects are treated the same way. I think that's an important point for the analysts to note in light of the answer Minister O'Regan gave the committee when he was here last week. As I understood it, he said that the government didn't have a genuine desire to draw a distinction between the two. That is, however, an essential step to achieve the energy transition.

That is a political matter, so I'm not looking for you to weigh in. Instead, I'd like to talk about the second part of your presentation. I'd say you are surprisingly adept at taking the wind out of the sails of certain politicians, who occasionally talk about energy without really understanding the situation.

What you said earlier about wind energy, electricity and the use of clean electricity to produce hydrogen suggests that certain types of modelling may not have been done already.

Are the government's aspirations to supply hydrogen to Germany achievable in the short-to-medium term?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Parliamentary Secretary Jones in this round.

One question goes over to Mr. Schumann. Steve, your union represents workers across the country. They would be employed in the renewable energy sector—in this case, offshore wind.

We have put forward a number of measures here with our government, including in budget 2022, budget 2023 and the fall economic statement, with the tax credits and the ITCs. These will require us to make sure that we pay prevailing union wages and provide apprenticeship training opportunities to be met in order to receive the maximum credit rate for the clean technology, clean hydrogen, clean electricity and CCUS investment tax credits.

In your eyes, along with Bill C-49 and what we've laid out in ITCs, how important is it to you—and, more importantly, to your members and for future apprenticeships—for Bill C-49 to pass and to have the ITCs come into effect?

[Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association and the 1,360 captains we represent, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for the opportunity to present today on aspects of Bill C-49.

We understand the purpose of the proposed legislation is threefold: form a new regulatory scheme, establish a ministerial decision-making process and make regulations to prohibit commencement or continuation of petroleum or renewable energy projects.

Although the current jurisdictions referenced in the bill refer to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, it is important to note that other Atlantic provinces, such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, can be directly impacted by damage to the marine environment or marine aquatic life in the gulf region.

It is critical that an overarching board be aware of the following concerns that must be addressed when assessing either ocean-based petroleum or energy projects. The following is a list of preliminary concerns around offshore wind development. We suggest this level of detail be included in documents related to offshore projects so important areas do not get missed or minimized. This can happen when federal and provincial jurisdiction overlaps or environmental studies do not have the same terms of reference.

The challenge for first-time and new projects is the lack of historical and baseline data for an area under consideration for development. For example, negative impacts on North American lobster may not be felt for five to seven years in the future.

In terms of fishing interactions, what types of gear restrictions may be applied within offshore wind farm areas? Some European offshore wind farms have prohibitions on bottom trawling due to concerns about interactions that may occur between trawl gear and the offshore sea-floor infrastructure. Do offshore wind companies plan to continue to allow fishing within lease areas? How are they going to minimize these interactions while ensuring the safety and livelihoods of fishers in these areas?

In Ireland, where fishing remains permitted, fishing effort has been shown to decrease due to fisher concerns about safety. In current marine spatial planning in the gulf region, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada is using adjacency estimates for catch locations, not factual data. What process will ensure data is reviewed with fishers to confirm that DFO's assumptions are correct?

There are concerns about acoustic impacts during the planning and construction phases of a farm or turbine construction, depending on the technology used—fixed or floating. What data is available on this? Acoustic noise from pile driving has been shown to have a wide range of negative impacts on many species. How will this be assessed? Disrupted behaviour among marine mammals occurs at ranges of many kilometres when interactions occur near noise sources. How will this be tracked?

How will acoustic noise from pile driving impacts on the health and behaviour of marine animals, including American lobster and various species of demersal fish, be assessed? How will the effects of increased shipping noise during construction be assessed? What types of tools will be incorporated into sea-floor mapping at lease sites? What is the lifespan of these units and who is responsible for dismantling and decommissioning costs?

We are very concerned about the use of seismic testing. It has been shown, both regionally and globally, to negatively impact various aspects of marine invertebrates' health and behaviour. Data is lacking on the long-term effects on reproduction and how future stocks could be affected by the development of offshore wind farms.

Electromagnetic fields, like those produced by the sea-floor cables used to transfer power from offshore wind farms to land, have the potential to negatively affect the early development of larval crustaceans in their vicinity. How will this be assessed?

Last but not least, the fishing industry has been working tirelessly to protect North Atlantic right whales with mitigation measures. Fishers have spearheaded the testing of lower breaking-strength ropes and surface rope. We've been asked to move our gear out of areas where right whales have been spotted. This will not be possible for floating turbines. How will collisions [Technical difficulty—Editor] be minimized? Shipping traffic will also increase during construction and maintenance. How will that density be assessed?

In summation, we currently know the value of our fisheries from both a monetary and community contribution perspective. It is critical that policies and decision-makers understand that large-scale ocean-based projects can have immediate and far-reaching negative aspects on our fisheries. Electric power is important. Food is more important. No project should proceed if our valuable Canadian food resources are put at risk.

Thank you.

I'm sorry I was a little over there, Chair.

[Michael Barron, President, Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association]

Good afternoon, honourable Chair and committee members.

Once again, my name is Michael Barron. I'm the president of the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association. I represent multispecies harvesters. I am also an independent owner-operator harvester as well.

I sit before you today scared for my livelihood and for every other inshore harvester's livelihood. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Bill C-49.

I must start my remarks by stating that five days is a little rushed to appear on a significant bill such as this. It is no different from the timeline that has been proposed for the passage of Bill C-49. It is rushed.

The new green offshore wind industry on the east coast of Canada will be the first for Canada, the first for Nova Scotia and the first for our marine environment—so many unknowns and so many very different variations from the oil and gas industry. We feel that this new industry constitutes its very own piece of legislation, not an amended one where we are trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. Time has dictated the process.

In an industry that is a major economic driver for Nova Scotia, the lack of consultation has not gone unnoticed by all fish harvester associations throughout Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia provides Canada with more than 35% of the world's shellfish exports. We rely on the federal government to protect our interests and to ensure this valuable, high-protein and low-carbon-produced food source continues to feed a global market.

In 2018, the Nova Scotia industry alone generated $1.9 billion and, on the same basis, in 2018 the total Nova Scotia employment impact of the industry was 16,300 jobs and $865 million in wages and salaries. This income supports community infrastructure, schools and hospitals. Further, the wealth generated permits people to purchase food, other goods and services and to remain and prosper in our coastal communities.

We understand that our climate is changing, and we realize that we all have a collective role in trying to find viable solutions. The fishing industry is not against green energy sources.

An example of the fishing sector and offshore wind coexisting is Scotland. The picture that is being painted, however, is not as glamorous as we are being led to believe. Scotland has a population of 5.4 million people. Their landed seafood value is 617 million pounds, which converts to $1 billion Canadian. In comparison, Nova Scotia is just one-fifth the size of Scotland, and in 2023 Nova Scotia's landed value was $2.8 billion.

Scottish fishermen have also stated that the amount of space they are losing to offshore farms is affecting the viability of accessing fishing grounds and resources. They have also provided documents to show wind farms within marine conservation areas. The Scottish federation feels that allowing wind farms within the conservation areas is infringing on their way to operate viably.

Turbines have a rated capacity that allows only certain wind speeds. For example, an eight-megawatt turbine is not always producing eight megawatts—that's only when it's ideal—and they are all going to need backups when necessary. They have cut-in and cut-out speeds. They cut in at 10 kilometres and they cut out at 90 kilometres. Consider this in the context of Nova Scotia weather, when hurricanes are increasing in frequency and severity.

According to a developer—BlueFloat Energy—that met with me and my staff, the ideal depth for a turbine is from 16 to 21 fathoms, which is prime lobster area here in LFA 27 in Cape Breton. This also affects spatial planning on other MPAs, agriculture, shipping and transport and marine navigation.

If offshore wind farms line our pristine coastline and the inshore fishery is displaced from our traditional fishing grounds, what will there be in the line of compensation? In Bill C-49, we have proposed subsection 183.22(3), which says:

Promotion of compensation policies

The Regulator shall promote and monitor compensation policies for fishers sponsored by the fishing industry respecting damages of a non-attributable nature.

We note that, assuming this means “sponsored” as “put forward by” and not “as funded by”, there is no legal requirement in this bill for developers to provide any compensation to the fishers. Regulators need to be held accountable for decisions and consequences. They need to be able to hold wind developers and operators accountable by sound legislation clearly written and understood by all marine users. Lessons should be learned from previous track records in tidal within the Bay of Fundy and in hydro at Muskrat Falls in Newfoundland.

In closing, a more involved in-depth consultation needs to be had with other primary users of this space moving forward.

Thank you for allowing me to present our position. I'm looking forward to your questions. Please note that I shortened this up to save time, and all of my remarks have been submitted.

Thank you.

[Peter Nicholson, Chair of the Board, Canadian Climate Institute, As an Individual]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair and the committee, for providing this forum to address the potential for really massive offshore renewable energy development off our Atlantic coast. It's a scale of opportunity that, quite frankly, has been underestimated. Realization of the opportunity will depend on many factors, but one essential precondition is an appropriate regulatory framework, and hence the relevance of Bill C-49.

I will very briefly summarize some of the content of a paper I wrote, entitled “Catching the Wind”, published last October by the Public Policy Forum. The purpose was to outline the opportunity to develop Atlantic offshore wind energy at scale as a significant contribution to Canada's clean energy requirement.

I want to emphasize that we are talking here about a project of national significance, not just a regional project, although there would be very significant economic benefits for Atlantic Canada. To date, much of the discussion of Atlantic offshore wind has been in the context of green hydrogen for export primarily to European markets. While this may be a promising opportunity, in my view, green hydrogen is not the biggest prize. The first and best use for Atlantic offshore wind would be to supply the national grid and to provide massive amounts of clean energy as far west as Ontario.

The starting premise is Canada's, and indeed the world's, commitment to eventually decarbonize the energy system. This will require an enormous expansion of electricity generation and transmission, both nationally and globally. How much? In Canada's case, we can draw on a detailed scenario published last June by the Canada Energy Regulator, or CER. The CER projected that to achieve net zero, Canada will need to double electricity generation.

Where will all this new energy come from? According to the CER scenario, about 15% will be from new hydro development. Some 25% will be from a tripling of nuclear generation. Another 15% or so would come from a mix of solar, biomass and geothermal, but almost half of the new generation would come from a sevenfold increase in wind energy. In the case of Ontario, for example, electricity generation would more than triple in the net-zero scenario, with almost two-thirds of the growth coming from a twelvefold increase in wind generation.

Where will all this new wind generation come from? Obviously, a great deal will have to come from a massive build-out of terrestrial wind farms across Canada, particularly in the west. However, wind facilities on the unprecedented scale required can generate very significant land use conflicts, particularly in more heavily populated areas where local resistance has already manifested.

What's the alternative? The alternative is to generate massive new energy from the strong and consistent winds blowing off our Atlantic coast. I'll illustrate with just one hypothetical example. Imagine one or more offshore wind facilities capable of generating a combined 15 gigawatts of electricity. That's a very large amount. It's enough to power six million to seven million average Canadian homes. This power could be provided by a thousand 15-megawatt turbines. They would occupy a total area of roughly 3,000 to 4,000 square kilometres of ocean surface. It's important to recognize that wind turbines at this enormous scale would be separated by at least 1.5 kilometres, thus greatly reducing the impact on marine activity and traffic. A great many areas off the Atlantic coast afford excellent siting conditions, including the example I provided in the paper of the vast Sable Island bank, though of course not on Sable Island itself.

There would be very significant direct economic benefits associated with the installation and ongoing operation of such a facility. For example, as was mentioned by Mr. Schumann a moment ago, there would be about 30,000 jobs during a multi-year installation and roughly 1,200 permanent jobs associated with maintenance. Fortunately, there's already a base of relevant marine skills in the region. With training, Atlantic Canada could eventually become a global centre of expertise in offshore wind.

The challenge here is going to be to mobilize the enormous investment to establish both the wind facilities and the expanded transmission westward from the coast. This will require many tens of billions spent over many years, but we are talking about an investment to secure both our future economy and a livable planet.

In conclusion, it is quite obvious that we have here a national opportunity of historic proportions, and for that opportunity to come to pass, Canada urgently needs a regulatory framework equal to the unprecedented nature of that opportunity.

Thank you very much. I welcome the questions.

[Steven Schumann, Canadian Government Affairs Director, International Union of Operating Engineers]

Good afternoon.

On behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers in Canada, I am honoured to appear before the committee today.

The majority of our members build and maintain Canada's infrastructure. We build it all, such as hydro dams, mines, nuclear plants, solar farms, wind turbines and pipelines. We fully support Bill C-49 and the development of clean energy projects. However, the bill does not address the important issue of ensuring Canadians have the opportunity to work on these projects.

We have noticed that, when large projects are discussed, labour tends to be seen as an afterthought and not a forethought in decision-making. Wind farms cannot be built without a steady supply of labour, so labour must be a key focus. The Public Policy Forum estimates that the development of 1,000 offshore wind turbines near Sable Island would employ 30,000 Canadians annually during construction. It sounds wonderful. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that Canadians will actually fill many of those positions.

If the federal government truly wants to support offshore wind, it must take measures to guarantee that Canadians work on these projects. We believe it is in Canada's best interest to encourage, through Bill C-49, the adoption of measures like project labour agreements, which cover all construction work for a project, utilize Canada's skilled tradespeople and apprentices, and ensure any foreign workers are paid the prevailing wage. At a minimum, strengthen the industrial benefits component found within the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland offshore petroleum board accords.

Look at what's happening in the U.S. on offshore wind. They have the Jones Act, which ensures that, between American ports—including offshore platforms—vessels are flagged, crewed and built by Americans. Some states have project labour agreements in place for offshore wind projects. The Biden administration encourages project labour agreements and community benefit agreements for these projects through their offshore leases.

Also, in the U.S., there's a national agreement with Ørsted, a project proponent that will help build the local workforce by guaranteeing that a certain percentage of the workforce for offshore work is local and provided by unions, and that our American members are able to shadow and receive on-the-job training. This allows the building up of a domestic workforce, gradually and realistically, for work that project proponents would otherwise seek foreign labour to do. However, even with this in place, it's estimated that, currently, only about 40% of the work is being performed by Americans.

At least there are attempts in the U.S. to ensure Americans are working on these projects. Nothing like these efforts has been discussed by any level of government in Canada. Unions, including our own, will have discussions with offshore wind project proponents. However, with no incentives from the federal or provincial governments, it's a challenge for us to ensure Canadian workers can work on these projects. As of right now, there's no guarantee that Canadians will have any of the offshore work, or even much of the onshore work, for these projects.

We ask that the committee consider labour guarantees in its deliberations on Bill C-49 and amend the bill to include a requirement that project proponents adopt project labour agreements, Canadian crewing requirements on vessels and, at minimum, some safeguards to ensure Canadians get to work on these projects.

Project labour agreements are more than just guarantees that local workers will have jobs on these projects. They're also a way for Canada to build its workforce by enshrining targets for the involvement of under-represented workers, such as women and indigenous Canadians. These types of agreements are nothing new to the Atlantic provinces and, in fact, have helped Atlantic Canadians obtain work on the projects that have impacted their communities.

Federal policies and incentives relating to offshore wind development should aim to benefit Canadian workers and their communities. We believe the federal government must take the lead in every effort to ensure Bill C-49 reflects the goal of supporting and building Canada's workforce. Some of the suggestions we've outlined today would be the best avenues for doing so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In our accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

As witnesses today, we have Mr. Normand Mousseau, scientific director from Trottier energy institute at the Polytechnique Montréal, by video conference. We have Mr. Peter Nicholson, chair of the board at the Canadian Climate Institute, by video conference. From the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, we have Mr. Michael Barron, president, by video conference. From the International Union of Operating Engineers, we have Mr. Steven Schumann, Canadian government affairs director. From Nova Scotia Fisheries Alliance for Energy Engagement, we have Mr. Kris Vascotto, manager, by video conference. From Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, we have Mr. Ian MacPherson, executive director, by video conference.

We will start with Mr. Steven Schumann from the International Union of Operating Engineers, who is here in person.

You have five minutes, sir. I will be using these cards. Yellow will give you a 30-second warning, and red lets you know that the time is up. I will try not to interrupt mid-sentence.

The floor is yours. Go ahead.

[Scott Tessier]

The best I can offer is that if Bill C-49 or something like it is not put into force, offshore renewable energy will not be regulated through an agent and the product of joint management, so one can assume it would look much more federal in its regulation.

[Scott Tessier]

The board can cancel an interest for violation of conditions and refuse to issue an authorization. Bill C-49 has an additional provision with respect to cancellation of interest by ministers, as opposed to the board.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dabrusin.

I want to pick up on a couple of things.

First, we talked about energy security and how critical it is in all of Canada, and in Atlantic Canada as well, and how important it is for investors to have stability and that stability of protection when they're investing in projects in Canada.

Do you see anything in Bill C-49 that erodes that stability and protection for investors in other offshore energy projects?

[Christine Bonnell-Eisnor]

The feedback we've been receiving when we speak to members of the International Regulators' Forum and the Global Offshore Wind Regulators Forum is that the transition worked really well. The majority of the skills and the technical and regulatory expertise we have is directly transferable to regulating the offshore wind industry.

That process seems to go relatively seamlessly, recognizing that there are always special skill sets you need at certain times, and activity approvals and reviews. We'll get those resources or tools when we need them, but we're also seeing the importance of being an energy regulator, because then you already have the established knowledge of environmental concerns and that sort of thing.

Another thing to point out is that what is proposed in Bill C-49 is exactly the same as was done for the Canada Energy Regulator. They are a petroleum and an offshore renewable regulator at the same time and we will be as well.

[Scott Tessier]

I can begin.

With respect to Bill C-49, the consultation is being led by the Government of Canada and the two provincial governments. The regulators are not leading on those consultations.

We do have extensive experience in engagement with fishery stakeholders in the petroleum space, and we are aware that various interests in the fishery sector have concerns with respect to the expansion of activity in the ocean. We're very committed to working very closely with fishery stakeholders and indigenous groups to ensure there is effective communication, transparency and co-operation both in planning and on the water.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank our witnesses who are here with us today and acknowledge the tremendous work they've done both in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador in building a very stable energy market for investors, creating jobs and strengthening the economy.

I'm very pleased to hear today as well that you're supporting Bill C-49 because, as a lead regulator in both of these provinces, it is so important to have an independent agency like yours looking objectively at this legislation to ensure it's strong and effective for the provinces it affects. We know how critical your role is in delivering offshore wind projects in Atlantic Canada.

I think my colleague opposite was trying to establish that, because of Bill C-49, there have been no bids in the offshore oil and gas. Well, I remember many years of parcels being called for bid in Labrador with no bidders. It happened long before this past year, and it happened for many different reasons, as we know. I'm glad you were able to clear that up.

My question today is really around the regulatory piece and the safety and protection of workers. Always in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have fearless employees and skilled workers who work in the offshore oil industry and the offshore fishing industry and have spent most of their lives on the ocean in one capacity or another.

My question is for both of you. When you look at what we're doing under Bill C-49 in offshore wind, are you comfortable that we can ensure the safety and protection of these workers in the offshore and that we're able to meet the future mandates that have been established for energy development under this act? I think those are very important questions as we move forward with the bill.

[Scott Tessier]

The reasons why a company may or may not bid are as varied as the companies themselves. I can tell members that, in my discussions with operators in our offshore area, I have not heard Bill C-49 referenced as the reason why they did not bid.

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

Could it be possible that no bids were made as a result of proposed section 56 in Bill C-49? It's referenced in item (g) in the bill summary. I'll read from the bill summary just to make it simple. It says, “provide that the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection”.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for taking part in this very important study of this legislation, Bill C-49, which amends our Atlantic accord.

Mr. Chair, I'll speak with Mr. Tessier. I have a couple of questions.

Mr. Tessier, this is a very exciting time for our province and for your board. I know that with you and the C-NLOPB we're in very good hands as you work to maintain Canada's excellent safety and environmental record in the offshore energy industry.

I understand that you attend the International Regulators' Forum. How often does that take place, Mr. Tessier?

[Christine Bonnell-Eisnor]

Hello. My name is Christine Bonnell-Eisnor. I am the chief executive officer of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I am located in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am in Mi'kma'ki, the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

Thank you for the invitation to come and speak to you today about Bill C-49, which outlines the accord act amendments required for the expansion of our mandate to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy. We support these amendments and are actively preparing for the completion of the bill and becoming the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore energy regulator.

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is the independent joint agency created by the Governments of Canada and Nova Scotia. Federally, we work with Natural Resources Canada and, provincially, with the Nova Scotia Department of Natural Resources and Renewables.

We have more than 30 years of experience regulating offshore oil and gas exploration and development activities in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area. We are the lead regulator and oversee all activities through the life cycle of an offshore oil or gas project, from exploration through development and, finally, to abandonment. We do this by recognizing that safety and environmental protection are paramount, and we make sure the operators who work in our offshore area do too.

When it comes to any offshore oil and gas activity that an operator proposes to conduct in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area, we go to great lengths to ensure that regulatory requirements are met before granting an authorization that would allow activities to commence. We implement effective monitoring programs to confirm that operators comply with these requirements during the execution of a program. We ensure compliance with the legislated requirements so that exploration and development of our offshore resources are completed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

We will do the same for offshore wind and other offshore renewable energy activities. Leveraging the similarities and managing the differences between oil and gas and offshore wind is critical to the success of delivering on an expanded mandate to regulate the broader energy industry in our offshore area. There are similarities in the geotechnical studies and the assessment of metocean conditions, the approach to risk management, environmental considerations and the need to coexist with indigenous communities, fisheries and other industries and ocean users.

The majority of what we do is directly transferable to offshore wind. We recognize that each section of the ocean is unique and each project is unique. The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board has the technical and regulatory experience and expertise necessary to regulate offshore renewable energy. We are committed to continuous improvement and invest in building and maintaining the technical competencies and expertise of our staff through training programs offered locally and globally.

We work closely and are in regular contact with the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the Canada Energy Regulator, other government departments and international regulators, and continue to learn from regulatory peers, including those who are already regulating offshore wind.

As we have for the past 30 years, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board will continue to work with indigenous communities, fishers and other stakeholders to provide information about our regulatory role and to understand their unique and specific insights, which should be taken into consideration prior to making decisions. This remains a commitment as we transition to becoming the lead and life-cycle regulator of the offshore energy industry in the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore area.

The Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board is committed, and we will be ready to be the lead regulatory agency and deliver on this new and expanded mandate. We are trusted and recognized for the high standards to which we hold the oil and gas industry accountable and will continue to deliver regulatory excellence as our mandate is expanded to include offshore renewable energy.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board]

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, and I am the chief executive officer of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

I am located in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am in Mi'kma'ki, the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people.

Thank you for this invitation to come and speak to you today about Bill C-49, which outlines the accord act amendments required for the expansion of our mandate—

[Scott Tessier, Chief Executive Officer, Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board]

Thank you, and good afternoon.

As per the chair, my name is Scott Tessier. I am the chief executive officer of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, also known as the C-NLOPB. I have served in this role since 2013.

Thank you for inviting me and for accommodating my virtual participation. I would have preferred to have been with you in person, but the local weather has complicated travel plans. On that note, I wish my colleagues and all the people of Nova Scotia and others affected by this weekend's storm a safe recovery.

Newfoundland and Labrador is located in the traditional territories of diverse indigenous groups, and I acknowledge with respect the histories and cultures of the Beothuk, Mi'kmaq, Innu and Inuit.

Ten days from now will be the anniversary of the Ocean Ranger disaster. Forty-two years ago, the Ocean Ranger capsized during a severe winter storm, resulting in 84 lives lost. This terrible tragedy and two helicopter crashes in later years are deeply embedded in the culture of the C-NLOPB. The safety of offshore workers is paramount in all that we do. Those lost, their families and their loved ones are forever in our hearts and in our thoughts.

I was able to be in Ottawa when Bill C-49 was introduced last year. I am pleased to share with you our preparations for the regulation of offshore renewable energy projects. Our staff and our board are very excited about the proposed expansion of our mandate.

We are working closely with our international counterparts in several venues, including the International Regulators' Forum, the International Offshore Petroleum Environmental Regulators, the International Upstream Forum, the North Sea Offshore Authorities Forum and the Global Offshore Wind Regulators Forum.

Offshore regulators in Australia, Denmark, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, the United States and many other countries are undergoing the same expansion of their mandates as is proposed for ours under Bill C‑49, from petroleum to energy. We are fortunate to have strong working relationships with our international counterparts, so we are able to share lessons learned and best practices in renewable energy with one another as we have done for many years in the regulation of oil and gas.

We are also working closely with the CNSOPB and other Canadian regulators, and learning from the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial government's recent experience with onshore wind project selection. We are engaging with other Canadian entities such as Canada's Ocean Supercluster, Energy NL, Marine Renewables Canada and fishery stakeholders.

We are providing policy and regulatory advice to the federal government and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on land tenure and other considerations. We have been consulted throughout the development of the Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, and we continue to be engaged in the details of the regulatory framework as it is developed.

We are supporting the work of the committee and leading the regional assessment of offshore wind development for Newfoundland and Labrador, and we are available to them as a technical resource whenever and wherever requested. We are building renewable energy into our internal work planning and our training plans, and we are prepared to rebrand as the “Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator”.

I was fortunate to participate in a fact-finding mission to Germany focused on offshore wind energy last summer. The challenges of energy security and the energy transition and the opportunities of renewable energy were on clear display, along with the importance of openness, collaboration and effective marine spatial planning.

For close to 40 years, the C-NLOPB has provided world class regulatory oversight of the oil and gas industry and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area, with a mandate that includes safety, environmental protection, resource management and industrial benefits. We stand ready for offshore renewable energy projects. Our experience and technical excellence and our collaborative and transparent approach are transferrable to the offshore renewable energy sector.

We support Bill C‑49, which is instrumental to an orderly energy transition through joint management and to the futures of Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Canada.

Thank you again. I look forward to your questions.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's just a very brief point of order.

I was wondering. We're well into the study of Bill C-49, and we have yet to receive a witness list of witnesses who will be providing testimony. Can you tell us if it's available? Can we have it now or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 83 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, you have the choice of interpretation at the bottom your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although the room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is when an earpiece is worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

In accordance with our routine motion, I am informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

With us today for the first hour, we have Mr. Scott Tessier, CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. We also have, from the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, Barbara Pike, chair of the board; and Christine Bonnell-Eisnor, chief executive officer. All witness are appearing by video conference.

We'll begin with opening statements, but prior to doing so, I have a point of order by Mr. Falk.

Mr. Falk, go ahead on the point of order, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Ms. Dabrusin.

Colleagues, I will remind everybody that, as Ms. Dabrusin has said, when the chair is speaking, we don't interrupt and speak. Let one person speak at a time as you're recognized by the chair.

I do want to take an opportunity to thank the officials for coming today. We are at the end of our time. We won't get the additional round in that I was hoping to do, but thank you so much for your testimony, for answering questions and for taking the time out of your busy schedules to join us and inform the work we've done on Bill C-49. Have a great day.

Is it the will of the committee to adjourn the meeting?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

You acknowledged his point of order, and you let him make his speech, so I'm assuming you're going to apply your approach equally to me. In response to his point of order, I will just clarify, because I know he's wondering.

Conservatives opposed Bill C-49 because it will end Atlantic offshore petroleum development, which the private sector already showed by putting in zero bids after this legislation was introduced, which clearly gave them the signal. You can see that because, the year before, there were five bids worth hundreds of millions of dollars. We also opposed Bill C-49 because it will introduce uncertainty and lack of clarity. It is based on the unconstitutional Bill C-69, which will open it up to challenges and hinder the development of offshore renewable technology, too.

That, to be clear, is why Conservatives oppose Bill C-69. We will accelerate traditional oil and gas for the—

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you.

Because my colleague Mr. Kelly raised the issue, I think it's important that I reiterate as well several things that were said in this committee that were non-factual or incorrect. I think he referred to them as made-up facts and misleading facts.

I'd like to recognize that on Monday in committee, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame stated that CAPP was not supportive of Bill C-49. We now know that was not accurate. CAPP did outline concerns that they had in a letter. They have not stated that they are not supportive of the legislation.

Second, Mr. Chair, it was stated that the premiers were “hoodwinked” and wool was pulled “over their eyes”. We now know that was an incorrect statement. Neither Premier Furey nor the Premier of Nova Scotia was hoodwinked in any way.

It was also insinuated that the FFAW was never consulted. While today he used Katie Power's name in committee, I just read the article and yes, there are concerns that have been outlined by Katie Power of the FFAW. It's the first time that I was aware of it, but certainly she did state in the article that she was consulted. She had attended several meetings, both virtually and in person.

If we want to get facts straight at this table—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

We support the Liberals' inclusion of the provincial ministers' jurisdiction in Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—provincial governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia support Bill C-49. It's because of their inclusion—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I would ask the member, once again, to use points of order that are procedurally relevant.

I would ask my colleague to proceed and focus the questions on Bill C-49 and the work and study of it.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order.

On Monday, and repeatedly, I said that the Conservatives support the inclusion of provincial ministers in Bill C-49. We have said that repeatedly. That remains our position.

Again, MP Angus should start telling the truth.

[Abigail Lixfeld]

Yes, they are.

Nova Scotia is interested, as you said, in seeing their offshore industry expand into offshore renewables. They have set a very ambitious goal of leasing up to five gigawatts by 2030 to meet domestic electricity, hydrogen and other needs.

In order for them to build projects in the accord areas, they need Bill C-49 and these amendments to pass. The province does have a marine energy regime that they could use for projects located within provincial bays, but it would be very difficult for them to achieve a target of five gigawatts outside of the offshore.

[Joanna Manger, Director General, Marine Safety and Security, Department of Transport]

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members for inviting us to speak to Transport Canada's mandate with respect to Bill C-49.

My name is Joanna Manger and I'm the director general of marine safety and security.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that I am joining you remotely today from Montreal, and would like to acknowledge, with respect, that I'm appearing from the traditional and unceded territory of the Kanien’kehá:ka, a place that has long served as the site of meeting and exchange among nations.

As lead department for all transportation issues, policies and programs that promote safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation, Transport Canada recognizes the value of offshore renewable energy projects for the Canadian economy and in the transition towards a net-zero economy.

I am joined by my colleague Isa Gros-Louis, director general of indigenous relations in the navigation protection program, to speak about Transport Canada's role and responsibilities regarding navigation protection in relation to renewable energy projects such as those envisioned in Bill C-49.

Transport Canada administers several acts, such as the Canadian Navigable Waters Act and the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, with comprehensive regulatory regimes to support the development of our offshore natural resource potential while mitigating impacts on the public right to navigation, navigation safety, and the safety of mariners and passengers on board vessels. Transport Canada anticipates that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑49 will have no impact on the enforcement of these acts.

The Canadian Navigable Waters Act enables Transport Canada to take actions that protect the public right to navigate on all Canadian navigable waters by regulating structures, devices or things—known as works under the act—that are built or placed in Canadian waters, meeting the internal waters and the territorial sea of Canada, which generally extends up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. This means that offshore renewable energy projects proposed within Canadian waters would require proponents to apply for an approval under the Canadian Navigable Waters Act to build any works. This allows Transport Canada to assess impacts to navigation so that we may mitigate them.

Generally speaking, these mitigation measures involve lighting or marking requirements to ensure these works are visible to navigators in the area to promote the safety of vessels and the works. Such mitigation measures are normally included as conditions in an approval. The Canadian Navigable Waters Act would, however, not apply to offshore renewable energy projects that would be proposed in the exclusive economic zone of Canada, as these are outside the mandate of our legislation.

Transport Canada's marine safety and security program develops, administers and enforces policies and regulations made under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, to ensure the safe operation and navigation of vessels, the protection of life and property, and the prevention of ship-source pollution.

Some of the regulations that apply to navigation in the current context include the vessel pollution and dangerous chemicals regulations, the navigation safety regulations, 2020, the vessel construction and equipment regulations, and the marine personnel regulations.

Transport Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board have a long history of co-operation when it comes to the safety of offshore operations.

Generally speaking, the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and its regulations apply to all vessels while in transit to any offshore facilities. Once on site, vessels directly engaged in offshore drilling and production activities are only subject to regulations implemented by the relevant offshore board. Any vessels not directly engaged in offshore drilling activities fall under the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and regulations implemented by the relevant board. Navigational safety around offshore structures outside the 12-nautical-mile limit would fall under the authority of the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and regulations such as the navigation safety regulations.

The exact nature of measures taken will depend on the scale and scope of the project undertaken and will be determined after a collaborative process involving the proponent, Natural Resources Canada, the offshore boards and other stakeholders. Transport Canada will continue to collaborate with Natural Resources Canada, other federal departments, other jurisdictions, industry and indigenous peoples to ensure that current and future transportation legislation and regulations continue to protect the safety of navigators and the right to navigate, while allowing Canadians to benefit from the advancement of offshore renewable energy projects.

I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

[Kathy Graham, Director General, Marine Planning and Conservation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello and good afternoon to committee members.

As mentioned, my name is Kathy Graham and I'm the director general for marine planning and conservation at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee on behalf of the department.

The Government of Canada has committed to increasing the conservation of marine and coastal areas to 25% by 2025 and 30% by 2030. This important “30 by 30” target is articulated in the Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, which was adopted during the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties in 2022.

In 2023, at the fifth International Marine Protected Areas Congress, which Canada hosted, Canada announced important details for its marine protected area protection standard, through which we plan to prohibit several industrial activities within the boundaries of new federal marine protected areas, including exploration, development and production of oil and gas resources.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, together with Environment and Climate Change Canada and Parks Canada, is responsible for implementing the marine protected area protection standards with the support of other federal regulators such as Natural Resources Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Transport Canada. This bill serves to reinforce the joint management framework with the provinces in offshore accord areas. Furthermore, this bill supports the implementation of the protection standard in new federal sites to be established in the Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland-Labrador offshore accord areas by harmonizing marine protected area laws and accord acts. Amendments would provide the authority for the Governor in Council, with the provincial minister's approval, to prohibit the commencement or continuation of oil and gas activities and prohibit the issuance of a new interest in areas identified for conservation. The amendments would also enable the negotiation and removal of existing oil and gas interests with compensation in areas that are identified for conservation.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada uses two main types of marine conservation tools to protect marine ecosystems. We use the Oceans Act to establish marine protected areas and use the Fisheries Act to create fishery area closures, which can then be recognized as other effective area-based conservation measures—what we commonly refer to as OECMs—if they meet the criteria set out in the Government of Canada's marine OECM guidance. Areas recognized in this way are referred to as marine refuges. We rely on Natural Resources Canada to provide assessments of the petroleum resources in candidate areas for protection and to help us resolve any issues of concern that may arise as they relate to oil and gas.

We work closely and collaboratively with our federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and indigenous partners throughout the protected area establishment processes. We use the best available knowledge to inform our processes, including scientific, indigenous and local knowledge. We engage and consult extensively with stakeholders across a wide range of industries from the time an area is identified for conservation to when the area is established as a marine protected area or recognized as a marine refuge. We also seek to minimize socio-economic impacts while achieving conservation objectives for each of our sites.

Bill C-49 would make the application of the marine protected area protection standard more consistent across all of Canada's marine spaces.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada is committed to working with provinces and territories, indigenous peoples and industry stakeholders to meet the objective of conserving 30% of Canada's marine and coastal areas by 2030. We will continue to work closely with Natural Resources Canada and the relevant provinces in all aspects of the marine protected area establishment process to ensure that the co-management regime and the provisions of the accord acts are fully respected.

I welcome any questions, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

With us today for the second hour we have, from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Kathy Graham, director general of marine planning and conservation. By video conference, from the Department of Transport, we have Isa Gros-Louis, director general of indigenous relations and navigation protection, and Joanna Manger, director general of marine safety and security. From the Department of Natural Resources, we have Abigail Lixfeld, senior director of the renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, and Annette Tobin, director of the offshore management division, fuels sector.

Kathy Graham, the floor is yours for five minutes for an opening statement.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Minister, it really hit a nerve when you said “provincial autonomy”. The Conservatives are always saying to respect jurisdiction, yet here they're not willing to do it. Is it about Atlantic Canada? I'm not sure.

My question is very quick. Bill C-49 is a great opportunity to support labourers in the maritime provinces and will also, very importantly, move us closer to net zero. Why is the Conservative Party against that?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will split my time with my colleague Darrell Samson, from the wonderful province of Nova Scotia, in about two and a half minutes.

Welcome, Minister. It's nice to have you here today with us.

First off, I read the release today. You're the chair of the ministerial working group on regulatory efficiency for clean growth projects. I do welcome that statement. There are a lot of good things the folks on that cabinet committee are doing to ensure that Canada is positioned to take care of, take advantage of and leverage our strengths in the clean growth future we are moving into.

Before turning it over to Mr. Samson, I have one question.

When you look at a portfolio or at energy sources and you are looking in that vein, you talk about diversity. You want to diversify your portfolio and your energy sources.

The way I think about offshore wind or offshore energy, depending on the term you want to use, is that it's able to diversify the energy sources that the wonderful provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, in these two cases, can generate. They can provide extra energy and extra funds, drive investment and create wealth and jobs.

I think that's what we're talking about today, and that's why we have the support of the premiers of both of those beautiful provinces. I think that's where we're going. Is that really what this conversation on Bill C-49 is about?

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

Yes, exactly. Bill C-49 was introduced in May. After that, anyone building a bid stopped. They pulled the resources away. There were zero dollars flowing to our offshore for bidding up parcels for exploration. At the same time, in the Gulf of Mexico, bids were almost $400 million. Exploration companies were tripping over each other while they walked away from us.

Do you agree with industry stakeholders that the uncertainty introduced by the unconstitutional Bill C-69 and the amendments you propose through the Atlantic Accord might be a little responsible for that investment walking away from Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

That was following the introduction of Bill C-49.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's good to see you again, Mr. O'Regan. You were the first minister of Natural Resources appointed after I arrived in the House in 2019.

Something you said in your opening remarks struck me. You said that oil saved your province. The problem is that now we have to save the planet from oil, and that means a transition. For me, the transition is quite simple. We need to move from carbon-intensive energy to low-carbon energy. Unfortunately, I get the impression that most of your government's actions are geared toward supporting the oil and gas sector.

You're the Minister of Labour and Seniors. You'll understand what I'm getting at. We have to transition. You may not like the term “just transition”, but workers will have to be supported as the Canadian economy transitions. My feeling is that not enough is being done to move away from fossil fuels. In that sense, I found your opening remarks quite revealing because you said that oil saved your province.

You talked about seeing the German chancellor and CEOs of big companies like Siemens come to your region. I had the opportunity to go to Germany with the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and meet with people from Siemens, but those leaders made it clear to us that they thought making blue hydrogen, which is derived from gas, was a non-starter because the technological risk was much too high. In other words, it would cost far too much to ever be profitable.

I want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to come out ahead, and I hope there will be a transition for them. If wind power can make that happen, so much the better, but I get the impression that the oil and gas sector is competing with the clean energy sector, and the government isn't refereeing the game. In other words, you're still giving massive amounts of money to the oil and gas sector. Case in point: the $30‑billion pipeline. I don't see you making courageous decisions, such as supporting clean energy to the same extent as other western countries.

I keep all of that in mind when I look at Bill C‑49. Personally, I am in favour of provincial autonomy. This bill does not contradict that principle, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see it passed. Why would I vote against this bill? I would be angry if a member from Newfoundland and Labrador came and encouraged us to vote against an agreement between Quebec and Canada. The only thing that bothers me about this is the fact that it's still a bill that I feel is designed to support fossil fuels. Why? Because it allows for the authorization of new oil and gas development. In my opinion, the government is not using this bill to do the courageous thing that would enable us to shift from carbon-intensive energy to low-carbon energy.

The purpose of wind, as I understand it, is to make blue hydrogen. Tax credits for hydrogen are also given to folks in the natural gas sector who want to make blue hydrogen, not green hydrogen. Those two sectors will be competing. So I feel that, at the end of the day, this bill is a waste of time. They want to take the word “hydrocarbon” out of the agreement and talk about energy instead. This is actually a kind of greenwashing, because the largest part of the agreement is about fossil fuels.

I don't know if you agree with me.

Sorry, that may have been a long intervention.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you, Minister, for being here today.

I know you understand the importance of the Atlantic Accord to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia—probably better than most, having lived through a number of processes as they relate to changes to the accord. I have too.

It has not gone unnoticed how important the Atlantic Accord has been to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in building a strong economy and strong workplace. Not only did they lead the way in offshore oil development, but they set in place the trades, the labour component and the skill development—everything you need to build any industry within the province.

Today they're asking to lead in offshore wind, which is a clean energy sector. In fact, Premier Furey has already posted today how important it is that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador see passage of Bill C-49 amendments so they can move forward on the bold path they've carved out for themselves in offshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Minister, I want to ask you today to bring to light for this committee how important this bill is to Atlantic Canadians, to the labour force, to the families who live there and to the overall economy of Atlantic Canada.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—in Bill C-69, the minister has the power to interfere, stop, start or extend the timeline of any project assessment for any condition the minister deems necessary. That's why Bill C-69 causes such uncertainty.

My concern is that the clauses from Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49. I will quote what the Supreme Court said about a section. It said that this section “grants the decision maker a practically untrammelled power to regulate projects...regardless of...jurisdiction”.

This is the problem. It's the issue of political interference being able to set new conditions. Also, there's the impact of being able to unilaterally declare antidevelopment zones. It causes great uncertainty for offshore development on offshore petroleum, but also any private sector proponent who wants to get into developing offshore renewables—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'd like to talk about Bill C-49—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—you are the minister right now, and we're dealing with Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It was zero. There were no bids. This is my concern. The same story is being seen in production such that in 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador produced over 100 million barrels of offshore petroleum per day. Today—and I know you know this better than almost anyone—that's fallen over 35% to less than 67 million barrels per day.

Those are the consequences of layers and layers of anti-energy policies and legislation. That's why Conservatives oppose Bill C-49. It's very clear that the uncertainty and lack of clarity—and the proof is already in the pudding—will end offshore petroleum development. The truth is that the lack of certainty and lack of clarity will also be barriers to private sector proponents who want to develop offshore renewables, because they require the same things around certainty, clarity and consistency.

I wonder if you, like me, will call on your minister to fix Bill C-69 since Bill C-69 is full of sections that have already been declared unconstitutional. Those sections are in Bill C-49. That causes exactly the same kind of uncertainty regarding clarity that will prevent offshore petroleum developers and private sector proponents who want to to get into offshore wind renewables.

Are you also concerned that the government has not done a single thing to fix Bill C-69 in 110 days and that Bill C-49 includes proposed sections 61, 62, 169 and 170, which all come from Bill C-69 and are all unconstitutional?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the department officials and Minister O'Regan for being here.

Minister, I've enjoyed many of our conversations about the inextricable links between Albertans and Atlantic Canadians, who for generations have built each other's provinces to the benefit of all of Canada. As a first-generation Albertan—and you and I have talked a lot about our common roots—and as the daughter of a Newfoundlander, I care deeply, just as you do, about offshore petroleum opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, for Nova Scotians and for all Canadians. I also care deeply and Conservatives care deeply about future opportunities in new and renewable technologies.

Just as you've outlined, it is surely true that the same pioneers and innovators who have unlocked offshore Newfoundland and Labrador with incredible talent and technology are the same pioneers who unlocked the oil sands. They'll be the same pioneers to lead the future of alternative technology development and the fuels of the future.

Here's what my concern is about Bill C-49, despite the mischaracterizations of your colleagues. I won't hold those against you, because you haven't been here at the committee. This is the problem with the bill. You know that the global market for offshore petroleum exploration and development is highly competitive because it's extensive in scale, cost and risk. Even exploration is outstanding in that way.

That is why it is very important for regulatory and fiscal regimes to be certain, clear, predictable and fair. They are, in fact, inextricable from the business case decision that private sector proponents would make. The truth is, as you know, for offshore petroleum development, a private sector proponent will spend years and years, raise millions of dollars in capital and head towards exploration to only maybe do about three or four bids a year, and they can choose to go anywhere in the world.

Just as you've said, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have led the world in this effort, and in 2022, of course, five bids worth $230 million were bought from the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador. Those represent thousands of jobs, spinoff jobs and economic opportunities for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all Canadians.

That was the number in 2022—five bids. Bill C-49 was introduced in May 2022. There was another bid for offshore petroleum exploration off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador in November 2023. Do you know how many bids there were?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that I do not necessarily have the power to persuade the government to do anything in this House, but I can certainly be a voice.

There are a couple of things I would say. The hon. member and I have some shared things I would want to focus on; yes, these are solar, wind and renewable electricity. I presume, or at least hope, that she will support Bill C-49, which is the Atlantic accords act, which would drive the opportunity for green hydrogen.

However, the member and I would differ on the importance of nuclear. The lights in this building right now are generated by 60% of nuclear energy in Ontario. Yes, there are important considerations in each jurisdiction about the cost mechanism and how best to move forward. However, I think it is a technology, among the many she mentioned, that is going to help drive our zero-emissions future. We can have that debate if the House allows us to have it; if not, we can have a nice drink outside and talk about it.

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

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, everyone. It's a pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C‑49 today.

People of Newfoundland and Labrador have relied on the ocean forever, and others across Atlantic Canada have too. It's who we are. It's what we know. We are very proud of it. Bill C-49 recognizes a significant opportunity. Out my way, when you see an opportunity, you grab it.

I'm old enough to remember when the accord was born at the hands of people like John Crosbie, Brian Peckford and Bill Marshall. I was lucky enough to work for Premier Brian Tobin when he hit Hibernia first oil and wrote those first speeches.

However, I can tell you that the in-between times were bleak because of the cod moratorium. Oil saved my province. Times were bleak, and then we started to build our offshore. I remember first oil and I remember thinking, “We don't have a clue what we're doing.” We didn't know what was possible, but we knew what could be done and we knew we had to go for it. Jointly, we managed and regulated it through C-NLOPB. We stayed the course and people prospered. In fact, people built up energy and oil and gas right across this country and around the world.

We started in Newfoundland's offshore in what the CEO of Exxon Mobil has described to me as the harshest environment in the world that his company operates in. We found a way. 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're doing right now.

Look, the world is evolving. Where we get our energy and how we get it are evolving too. Naturally, the Atlantic Accord should evolve. Unions agree, industry agrees and the provinces agree. This is because the world is looking for wind and looking for hydrogen, and Newfoundland and Labrador, God knows, has the wind and can produce the clean hydrogen the world is rushing to get.

I must admit that I had my doubts, but then I stood on a runway in Stephenville, Newfoundland, to see the German Chancellor's plane land with possibly some of the top CEOs in the world: the CEOs of Siemens and Mercedes. They were telling us they wanted to buy hydrogen from us. This race around the world is on, and delaying this any more is like starting the race with your shoelaces untied.

Markets are moving. Business is moving. Investment is moving. We need to skate to where the puck is. Today, the Alberta Investment Management Corporation just announced a new billion-dollar fund dedicated to global energy transitions in decarbonization sectors.

This is a challenge, and we are proud to take on a challenge. We applaud the engineering skills that build a West White Rose gravity-based structure, because they are the same skills that build the wind turbine monopiles that are stored right next door in Argentia, Newfoundland.

The same C-NLOPB that has managed the offshore for decades will usher in the same success for wind and hydrogen. Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore industries association, one of the biggest advocates of our offshore over the years, has already gone ahead and changed its name to Energy NL because it knows where the market is headed. That very same Energy NL, which changed its vision in 2022, now looks to a sustainable and prosperous lower-carbon energy industry. It gets it. It's following the money.

This industry will be built. It's already happening. China is already producing half of the global supply of offshore wind. Do you think China is slowing down? Do we want those jobs going to China? No, thank you. I want Newfoundlanders and Labradorians on the ground floor of this trillion-dollar industry. I want them supplying the world with wind and hydrogen and taking home the profits.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians—Canadians—should not lose out on this. This is about the livelihoods of thousands of workers back in my home province. It's about their families. It is about them doing what they do best.

This bill was drawn up with the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The premiers want it. Premier Furey and Premier Houston, one Liberal and one Progressive Conservative, are both urging that we get ahead of this and get on with it because they want it, because businesses in their provinces want it and because workers in their provinces are the best in the world at it.

We have done so in the past, and we will do so again.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 82 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the adopted motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you're not speaking. For interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. Those in the room can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, taking screenshots or photos of your screen is not permitted.

With us today for the first hour is the Honourable Seamus O'Regan, Minister of Labour and Seniors. We will proceed with Minister O'Regan's opening statement.

Joining Minister O'Regan, we have, from the Department of Employment and Social Development, Helen Smiley, director general of strategic integration and corporate affairs. Supporting the other departments, we have, from the Department of Natural Resources, Abigail Lixfeld, senior director of the renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector, and Annette Tobin, director of the offshore management division, fuels sector.

Minister O'Regan, the floor is yours for five minutes. Welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the points I was raising just before question period. The Conservatives never talk about the rebates that are given to families and businesses in Canada, nor do they talk about the fact that 100% of the revenue collected from the price on pollution is given back to families and businesses.

There are also costs associated with climate change. Climate change is costing all three levels of government exorbitant amounts and it is also affecting the cost of insurance coverage for individuals and households in Canada. Let us also not forget that 77 jurisdictions around the world have some type of price on pollution or carbon. Canada is not the only one.

Finally, the reality is that it is possible to address climate change and to make life more affordable. The Conservatives do not think that is possible, but we think that it is very important to do both of those things.

I want to bring it back to Kings—Hants, my riding in Nova Scotia, and I want to talk about affordability and environmental action at the same time. We introduced a heat pump program in 2022. It was called, simply, the oil to heat pump program, and it is to help individuals who were on home heating oil to make a transition.

There are one million Canadian households that still use heating oil in this country, and 286,000 of them are in Atlantic Canada, but they are spread all across this country. The evidence would suggest that the majority of people who still use heating oil are people who are lower income and who do not have the ability to transition off that fuel source. That is exactly why the government introduced a $10,000 program to help people be able to make that transition.

When I went out in my riding this past summer, I talked to seniors. They would tell me that this is a great program, but the project cost is about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time they would put the heat pump into their home, get the electricity and upgrade things in their house, it would cost a bit more than the $10,000. They told me that they could really not afford that and that they did not have the money to make the transition.

Because of the leadership of members of Parliament on this side, and because the government listened, we introduced a program that is going to help provide up to $20,000 to households that are below the provincial median income in Nova Scotia. This will also be in New Brunswick, if New Brunswick wants to sign on with Premier Higgs, and certainly in Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. I know conversations are happening with the Government of Manitoba and the Government of British Columbia. This is a program that would be open across the country, where three-quarters, or $15,000, of the money would be paid by the Government of Canada, and $5,000 would be coming in from the provinces.

I remember having a conversation with the member for South Shore—St. Margarets a few weeks before Christmas, and I compared it to this. Our affordability plan is that we paused the carbon price on home heating oil for three years to help people utilize the program I just talked about to be able to make a transition. I said to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets that his party's affordability plan is to take 17¢ off a litre of home heating oil. Make no mistake, that is extremely important in today's context, but what we are offering is not only that 17¢ a litre right now but also a long-term savings where people can save up to thousands of dollars a year by being able to move over to a heat pump, which is more affordable than home heating oil.

It is not slogans; it is solutions. That is what we are focused on. That is good for the environment and good for affordability, and what I am focused on is affordability for my constituents. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to that.

How about the fact that we have increased the rural rebate? I represent the type of riding in Atlantic Canada where my constituents do not have the same public transit options available to other Canadians, particularly those in more urban areas. I was very pleased to see the government make changes that help ensure greater equity under this system to ensure that, as we return the proceeds of the carbon price, which of course eight out of 10 families receive more money back, we are being mindful of how rural families are impacted.

That is something this government has done. Liberal members of Parliament have been able to adjust policies because we have asked important and intelligent questions. We have not just stood up and said that we want to get rid of carbon pricing altogether in the country. We achieved more, in terms of the adjustments, than the Conservatives had in eight years, just as they denigrated the policy.

Conservatives do not just oppose carbon pricing. They oppose all forms of what this government is doing on climate change, and I will give a few examples.

This is on Bill C-49, and I will give the Conservatives their due in that, in a world of communications, we have to be slick in how we communicate to the public. Not everyone watches the House of Commons, of course, so they have the line “technology, not taxes”, which is the idea that we will look to focusing on renewable energy, I presume, or different types of technology to help drive down emissions. This is great. I believe in that too. I think the price signal is important, and they actually support one another. However, we then have an example in Atlantic Canada.

Bill C-49 would amend the Atlantic accord, which is the agreement between Nova Scotia and the federal government, and between Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government. The reason it is a joint partnership is that it was tied to the oil and gas development that happened in the 1980s. This is extremely important to Atlantic Canada, and we take the Atlantic accord seriously. I remember when the legislation was introduced before Christmas, and it is just as simple as allowing those accord provisions to extend to the regulation of offshore wind, which plays into green hydrogen, and we all know that is a technology that could help bring down emissions. It is also really good for jobs. I thought this was going to get unanimous approval. I did not think there would be any issue. However, the Conservatives gave us a gift because they stepped up and basically went against their own slogan. They do not even support the type of technology that can help bring down emissions and drive really good jobs to Atlantic Canada.

My job is not only to talk about why that is important to the region I represent, but also to highlight and parse out what it is that the Conservatives do not like about this bill. I sat at the natural resources committee for two hours this week, and the Minister for Natural Resources appeared, but two hours later, I still had not heard a credible idea from the Conservatives about why they are against the bill.

This is part of a continuing trend because, under the Harper government, members will remember that the member for Cumberland—Colchester at the time, Bill Casey, left the Conservative caucus. Why did he leave the Conservative caucus? It was because Harper was trying to impact and denigrate the Atlantic accords.

Let us not forget that the last Conservative prime minister—

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Kootenay—Columbia, which is such a pleasure. British Columbia will always have a dear spot in my heart because I lived there myself.

On behalf of the great people of Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame who have entrusted me to come here and bring their thoughts to this place, I stand today to beg the Liberal-NDP coalition to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1.

After eight long years of the Liberal government, people of Newfoundland and Labrador are tired. They say it is has gone past its expiry date. People are hurting; they have had enough, yet the Prime Minister jets off to the Caribbean and has an $89,000 vacation passed on to him for free by one of his rich friends. However, that is not the sad part. While he is taxing Canadians with the carbon tax to slow us down on our burning of fossil fuels, in one week he puts 100 tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere, while the average Canadian puts out just 15 tonnes of emissions per year.

People are hurting. The inflationary carbon tax hits the farmers who grow the food, the truckers who truck the food, the grocers who sell the food and the consumers who simply drive to the grocery store to buy the food. This is why the Conservative Party put forward Bill C-234, which would take the tax off farmers who grow the food.

We have heard some rhetoric from the NDP-Liberal coalition. My hon. colleague for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, with his famous words last year, said he was sick and tired of people's talking about a cold winter and what they are doing. Then there is my colleague, the member for Avalon, who sometimes does not know whether he is coming or going when it comes to the carbon tax. We will see, I guess, where he stands on Monday. We hope that he does not just turn into a quicker flipper-flopper-upper and that he hangs in there and supports his constituents. I know where I stand; I stand with the people.

Last week, the CBC interviewed me and wanted some comments about the statement from my colleague, the member for Avalon, about the desire for a leadership review. I told them that I understood the member's frustration after seeing his leader being involved in the Aga Khan scandal, SNC Lavalin and the WE scandal. After all, his leader is the son of the guy who brought home the Constitution. It is unbelievable to see the Prime Minister continuously working against the Constitution, which his dad was so proud of. For example, there was the unconstitutional use of the Emergencies Act, the single-use plastics ban, the oil and gas emissions cap, the unconstitutional Bill C-69, the environmental impact assessment bill. Now we are being face with Bill C-49 in committee, which references, 73 times, the unconstitutional Bill C-69.

The Liberals want to stop the production of oil off Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in all of Canada. They want to tax us and surrender the production of our clean, environmentally soundly produced oil with good labour standards and turn that production over to dictators with bad human rights records who produce dirty oil, under no environmental regulations for the most part.

If the NDP-Liberal coalition wanted to do something about cutting world emissions, it would be turning its attention to coal. In 2023, coal usage in the world set a record. Next year, it is going to go to new record heights.

Meanwhile, Canadians are being punished with a carbon tax. Coal produces 40% of the world's emissions. Natural gas produces half of the emissions coal does. The Chancellor of Germany came last year, begging us to supply Germany with liquefied natural gas to get it off dictator Putin's natural gas and to support the people of Ukraine. The Prime Minister said there was no business case for producing liquefied natural gas on Canada's east coast. Newfoundland and Labrador is the closest point to Europe in North America. We have trillions of cubic feet of natural gas sitting there, being reinjected, which we could bring ashore—

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hear some heckling on the other side.

Vaccines are required, and kids get them when they go to school. This is much like what we needed to do to fight COVID.

This is where we are at today; this is the debate, so let us have a debate. We put forward a plan to fight climate change, as well as many measures in this House that are leading us in the right direction. We see the investments in the auto sector here in Ontario, such as the one announced by the Premier of Ontario and the Prime Minister in St. Thomas, a Conservative member's riding, with the Conservative MP cheering on this massive investment. However, the official opposition does not comment.

It is the same thing with Bill C-49, so let us have a debate.

In terms of putting a price on carbon, when one has an externality, one needs to internalize it and put a cost on it. We need to do that in a way that moves the economy forward and makes life more affordable for Canadians. This is exactly what leadership means.

I look forward to answering some questions from the opposite side. It is always a pleasure to rise in this House. I want to wish the residents back home a wonderful day. To my wife and my three daughters, daddy will see them tomorrow night and we will have dinner together.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this most esteemed House and to see many of my colleagues here this afternoon.

On this opposition day, and in reference to the opposition motion, I have much to say. First off, as I stated yesterday in the House, the IMF has put out its economic forecasts for the year, for 2024-25. With our economic policies in 2024, we will be the top quartile for economic growth in the G7 and, for 2025, we will actually lead the G7 in the economic growth rate, in real GDP.

As a very competitive person, whether it is through sports, working on Bay Street or Wall Street, or in all my experiences, I like to win. When we compete globally, with our economy, we need to win. Canada is winning.

Through the many economic policies and pillars that we have put forward, we will continue to win. We will continue to grow a strong economy from the middle out and from the bottom up, not from the top down. We will grow an economy that works for all Canadians, with inclusive economic growth.

It is February 1. February is my favourite month in many ways, although I prefer summer over winter. We know that, as of today, the Canadian dental program is going to be hitting another milestone. Seniors aged 72 to 76 in this country will be able to enrol in the Canadian dental program. Amazingly, 400,000 seniors had already signed up. Now we will get several hundred thousand more signing up.

This will deliver real savings to seniors, both in the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge and across this country. It is a very exciting thing that we are implementing, the way that it is being implemented, with the provider, Sun Life, working with the Canadian Dental Association. Day in and day out, Canadians expect us to do this: to work for them, strengthen our economy, make sure life is affordable and deal with the issues at hand.

Another issue I would like to raise is that I was really happy to see that the European Union has reached a unanimous agreement to provide Ukraine, the brave Ukrainian people fighting for freedom and democracy, with a €50-billion package as they fight against the tyranny of Russia, the unjustified invasion by Russia into Ukraine's sovereignty.

I would hope that, when this House again addresses the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, the opposition party stands with the brave Ukrainian soldiers and the brave Ukrainian people, who are fighting for their freedom and democracy. This would be much like what our allies, our friends and our NATO partners in the European Union are doing. It would be a real shame if the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement.

Another measure that we have introduced is the first home savings account. Over 500,000 Canadians have opened an account. This combines the great features of a TFSA and an RRSP. Making a contribution is tax deductible. It grows tax-free. When one pulls it out to buy one's first home in the years down the road, the withdrawals are tax-free. Again, this is another major measure that we have put in place.

I could talk about the Canada child benefit, which has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I could talk about two middle-class income tax cuts that are literally providing nearly $10 billion of annual tax savings to Canadians.

I could talk about a national early learning and child care plan. By September 2025, here in the province of Ontario, on average, day care fees will be $10 per day. My family is quite blessed in many ways, and our little one, Leia, goes to day care. The annual amount a family was paying at Leia's day care went from nearly $1,600 to $1,700 a month to, now, just a couple hundred bucks. This is in after-tax funds, so we can think about the before-tax calculation. Those are real savings.

This is in collaboration with the Province of Ontario. Ontario's minister of education, who is my neighbour and a good friend, touts this plan and how great it is probably every other day. That is what Canadians expect.

When I turn to pure economic policy, we have a AAA credit rating, of course. We have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio. We will have the strongest economic growth. What does that translate into for Canadians? It means strong and real wage growth, strong incomes and strong job growth. This is where we are going. We are going to the economy of tomorrow, and it is happening today. This is what we need to embrace.

This is what climate change is pushing countries to do. It is leading countries to do this, not only here in Canada but also in the United States. Countries like China, Australia and the European Union are all going in that direction. When one thinks about climate change, one thinks about artificial intelligence. Canada is a leader. We are leading and will continue to do so.

We have a great country filled with over 40 million wonderful people; every morning, whether in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge or across the country, these folks get up and want the best for their families and their kids. They want to make sure we keep this country on a track where inclusivity and economic growth are paramount, where every child has an opportunity to succeed and put the best foot forward in life.

The following is with regard to the motion and so forth.

Yes, I am pleased to take part in today's debate. My opposition colleagues want us to once again make it free to pollute in Canada. I wonder, though, how allowing people to pollute without cost would really make life more affordable for Canadians.

How are we helping Canadians? With the carbon rebate, we know that eight out of 10 Canadians are better off. We know that businesses continue to grow and 84% of the electricity generated in Canada is carbon-free. We know we are putting forward investment tax credits that will boost economic growth and generate clean electricity.

I see some of my colleagues here from the east coast on the opposite side. There is Bill C-49 for such measures, which the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador want to see put into law, that would generate economic activity. As I have said many times in this place, I love capitalism, growth and wealth creation. That is how one lifts all boats. I love free trade. Canada is a signatory to so many trade agreements.

Up to a point in time, members opposite were in favour of free trade agreements, such as CETA, CUSMA and CPTPP. Now the world is dealing with climate change. In reality, I am not sure most of the members opposite believe in climate change or even in science anymore, unfortunately. Vaccines for polio and measles—

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured, as always, to rise in this House. I have been here 20 years, and I have never seen a time when I feel that our country and our planet are at risk as much as they are now. This is a time when people should be looking to parliamentarians to come together to deal with solutions. Instead, we are dealing with yet another Conservative motion, which shows that the Conservative Party leader's entire economic plan could fit on a lapel button.

I think what is missing in the discussion today is the fact that we are in the midst of a global crisis. Europe is worried that it could be dealing with a massive expansion of a potential war with Putin. There is the need for Canada to be a strong ally. Contrary to what the member who lives at Stornoway says, Ukraine is not some faraway land, as he quotes Neville Chamberlain, but it is the front line in the fight for democracy. This is something we should be coming together on.

We are seeing a mass humanitarian disaster unfolding in Gaza, with Canada cutting off supplies at a time when people are facing starvation. This is a humanitarian disaster that Canadians could step up for. Instead, we are siding with Benjamin Netanyahu. We are dealing with the fact that every hour 30 million tonnes of ice melt from the Greenland ice floes; that is 30 million tonnes an hour. Last year, 200,000 Canadians were forced out of their homes because of climate fires, yet the Conservative leader flew into the fire zones to brag that he would make burning fossil fuels free.

The Liberals do not really have an environmental plan. That is something we should be arguing; they do not. However, the Conservatives refuse to put forward a climate plan, other than to let the planet burn. That is the sum total of what I have heard from the Conservatives for the last three years: let the planet burn. At a time when our young people are facing a future that is increasingly unstable, we are left with yet another dismal debate in the House of Commons on slogans and bumper-sticker excuses.

When Kelowna was facing a potential catastrophic disaster with fires, the member for Kelowna—Lake Country was bragging that if her party formed the government, it would make fossil fuel burning free. In Alberta, when I was there last week, there was just a little powder of snow on the ground in January. It is above freezing now. It is now coming into the fourth year of a serious drought.

There are 13 counties in Alberta that have declared environmental disasters because they cannot get their crops out. In 2021, the cattle farmers were talking about how only 36% of their crops were in good condition; that was in 2021. They made it through that year by getting the holdover pay from 2020.

Now, coming into 2024 with no snow on the ground, we are seeing rivers drying up, and not a single Conservative from Alberta or Saskatchewan has ever bothered to stand up to defend their farmers in the face of the biggest climate crisis since the dirty thirties. They would throw them under the bus to satisfy their leader, who lives in a 19-room mansion, because it is about letting the planet burn.

The Conservatives from British Columbia will get up and falsely try to mislead their own citizens that they are paying a federal carbon tax when there is not one. Not a single Conservative from British Columbia has dared to stand up in the House to talk about the fact that the rising hydro prices in B.C. are from the depleted reservoirs from the droughts. British Columbia, a hydro superpower, had to import 20% of its energy capacity last year because it could not keep the lights on because of the droughts and the low reservoirs. That is the effect of the climate crisis.

We are dealing with real-time planetary breakdown of the disappearance of the ice shelves and of unprecedented fires, where much of last summer, across from Chicago and across North America, children could not go outside without getting sick. What did we hear from the Conservatives? Let the planet burn.

In all my years, there were times we came together on simple things, like jobs. However, that is not in the Conservative agenda because the Conservatives tell people that Canada is broken, even though we were voted number one in the world. If Canada is not broken, the Conservatives will make it broken.

Bill C-49 is a bill so that Canada could get in the game with the clean energy projects that are taking off in the United States, right now. Since 2021, under the Biden administration, $360 billion in clean energy projects got off the ground, and they are not getting off the ground here for two reasons. While the Liberals are trying to get their tax credits and work it all out, Biden is getting that money out the door. We are also seeing the Conservatives blocking sustainable jobs legislation and doing every kind of monkey-wrenching, idiotic stunt to stop workers from having a seat at the table.

Even more astounding is Bill C-49 where the Newfoundland and Labrador premier and the Nova Scotia premier have called for Ottawa to come to the table because the United States is moving ahead so rapidly on offshore wind development that would set up projects for construction and long-term jobs in the hundreds of thousands of homes that are getting clean energy. However, the Conservatives from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are determined to block jobs because that is what their leaders said: Make Canada broken. If it is not broken, they are going to break it. Their plan is to let the planet burn.

Here is the thing. The Premier of Nova Scotia said that Bill C-49 is the necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential, yet the member for Cumberland—Colchester, a guy who has just been elected for two or three years, is announcing that he is going to oppose offshore development and jobs in Nova Scotia. The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame said that he thought the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador had been hoodwinked and that the premier was not bright enough to negotiate good construction and permanent jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. There was a time when we all would have worked to get those jobs off the ground because we know sustainability in every part of Canada is important. However, these are clean-energy jobs, and that is something that the leader of the Conservative Party does not want to have happen, because his environmental plan is to let the planet burn.

The Conservatives talk about affordability. It was the Conservatives who led the fight against taking the HST off home heating. This is not about making it easier for people; it is about making people angrier. That is his one plan.

However, what really concerns me now is that we are in the midst of a climate catastrophe that is unfolding in real time, and we need to bring our plans to the table. We need to debate them. We need to find out how Canada can, number one, get in the clean-energy market that is taking off in China, in Europe and in the United States while we are sitting at the side of the road. Even more, there is the need to reassure this young generation that we will have their backs in trying to address the catastrophic collapse of the ice shelves and the unimaginable burning that we saw last year. We still have fires burning in northern Alberta today. That is unprecedented. The northern boreal forest burned at an unprecedented rate. What do we hear from the Conservatives? They do not have an environmental plan. They have a bumper-sticker slogan and if people push them hard, it is “let the planet burn”.

I did not come here to tell my kids and their next generation of kids, “Guess what. We let the planet burn because it was easy.” Yes, it is easy to let the planet burn and, yes, it is going to be hard to make sure that we stand up for our kids. Yes, it is going to be hard to stand up to Putin. Yes, it is going to be hard to come together, but we need to do that as a nation right now. This is a nation that will be judged on the absolute failure to put forward a plan in the midst of the biggest existential crisis the human race has faced, and it needs something better than a bumper sticker and a toxic lapel-pin slogan.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for that, colleagues.

I want to welcome our now full-time new clerk and analyst to the committee. Our analyst has done a tremendous job to finish off the last year, and our new clerk did a tremendous job today in preparing for Bill C-49.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the travel budget for Bill C-49 in the amount of $108,500?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Is it the will of the committee to adopt the study budget for Bill C-49?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to split my time with my colleague and friend from Nova Scotia, MP Blois.

Minister, I'm going to ask a question in French, just to change it up a bit, on the implications of Bill C-49 with regard to our race to a net-zero economy, obviously benefiting our environment.

Mr. Minister, what will be the consequences of delaying the passage of this legislation or delaying the race to net zero?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I have a point of order. I'm not yelling. I'll just say it into the mic.

Kody, just for clarity, I actually cited the sections in Bill C-49 that—

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'll take you back to before Christmas. I don't remember the exact date that Bill C-49 was introduced, but as a Nova Scotia member of Parliament, I assumed that this was going to be a relatively straightforward process. It is a legislative change that enables an existing regulatory agency in offshore oil and gas to be extended the same privileges to regulate the activities of offshore wind, which play into hydrogen and decarbonization.

Call it a gift. Call it whatever you want. I was shocked to see the Conservative Party oppose this. Look, this place is here for us to have legitimate conversation about the angles and issues of the bill, but I haven't heard it. You've been here for almost two hours, and I have yet to hear a substantive piece about what the problem is.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I was going to ask the minister when he'll bring forward the ITCs and CCUS that he keeps promising and if they'll do it offshore in Bill C-49.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Minister, I want to raise another issue. It has been said here today that this bill will allow Canada to arbitrarily make decisions over the oil and gas industry and over offshore wind, whatever the case may be, in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Minister, can you tell us if there's anything in this bill that allows Canada to do that without consulting with the provinces, which are binding partners in Bill C-49, and going through a particular legislative process to make the changes? The consultation and legislative process are necessary.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I'm sorry, but I've heard so much today that is unsubstantiated, incorrect and unnecessary at this table in dealing with this bill.

Minister, I want to go back, because I know the bill is here because these provinces want to be leaders in the clean energy of Canada. They want to be leaders in the world in offshore wind, and I want to give them every opportunity to do that. I want to get back to the real crux of what we're dealing with here, and that is sustaining economies in this country and leading the world in green energy.

Can you tell us, without the rhetoric, without the interruptions, about how Bill C-49 will benefit the provinces in Atlantic Canada and about the real difference it is going to make to us as a country to move forward with it? I ask you that, Minister, in all sincerity, because I've heard so much today that is unnecessary at this table while we deal with a bill that is fundamentally important to the livelihoods of people in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, in Bill C-49 you have the ability to end any current development by issuing in the antidevelopment zones. As you know, and as we've discussed frequently, indigenous people and communities are involved at extremely high levels in the energy sector and all kinds of sources of energy. In fact, energy companies are the biggest employers of indigenous people across Canada. That's why things like the just transition will hurt them disproportionately.

In your bill, as in others, you have no requirement for consultation when you cancel licences. When there's cancellation as a result of invoking an antidevelopment zone, which you give the power to do in Bill C-49, there's no requirement for consultation with private sector proponents and, importantly, with indigenous communities or people who may be involved in both offshore petroleum and alternative development as equity owners and private sector proponents.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I quoted you the section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. I quoted the section of Bill C-49 that brings in the unconstitutional section from Bill C-69, Minister.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Bill C-49 does not change the Impact Assessment Act. I'm not sure where you're going with a lot of the things you're saying.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm sure you've read Bill C-49, which is what you're talking about, so you can catch up.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Minister, I would suggest that uncertainty is being caused by a government that has not moved in 108 days to fix a piece of legislation that you yourself claim is the cornerstone of your environmental and regulatory policies, one the Supreme Court said, in large part, was unconstitutional. Speaking of those unconstitutional sections, section 64 of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I want things to be clear: Under Bill C‑49, a developer with a wind project and a clean hydrogen project would receive both tax credits. Is that your understanding as well?

Primarily, it gives me the impression that offshore wind projects are mainly set up to manufacture hydrogen. I'm giving you this example because, back home, if we don’t have access to Hydro-Québec's infrastructure, the wind project won't be profitable. What costs a lot is all the infrastructure, such as the power lines. What developers are interested in is access to that. They want to build wind projects, but they also want access to Hydro-Québec infrastructure if they want to sell their energy.

As I understand it, under the bill, Newfoundland and Labrador does not intend to build the infrastructure, but to manufacture wind turbines with a view to subsequently producing hydrogen. The province doesn't have the necessary infrastructure, and it's very expensive.

Is my analysis correct?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I think we're very well positioned.

Canada has a relatively clean grid, and there's opportunity to build upon that to have abundance, affordability and reliability and to utilize that for the purpose of clean domestic manufacturing.

We have resources that the world needs, including critical minerals, and we have regulatory structures that are stable and political structures that are stable. That's really important in a world that is very, very challenging right now.

Countries are very interested in Canada. We obviously need to move. We need to be cost-competitive. We need to enable things like Bill C-49 to ensure that we are putting in place the regulatory structure that will allow us to move forward. Canada is enormously well situated. We just cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend the energy transition is not happening, which is what the Conservative Party of Canada, for whatever reason, seems to want to do.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, Minister, to the natural resources committee and the first day back in this session of Parliament.

Minister, first off, if I could start down a more humble avenue, we are all elected MPs, and one of the things I always say to my constituents is, “I am your voice here in Ottawa. I bring your issues and concerns to Ottawa and fight for you every day.”

I am pretty certain that the folks back on the east coast, including the premiers, are asking us to fight for them here in having Bill C-49 make its way through committee, be studied vigorously and passed so we can use it as a catalyst to create wealth, to create jobs and obviously to transition to a net-zero world, which here in Ontario we are seeing through the transition in the automotive sector that our government is seized with today.

Minister, in this race—I'm not going to say “against time”—that we are in to attract investment, we need to slow down the consequences of climate change, seize the economic opportunities and shift to a net-zero environment, including in our source of electricity and in energy as well.

Frankly, we cannot afford to lose and we can't afford to waste time. We know the economic potential this could bring us is significant. It is bringing a lot of economic potential. We're already blessed in Canada with 85% of our electricity being generated from non-carbon sources.

I would like to hear from you, Minister, how this legislation, Bill C-49, will ensure Canada can continue to lead this race.

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

On the statement that they're officially opposing Bill C-49, is that just his opinion, or is that the Conservative Party—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll let the honourable minister know that the Conservative Party opposes Bill C-49 because it breaks the spirit of the original Atlantic Accord—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

In terms of the volumes of electricity produced, I don't think there's anything comparable to hydroelectricity in Quebec. I think a huge number of wind turbines will have to be built in order to obtain sufficient volumes to produce and export hydrogen, because there's still a loss in the process.

I want this to be clear. In the current version of Bill C‑49, is hydrogen production the only permitted use for electricity generation?

Will the province still have a major say?

Is the main objective to respect the agreement you signed with Germany some time ago?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I'm going to turn now to a question on consultation. It comes from my role as chair of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

I am quite curious about consultation, so could you tell us when consultations took place, what the feedback was from the nations that your ministry talked to, how strong indigenous support is for this project and how Bill C-49 can help advance reconciliation? It's a package of questions on reconciliation and consultation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

—who brought Bill C-49 to this committee and put it behind Bill C-50.

The claim Mr. Aldag just made is not true. It's the Liberals who delayed Bill C-49 themselves, just for clarity.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Minister, what I was saying is the memorandum of understanding that exists right now between the federal government and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador identifies 16 bays as exclusive provincial jurisdiction. You touched on that in one of your responses to Mrs. Stubbs' questions. The legislation we have before us would allow the province to develop offshore wind farms as though.... Sorry, the province has the ability right now to develop wind farms as though they were on land. That's what I'm trying to say.

This legislation, Bill C-49, is needed to make offshore power production a reality. Premier Andrew Furey has said, “This crucial federal-provincial agreement puts us in the driver's seat and will allow us to reap the majority benefit from the endless possibilities of the new green economy”.

We've seen at this committee some of the stalling tactics employed by the opposition. We just saw them specifically on Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act. I'm wondering if the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador expressed any concerns to you about the passing of this legislation—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm sorry to interrupt, Minister, but I only have five minutes and I asked a very specific question. I don't need another explanation of your discussion with the province.

I asked a question about whether or not the process in Bill C-49 applies to both the oil and gas energy project review processes and the offshore wind project because that's the way the bill reads and you said it doesn't.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being back at your most welcome seat, where we love to have you. If you want to stay for a few extra hours, I'm sure we'd be more than willing to vote on it.

My concern is that over Christmas, we heard some really disturbing news. Canadian researchers tell us the Greenland ice shelves are melting at 30 million tonnes an hour. This is planetary breakdown in real time. We have parts of Alberta that are still burning from last summer—in January.

I hear positive talk from the government, but I don't see the action I'm seeing elsewhere in the world. China, in a single year, doubled its solar capacity. It increased its wind capacity by 66%. The Biden government brought in $132 billion in clean-tech projects in a year, yet our ITCs are still being talked about. We have Bill C-50 being monkeywrenched by the Conservatives. We also have Bill C-49, and they're sending a signal again on this.

My concern is that we have a window, and once that window passes, we're going to be left by the side of the road. With the Biden administration in the United States, one clean-tech offshore project in New Jersey will serve 700,000 homes, one project in Martha's Vineyard, 400,000 homes, and one in Rhode Island, 250,000 homes. These are being built right now, and we're talking about it. Why would investors come to Canada?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

So the energy transition will bring about a gradual decline in the production of fossil energy.

When I look at Bill C‑49, I'm still seeing an administrative process to approve new oil and gas projects.

Don't you feel there's something wrong with that picture?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I have one more question.

You mentioned already that you have worked with the governments in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to draft this legislation. I think it's important that you share with the committee why you felt that was necessary, what the feedback has been from both of those provinces around Bill C-49 and how important it is to the work they're doing.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, and your team for being here today.

We are starting from a new preface in offshore wind in Atlantic Canada, and it is important that we work with and listen to the provinces so that we get this right moving forward.

My questions are going to be directly related to Bill C-49, which is the bill we're dealing with.

I do agree with one thing my colleague said, which is that uncertainty will kill development. That applies in Atlantic Canada as well. I really hope the Conservatives can find a way to support this bill and support offshore wind in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia, because it is what those provinces and people are asking for.

We know that both Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia have led the way in Canada's offshore oil economy. It has created good jobs and a strong economy in partnership with Ottawa and Canada. The Atlantic Accord provided the legislative strength that all parties needed to succeed.

Now they're ready to develop Canada's first offshore wind project. I am very excited about it, as I know the people in my province are. We know that offshore wind will create good jobs, will reduce emissions and will build a new green economy for the future.

Minister, can you tell us how offshore wind and the important changes we're making today under Bill C-49 can contribute to Canada's net-zero goals and the electrification and decarbonization of Canada's economy, all the while creating opportunities that we need in Atlantic Canada, especially in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Under the current legislation, the federal minister has 30 days to respond to a recommendation from the regulator on offshore oil development. Under your Bill C-49, Minister—and it's good that you have the provincial minister included and we support that—that would be 90 days. That's a tripling of the timeline. Not only that, but the same powers exist there as exist in Bill C-69 for the timeline to be extended for any reason, at any time, at the minister's discretion.

That uncertainty is exactly what has killed foreign investment in Canada and energy development in Canada from traditional sources, and it's exactly the kind of approach that will also kill renewable, alternative and wind offshore opportunities for Atlantic Canadians.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

It's interesting you would say that, because of course the sections of Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional, which are also the sections in Bill C-49, have to do with roles and responsibility and timelines of decision-making. This is also why we need to do our due diligence on your Bill C-49, because what it does is triple the timeline for future regulatory decisions on offshore wind development.

The reality, after eight years of this government, is that you have been hell-bent on killing the energy sector, with the prairie provinces as your top target. However, that has impacted every province of the country, including Newfoundland and Labrador, which has a higher percentage of their GDP in oil and gas than Alberta does.

The truth about Bill C-69 is that it will end offshore petroleum drilling, which certainly is your intention. That's what you love to fly around the world announcing. Meanwhile, this bill, as written, will hinder and hamper investment in alternative renewable offshore wind development because that requires certainty, predictability, fairness and efficient timelines. You want this bill to be passed, fast-tracked, with all of the timelines, all of the red tape and all the inefficiencies from Bill C-69 in it, and you won't even give a date for when you're going to fix it.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm sure you have read the bill. Bill C-49 simply clarifies how the offshore boards will work with the Impact Assessment Agency. It does not concern the decision-making framework that was the subject of the court's opinion.

We are confident that the entirety of Bill C-49 can proceed. Any future changes made to the Impact Assessment Act can be reflected in the accord acts, when necessary, to ensure alignment across the statute.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

There sure is. This is why I'm asking.

Here's Bill C-49. I don't know if you've read it, but I hope you have. All of these yellow tabs are sections from Bill C-69—every single one. Look at how many there are, Minister. You're coming here telling us members of Parliament that we should fast-track and pass this bill when it's been 108 days and you still can't give a concrete answer as to when you're bringing in legislation to fix the mess that you created. Now you want members of Parliament to abandon their due diligence. You want Atlantic members of Parliament in the official opposition to abandon their responsibilities to their constituents, to the people of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, which they will not do. It's their right to do due diligence.

You want us to pass a bill that is full of sections that the Supreme Court of Canada has declared unconstitutional. How can you justify that?

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the invitation to be here to answer some of the committee's questions on Bill C-49.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the unceded traditional territories of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

The legislation in question is an important one for Atlantic Canada's economic future and our country's future, as we work to reduce emissions, build out our electrical grid, create sustainable jobs, supply our allies with secure long-term sources of energy and compete in global energy markets.

It creates the legislative framework for moving the offshore wind market forward in Canada so that we can participate in a trillion-dollar global market that will grow rapidly.

We jointly developed this bill with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and engaged in consultation with stakeholders including industry, fishers, energy workers and conservationists.

We have done this because businesses and governments around the world are moving rapidly to seize the tremendous economic opportunities that will come from a transition to a low-carbon future, influenced in no small part by the rapid pace of international financial investments seeking low-emission products and sectors in order to maximize long-term gains.

The executive director of the International Energy Agency said:

The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it's unstoppable. It's not a question of “if”, it's just a matter of “how soon”—and the sooner the better for all of us.

Governments, companies and investors need to get behind clean energy transitions rather than hindering them.

Colleagues, today this committee has been entrusted with an opportunity to help Canada build a vital piece of our energy future: an offshore wind industry. At the present moment, 45% of all offshore wind production globally is in China. Among friendly countries, we are seeing large-scale deployment in the North Sea and more recently along the U.S. east coast, which the DOE estimates will attract $12 billion in direct investment annually.

Presently, there are over 40 projects offshore in the U.S. and hundreds more globally that are under way. There is extensive deployment occurring in Taiwan, which will be installing over 700 turbines in the Taiwan Strait by 2025. European countries, including the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom, have over 300 projects in development. They brought online 4.2 gigawatts of new regional capacity in 2023 and have raised an additional 30 billion euros of investment for eight additional wind farms.

The global race for investment and opportunity is well under way and Canada must not be left behind. Canada's east coast has some of the world's greatest wind resources, which is why companies around the world have expressed interest in developing clean energy in Atlantic Canada's offshore. It is why Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador's governments have been very clear that they wish to seize this opportunity. They have partnered with the federal government to do so.

Premier Furey stated, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition.... We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”

Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston stated, “Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.”

Our provincial partners understand the urgency of the matter and they know that the global offshore wind industry is a huge economic opportunity. It represents a generational economic opportunity to generate huge amounts of affordable clean power, while creating thousands of good, sustainable jobs in coastal communities across these provinces.

Governments have actively engaged with fishers on this legislation and associated regulations, and we are confident that the development of offshore renewables will create opportunity without compromising the economic prosperity of fishing communities.

The Public Policy Forum has said that just one area off Nova Scotia could power 6.5 million homes and create 30,000 construction jobs. To seize this opportunity, we simply must pass Bill C-49. In fact, in order to release their first call for bids in pursuit of their target of licensing five gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030, Nova Scotia needs the Parliament of Canada to pass this legislation swiftly.

Let me provide a brief overview of what the amendments under Bill C-49 would do.

They would principally expand the two boards' mandates to include the regulation of offshore renewable energy and modernize land tenure, including consultations with indigenous peoples and making accommodations that support treaty and indigenous rights.

They would also ensure that the offshore boards are able to proceed in alignment to keep Canada's international marine conservation and biodiversity commitments through modernized consultation and regulatory tools.

Finally, they would align the accord acts with Canada's Impact Assessment Act.

This is essential legislation that the Government of Canada has carefully developed with our provincial partners at every stage of the process.

The Conservative Party has a choice in front of it: drop opposition and help Canada create thousands of jobs and economic opportunities, or continue to delay, essentially saying you wish to leave this opportunity to Europe, China and others. Drop opposition and come into line with the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, including Nova Scotia's Conservative premier. Stop the increasing drift of the Conservative Party into climate denialism. You should end the approach you have adopted towards climate change, which is simply to let the planet burn. It will leave Canada far behind in economic competitiveness and growth.

I look forward to discussing Bill C-49 further with you today.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 81 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, October 17, 2023, and the motion of Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is commencing consideration of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Regarding the committee's study of BillC-49, I would like to remind members that all amendments, including subamendments, must be submitted in writing and sent to our committee clerk. Should you wish to propose amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, please send the legislative counsel, Marie Danik, your written instructions as soon as possible. She will ensure that amendments are drafted in the proper legal format.

Since today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although the room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. Additionally, screenshots or photos of your screen are not permitted.

With us today, we welcome the Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. With Minister Wilkinson we have members from the Department of Natural Resources: Michael Vandergrift, deputy minister; Erin O'Brien, assistant deputy minister, fuels sector; Abigail Lixfeld, senior director, renewable and electrical energy division, energy systems sector; and Annette Tobin, director, offshore management division, fuels sector.

Mr. Wilkinson, the floor is yours for five minutes. Please go ahead.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really do appreciate hearing all the comments from my colleagues around the table. I very much welcome this discussion and debate. I think it's an important one.

I've been reading a book by Cass Sunstein, who was inside the first Obama administration. The name of the book is Simpler. I would recommend that all members pick it up because of what it's about. How do we make government and the economy simpler? How do we streamline things? How do we make them more effective? How do we make them more efficient? It's really interesting, because I think that is absolutely the goal of Liberal members of this government, as it was a priority in the Obama administration, a democratic government in the United States as well.

It's important to recognize that this is a priority, really, for all governments, so I welcome this discussion. I welcome this debate. I think it's an important debate to have. However, this motion, as it is currently crafted, is lazy and dim, and the only purpose it serves is as a slogan to gather clips. That's all it is. Let's just put all our cards on the table. Let's call a spade a spade and let's say what this motion is about. This is an important issue, but this motion is just poor. It doesn't meet the standard of what should be a very important conversation.

Our government is committed to cutting red tape. Let me give you one example of that. The most important issue right now facing our country is the housing shortage, the shortage of affordable housing, and the very purpose of our housing accelerator fund is to partner with municipalities directly to cut red tape and to make different types of housing legal again. A perfect example of that is working with our municipalities to provide funding to encourage municipalities that want to get more housing built to eliminate some of the red tape at the local level—specifically, rules that made it illegal to build four units “as of right” across cities. Twenty-eight municipalities have signed up to our housing accelerator fund plan. Twenty-eight communities have adopted four units “as of right” across their cities. They're cutting red tape, with our support, to help build more housing. Those twenty-eight communities have committed to building 400,000 new housing units in the next few years.

This is what a federal government that is collaborative and that understands partnerships looks like. It's working directly with municipalities to cut red tape to get more affordable housing built faster in our communities. It's odd that the Conservatives, who are so interested in cutting red tape and so interested in building more houses, voted against the housing accelerator fund and voted against Bill C-56. When we introduced a bill to cut GST from the construction of rental housing, they voted against it. You have a government that's committed to doing the right thing, to making sure we get houses built and to making sure we work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to get more houses built, in part by cutting red tape. That's what we're doing. Conservatives are against.

Let me give you another recent example: renewable energy and the Atlantic accords. Bill C-49 would extend the Atlantic accords to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. There's already a project being built. It's a billion-dollar project. There are billions of dollars waiting to be invested in offshore wind farms and clean energy in the Atlantic provinces right now.

We introduced Bill C‑49 to streamline that process to make it easier for investment in clean technology and wind farms across the Atlantic provinces. We're talking about billions of dollars to create tens of thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the foundations of that bill is to cut red tape and streamline the process.

By the way, the provinces all supported it. The premiers of those provinces signed on. Who voted against those accords? Who voted against streamlining the process to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic? It was the Conservatives. They are the ones who are bringing forward a dim, lazy motion to cut red tape at this committee.

It's appalling. Enough with the politics. Let's talk a bit more about this preamble and some of the things contained in the colourful preamble that was introduced here today.

Let's talk about the economy. In the last year, Canada was the number one destination for foreign direct investment in the entire world, per capita. What does that mean? It means that more international companies invested more money in our country than in any other country in the world, per capita.

Businesses see Canada as the place to put their money because they know that it's a good investment. They know that this is where you have the best workforce in the world. This is where you have the best investment climate in the world.

Let's talk facts. That's Canada. It's the number one destination for foreign direct investment. That is businesses voting with their feet and with their money to come here. There's Stellantis in Windsor, which we know the Conservatives don't support. There's Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We know the Conservatives don't support it, even though their own member represents that entire community. There's Northvolt in Montreal. They don't support that. They don't support investments in clean technology.

There are 1.1 million more workers working in this country now than before the pandemic. That is a federal government working hand in hand with business to grow and strengthen our economy. That's a partnership. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major developed country. We have a AAA rating from the credit agency. We were able to attract this investment. We were able to create jobs. We're on a sound fiscal footing as well.

Wages have been higher than inflation in the last year. In my community, we've seen unions negotiate historic deals with the Big Three, which are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and workers. We're seeing workers earning more money today than in the past.

Let's talk about unions and red tape for a second. The Conservatives wanted to drown unions in red tape. They forget that. They introduced Bill C-377. My colleague across the way from the NDP remembers that. When they were in government, they wanted to drown unions in red tape with all sorts of different accounting paperwork that unions would have been forced to submit. It would have crippled them. It would have undermined unions' work by drowning them in red tape. These are the very same unions that have fought for higher wages and better work conditions for Canadians over the last number of months.

You talk about the economy. We are a trading nation. We export. Most of our GDP is created because we have companies that export goods to the United States and around the world. In my hometown, 80% to 90% of what we manufacture is for export. In Windsor—Essex, 90% of what we grow is for export.

This government has signed more trade deals than pretty much anyone. We have trade deals with just about every country on this planet. We wanted to sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine, which Ukraine herself asked for, that would not only support Ukraine in her time of need but support farmers in Canada and support Canadian businesses looking to do business in Ukraine to help in the future reconstruction of Ukraine. The Conservatives voted against that free trade agreement for the very same game of politics they're playing here today: slogans, politics, videos—yay.

Try governing. Try working with us to govern this country. That's what we're asking for: real policies, real ideas, real programs, real partnerships—none of these lazy, dim slogans.

The other thing I would say, on the issue of foreign doctors and nurses, is that the training of doctors and nurses takes place at the provincial level. The training of foreign international health care workers takes place at the provincial level. We know that. We understand that. We also understand that we have a role to play in that as well. That's why, literally four weeks ago, we announced, for example, that we are spending an additional $86 million to help 15 provincial organizations and associations speed up the credentialing of internationally trained health care workers. The credentialing of 6,600 health care workers will be sped up.

I want to quote what the minister texted just a few weeks ago. This is the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities—she herself a nurse—on the issue of foreign credential recognition. Here is what she tweeted out literally two days ago: “@PierrePoilievre, take it from me, a nurse: actions speak louder than words. You voted against the work we’re doing that’s speeding up foreign credential recognition. Your slogans won’t fool nurses, we know the only thing happening to healthcare under Conservatives is cuts.” Ouch.

It's the same thing, guys. We know your shtick. It's just slogans—empty slogans. There is nothing behind them, and there's nothing behind this motion. It's just slogans.

I'm begging you. Do the work that Canadians sent us to Parliament Hill to do. Work with us. Get serious. Cut the videos. Cut the slogans. Cut the politics. Do the damn work. Get things done.

With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to talk about what I think is an important issue. There are many different aspects to this issue, but let's be serious about it. Let's toss this motion in the garbage bin where it belongs. Let's talk about this issue seriously and approach it from the many different avenues it deserves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Ambassador Kovaliv, it's very nice to see you again. I wish it were under better circumstances for you. The conditions you're experiencing in Kyiv right now are bringing the war into very strong focus for us all here. It's wonderful to have you today. Please do us the great favour of staying safe.

Ambassador, we know, and you've in fact referenced, that the sale of Russian oil is helping to fund the Russian war machine. You and I have spoken before, on various occasions, including at the Halifax International Security Forum, about Canada's readiness to provide and even export renewable energy options into Europe to help Europe get off Russian oil.

I want to declare that Canada is absolutely committed to working with our European partners and the Ukraine to achieve our shared goals on energy security. So far, this has included the Canada-Germany and Canada-EU hydrogen alliance. It's included Bill C-49, which will modernize the Atlantic accords to allow the development of offshore green hydrogen for export to Europe and to Ukraine. There's also a recent deal between Canada and Romania to build new CANDU reactors, which will also shut off the need for coal and Russian oil and gas.

Ambassador, I wonder if you could just speak to the shared priorities between Canada and Ukraine when it comes to Europe's long-term energy security.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, I move:

That given 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, has been referred to committee, the committee initiate its consideration of Bill C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-49 on a date to be determined by the chair;

b) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12:00 p.m. on a date to be determined by the chair and that the chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the chair begin scheduling those meetings:

c) That the chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources are available, for up to three hours each;

d) That the chair issue a press release for Bill C-49, inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

e) That the committee hold four meetings with witnesses on Bill C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-49 is scheduled and that the chair seek to hold one of those meetings in Halifax, Nova Scotia and one of those meetings in St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador;

f) That the chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for Bill C-49 in advance of the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings, and that the members of the committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the committee, submit to the clerk all of their proposed amendments to Bill C-49 no later than 4:00 p.m. on a date established by the chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to members;

g) That up to four meetings be scheduled for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49 and should the committee not complete its clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-49 by the end of scheduled clause-by-clause considerations, at the next available meeting all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved; the chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate, on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause by-clause consideration of the bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the bill to the House; order that it be reprinted; and order the chair to report the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Thank you, Chair. Now that I've moved the motion, I move that the committee move in camera.

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the learned member from the Coquitlam area and the Port Moody area that we have an expression in the language that my parents spoke when they came here. In Italian, we say un grande abbraccio, which means “a big hug”. I see many members on the opposite aisle and I do consider many of them friends. I give them a big hug not on a policy basis but on a friendship basis.

When Canada's Building Trades Unions, LIUNA 183 or 506, or the carpenters' union, Local 27, or Carpenters' Regional Council and their members across the country are here working collaboratively with us on Bill C-50, moving it forward, ensuring that Canadians have the skills, we all know that there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces, labour market accords, ensuring that we are looking at sustainable jobs or jobs with good benefits and good pensions. These are good union jobs. We want them and we want to create more of them.

We know that in the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, whether hydroelectric power or small modular reactors or the natural gas sector in Alberta, all of the by-products that are produced from natural gas are so important.

This is what Bill C-50, for me, is about. It is about ensuring that, as we adopt new energy sources, whether they are used for electric vehicles or our electricity system, Canada remains a competitive beacon for its workers and that they have those skills.

I am based in Ontario. I grew up in British Columbia. I understand regional differences and differences in regional views on issues.

What is most important is that we allow for debate. It was so unfortunate that we could not invite witnesses. After I produced the scheduling motion or the programming motion at committee for Bill C-49, which we have not talked about and which is supported by the Atlantic provinces, and for Bill C-50, one or two of the members opposite went on to filibuster for 10 sessions.

We could have called witnesses. The ministers would have been scheduled. The official opposition's duty, because it is its job, is to ask tough questions. It is its job, its duty, to oppose, if it wishes to do so. The members did not even afford themselves that opportunity.

Tonight, we hear speeches about how there was only two hours. That is weak, to be blunt.

We are here to do a job. If one is in opposition, they should do that job and do it extremely well and hold the government to account. I encourage it.

At the same time, we are looking at legislation that all of the private sector unions across Canada signed on to and are supporting, as well as their workers, the hundreds of thousands of workers.

There are 800,000 workers in the energy sector here in Canada and that number is growing, in both renewable and non-renewable, and we want them. We are building new hydroelectric facilities, whether it is in Newfoundland and Labrador or other areas. We want that. We want investment.

At the same time, let us have a serious discussion on Bill C-50. We could have had that serious discussion at committee.

It was very frustrating, to put it bluntly, to have the filibuster. I have been here for eight years and I have many colleagues who have been here for many more years. We go to committee and we do our homework the night before. We do our readings. We want to see witnesses. We had witnesses fly in, ready to come to committee. They could not present. That was unfortunate.

I can go through the bill and read aspects of it and ask questions myself but the fundamental premise of us being here and being on those committees is to ask those tough questions, to ask why. I always want to ask why. I tell my kids to always ask why and to ask, “Can we do better?”

Can we improve as parliamentarians? Can we look at a piece of legislation that is better?

When I think of sustainable jobs, I think about transparency. I think about collaboration with unions and without unions, with workers, with Canadian workers working in certain fields, much like the 700 workers who worked at the pulp and paper mill in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and then the pulp and paper mill closed. Much like across Canada, many pulp and paper mills have closed.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what a thing to witness this coalition collude to cover-up and take a top-down action to force through a top-down bill. The Conservatives will not stop the fight for the people we represent and for the best interests of all Canadians.

To review, the Liberals rammed through first the Atlantic offshore bill, Bill C-49, which includes 33 references to the five-year-old unconstitutional law, Bill C-69, that the Liberals have not fixed yet. By the way, Bill C-49 would triple the timeline for offshore renewables in the Atlantic provinces. Then was the just transition bill, Bill C-50. This was after fewer than nine hours and eight hours of total debate from all MPs on each.

On October 30, the NDP-Liberals tried to dictate every aspect of how the committee would deal with those bills. They reversed their own order to hold back Bill C-49 and spent a month preoccupied with censorship and exclusion of Conservatives like the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the member for Peace River—Westlock.

The extraordinary motion being debated and the debate shutdown today mean the committee will be limited to less than two hours of scrutiny on Bill C-50. We will hear from no witnesses, no impacted workers or businesses, no experts, no provincial or regional representatives, no economists, no indigenous communities, no ministers and no officials, and MPs will only have one partial day each to review and debate this bill at the next two stages.

I never thought I would spend so much of the last eight years having to count on senators to really do the full scrutiny that the NPD-Liberals' bills require after the fact because the coalition circumvents elected MPs on the front end so many times. One would think after the Supreme Court absolutely skewered them all on Bill C-69, which both the NDPs and the Liberals supported, that we would see a change of behaviour and attitude, but no, not these guys. They are reckless and ever undaunted in their top-down authority.

The NDP-Liberals will say that the government has been working on it for years, that it has engaged unions all the time and ask what the hold up is. We heard that from the member for Timmins—James Bay earlier, even though what he did not admit was that at the time the committee was studying the concept of the just transition and the NDP-Liberals moved forward with announcing their legislation before it reported anyway. They will say that we should just get this done so Bill C-50 can give the reskilling, upskilling and job training workers need and want when they all lose their jobs because of government mandates.

I have a couple of points to make. First, it sure is clear the NDP-Liberals have been working together on something for a while since they were all together to announce the bill. Second, everybody needs to know there is not actually a single skills or job program anywhere in this bill at all. Third, cooking up something behind closed doors then being outraged and cracking down on the official opposition when we suggest we should all actually do our jobs, speak to represent our constituents, and most importantly, let Canadians speak so we can actually hear from them on the actual bill, and then analyze it comprehensively and propose changes and improvements, is a top-down central planning approach that sounds an awful lot like the way we have characterized Bill C-50, the just transition itself that has caused some outrage in the last few days.

Bill C-50, the just transition, aims to centrally plan the top-down restructuring of the fundamentals and the foundations of Canada's economy. It aims to redistribute wealth. It is a globally conceived, planned and imposed agenda. It is, in fact, a major focus of a globalist gathering going on right now, the same kind of gathering where it started years ago.

I confess, I do not really get all the consternation about stating that fact since the definition of globalism is “the operation or planning of economic informed policy on a global basis.” That is of course what is happening with the just transition and the many international bodies that bring together politicians, policy advocates and wealthy elites from around the world to plan economic and foreign policy globally. That is while they all contribute significantly to increasing global emissions to get there and back, while they dream up more schemes to tell the folks back home that they cannot drive; live in a house, on any land or farm; or, for those who can afford it, fly. We will all have to eat insects while they all do the exact opposite, even while they bring home agendas that will make essentials and daily life so expensive for all the rest of us that we will have no choice.

Globalism is literally the function of numerous organizations all explicitly heavily focused on imposing the just transition for years. Today, it is linked to the concept of the global citizen and of postnational states with no independent identities, just like the current Prime Minister said of Canada when he was elected.

That is what is happening at COP28 right now. It is in the UN 2030 plan. It is the top priority of lots of many well-known and respected gatherings, such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization and others. It is bizarre that the NDP-Liberals deny and attack all this now, when globalism is obviously implicit in its ideology. I thought they were proud of that. They have all been outraged about this, but the truth hurts. Anger is often a cover for hurt, so maybe that is what all their rage is about.

Maybe their issue is that I call it Soviet-style central planning, except for this: Bill C-50 really would create a government-appointed committee to advise the minister. The minister would then appoint another committee to plan the economy. This bill would not mandate that any of that would happen through openness and transparency. Neither of the committees would report either to Parliament or directly to Canadians along the way. I guess the coalition members want to say that it is a win that the reports would be tabled in the House of Commons, but that would not guarantee any kind of debate or accountability. The members are proving their true colours through how they are handling the bill now, especially since it is clear that they want to impose it all with little challenge and almost no scrutiny from beginning to end.

Oh right, it is there in the summary, in black and white for all the world to see. When would those plans from the government committees for Canada's economy be imposed? It would be every five years. That is literally the time frame for central planning that Soviets preferred. However, the NDP-Liberals are somehow shocked and outraged, even though the lead NDP-Liberal minister is a guy who is a self-declared “proud socialist”, as came out of his own mouth in this very chamber. Right now, he is at a conference about the progress of the global just transition.

There are no costs outlined in this bill either, even though it would obviously cost taxpayers, just as the NDP-Liberals' mega sole-source contracts for their buddies; infrastructure banks and housing funds that cost billions of tax dollars and build neither infrastructure nor houses, only bureaucracy; and hundreds of thousands of dollars on consultants to tell the government to use fewer consultants. There would be a cost to create and maintain the just transition partnership council, on pages six to 10, that would advise the minister and then the secretariat that the minister would have to create. However, this bill does not tell Canadians about any of the cost that taxpayers would have to pay for all that, up front and after.

It is quite something to see the inclusion of the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the long title of Bill C-50, since it is all actually about government-appointed committees meeting behind closed doors and a minister who would cook up central plan after central plan. It would mandate neither transparency nor accountability at all, whether directly to Canadians or through their MPs, and it would not include an actual outline for one or any kind of skills- or job-training program.

That is how this whole thing was baked in the first place. Their rushed, top-down schedule today is to ram it through with as little analysis from MPs and input from Canadians as possible. It is a little silly for all the NDP-Liberals to be mad now that the official opposition actually wants MPs to do our jobs to debate, consult, amend and improve legislation, especially with such a wide-ranging and significant one such as Bill C-50 and the economic transition it would impose.

What about the tens of thousands of Canadians whose jobs were devastated by the NDP-Liberals' fast-tracked coal transition? The environment commissioner said this was a total failure. It left 3,400 Canadian workers in about a dozen communities completely behind. However, the government members say to just trust them to engineer an economic transition for 2.7 million Canadians and the entire country.

What about the nearly 40,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador who were all put out of work completely when they were promised that the government would help them transition from cod? It was the largest industrial shutdown in Canadian history at the time. It was a disaster for all of them: their loved ones, their communities and their province. I hope they see Bill C-50 as the end of oil and gas in Canada bill that it is, because the impact of the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador is a quarter of the province's total GDP. It is higher than that in Alberta. It is 40% of Newfoundland and Labrador's exports, and 6,000 people in Newfoundland and Labrador in the oil and gas service and supply sector have lost their jobs already, just in the last three years, because of the uncertainty and the NDP-Liberals' anti-energy policies.

The government's intent now, through Bill C-50, is like nothing Canada has ever seen before. Canadians could be forgiven for knowing that this would not go well.

A truly bizarre point about all this that should be noted, though, is as follows: Despite the collusion between the NDP and Liberals on the bill for about two years, other opposition MPs such as Conservatives do not actually get to see the bills until the government tables them. Despite what I hear really were some round tables and consultation meetings, there is not actually any tangible delivery of what the bill's own proponents say that it does for skills and job training.

It is not in here anywhere, which is one of the many reasons Conservatives say that the natural resources committee must actually do its job and, most importantly, must hear from all the Canadians it would impact. Both union and non-union workers, as well as union leaders, should be outraged about it.

What really did happen with all the time, effort and money that was apparently sunk into developing it behind closed doors between 2021 and 2023? Since the bill sets up committees to plan to set up committees to plan from on high, why the heck did all this require a law in the first place?

Government, unions and businesses consult, develop plans and report. Okay, what is holding this up from going ahead? Why is Bill C-50 even required for that work to happen if they all want it to? How is this actually all the Liberal-NDP government has come up with?

How is any Canadian supposed to trust these guys to deliver on anything, when it took all this time and all these meetings and tax dollars, but there is not even an actual plan or program? They would not even get a recommendation for two years. It is sort of like the ITCs that the NDP-Liberals keep talking and bragging about, as if they are doing anything in our economy right now. Actually, they do not even exist at all in Canada yet.

Of course, Conservatives and more and more Canadians know that Bill C-50 really is all about the just transition and ending oil and gas in Canada as fast as they possibly can. The NDP-Liberals have shown this repeatedly after eight years. A government, of course, that did not want to kill the sector and all the livelihoods it sustains really would not do anything differently from what these guys have done and continue to do.

Everyone can read it. In the 11 pages and 21 clauses of Bill C-50, there is not one single instance of a skills- or job-training program. That is the truth.

Now, because of the NDP-Liberals, neither union nor non-union workers will be able to speak or be heard by MPs at any remaining stage of the top-down agenda for this bill. In fact, nobody will: no workers, contractors, business owners, investors or indigenous owners, partners, workers or contractors. Therefore, I will talk about some of those workers now. I have a few points.

First, the reality is that the biggest growth of well-paying union jobs in Canada right now is actually created by the big multinational oil and gas companies expanding and ramping up new oil, gas and petrochemical projects in Alberta. These are the same companies that made Alberta, by far and away, Canada’s leader in clean tech, renewable and alternative energy for at least 30 years.

For the record, today, Alberta is again Canada’s leader in renewable energy. In fact, the investment commitments for renewables and future fuel development in Alberta have doubled to nearly $50 billion of private sector money planned and ready to invest, since the premier paused to set the conditions, to guarantee consultation, certainty and confidence for all Albertans, while the regulator keeps taking applications. However, the NDP-Liberals will not admit that to us either.

Second, where we are at is that the major oil and gas companies are leading the creation of new union jobs in Canada. However, this is actually the very sector that the just transition agenda would shut down first. The main thing every union worker needs is a job. That is what is at risk.

Third, the anti-energy coalition also refuses to admit the fact that, in Canada, traditional oil and gas, oil sands and pipeline companies have been, far and away, the top investors in the private sector for decades and, today, in clean tech, environmental innovation and renewables among all the private sectors in Canada, excluding governments and utilities. Likewise, oil and gas is still, right now, the top private sector investor and top export in Canada’s economy. The truth is that nothing is poised to match or beat it any time soon. Nothing comes close. The stakes of the anti-energy agenda imposed by the costly coalition for Canada are exceptionally grave.

Here are some facts about the businesses and workers that would be hurt the most by the just transition agenda, Bill C-50. In Canada’s oil and gas sector, 93% of companies only have up to 99 employees. They are small businesses, and 63% of those businesses are considered micro-businesses, with fewer than five employees.

That is the truth about workers and businesses in Canada’s oil and gas sector, especially the homegrown, Canadian-based ones. They are not union businesses, although their jobs are also sustainable; they are also higher paying, with reliable long-term benefits, than jobs in most sectors.

Large employers, with over 500 people on payroll, account for just over 1%, not 2%, of the total oil and gas extraction businesses in Canada; that is it. Those businesses are mostly union workplaces and support more union jobs than the rest of the sector. However, they are also among the first businesses that Bill C-50’s agenda would kill and that, after eight years, the NDP-Liberals have been incrementally damaging. Again, there would be no oil and gas sector, no businesses and no jobs, union or otherwise. That is the truth. It also means higher costs and less reliable power, especially where most Canadians have no affordable options, as in rural, remote, northern, prairie, Atlantic and indigenous communities, with fewer businesses and jobs. There would be less money for government programs, since the oil and gas sector currently pays the most to all three levels of government, and less private sector money for clean tech and innovation.

Which workers do the NDP-Liberals already know that their unfair, unjust transition in Bill C-50 would hurt the most? If colleagues can believe this, it would be visible minority and indigenous Canadians. Both ethnically diverse and indigenous Canadians are more highly represented in the energy sector than they are in any other sector in Canada’s economy, but the internal government-leaked memo that I am assuming colleagues have seen says they are expected to face higher job disruptions than any other workers. They would also have more trouble finding new opportunities. They would end up in lower-paying, more precarious jobs, as would be the case for all workers who lose their livelihoods to this radical, anti-energy global agenda.

Canadians will know instantly, of course, from these numbers that the top targets to be crushed by Bill C-50 are the 93% and 63% of Canadian businesses, the small- and micro-businesses, their workers and all their contractors. Bill C-50 does not contemplate them at all. There is no consideration about all the non-union workers who will lose their jobs in the just transition agenda. These are the homegrown, Canadian-based and owned businesses with Canadian workers who have been doing their part for environmental stewardship, innovation, clean tech, actual emissions reductions and indigenous partnerships to the highest standards in Canada and, therefore, in the entire world, just like the big guys here.

Since the NDP-Liberals refused to allow this, my office spoke with one of those union workers last week, a worker from Saskatchewan. He said, “I am not happy with the fact that I will be displaced out of a job from a federal mandate.” No matter what the NDP-Liberals try to call this or say about it now, he had it right. That is exactly what would happen to that union worker.

There is nothing, not a single thing, about all the non-union workers, who would obviously lose their jobs first, nor is there any space for union workers who do not want the transition accelerated by the anti-energy, anti-private sector NDP-Liberals. There is nothing about the communities and the people who would be damaged the most, nothing about what sector actually can and will replace the jobs and economic contributions of the oil and gas sector. Of course, right now, there is no such sector. There is nothing about all those hundreds of thousands of oil and gas union workers whose employers would also be put out of work quickly, as is the actual aim of Bill C-50. It is no wonder that the NDP-Liberals want to silence Canadians, so they can do this quickly and behind closed doors. They too must know that common-sense Canadians can see right through them, and they are running out of time.

I have a last point about the chair of the natural resources committee, the member for Calgary Skyview. When I congratulated him on his recent appointment, I told him the Liberals have done him no favours by putting him there to help impose their agenda. The people of Calgary Skyview will render their decision in the next election, as is their right, like it is for all Canadians.

I warned a former natural resources minister from Alberta that his constituents would see his betrayal. I said this in our last emergency committee meeting about the TMX, which has still not been built, in the summer heading into the 2019 election. Colleagues will notice that this member was not sent back here. I suspect that the people of Calgary Skyview will feel the same in this instance. In hindsight, I suspect this will not be worth it for the member for Calgary Skyview, but we all make choices and face the consequences.

I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) replacing paragraph (a) with the following:

“(a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Natural Resources;

(i) the Minister of Natural Resources and its officials be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours;

(ii) members of the committee submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning the bill, to the clerk, and that the Chair and clerk create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

(iii) a press release be issued for the study of the bill inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions,”; and

(b) deleting paragraphs (b) and (c).

Every member of the chamber has an ability to prove that they actually support democracy by supporting our amendment.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would have welcomed having Luke and Steve come to the committee if the Conservatives had let any witnesses speak at committee. That would have been very valuable. It would also have been valuable to have stakeholders from across the country having a conversation with MPs at committee, as committees are supposed to do. However, the committee was prevented from having any conversations because of a ridiculous filibuster by the Conservatives, who have not allowed people in the House to do their jobs. Taxpayers should be very angry at them for the waste of taxpayer money that we have seen.

With respect to the oil and gas sector in Newfoundland and Labrador, that remains and will continue to be an important part of the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. They have focused very much on decarbonization. It is some of the lowest carbon content oil that is produced anywhere in North America. It is certainly an important element, but there are others, such as the development of offshore wind, which the member is opposing through opposing Bill C-49. I would invite him to have a conversation with his premier when he is here tomorrow about his opposition to Bill C-49.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of revisionist history in there. The committee has been blocked by the Conservative filibuster for six weeks, which is 11 meetings and about 25 hours. The committee has been stuck on the same meeting since October 30. The committee could have heard from witnesses on both bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, which were in front of the committee, but the Conservatives blocked it.

In terms of the work that we are doing to ensure that there is a prosperous future for every province and territory in this country, I would point the hon. member to the announcement of the $11.5-billion plant with Dow Chemicals in Fort Saskatchewan, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; the Air Products hydrogen facility near Edmonton, where we worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta; and the CCUS tax credit, where we have worked collaboratively with the Government of Alberta, which will create thousands of jobs going forward in that member's riding.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Usually how this goes is it takes another five minutes to go back and state the same types of things to prove the relevancy that was associated with it. If we don't deal with Bill C-69, if we can't therefore properly dispose of the discussions associated with Bill C-50, and if we then can't properly look at and be prepared to look at decisions with regard to Bill C-49, then anything we talk about within our own communities is held up by this blockage of legislation.

Of course, the things that happen in Timmins—James Bay are relevant to the discussion taking place here. You have people—the indigenous community—come, and you ask whether the government is overstepping its reach or whether they feel that they are back in a colonial era. That was the last topic we were talking about. Those are community people, specifically to Timmins—James Bay. We could go to that.

We look at the egregious parts of the Supreme Court ruling, which will affect Timmins—James Bay people. If we have something else that we put into legislation and then merrily go along our way, saying that the government said this is true.... Well, guess what? The Supreme Court doesn't like that one either. Why did the Government of Ontario, or why did this group, or why is it....?

I'm trying to remember. I think the first nations have taken the government to court too. I think this has happened on our carbon tax, but that's a different story. I would agree that that is perhaps outside this.

However, I really think it's relevant. How can you not say that the Supreme Court is making decisions, and they affect everybody's riding? They do. I believe that is certainly significant.

I fly over that part of our country twice a week. Unless it's at night, I take a look down there, and I see this amazing country we have. I know we have six time zones from one side to the other. I know there are only three provincial capitals that are north of the 49th parallel. I know that a massive amount of our population is within 50 miles, or 80 kilometres.... This is just to prove that I'm bilingual in math. That's where our population is; and those decisions, then, are made for the breadth of this nation and for communities, and they don't see what this country is like.

Yes, it concerns me, therefore, when someone says, “Yes, but Alberta, you want this,” or, “B.C., you want this,” or, “Saskatchewan is not being reasonable.” It's coming from a government that doesn't care, because its decisions are made for what it believes...for those who are hugging the U.S. border. Therefore, the Inflation Reduction Act and all of these kinds of things are significant, because where do you think all that action is going to come from? Where are all these billions of dollars going to be spent? They're going to be spent right next door. That's what we're going to see.

Quite frankly, no one has challenged them and asked if that's the right thing to be doing. When they say they're going to put billions of dollars into this project or that project, well, here's how they're doing it. They are basically saying to the States and the municipalities, “It's not going to cost you a dime. We're going to develop all of this, and we'll find out some way to get this back from the proponents later on. It's not going to cost you a dime.”

How sustainable is that, first of all? It's a lot more sustainable if you're the U.S. than it is here, because we look at the way our economy is tanking compared to the U.S., and so they have this flexibility. It's still wrong, but they do have this flexibility to continue in a wrong way for a lot longer than we do.

It's going to take a lot of nerve to say, “Here's where our strengths are.” We know that Canada can produce natural gas. We know that the world needs natural gas. We know that different parts of our nation have different strengths and different ways of creating energy. The worst part, though, is when one part of the country says, “We don't like yours, so shut it down and we'll do all we can. We will partner with like-minded individuals who really don't believe that your type of energy is the kind of energy that Canada should have.” Again, they don't make it too far off the 49th parallel when they come up with decisions like that, so I guess that's where we find this disconnect that we have as a nation.

Take a look at all of the potential natural gas we could have in Quebec. Go get it. We could use it, but that would take the narrative away from how we want to use all of our energy, we want to use.... We already have this area flooded, so now we have this green energy coming out of hydroelectric power. As long as nobody goes back and thinks about what it was like prior to that, and as long as we ignore the displacement of animals and humans, and so on, to get to that stage, then it's great. Everyone should be happy.

I remember as a kid—I guess I wasn't a kid at that time—when the Red Deer River was dammed. There are friends of mine who lost land. It had to be sold so that they could dam up the river. For years after, people loved it. It looked good, because you could put a sailboat on it and everything looked fantastic, and that must be environmental—until you saw these trees popping out. They pop up once the lake-bed has deteriorated. We know the methane that comes out of those. We know that any of the minerals and the toxic minerals that are associated with it will then get dissolved. We know all of those sorts of things, but it looks good. I congratulate the people in the community who take this facility and use it in a positive way. I don't go back and complain about it.

I'm not complaining about what the people in Quebec do. As a matter of fact, even if I were an eco-environmentalist, I wouldn't go to Quebec—if they were getting ready to go and flood the whole place to get their hydroelectric power—and tell them they couldn't. I'd say, “It's up to you. You make that decision,” but don't come back to me and say, “Hey, Alberta, we don't like your oil and gas, and we're going to stand up here and we're going to make sure you don't get to do that.” I see. Is that the duplicitous...? I'm not sure whether that's true—it may be two ways of looking at things, but—

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I just want to again ask my colleague for relevance. We're not here debating Bill C-69. We're actually here debating a motion and a subamendment to a motion that deals with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much.

I noticed that everybody wanted to get into the debate on eco-colonialism. First of all, it's a term that, when I was at environment committee, people from first nations used. Although people might believe that I'm attempting to claim it, it is not mine.

That is what has been said. I see this melding between my time in environment and my time here at natural resources. I tried to look at the mandate letters; I couldn't see any difference between the two.

We have a Minister of Natural Resources who still thinks he's the Minister of Environment, so I can't remember which one...whether it was discussions here or discussions there. I didn't coin it.

It's somewhat ironic that when Charlie is here and we talk about his community, I would think that is where you would find a lot of first nations people who want to be engaged in whatever type of development is going to take place, whether it's building a road to get there, getting the power coming from there. I've had lots of discussions with first nations leadership from Ontario, talking about this exact commentary. Yes, they know that if they have to follow the government's mantra there are certain boxes they have to check off, but they also know that in terms of those things that are important to their community, if you have a higher power that believes that it and it alone dictates how things are going to be done, that is exactly the colonialism that has been part of the discussion for over a hundred years.

I welcome the comment on it, but again, there are a lot of first nations people who believe that they should be the ones who have the right to make decisions in their lands. It's not me who presented that, even though I would be happy to take claim for it because, quite frankly, that is exactly what is happening when we talk about investments that people have.

Yes, it ties in to the fact that there are a lot more people being affected by that mindset than just native communities. Perhaps that's where the confusion is, but they believe that these things require us to work together.

You take Chief Helin—I'm grasping for his first name now—from British Columbia. One of the books he wrote was Dances with Dependency, which I would suggest people read, talking about what it's like being a leader in indigenous communities and the types of things that have prevented them from being able to do the things that are important for their community.

If we get to that stage, and their community has invested in oil and gas and mining and fishing and forestry, there are a lot of different things that communities in B.C. have been involved with, I think they would agree that there is a mindset here that says Ottawa knows best. As a matter of fact, Ottawa seemed to know best when they chose to take Bill C-50 out of our hands. The whole reason for that is the Supreme Court of Canada's decision that said parts of Bill C-69 were unconstitutional.

Therefore, the development of a bill that speaks to the workings in communities of a philosophy that says that we will do as much as we can to stop oil and gas development, or any type of development, and forget what the Supreme Court says.... When that affects that bill, it then takes us to the next part, which is to talk about Bill C-49. Whereas there are 33 references to the egregious parts of Bill C-69 within that bill, we get nothing from the government to say, “You know what? Maybe we should wait a bit. Maybe we should get some reference points.” All we get from the government and from the minister is, “Well, we don't believe that. That's just their opinion.”

Yes, it's their opinion; therefore, you should do something about it. Otherwise, you throw legislation to us, to each and every one of us sitting here, that says, “You have to rubber-stamp something that you know the Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional.” How then are we supposed to proceed?

We've waited for a discussion of Bill C-69 and these egregious points from the Supreme Court ruling. We've waited for some discussion on that. People talk about how long October was. Well, we're still waiting. We're waiting for the Supreme Court decision to be addressed by this government, rather than, “Oh, it doesn't matter.”

Those are the issues we have, which is why we come back to say that, well, if people don't agree with this—

Government Business No. 31—Proceedings on Bill C-50

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a spectacle. I would suggest that, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources cannot understand the connection between plastic straws and fuels for vehicles that Canadians like and want to drive, then that says all we need to know about the Liberals' understanding of oil and gas development and how this all works in Canada and the world. Does it not?

Make no mistake, today is a dark day for Canada's democracy. Unfortunately, these darks days are increasingly frequent under the NDP-Liberal coalition government. After eight years, I, like a growing number of Canadians, cannot help but reflect on how far away, quiet, dim and so obviously empty the promises of sunny days were. There were promises of sunlight being the best disinfectant, of being open by default, and of collaboration with other parties, provinces and all Canadians, no matter where they live or who they are.

The truth is that, after eight years, the Information Commissioner says transparency is not a top priority for the NDP-Liberal government. She says that systems for transparency have declined steadily since the Prime Minister took office in 2015 and that the government is the most opaque government ever. She sounded ever-increasing alarms about the closed-by-default reality of the NDP-Liberal government over the last couple of years.

Back in 2017, an audit done independently by a Halifax journalist and his team for News Media Canada, which represents more than 800 print and digital titles, pointed out that the Liberals were failing in breaking their promises and that the previous Conservative government had been more responsive, open and transparent, including during the latter majority years. Everyone can remember when the now Prime Minister made a lot of verifiably baseless claims. Today, the NDP-Liberals want to ram through a bill that their own internal briefings warn would kill 170,000 Canadian oil and gas jobs and hurt the jobs of 2.7 million other Canadians employed in other sectors in every corner of this country. I will say more on that later.

Canadians deserve to know what transparency has to do with this. I will explain, but first, members must also know this: The motion the NDP-Liberals have forced us all to debate today, with as little time as possible, is extraordinary. It is a measure usually invoked only for emergencies, and to be clear, it was used twice in nine years of the former Conservative government, but it is happening almost every other day with the NDP-Liberals.

Now, I will give the background. Last week, Conservatives and so many horrified Canadians challenged the Liberals on their approach to crime,being hard on victims and soft on criminals, which, at the time, was made obvious by the decision to send Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison. As usual, the Liberals claimed to be bystanders that day, as they do with almost all things happening in the Government of Canada, which they have been ruling over eight long years. The minister responsible really had nothing to do with it. He was removed from that position in late July, so evidently, someone over there thought he was. However, I digress.

To change the channel during the last weeks of that session, the Liberals dumped a number of bills in the House of Commons with promises to those they impacted, which they must have never intended to keep, including Bill C-53 about recognizing Métis people, which they put forward on the last sitting day of the session. They told people it would be all done at once, a claim they had no business to make, and they knew it.

Before that, on May 30, the Liberals introduced Bill C-49, a bill to functionally end Atlantic offshore oil and to establish a framework for offshore renewable development that, get this, would triple the already endless NDP-Liberal timelines. There would also be uncertainty around offshore renewable project assessments and approvals. The bill would invite court challenges on the allowable anti-development zones and the potential delegation of indigenous consultation to the regulators, which has been drafted, never mind the 33 references to Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said nearly two months ago was largely unconstitutional over the last half decade.

That claim may end up to be okay in the context of offshore development, but surely we can be forgiven for refusing to just trust them this time, since both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court have recently ruled against the NDP-Liberal government and affirmed every single jurisdictional point that Conservatives and I made about both Bill C-69 and their ridiculous top-down, plastics-as-toxins decree.

On May 30, there was no debate on Bill C-49. The NDP-Liberals brought it back to the House of Commons on September 19. They permitted a total of 8.5 hours of debate over two partial days. It is important for Canadians to know that the government, not the official opposition, controls every aspect of the scheduling of all bills and motions in the House of Commons. The government did not put Bill C-49 back on the agenda to allow MPs to speak to it on behalf of the constituents the bill would impact exclusively, such as, for example, every single MP from every party represented in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, a month later, within two days, the NDP-Liberals brought forward a motion to shut down debate and send the bill to committee.

No fewer than seven Liberals and two NDP MPs argued to fast-track Bill C-49 to justify their shutdown of the debate, and they accused Conservatives of holding it up. This is about all the groups and people who must be heard. This is important because of what they then proposed at committee, which was not a concurrence study, as the parliamentary secretary claimed today.

When it comes to the last-minute name change to Bill C-50, which is still the globally planned just transition no matter what the NDP-Liberals spin to Canadians now. The Liberals first announced plans to legislate this in July 2021.

They introduced Bill C-50 with no debate on June 15, just a week before MPs headed to work in our ridings until September. They brought in Bill C-50 on September 29. They permitted only 7.5 hours of total debate over two months, and about a month later, over two days, shut it down and sent it to committee.

Bill C-50, which represents the last step and the final solution in the anti-energy, anti-development agenda that has been promoted internationally and incrementally imposed by the NDP-Liberals in Canada, and which they know would damage millions of Canadian workers in energy, agriculture, construction, transportation and manufacturing, just as their internal memos show it, was rammed through the first stages in a total of three business days.

Government bills go to committee and are prioritized over everything else. At committee, MPs analyze the details of the bills, line by line, and also, most importantly, hear from Canadians about the intended, and sometimes even more imperative unintended, consequences. They then propose and debate changes to improve it before it goes back to the House of Commons for more debate and comments from MPs on behalf of the diverse people in the communities we represent across this big country. That is literally Canadian democracy.

However, on October 30, the Liberals brought in a detailed top-down scheduling motion for the natural resources committee and changed the order of the bills to be considered, which was not concurrent. Their motion was to deal with Bill C-50, the just transition, first. This was a reversal of the way they brought them in. They also shut down debate on each, delaying Bill C-49, the Atlantic offshore bill they said they wanted to fast-track, even though they actually control every part of the agenda themselves.

Their motion limited the time to hear from witnesses to only four meetings, and there were four meetings to go through each line and propose changes, but they limited each of those meetings to three hours each for both bills.

On behalf of Conservatives, I proposed an amendment that would help MPs on the natural resources committee do our due diligence on Bill C-49 to send it to the next stages first, exactly as the NDP-Liberals said they wanted to do. I proposed that the committee would have to deal with the problem of the half decade old law Bill C-69, which was found to be unconstitutional two weeks earlier, because so many of its sections are in Bill C-49, and then move to Bill C-50, the just transition.

Conservatives have always said that both of these bills are important with disproportionate impacts in certain communities and regions, but ultimately very consequential for all Canadians. The NDP-Liberals had the temerity to say, that day and since, that they wanted to collaborate on the schedule, as we heard here today, and work together to pass these bills.

Let us talk about what that actually looked like. It looked like a dictatorial scheduling motion to the committee with no real consideration of the proposed schedule by Conservatives, and then there was a preoccupation to silence Conservative MPs' participation. They even suggested kicking a couple of them out, such as the MP for Peace River—Westlock and the MP for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who, like me and every Conservative Alberta MP, represent the hundreds of thousands of constituents that Bill C-50 would harm directly. They do have a right to speak and participate at any committee, like it is in all committees for all MPs and all parties here. Believe me, we have spent every single day fighting for workers, and we will not stop.

For an entire month, as of yesterday, the NDP-Liberals have claimed that they want to collaborate on the schedule for this important work, but other than a text message from the natural resources parliamentary secretary, which received no response when I replied with the very same suggestions Conservatives proposed in public and otherwise, and ironically, in the very order that they rammed it all through, they really have not dealt with us in any measure of collaboration or good faith at all.

I guess now would be an awkward time to put a fine point on it to remind the ever-increasing top-down NDP-Liberal government that Canadians actually gave Conservatives more votes individually in both of the last two elections, and they are a minority government, which most people hope or claim means more compromises and more collaboration. However, these NDP-Liberals do the exact opposite. Whatever happened to all those words long ago about respecting everyone, inclusion and working together? I guess we can never mind that.

That brings us to today, Friday, December 1. Close to midnight on Wednesday, Conservatives received notice of this motion. As usual, there is a lot of parliamentary procedure and legalese here, but I will explain exactly what it proposes to do about Bill C-50.

The motion would limit Bill C-50 to less than two hours of debate. The committee would hear no witnesses, so none of the affected workers, experts or economists would be heard. The committee would not hear from anybody. MPs would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and one day of debate at third reading. Given that debate at second reading was limited to less than eight hours, this is absolutely unacceptable for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose livelihoods this bill would destroy.

I want to make the following point clearly. Because of the NDP-Liberals' actions to date, no Canadian would be able to speak about the actual bill, Bill C-50. No MP would be able to hear from any Canadian in any part of the country about it. Of course, this is just like the Liberals' censorship of Canadian media, and now they are all howling that we have to communicate directly on the only option they have left us.

This bill would impact Canada and the livelihoods of millions of Canadians. As if the NDP-Liberals have not done enough damage already by driving hundreds of billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs out of this country. They definitely do not want to hear from anyone about it. It is bad enough that they did a last-minute copy-and-paste job to switch all the references from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”, even though no one had actually ever called it that before.

There was a National Post column in February entitled, “Most Canadians don't trust Liberals' plan for 'just transition' away from oil: poll”. The column says, “84 per cent of Canadians do not know what the 'just transition' plan actually is.” It also states, “40 per cent believe it will hurt the oil and gas sector; 36 per cent believe it will lead to lost jobs,” and, “Fifty-six per cent of Canadians are 'not confident' the government will be able to deliver, and 26 per cent of those people are 'not at all confident'.”

The article says, “About one quarter...of Canadians think the government is moving too fast to transition Canada’s economy,” which is what this is really all about. About 60 per cent of Canadians “don’t want to pay any additional taxes to support the transition and just 14 per cent were willing to pay one or two per cent more.” That is bad news for those who are pro quadrupling the carbon tax in the NDP-Liberal-Bloc coalition.

The article continues, “57 per cent of Canadians worry about the impact of lost tax revenue to governments should the economy transition away from natural resources. And 40 per cent believe that the plan to transition away from fossil fuels will make Canada less competitive in the global economy.” A whopping “60 per cent of all Canadians think we shouldn’t make major changes before larger global polluters make serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions”. Of course, and luckily, common-sense Conservatives agree with all of those Canadians.

For the record, I believe all of those Canadians will be proven to be correct if Canadians let the NDP-Liberals advance the rest of this destructive agenda, but I am hopeful more Canadians than ever will see right through the Liberals now and will have a chance to stop it. It does look like it will come down to that since, despite all the NDP-Liberals' big talk, they really are not interested in adjusting their anti-energy agenda at all. They are only interested in escalating it to what would be more major costs and more brutal losses for the vast majority of everyday Canadians, whom they prove everyday they do not really care about.

Canadians can stop this attack on our country from our own government, this attack on our standard of living, our quality of life and our ability to buy and thrive here in our Canadian home. However, because of the NDP propping up the Liberals, Canadians have no choice, but they will have to deal with it in the next election. Luckily, they have a common-sense Conservative Party that is ready and able to bring our great home, our country of Canada, back up and away from this cliff.

The NDP has abandoned its traditional, and often admirable, position of being a principled and plucky opposition party because it cries outrage everyday while it props up the Liberals, apparently with the co-operation of the Bloc now too, to keep them in power and to prevent Canadians from having a say in an election sooner than later. The NDP-Liberals are clearly parties of power at any price now, so it is logical to conclude that the truth-telling Canadians featured the February column about the polls on the just transition are exactly what caused the crass and obviously last-minute name change to cover up the facts and try to fool Canadians that Bill C-50 is not exactly what they fear and exactly what they do not trust the government to do. That is with good cause, after eight years, but it is the just transition.

I would also mention here that Alberta NDP leader, Rachel Notley, has also called on the NDP-Liberals to scrap this just transition plan, but they are not listening to her either, even though the NDP's federal and provincial parties are formally related, unlike, for example, the federal common-sense Conservatives, which is a federal party in its own right with no official ties with any similar free enterprise Conservative provincial parties.

The NDP-Liberals will say that this is all much ado about nothing. They will say, as the member did, that it went through committee last year. Of course, the bill itself absolutely did not. It was a study on the general concept.

I must note that, between April and September, we had 64 witnesses and 23 written submissions, and not a single witness, except for one lonely government witness at the very end, ever called them “sustainable jobs”. They all said “just transition”. However, the NDP-Liberals announced the Bill C-50 just transition before the committee even issued its report and recommendations, so that was all a bad charade too.

It is ridiculous that they are claiming this is not about what it plainly is, because of course, if there was no plan to kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and disrupt millions more, there would be no need for anything called a “transition” at all.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In this capacity I hold a responsibility to ensure the advancement of our legislative agenda in vital areas of public policy, including the future of our energy system.

I stand here today to provide an update on the status of Parliament's review of two very important bills, Bill C-50, Canada's sustainable jobs act, which this motion specifically addresses, and Bill C-49, amendments to the Atlantic accords.

Both of these vital pieces of legislation passed through second reading and were referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources well over a month ago. Parliamentary committees have a responsibility to Canadians to prioritize the laws that are put before them and to review these pieces of legislation. This is a principle responsibility of members on committee, and I believe that is well understood by every member in this House.

However, I regret to inform the House that after being at the natural resources committee for over a month, with more than 20 hours of scheduled and publicly available meeting time, the committee on which I am proud to serve has been ground to a standstill by Conservative members who are deliberately blocking the work of the committee. We have not even reached a vote yet on a routine scheduling motion to put the study of this bill in place.

Let me set the stage. On October 30, a member of the committee brought a motion for a concurrence study of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords act. This was a routine scheduling motion that would simply allow these pieces of legislation to be discussed and examined in a manner expected of elected officials.

Conservative members sought an amendment to that scheduling motion to add another area of study that was not a review of these bills and was designed to delay the bills that were before the committee for as long as possible. Not only that, they proceeded to stop votes on this motion via filibuster and then resorted to bringing subamendments to call witnesses from specific ridings. To date, our committee remains stuck because of Conservative obstruction. We are on the consideration of the subamendments, with no progress to getting to a decision on the scheduling motion for the concurrence study of these bills.

We are stuck in a scary pre-Halloween world. The Conservative Party continues to waste taxpayer resources with pointless interventions, unrelated amendments and nonsensical ramblings designed to block these bills from being discussed and from allowing workers to have a seat at the table.

For instance, the member of Parliament for Provencher wasted time discussing the challenges of drinking a triple-thick strawberry milkshake through a straw and about his love of muscle cars, including the Chevrolet Vega. I love the Vega. My grandmother had a Vega. That's a great conversation topic at a family table, but that is not on topic at all for something related to the bill, the sustainable jobs act, or the amendment they had proposed to that scheduling motion or the subamendment about calling witnesses from specific ridings. It was just a self-indulgent ramble to waste the committee's time.

The member of Parliament for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a tangent undermining the science of climate change and denying that extreme weather events like hurricanes, floods and wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency. I would expect better from a member of Parliament whose own community was blanketed in wildfire smoke this summer and faced severe drought.

The Conservative members were disrespectful, played childish games and did all that they could to ensure the voices of workers were silenced. If most Canadians had been able to watch this display of unpleasant and frankly unparliamentary behaviour, workers would have seen the disregard the members of the Conservative Party showed toward them. They would have been appalled.

Some Canadians were watching. A member of the natural resources committee explained that this horrible and shameless filibuster was being taught in university as an example of how parliamentary process can be undermined. Labour leaders also came to Ottawa to watch these proceedings, and they were not just shocked but outraged by what they saw.

After seeing the Conservatives resort to whatever tricks and conspiracy theories they could think of to block workers from coming to the table, the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour said, “What we saw...in the committee meeting last night is the worst kind of performative, deceptive politics.... The Conservative members of the committee...are counting on Canadians not [reading the bill]”.

The president of the Canadian Labour Congress, also in response to this horrible display, said, “By holding up this bill continuously, the Conservatives are not speaking for workers on this issue. They are not making sure workers have a choice or ability to have robust debate as they are holding up this bill. It is incredibly frustrating, it is disrespectful to workers who are worried about their futures and it is disrespectful to communities. We need it to stop.”

It gives me no pleasure to recount all this and what we have seen in terms of the time and taxpayer dollars, frankly, being wasted by the members of the Conservative Party in this nonsensical campaign of obstruction.

The scheduling motion, which we have been blocked from adopting for over a month, would have allowed for the efficient review of both bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, in a concurrent manner, allowing for orderly witness appearances and deliberation.

Unfortunately, here we are today, left with a Conservative Party that has ignored the pleas of workers, labour leaders, industry, environmental organizations, two premiers and all the other recognized parties in the House. They have asked the Conservatives to end the filibuster and allow these bills to at least be discussed. The motion we are debating today is the only option available to ensure that this important legislation moves forward in a reasonable and timely manner.

Before I return to the challenges faced in the natural resources committee, I will first remind the hon. members of what this legislation means for Canada and our future. Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is critical to Canadian workers, to our economy and to Canada's future.

I wonder what part of this bill is so egregious to Conservatives that they would not even be willing to allow us to begin the study at committee. That is where we are at. Is it the “Canadian” part of the Canadian sustainable jobs act? Bill C-50 supports Canadians in every province and territory by bringing their voices to the decision-making table.

The bill supports Canadians by ensuring that they can access the most up-to-date data, resources and staff, to help our growing clean industrial facilities. It supports Canadians, because it allows us to get ahead of the pack and ensure that skilled Canadian workers can lead as we build the future economy today.

Perhaps they are opposed to the fact that it is a Canadian “sustainable” jobs act. We certainly heard an earful at committee from the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View, who described warnings of increased hurricanes, floods and wildfires, which we saw in our country just this summer, as a narrative that leads people to believe in climate change, but, as he said, “The facts don't bear it out.” Based on his own statements, I do not believe that sustainability is his top priority.

Perhaps the Conservatives are opposed to the “jobs” part. We already know that they oppose and voted against the tens of thousands of jobs we are attracting to sites such as the Volkswagen gigafactory, Stellantis plants in Windsor and Brampton, Northvolt in Quebec, Michelin in Nova Scotia, Air Products and Heidelberg in Alberta, BHP in Saskatchewan, E-One Moli in B.C. and so many more.

We know that they are not just against job creation but also good-quality jobs, including union jobs. Right now, they refuse to share their stance on Bill C-58, which would ban replacement workers and ensure that unions and employers can negotiate better deals. This is a win for workers and the economy. They also refuse to condemn their Conservative provincial partners in Alberta, who are putting in place a $33-billion moratorium on renewable energy products and the thousands of jobs they create.

It seems that perhaps they oppose the Canadian sustainable jobs aspect of this legislation. I can tell members one thing that they are not opposing: the final word, which is “act”. Acting is precisely what they have been doing over the past 20 hours and, during committee work, for over a month. I would say that they have done so quite dramatically. It has been a month of acting.

They have been acting as though they care about workers, while they actively prevent the union that represents hundreds of thousands of Albertan workers from speaking on the public record. They have even been acting as though they care about due process and democracy, while they shout into microphones in committee and, for weeks on end, prevent members, such as the member for Timmins—James Bay, from speaking about the motion and the bill, when he clearly had the floor to speak.

In fact, we know that it is an act because they have almost exclusively used this filibuster to create fodder for social media clips and fundraising efforts. This is all premised on baseless assertions relating to a bill that they have clearly not begun to read or study.

It is clear that the Conservatives have no interest in serious issues of public policy and are not friends to working-class Canadians. They have deliberately worked to ensure that Parliament does not work, and they are purposely ignoring Canadian workers, communities, industries and civil society, which are calling for an end to their acting and to begin real legislative action.

That brings me, and all of us, back to today. The president of the Canadian Labour Congress acknowledged recently that there is a lot at stake here in terms of moving this bill forward. She said, “This bill can make a meaningful difference to workers. It can give a real voice to their future.... It can strengthen good jobs and vibrant communities by supporting the decarbonization of good union jobs that exist today in those communities, and it can ensure that...as the rest of the world is attracting investments in future industries and good jobs that Canadian workers are not left behind in those investments.”

This delay is preventing Parliament from conducting an in-depth study of these two important bills. Despite the Conservatives' filibustering in committee, the Liberals and others continued to work with environmental groups and experts, unions, businesses, indigenous peoples and others in order to move forward on shaping our net-zero future.

Meanwhile, the Conservative energy critic publicly committed to blocking, delaying and challenging workers to prevent them from sitting down at the bargaining table and entering the workplace. We cannot let this ideological and obstructionist attitude curb our economic potential. I would like to quote the executive director of the Climate Action Network, who said, “The Conservatives can filibuster this bill but they cannot filibuster the energy transition.”

Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act, is an essential bill that will help Canadian workers build a prosperous economy. It also builds on the work that our committee did last year when it studied the future of sustainable jobs. During a previous study of this bill in committee, the Conservatives filibustered in dozens of meetings to prevent the witnesses from speaking, because they are obviously afraid of workers being represented.

At the same time, we are taking action. That includes making historic investments in clean technologies in budget 2023 and taking collaborative action with other levels of government and international partners. This solid foundation has put our economy and Canadian workers in a position of strength that will continue to build if we pass Bill C-50.

I would like to share with the House the five key elements that make up this legislation.

First, it would use guiding principles, such as social dialogue, that let us learn from international best practices to get this right.

Second, it would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of workers, industry, experts, indigenous peoples, youth and others who would provide independent advice to the government on an annual basis and engage with Canadians.

Third, it would commit to publishing action plans every five years. The plans would build on the council's expertise and ensure that Canada is able to continue to chart a path forward that responds to our labour needs in decades to come.

Fourth, it would coordinate action across the federal government through a sustainable job secretariat.

Fifth, it would designate responsibilities to ministers for implementing this legislation as a standard practice.

The other side may fearmonger and claim that, with this bill, the sky will fall and pigs will fly. However, the fact is that these are responsible and targeted legislative measures to ensure that workers have a seat at the table and that we get them on job sites that we are building right across this country. The opportunities for workers are enormous, including the opportunities that exist today.

Since taking office, the government has invested in clean growth and building a strong economic future, and our work is being noticed around the world. Companies are choosing to invest in Canada and create jobs here, because of our very clean electrical grid and the work we are doing to support clean technologies. The Conservative delays are risking the once-in-a-generation opportunity for Canadians to take the lead in these jobs and in the innovations that will reduce carbon emissions right across this country.

By the end of this decade, RBC predicts that the global move toward a low-carbon economy will add as many as 400,000 new jobs to the Canadian workforce. To best seize this opportunity, we need legislation that helps us to get the right skills and training to workers today, which Bill C-50 will do. Workers, labour market experts and employers have been clear, and so has this Parliament when we sent Bill C-50 to committee to be studied. Because of the Conservative tactics at committee, we have not been able to do this.

When we talk about the job opportunities, I also want to make sure we remember that some of these jobs are going to be due to offshore wind energy, which Bill C-49 was designed to facilitate. The delays we have faced at the natural resources committee have prevented us from doing the concurrent studies of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, at the very moment when we are being told by Atlantic premiers and residents that they want to see this move forward. Let us not forget that the motion Conservatives have been delaying for over a month was one to concurrently review Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, allow witnesses to appear and allow the committee to make the most efficient use of parliamentary time. The witnesses would have appeared by now.

I want to make it very clear that we have an important choice to make today. On the one hand, we can choose, as Conservatives have, to waste our time waxing poetic about the days when it was easier to sip triple-thick milkshakes through a straw and drive around in muscle cars that were not even built in Canada. On the other, we can choose what Canadians and workers want. We can work to build an economy for the future that includes having workers at the table as we decide those next steps. We can build cars here in Canada, with skilled jobs, skilled workers and investments that are being made right here. We have that opportunity to be creating well-paying jobs that are, often, union jobs. It can be about developing the energies the world wants, such as offshore wind in the Atlantic provinces, in Canada. That is going to be the energy that powers our future and creates well-paying jobs.

To me, as I stand here, the Liberals have made this choice very clear: We are rolling up our sleeves to stand alongside Canadian workers and build that economy of the future. We are ready to build an economy that is responsive and has those opportunities put forward.

What the Conservatives have clearly chosen, from what we are seeing at committee, is to spend their time talking about themselves and not talking about Canadian workers and the needs of our country. That is why, today, I am asking the House to support the motion that has been put forward to allow the legislation to move forward and to do the work we need to do. It is important for the House to respect what it has voted upon in prioritizing the legislation to be sent to committee to be studied. It is also about respecting Canadian workers and respecting what Canadians expect to see us do in this place. I would ask that we continue to work together towards that.

Canadians want us to claim our share of the global clean energy market, and the hundreds of thousands of high-quality, sustainable jobs that will result.

Parliament has a duty to study and to advance these two vital pieces of legislation. We cannot allow ourselves to sit back and allow rage farming and social media clips to be happening at committee. We need to do the work that Canadians sent us here to do. I stand here today asking that this be exactly what we work together to have done. That is why the motion we are discussing today would enable an expeditious review of the much shorter Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill. Then, it would allow for the committee to review Bill C-49 afterwards.

I would remind the House that we have been debating a scheduling motion, actually not even a scheduling motion but a subamendment to an amendment to a scheduling motion, for over a month. Since October 30, we have been debating that simple point. We have not been allowed to study the bill.

The Conservatives have points they want to register about the bill itself. The place to have done it would have been in the study of the bill. However, the Conservatives chose otherwise. They chose to filibuster a scheduling motion. That is not how we get work done here. It is not respectful to the process, to each other, or to Canadians and the workers who sent us here to get the job done. That is what we are asking today: Let us get the job done. Let us make sure that we do what Canadians sent us here to do. Let us get to studying the bill we have before us, Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs bill.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, that's another point. It's not even on the critical minerals list, but it should be added. My colleague has been out at the front asking for that for months. Mining and developing phosphate in northern Ontario is a nation-building project, with the applications that phosphate can be used for in agriculture, for example. There are lots of opportunities there. Going forward, for food production in this country and around the world, there will be a need for more and more phosphate. It's going to be needed but it's going to be tough to develop more projects in Timmins—James Bay or wherever else it might be if we don't fix the Impact Assessment Act.

If we don't deal with it, we're not going to see the proper development of resources in Atlantic Canada. They're not going to do the things they need to do, which, by the way, support the industries in my riding, Cypress Hills—Grasslands. They rely on the Atlantic provinces to either import or export agricultural commodities. Right now we have to import certain things for agriculture that we could probably develop and do in our own country, but because of regulatory uncertainty we don't because it's cheaper for companies to do it elsewhere around the world.

We could change that if we prioritized the Impact Assessment Act. We could change it so that we are world leaders in some of these projects involving critical minerals and other items that should be added to the critical minerals list. We could be world leaders if the government got out of the way and respected the fact that we already have some of the best and highest standards for environmental responsibility in this country. It's the multiple layering that continues to suffocate jobs and development in all parts of this country but particularly in Timmins—James Bay.

I hope I have been clear that we need to do the Impact Assessment Act, because it will directly benefit the people and the projects in Timmins—James Bay. I strongly feel that the committee should be prioritizing the Impact Assessment Act. We could come to a position where we do Bill C-49 quickly and pass it and then fix the Impact Assessment Act after. Maybe we could do that, but if the government isn't giving any indication that they want to fix the Impact Assessment Act, then, as I said, I'm worried there would be a seven-to-four vote in committee on prioritizing the Impact Assessment Act. That just leaves us at square one, or square zero, as it may even be behind square one with the way things are going.

I think we have an opportunity as a committee to do the right thing and fix the Impact Assessment Act. That way the Atlantic provinces get the certainty they need to develop their resources, whether it be renewables or oil and gas, whatever they want to do. If it's tidal power, they should have the freedom to do that. I recognize that we need to pass Bill C-49 for that to happen, but passing an unconstitutional bill would be problematic. That's why we need to prioritize the Impact Assessment Act.

Mr. Chair, I think that I am coming toward the end of my remarks. Do you want me to keep going? Okay, I'll keep going. I can't believe you shook your head.

I know Mario would have a problem if projects were being delayed and denied in Quebec and if there were issues with companies getting the certainty they need with the Impact Assessment Act, so—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

That was an interesting intervention, because over the last four or five meetings, again, it was the member from Timmins—James Bay who kept on saying, no less than 15 times—actually, I think it was closer to 20 times—that he was being abused by Conservative members. I didn't hear a single objection from anybody on that side of the committee room to him using that kind of language, which was very unparliamentary, not to mention the fact that it completely undermines people who are legitimately, this very second, experiencing abuse. There was no objection to that, and that's disgusting.

The fact that Mr. Angus went on and on about not being allowed to speak means that saying he was whining fits. It was appropriate. When he finally did speak, he didn't even talk about Timmins—James Bay. He didn't talk about the motion either. He spent his whole 45 minutes not even talking about it.

I spent my whole hour and a bit talking about how this is going to impact projects in Timmins—James Bay. I listed seven projects that are currently under way in Timmins—James Bay, not one in Alberta. That was brought up by somebody else. I've been speaking about the projects in Timmins—James Bay and how the Impact Assessment Act is going to be, if it's not fixed, a problem for them. That's what I've been talking about. That's what I spent my time talking about.

I've been telling you why we need to prioritize the Impact Assessment Act so these projects in Timmins—James Bay can continue to go ahead and so more projects like them can be proposed in Timmins—James Bay and in other parts of the country. That's what I've been talking about for over an hour and a half and that's what Mr. Angus was not bothering to talk about for the hour that he had the floor—nor were any other members who were saying they were not being allowed to speak. When they finally got the floor, they didn't even bother to speak to the subamendment either. I am speaking to the subamendment and I am using and will continue to use language that is parliamentary.

It's important that the federal government set the tone. The point I was about to make before the last couple of points of order was that the rules matter. Whether it's the rules of this committee, the laws of this land or our Constitution and the way it's set out for the provinces within Confederation, rules matter.

I mentioned earlier that the federal government is on a bit of a losing streak in the courts as of late. Most recently, it was the plastics ban and the regulations around it that were unconstitutional. In particular, the Impact Assessment Act was ruled largely unconstitutional. When the government deliberately sets rules and laws that are unconstitutional, it creates disorder and issues.

We've seen the provinces, as I mentioned earlier, draft legislation to shield themselves from overreach in the federal government and to reassert that they have jurisdictional authority over provinces. By the way, I'll make note that in Saskatchewan it was supported unanimously by the NDP. It's because they know what's happening with this federal government. Even the provincial NDP in Saskatchewan know the federal government in Ottawa is overstepping its bounds. Generally, they are quite aligned with the federal government, but even they are starting to see that the federal government is offside.

It's true of the NDP in Alberta too. They're starting to wise up to that as well. Despite their desire to try to please the federal government, even they are now starting to see and realize that was probably not the best idea. Now we also have the UCP government in Alberta and the Saskatchewan Party government in Saskatchewan actively working to shield themselves from the overstepping of the government.

That's the tone this government has decided to set. It's decided to say, “This is the way we're going to go. We don't care what you think. You're going to have to do this.” Not only do the provinces say no, but the Supreme Court did too, and here we wait for the government to act, to do something and to remedy the situation.

We know it is a usual practice for the government to create a problem for people and at the same time think it's creating the solution. This is one of those few times when we say the government has to provide the solution, but the solution is going to be undoing the disaster it created in the first place. That's what we are hoping to get to, start with and prioritize in this committee. That way, more projects in Timmins—James Bay can happen and more projects across the country can happen.

Again, we have the Atlantic accord legislation, Bill C-49, here with us as well. That needs to be done and dealt with, and the government prioritized that over Bill C-50. For some reason, the minister decided to wait over a year to do anything with it. We've also seen Auditor General reports talk about how the government has basically done nothing, particularly over the COVID years. For two years, it did absolutely nothing to get people and communities ready for 2030. They are still waiting for the coal transition funding they were promised by the government.

Over 3,400 or 3,500 workers were impacted by the microtransition that happened in coal in Alberta. Entire communities were devastated. Who knows? Maybe the Liberals will put forward a subamendment to hear from people from Hanna, Alberta. I think they would probably want an opportunity to speak to this as well and how the just transition worked for them. However, we're talking about Timmins—James Bay, so we'll see if the Liberals want to move that subamendment later.

Just looking at the list of the projects going on in Timmins—James Bay, I see that one of them is a phosphate project.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

It is the leader in renewable energy. That is absolutely right. It has the most wind capacity as well, I believe, as a province, with lots of solar developments and a few other things going on there.

It's worth noting that a couple of days ago, when it was a cold day in Alberta, the total net-to-grid for wind and solar was basically a couple of megawatts, out of the thousands of gigawatts of capacity that they have. Without the reliability and certainty of the grid that you have with natural gas...and even right now with coal, although I recognize that coal is on track to be phased out by 2023. There is an amount of reliability and affordability that you get from coal and natural gas.

Saskatchewan in particular has done a lot to develop natural gas alongside Alberta. If this government is going to transition everybody to powering their grids with wind and solar, it doesn't matter how much capacity you build: If the turbine isn't spinning, the sun isn't shining, and you have next to nothing for total net-to-grid, there will be some huge problems.

We saw the devastation in Texas when they had a little bit of snow and cold weather. They were totally unprepared for it because of their pursuit of trying to run their grid on renewables. I don't say this lightly. People died. This past summer, we had a billet who played with the Swift Current 57's. He was from Texas. We talked with him about what was happening down there. He talked about that particular week when that happened and how crazy it was—the blackouts, the devastation in communities with no power, the pipes that were bursting, the issues from the cleanup after the fact, and the disaster in people's homes, let alone the devastation it brought when people were literally freezing to death.

That was in Texas, where it's usually a lot warmer 12 months of the year than it is in Saskatchewan. That's a shocker, I know, but seven months out of the year we are below zero, on average, below freezing.

I drive to Regina to fly out to Ottawa. I drive down Highway 1. I drive past some of the most recent wind turbines that have been put up in Saskatchewan. Even on days when there is a good wind, and when I have a nice tailwind pushing me into the Queen City, it's amazing how many turbines aren't spinning. To be fair—I don't know—maybe they haven't been fully commissioned yet, but I know I've seen most of them, at very different times, in operation.

The fact is that if they're not spinning, they're not producing. It's usually pretty windy in Saskatchewan, but there are a lot of days when there's not enough wind to generate wind power reliably. There are days when it's cloudy. In the winter, the days are shorter. You only have a couple of hours of peak power-producing sunlight to generate the power you need to keep the lights on and furnaces running. That creates problems.

If you start to think about the amount of capacity it will take, we know we're going to have to increase the grid capacity by two and a half times at least and probably to well over that. You'd have to times it by three at least. That's the route this government wants to go on. How much land is going to be taken out of production to build more and more wind- and solar-chasing capacity? How many tax dollars are going to be spent subsidizing the development of this in the pursuit of an unattainable mandate from this government?

If we're going to be powering mines in Timmins—James Bay, they want reliability. They want certainty. They want affordability as well, because powering these mines is not cheap at the best of times. To massively increase the costs and uncertainty for these companies, which are doing the best they can in the circumstances they find themselves in, wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be right.

I'll go back to my point about setting the tone. At the very least, the Impact Assessment Act needs to be prioritized and fixed before anything else can proceed. I hope that somewhere in the nation's capital here, whether it's the minister, his staff or all the people who work in those offices, somebody is working on that, because we haven't heard anything since the brief statement about making sure it is compliant. We haven't heard anything, so what's happening? How are we going to provide certainty for people if we're not doing that?

I think our committee has a great chance to be the ones who set the tone for that. However, if we're just going to have a seven-to-four vote on whether or not we do anything with the Impact Assessment Act, this committee will rob itself of the potential to set the tone on this, to make sure we get it right and to make sure we provide certainty, clarity and reduced timelines for proponents who want to develop our resources—develop the goods and things we have in this country and can offer the world. The good folks of Timmins—James Bay would surely appreciate that as well, I would imagine.

I really hope we'll be able to get to a point where that can be the priority for this committee, because we know that there are going to be some problems with Bill C-49 if we don't address it and deal with it. We want the good folks in Atlantic Canada to develop their resources as best they see fit. We know that Bill C-49 is the tool they need to do that, but imagine giving somebody the tool they need to do their job but it's completely disassembled and you took a few components out of it and said, “Here you go. This will work.”

That's basically what's happening here by sending out a bill that has no less than 33 references to the unconstitutional part of the Impact Assessment Act. That's going to be a problem, and it will be a problem for the folks in Atlantic Canada to have the certainty they need to get this done. The last thing they want to see are court challenges arising from a piece of legislation that could end up being deemed unconstitutional because of certain elements in it and because of its affiliation to the Impact Assessment Act.

The government is on a bit of a losing streak with court challenges lately too, which also doesn't set a very good tone. What we are finding out is that—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you.

Right off the top, it's probably worth mentioning that it was nice, at the last meeting, how things just went along. Everybody was respectful. The points of order.... Only a couple of them happened, and they were, I think, received well. I can count on one hand how many points of order we had last meeting, so that was quite nice and a bit of a change of pace.

I want to welcome Ms. Zarrillo to this committee, as well. It's nice to see her here.

On the point about the subamendment to bring witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, my colleague Mr. Falk did a great job talking about a lot of the mining companies that exist in that particular part of the country. It's important to have people from there speaking at the committee. I think they would generally be concerned about what is going on. One way to find out, obviously, is by inviting them. I think they would be concerned about the development of multiple pieces of substantive government legislation being ruled on and referred to as largely unconstitutional—in particular, the Impact Assessment Act and the way it's going to impact mining as we go forward. I think those mines, especially the ones Mr. Falk was mentioning, will play a big role in Canada going forward. I don't think it matters whether you think everybody should be mandated to drive an EV or not. We're going to need these resources one way or another.

As we continue to develop new ways to generate power and new technology.... It goes outside energy production. It's just technology, generally speaking. The technological advances we have seen, certainly in my lifetime, have been remarkable. Sometimes it almost scares me when I think about the kinds of technologies we're going to come up with, which my kids are going to see as they grow up and enter the workforce—the kinds of things they're going to have at their disposal. The advances in things are going to be quite remarkable.

Those minerals or elements will come from mines in Timmins—James Bay and lots of other places across the country. The problem we're seeing right now is that it will be pretty difficult to get more and more of these mines and projects built when we don't have laws that are constitutional. The certainty required for investors to make investments in Canadian energy, development and exploration.... I know the government said it made the IAA to create certainty, but the problem is that, practically, this has not been the case. It has not been the reality of the situation on the ground.

Given the importance of mining to Canada's strategic positioning in the energy world, globally.... Again, the potential for our country, generally speaking, beyond what we have by possessing all these rare earth minerals here in Canada, which are still largely untapped and not being developed.... We're seeing investment fleeing Canada, or not even looking here at all, because they know they can build projects more quickly, get a return on investment faster and make more money elsewhere. That means jobs are elsewhere. The tax dollars needed to maintain, build and even create new communities are so important.

I think we need to hear from these folks, because they're going to bring a valuable perspective.

I was in a meeting the other day with some folks who were representing some of the port authorities on opposite sides of the country. One of the fundamental concerns they have, and part of their budget submissions, was to figure out a way to reduce timelines for major projects for approvals, because for them to expand their ports or to do any major projects, they have to wait a minimum of five years to get approval. I asked them if that was for the Impact Assessment Act, and they said yes. They had been waiting five years to get an approval.

This is important because, as much as we would like to have all of our rare earth minerals mined in Canada and then turned into products in Canada, the reality is that we're going to be exporting a lot of them. We're going to be exporting them through our ports.

The folks from Timmins—James Bay, much like the people from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, rely on those ports to be able to get our products, our commodities, out to the global marketplace. When we have largely unconstitutional laws in this country, it severely impacts what we're able to do and get done.

I think it's important to note that on this side of the table we want to make sure that we're passing laws that are constitutional and will withstand that challenge. I think we have outlined previously some of the issues we have with the potential constitutionality issue of Bill C-49 because of its 33 references to the Impact Assessment Act and, in particular, the parts that were referenced as largely unconstitutional.

It would be important to hear from these mining communities and the workers about how this has impacted them and their ability to do their jobs but also to have that certainty long-term knowing that their jobs are going to be there for them tomorrow, next year, and the year after that and make sure that there is a future for their jobs and for their communities. I think that's an important perspective that we will look forward to hearing from witnesses and, particularly, hopefully, from people from Timmins—James Bay.

Part of that, too, is that, when you meet with people in mining and in construction, even at the ports and other places, they talk a lot about the layering on of regulations, and the layering on of costs that continue to pile up and create problems for them. They are just looking for a streamlined process. I know that the people in Timmins—James Bay would benefit from having a streamlined process, the un-layering and unpacking of all of these layers upon layers of regulations and costs.

We know that Canada has some of the highest standards for how we develop our resources. We know that if the rest of the world adopted our standards, the world would have a much lower greenhouse gas emission footprint, yet we still seem to see the need from this government to continue to layer and pancake on regulations rather than trust the process and trust the industries that have really been world leaders at the forefront of the development of this to do what they do, rather than putting them through the gauntlet of regulatory death, basically.

We've seen that multiple times on multiple projects, where they're waiting for approval, waiting for approval, and it's delay, delay, delay. Then, finally, the proponent withdraws the proposal because they know they're either not going to get the approval or the uncertainty and the delays have cost them so much money they'd be better off to cut their losses at that point and run. That's not a situation we want Canada to be in, particularly as we have all the resources in this country that the world wants and needs.

I think we need to make sure that we are prioritizing people who can speak well to these things. That's going to be people who are working in the industry in Timmins—James Bay. They're going to want that certainty.

When Mr. Angus was still here.... He likes to talk a lot about the union jobs, which is fine. It's good that he does that, but what's important is that there will be no union jobs if there are no new projects, if there is no certainty, if there's no investment, if there's no streamlining of regulations or even just making them compliant with our constitution. I think that's of utmost importance.

Part of the reality with rural and remote communities, and with our indigenous communities as well, is that sometimes the only source of jobs is just resource development. That's the opportunity for them. That's where they see the ability for them to have self-determination, to have fair and equal economic participation in the economy. It comes from resource extraction and development and refining.

They also want certainty. They want to know that when a project that's going to be good for their people is proposed, it's not going to take 10 years to get approvals or to finally get a shovel in the ground and start building something or developing a mine or developing the resources they have available to them. That's why Conservatives want to see some witnesses from Timmins—James Bay who can bring that perspective. I think that would be very valuable.

I think part of what's going on with this committee, with this government, with the policy objectives and the multiple court rulings that have gone against the government in recent weeks.... Part of what the government is supposed to do is set the tone for how industry is going to be, set the tone so that there is a sense of optimism.

That's what Brad Wall did so well in Saskatchewan, to turn Saskatchewan from a have-not province to a have province. He set the tone by saying it's good to be from Saskatchewan. We don't need to apologize for being from Saskatchewan. He set the tone because he knew that Saskatchewan had the potential to be so much more than what it was under the NDP for years and years. Many people who left Saskatchewan found a home in Alberta, next door.

You're welcome, Mr. Chair.

They all came back to Saskatchewan because they saw the opportunity because of the tone that was set by the premier. That started in the mid-2000s with him saying that it was good to be from Saskatchewan, that Saskatchewan had what the world needed. It had what our country needed, and we were going to do what we could to provide the goods and services that were needed, both here and across the world. For the next number of years, we developed our resources in a sustainable, environmentally friendly and beneficial way. That has allowed economic participation by people from all across our province.

We have uranium developments in the north. We have potash developments all across the province. We have a lot of oil and gas extraction and development, quite frankly, all across the province, as well, particularly a lot in my riding. That comes because the government set the tone. It set out a framework for how it was going to be done, and we got things done.

The federal government then decided it was going to put a stick in the spokes, with policies like the carbon tax and the Impact Assessment Act, and really gummed up the system in the process. All of it was done under the guise that it was going to save the environment from these crazy people who were developing resources. It's really unfair to the provinces and the industry, which have done a great job of trying to make the processes better.

They have quite often done that without the government stepping in saying, “This needs to happen, that needs to happen, and that needs to be done, or else.” Definitely, taking a sledgehammer and holding it over an industry is not the way to work collaboratively, as we hear from the government a lot. Rather than working with industry to figure out how it can best figure this out, there's the stick approach instead of the carrot approach. The folks in Timmins—James Bay would agree with that, as well. As they do a lot of resource development and extraction there, it would be important to hear their views and perspectives on that, as well.

We're starting to see the provinces take matters into their own hands, yet again. That's because of the way the government has decided to set the tone. It has decided to set the tone in a way that is combative, oversteps boundaries and oversteps jurisdiction. We now see multiple provinces telling it to back off, because it is their jurisdiction, their area, and they are doing the best they can. That is why the provinces are passing a Sovereignty Act and the Saskatchewan First Act. I think our colleague, Mr. Simard, could tell us about the viewpoints of some people in Quebec about how they feel, especially regarding provincial jurisdiction.

Our provinces shouldn't have to constantly be putting the shields up and drawing their swords against the federal government, one that talks about collaboration. It says it's going to work collaboratively, and then it dumps burdensome, unconstitutional regulations and laws on top of the provinces. It then acts all surprised when the provinces are all of a sudden saying, “Excuse me”, and, like porcupines, they get their quills up, and their tails are ready to swing. That's where the provinces are at right now. They have their quills up, because they know they are being threatened by the federal government with regulations, laws, and the tone that's coming from Ottawa toward them. It is harmful to the provinces. It is harmful to their objectives and what they are trying to do.

We know the folks in Atlantic Canada want to develop their resources. Obviously, this is why the government prioritized it first in the House of Commons and passed it first. That's something we would like to see, the Atlantic provinces having the ability to develop their resources, and we're looking forward to getting to Bill C-49 first, hopefully. At that point, we will also be able to have a good, fulsome conversation and discussion around the former bill, Bill C-69, which has caused large amounts of investment to leave Canada. It's a healthy part of the job losses that have impacted non-unionized and unionized labour. It's impacted our indigenous communities, our rural and remote communities, from being able to develop their resources and being able to offer jobs and employment to their people and their residents.

It's important that the federal government deal with matters that are deemed unconstitutional. That, you would think, would be priority one, trying to resolve that. That would be my hope, that it would be resolved, and there has been no indication that will actually be the case. There were some soft words that it would work to make those sections compliant, but we've heard nothing. We haven't seen any urgency to try to get that done and get that dealt with. Certainly, on our side, we would like nothing more than to get that sorted out and dealt with.

That's part of the main motion—sorry, the main amendment to the motion that we have put forward. Of course, we're on the subamendment for members to hear from people from Timmins—James Bay, and I think they would also like to see the certainty that prioritizing the Impact Assessment Act and fixing that would bring for them, for their jobs, for their industries, for their communities. I think they would really appreciate that, so I hope the government will take that seriously and actually consider what it is that Conservatives are trying to work on when it comes to the Impact Assessment Act, and what industry has been saying and what community leaders have been saying on this. It would be a great way to do something that's good for the entirety of the country, for once. I don't think that's asking too much.

I know that our provincial counterparts would appreciate it as well, as they are looking at how best to provide more affordable, more reliable power and energy for their citizens, as that is their provincial responsibility, and having the certainty within the Impact Assessment Act would help bring that for them. I know that in Saskatchewan, for example, there's a lot of conversation happening now around identifying sites where we could build small modular reactors. They would definitely appreciate having an approval process in place that is going to be expeditious and fast, and there will be some certainty provided in it. We know the province wants to do this because they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they also want to make sure that we have reliable power that's generated right in Saskatchewan. We have some nice inner ties with Alberta, Manitoba and Montana.

When you look at the SaskPower website, you can see which direction power is flowing—if we are sending power out of province, or if we are bringing power into the province through the interties—but the Saskatchewan government wants to be able to develop uranium deposits further. Certainly, our rural and remote indigenous communities in northern Saskatchewan want to see that development as well, because it means jobs and opportunities for them, much like it would mean jobs and opportunities for the folks in Timmins—James Bay.

I think across the country, there will be a lot of demand for Saskatchewan uranium. I think these are the SMRs. Even if they were to build another CANDU reactor, for example, if somebody were to do that one day, it would be beneficial, and Saskatchewan uranium could be the ticket for that, to be able to get it done. It's a good Saskatchewan resource for good, truly clean, zero-emitting power that for years the current government has said it doesn't want and we can't have, but we know it's up to the provinces how they are going to develop their resources and provide power for their citizens. Getting this right would be the least this committee could do.

The former member for Sudbury, when we talked about this in a previous Parliament, was adamant: “No. We fixed the assessment. It was your process that was flawed. That was the problem. Ours is perfect. Ours is good. It's not the problem.” We have been hearing—and we've done multiple studies across multiple committees—that this is just not the case, and the Impact Assessment Act has caused extra delays, extra uncertainty and problems for getting projects developed.

I'm sure Mr. Lefebvre would agree that getting the process right this time around would be a good thing, after his assertions in the previous Parliament that everything was fine and that wasn't the problem. Now that it's been proven that it is unconstitutional and creates problems, I think he would agree that we should make sure we get it right this time around. I won't put words in his mouth. I know he is not here to defend himself on that, so I won't do that to him. However, the reason why I said that is that I think it's worth noting the position over multiple Parliaments that the government has had on this particular issue and its refusal to admit that there are problems.

That's what brings us to where we are today, once again talking about the Impact Assessment Act, how it's going to be a problem for Bill C-49 and how it will absolutely be a problem for Bill C-50. This is because, again, the whole just transition plan by the government is to transition workers out of the.... For sure, it's to make sure that there's no more coal in this country, but for the oil and gas sector, it would be a supposed just transition or, as we call it, an unjust transition for these workers that's going to happen.

If the government is successful in ramming this unjust transition down the provinces' and the unionized and non-unionized workers' throats.... They're not going to be okay with being janitors, as some of the briefing notes that have come to light have indicated or hinted at, and they're certainly not going to be okay with a 34% pay cut to go and work in the renewables sector right now. We heard that witness testimony a little while back. That's not to mention the fuel, the energy and the power that will have to be developed to replace the losses from those plants being shut down. That will be of the utmost importance.

It's interesting to note that in the so-called clean electricity regulations from this government, a power plant could operate for 450 hours if it's emitting after the deadline comes and goes. That amounts to less than 18 days. It's around 18 days. My quick math might have me off by a day or two. Forgive me for that. If somebody decides to fact-check me, I admit that I might be off by a day or two.

The point is that in Saskatchewan, for close to seven months of the year, it's below zero degrees. A large amount of our power in Saskatchewan comes from coal and from natural gas. It's about 73%, on average, on a daily basis. In Alberta, I think it's 85%, or somewhere around there, largely in natural gas.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague, the member for Red Deer—Mountain View, Earl Dreeshen, for a wonderful explanation of why we need to consider this subamendment. He really created a great platform to help Canadians who are watching on TV understand what this is really about, the importance of the work this committee does and the importance of the order in which we do things in this committee.

Thank you, Earl, for doing that. You've helped, I think, all of us around this table, and certainly viewers who are watching, to understand the importance of the work that we're doing here, as well as the importance of the sequence of the work that we're doing.

Getting back to the subamendment, which was to make sure that this committee will be hearing from witnesses from Timmins—James Bay, someone might ask questions. Why Timmins—James Bay? What is so important about Timmins—James Bay? Why do we need to hear those witnesses?

It is quite simple: There is a lot of natural resource activity in that particular constituency of the country.

I acknowledge that there are 338 constituencies in Canada, many of which have natural resources. Mr. Dreeshen talked very articulately about the natural resource sector in northern Alberta, but Timmins—James Bay has forestry and lots of mining. Some of the bigger mines there are the Alamos Gold project and the Victor Mine. We hear lots of the big names fairly regularly. They come to Ottawa and solicit tax dollars for consideration, but there are a lot of others.

The concern is that we're going to be looking after labour there. That's why they want to discuss these bills, both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. They cite the concern of wanting to make sure that labour is properly addressed there. We know there is labour involved in mining activities.

I also want to point out to folks who are watching, and to this committee, that there are lots of junior miners we never hear about that also have employees who also need to be able to count on that paycheque coming every two weeks so that they can feed their families, heat their homes and put fuel into their vehicles. These are all things that have been very negatively impacted, Mr. Chair, by a carbon tax. We've seen the price of all of those things significantly increased by a carbon tax.

It's interesting that this Liberal government carved out a geographical area of our country and gave it a carbon tax exemption or holiday. It's very interesting, because apparently it's an ideological platform of this government to have a carbon tax, and now it's carved out for a geographical area—Atlantic Canada—a carbon tax exemption to make life more affordable there.

None of the other areas of Canada received that same exemption. They didn't receive it because they're heating with more fuel-efficient methods, like hydroelectricity or natural gas from Alberta. They experienced the same cost increases due to the carbon tax, yet they did not get the benefit of that carve-out exemption that was provided to Atlantic Canadians.

We know the reason that happened. It's because the Prime Minister's polling numbers were plummeting in Atlantic Canada, and he tried to address that by throwing them a bone, as we would call it in the industry. Maybe it was keep them happy and get their support onside.

There are people in Timmins—James Bay who have experienced the same increased cost of living in heating their homes, putting fuel in their vehicles and buying groceries at the grocery store, all of which have been impacted by the carbon tax. That's no small matter here. I think this committee should be seized with the cost that carbon tax has added to everyday living.

I want to list some of the junior miners that find themselves domiciled in Timmins—James Bay. I went on the Internet to get a list of the junior mining companies in Timmins—James Bay. I would like to make mention of them, because they're why we need witnesses from these mining companies.

They include Patriot Battery Metals, Osisko Mining, Li-FT Power, Critical Elements, Lithium Royalty, Brunswick Exploration, Fury Gold Mines and Arbor Metals.

As well, we have Azimut Exploration, Benz Mining, Power Nickel, Midland Exploration, Vanstar Mining, Max Power Mining, Superior Mining, Champion Electric Metals, Ophir Gold, Consolidated Lithium Metals, Hertz Lithium, Comet Lithium, Sirios Resources, FE Battery Metals, Targa Exploration, Harfang Exploration, Quebec Precious Metals, Canadian Critical Minerals, Lithium One Metals, ALX Resources, Stelmine Canada, Dios Exploration, Niobay Metals, Medaro Mining, Opus One Gold, Green Battery Minerals, Mosaic Minerals, Stria Lithium, Genius Metals, SPOD Lithium, Metalex Ventures, Battery X Metals, TomaGold, Clarity Metals, SLAM Exploration, Durango Resources, Lancaster Resources, Rockland Resources, Arctic Fox Lithium, K9 Gold, QcX Gold, Bullion Gold Resources, Victory Battery Metals, Brigadier Gold, Lithium Lion Metals, Musk Metals, MegaWatt Metals, Fabled Copper, Nordique Resources and Q2 Metals.

That's the listing that you can find on the Internet, Mr. Chairman, about junior mining companies in the James Bay area. There's a whole host of them there, and all these mining companies have employees who work in that area and are dependent on their paycheques. What we do in this committee matters. It matters greatly, and that's why it's so important to hear from them.

However, we also need to go back and look at the platform this premise is based on and why we need to reconsider, very carefully, whether we're addressing things in the right order here. We know that the Supreme Court issued a reference on Bill C-69, which is the impact assessment legislation this government passed, which has also been referred to in the industry as the “no more pipelines” bill. We know that there was a referral that struck down about 80% to 85% of that bill as being non-charter compliant or constitutionally challenged.

This committee should be absolutely seized with getting that legislation back here to committee and identifying the areas that the Supreme Court has referred to as not being compliant with the Constitution. We should be looking at those areas and correcting them, if they can be corrected. I suspect that in a lot of instances we're going to have to just discard big segments of that bill, because it just doesn't pass the litmus test.

I think it would be very wise of us to conduct a study on that bill first and to bring in witnesses from Timmins—James Bay and see how that particular piece of legislation has impacted their companies and impacted their employees, because the Supreme Court says that it doesn't work. Then, also, the Federal Court recently ruled that the ban on single-use plastics also wasn't constitutional. I know that the NDP-Liberal government is moving ahead with contesting that further and challenging that decision. I know it is a very welcomed decision from the Federal Court.

Mr. Chairman, I get into my riding very late in the evening when we're done here in Ottawa, and I like to treat myself. I swing through McDonald's on the way home and pick up a strawberry milkshake. I have about an hour and a quarter drive to my home from the airport, so I do that quite frequently. I was reminded again last week when I went home that I put that paper straw into the strawberry milkshake and started sucking it. Well, that just doesn't work so well. You have to look at the cost-benefit aspect, and with a paper straw, the suction that you need to get that triple-thick strawberry milkshake from McDonald's up the straw and to your palate takes an incredible amount of work. We very much welcome the decision from the Federal Court to strike down this plastic straw ban.

That decision is going to be welcomed by Canadians as they go to have their strawberry milkshakes, which are an important staple here in our Canadian diet. Both of these decisions are important to this committee. Our committee should be consumed with addressing these two pieces of... One is a regulation that came out of cabinet, I suppose—the plastic straw ban—but certainly the decision of the Supreme Court on Bill C-69 is something this committee should be bringing back and studying.

Why is it important to prioritize that? It is because both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 reference Bill C-69, which the Liberals have proposed as the next pieces of legislation on our work schedule here at this committee. If they're referencing a flawed piece of legislation, we know in turn that this legislation is also flawed. That gives us many reasons that we should be prioritizing the study of Bill C-69 over Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Let's get Bill C-69 right, or let's actually recall all of Bill C-69 and discard it and present legislation to this committee that will give Atlantic Canada a regulatory platform for tidal power.

We could talk more about Bill C-50, which was at one time called the just transition, and then industry referred to it more as an unjust transition, which probably more adequately described the intent of that bill. The Liberal government, in an effort to try to save face, renamed that bill “sustainable jobs”, when the sustainable jobs were already there. They're in oil and gas. They're providing above-average income levels for the families involved in that industry, and in the production of the world's cleanest and safest fuels by way of diesel fuel, gas, aviation fuel and liquefied natural gas.

When this Liberal government came to power back in 2015, there were 18 LNG projects on the board. Do you know how many of them have actually been built and are in production at capacity? Zero. Zero projects have been completed. It's important for Canadians to know that. The Liberal government has either been the cause of these projects being cancelled or of their not being completed.

Meanwhile, the Americans, whom we refer to a lot around this committee when we talk about the IRA.... To folks watching on TV, the IRA is the Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden has implemented in the United States. It's a massive spending bill. We always seem to want to compete with that piece of legislation on the Canadian side. I don't know why we're so eager to race to the bottom with Joe Biden, but for whatever reason, that's the direction the Liberal government has decided to pursue.

In spite of the IRA, and in spite of the massive spending and tax credit regime the Americans have created south of the 49th parallel, they have still built and completed almost half a dozen LNG projects. Canada had opportunities in Europe and Japan to sell our liquefied natural gas, coming from the cleanest processing plants the world has ever known. Our gas and oil industry has the cleanest and safest energy model. Instead of our being able to capitalize and sell to countries like Germany, the rest of Europe and Japan, our clean LNG products are now being sold by the Americans. That's another opportunity that has been missed by the government, while at the same time it wants so desperately to compete on so many levels with the American government on its IRA.

I guess another example of that is the massive amounts, the billions of dollars—I think it's close to $31 billion—that this government has committed to large multinational corporations that want to build battery production facilities here in Canada. We're going to be giving them $31 billion of taxpayers' money.

I think Canadians need to understand what this Liberal government has committed to here, because it is no small sum. It will create some jobs, but by the way, 1,600 of them, we're told now, will come from Asian countries in the form of temporary foreign workers. When Canadians were first told about the investment into these lithium battery manufacturers, I don't think they were told that these temporary foreign workers were going to be the mainstay of the employee workforce. That's something on which we haven't seen complete integrity and openness from this government, but it's come to light now. Many of these workers who are going to be employed in these battery plants that are being built on taxpayer dollars here in Canada are actually going to be foreign nationals. That's another aspect of trying to compete with the Americans on their IRA, on their Inflation Reduction Act. I think, Mr. Chairman, that's just a race to the bottom.

I think we, as Canada here, are incredibly blessed with our God-given natural resources, whether it's oil and gas, whether it's in our mining sector, or whether it's in our forestry, all things that this committee should really be studying. We need to develop these resources. They weren't given to us just to keep in the ground and stay buried, covered in a pile of dirt.

No, we have these resources, and we've been given these resources to be good stewards of them. I think the mining industry and the oil and gas industry have shown that they're responsible and that they are good stewards of the resources that we have here in this country. We have a phenomenal amount. We're the envy of the world.

We also have clean water. We probably have the largest amount of clean water resource on the globe, and I think our natural resources companies have been great stewards in protecting the integrity of our clean, fresh water resource that we also have here.

However, there's mining that needs to happen, and we know that Bill C-69 has made mining very difficult. It's happening in Timmins—James Bay with the regulatory process that's necessary to open up new mines and to continue to develop existing mines. It's very difficult, and that is something that needs to be studied.

Just recently someone pointed out to me—and it's not a recent fact but an age-old fact—that when we look at the air that we breathe, the composition of that air.... We hear so much about carbon and the need to reduce the carbon input and we hear that we're responsible for creating all this carbon pollution everywhere. It was pointed out to me that 78% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and 21% is oxygen, so 99% of the air that we breathe is nitrogen and oxygen. The other 1% is comprised of argon and carbon, and 0.03% is carbon.

I don't have the data to show that it's true, but some folks say that the impact of the carbon in the air could be manipulated by about 20% by human activity. If that's true, then it would be 0.006 of 1%. That's six one-thousandths of a per cent of impact that all human activity could actually have on the quality of the air we breathe in relation to carbon. Those are things that we need to consider before we light our hair on fire talking about carbon pollution.

Do we still want to reduce pollution? Absolutely, we do. Do we still want to find out more efficient ways to burn hydrocarbons? We've seen the industry really step up and do that. We've seen miles per gallon per vehicle significantly increase in the last two decades.

I remember growing up in the 1970s. I'm a little behind my colleague Earl here, from Red Deer. He grew up in the 1960s and I grew up in the 1970s. I was really fond of muscle cars.

Some of the muscle cars that I owned at that time.... The very first one I ever bought was when I was 16. It was a 1970 Mustang Mach 1 with a 351 Cleveland automatic. It had a shaker hood. It had the louvres on the rear window. It was blue with black accents. It was a wonderful car. I would have been very lucky in those days to get 15 miles to the gallon—very lucky. I had an awful lot of fun burning that gallon of gas for every 15 miles I drove.

We have cars being produced today with the same amount of horsepower, or more, that will get 30 miles to the gallon. That's a testament to industry, to how far technology has come. We've reduced the amount of hydrocarbons we consume for the same amount of horsepower that we create, whether that's in gasoline-powered engines or diesel-powered engines. We know this carbon tax is particularly burdensome to our transportation industry, which has some of the heaviest users of diesel fuel in our country. We know that every semi truck driving down the highway is burning diesel fuel. The construction industry also is consumed with heavy equipment that—

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I, too, have been waiting for this opportunity to speak and to discuss some of the significant aspects of what we have before us, including, as other speakers have just mentioned, what the order should be as far as Bill C-49 or Bill C-50.

Of course, I think many people are aware of the major concern with Bill C-69, which of course affects all ridings. It affects Timmins; it affects my riding, and it affects every one of the 338 ridings in the country where the Supreme Court has found that there are aspects of Bill C-69 that are unconstitutional.

We then look at Bill C-49, which has, at initial count, 33 references to the points in Bill C-69 that have been deemed unconstitutional. Therefore, the suggestion is made that maybe we should actually look at that which the Supreme Court said was so egregious before we as a committee...or for that matter before the government decides to push forward with legislation that it knows is formed on something that has been challenged.

This, I believe, is the critical aspect of the discussion. When we say there is something that the people in each of those 338 ridings need to be aware of, it is the court's decision on those parts of Bill C-69 that have already been made to the citizenry. How then can we justify dealing with legislation until that has been dealt with?

How is the government planning on dealing with that?

We listened to the Minister of the Environment basically saying that he doesn't think they're right, so we'll just kind of shuffle it around a bit so that we don't have to worry about that.

Well, that isn't exactly what the Supreme Court suggested as the solution to the fact that these points were considered unconstitutional.

We have seen the same attitude since then. The point I want to make has to do with attitude. That is with the plastics ban. Again, the Federal Court is saying that this, too, has remnants that are unconstitutional. The suggestion is just that we'll run roughshod over this, too. It's not an issue.

Of course, then we come back to the stage where we say that this is natural resources, so the fact that the Minister of the Environment chooses to get engaged in that discussion and so on.... Maybe we should just deal with what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say. Of course, we've made reference to having both of them, and even others, come to speak to the committee.

I made a very significant point, when I was on the environment committee, of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of the Environment. Then, when I moved here to natural resources, I made a special point of looking at the mandate letter of the Minister of Natural Resources.

I challenge people to find where the major differences are. When we have a Minister of Natural Resources who has not been charged with finding the very best opportunities for every one of Canada's natural resources and when he is using the same set of metrics he had when he was environment minister or when the new environment minister came into play, how does that become significant as far as natural resources are concerned?

We have heard, through our discussions in the past, that parts of their legislation have been unfair. It has been unfair to regions. It has been unfair to provinces. Quite frankly, after the many years I spent on aboriginal affairs and northern development, I know it has been unfair to our indigenous communities, because they have a lot of money already in the game of natural resources.

We talk about some of the other features of how the government looks at our natural resources and how we, as a country, can manage them.

I'll go back a number of years to a meeting with the OSCE in Berlin. At that time, there were discussions and different things taking place. Of course, the environment, science and technology were some of the main features there. The contribution Canada brought to the table in an amendment to one of the major supplementary items being discussed on the floor among this group of 50-something countries—it is beyond the European Union—was that.... They wanted that group to more or less rubber-stamp the fact that Canada believed a carbon tax was the very best solution for managing environmental concerns. That was our contribution to the discussion. We had others: some workings on helping women be involved in parliamentary associations and that type of thing, and on helping out journalists who were being attacked. There were a lot of other things there, but that was our contribution—

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a wonderful thing to be able to speak. It's something we haven't had a lot of opportunity to do. I am grateful that we are able to weigh in on the subamendment we have today, as well as the amendment and, ultimately, the main motion.

Like my two colleagues before me, I would like to encourage us to move forward as expeditiously as possible. We have two very important pieces of legislation before us. I'm hearing from thousands of Canadians in my constituency office about the importance they see in Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There's an appeal that we get on with this, and in large part, that we make room for labour at the table.

I need to reflect on the fact that it is interesting how our Conservative colleagues, particularly the leader, talk about being friends with labour; yet, every chance that the leader and his caucus have to prevent things from moving forward, they seem to take that opportunity.

We're seeing it with Bill C-58 and Bill C-50. I really would hope that.... We have these important pieces of legislation before us, and I'd like to see us actually move forward for the benefit of Canadian workers.

We've heard a lot of discussion about whether this is a programming or schedule motion. I'd like to remind all my colleagues here that the original motion, when we finally get to it, will allow us to deal with both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 concurrently. I think that's a really wise way to go. It would allow us to have witnesses, the minister and others to deal with both pieces of legislation, so we can get them back to the House in a timely manner.

I won't take up a lot more time. I'm ready to move forward with the vote on the subamendment and, hopefully, a vote on the amendment, so we can get to the main motion as soon as possible. We can build on the work that our committee did previously when hearing from many witnesses on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. We have the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia asking us to move forward with those pieces of legislation as well.

The motion we have from my colleague is a very good motion that will help us advance both pieces of legislation and, ultimately, get them back to the House, so the House can do its job and move forward with the legislation.

That's my intervention on the subamendment we have before us this morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

As my colleague Ms. Dabrusin pointed out, we've been caught up in a never-ending tangle since October 30. We've spent a month trying to determine who should be able to speak. We spent a month discussing a subamendment that is perhaps there just to frustrate Mr. Angus. I may not be Mr. Angus's greatest admirer, but the purpose of this subamendment is simply to annoy him by saying that he's not prepared to support witnesses from his region and his riding. It's a political ploy like any other, but I don't think it contributes at all to the public debate.

I have a confession to make, Mr. Chair. My son is a political science student who listens to our debates. The idiotic things he has tuned into in recent weeks were discussed in one of his courses, in connection with how elected representatives can paralyze the democratic system, sometimes, I believe, with questionable intent.

Mr. Chair, I'm telling you this because people do watch the debates we are currently having. I know this because I've taught political science and studied politics for over 20 years. People are getting more cynical about politics. What they might be watching here over the past month would do nothing to reduce the level of cynicism about politics. I don't agree with anything in Bill C‑49. Nor do I agree with anything in Bill C‑50. In fact we voted against the latter in the House.

On the other hand, on what grounds could I possibly express my disagreement with these bills by attempting to obstruct committee studies? I believe that in doing so, I would be acting irresponsibly. I won't be taking that approach, and would rather try to improve the bills to make them acceptable to me. If that proved to be impossible, I would just vote against them. That's the straightforward democratic principle.

I am therefore hoping that we'll be able to quickly finish debate on this amendment, because I don't see what it has to offer. We can invite anyone we want to testify before the committee. It's up to the members to suggest which witnesses they would like to hear from. I don't see what that would contribute, other than causing us to waste valuable time. I would ask my colleagues to show their integrity. People can disagree with bills that are introduced, but at the very least, we can hear what the witnesses have to say and allow the democratic process to proceed freely.

I would ask you to vote as quickly as possible on this amendment so that we can return to what's on the table, meaning the study of two bills that are, after all, rather important, even though we may disagree with them. That's what I encourage everyone to do.

I'll conclude by pointing out that everything we do has an impact, and that people are watching us on TV. People can see what has been going on for the past few weeks. It has been a free-for-all shouting match over whose turn it is to speak next. I don't think that this is helping to advance the democratic process.

Let's be responsible. Let's say what we think about the amendments before us and stop wasting everyone's precious time.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to be able to take a moment to speak about this subamendment that was proposed, as you said, by Mr. Falk. The subamendment is to add specificity to witnesses being called from one riding as part of a study that's proposed within an amendment to our study.

I trust that all members of this committee will make decisions to call everyone we need to be heard as part of our study of offshore wind and Atlantic accords in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. I don't think that we need to be naming specific ridings. There are 338 ridings, all of which may have really important witnesses to call.

I will not be supporting this subamendment. I think that we have, throughout all of our studies, been very able to call the witnesses who need to be heard for a study. There's a process for that.

I was trying to figure out where the location for this meeting was. I realized I had to look back to October 30. This is actually a continuation of our October 30 meeting. That's basically a month that we have been at the stage of continuing to debate, essentially, the subamendment. It has been a long wait. I'm happy to see that today I have been given the floor.

I know that people in our communities are eager to see us study offshore wind in Bill C-49 and sustainable jobs in Bill C-50. This is a moment for us to move forward. Both of them provide economic opportunities for our country.

This is a really nice morning to see us actually get into the debate on the subamendment and talk about how we could move forward with a concurrent study of these two bills. I'm looking forward to doing it, and I'm hoping that we can keep this pace going so that we can all move forward with these very important bills.

Oil and Gas Industry

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is ironic to hear the Conservatives pretend to care about Canada's economic future when their campaign on climate denialism has prevented them from supporting even the most popular economic opportunities. The Conservatives are currently using shameful tactics in the natural resources committee to hold back Bill C-49.

Bill C-49 would play a key role in allowing for the development of offshore wind power, a key component for hydrogen and clean electricity. This is critical for improving global energy security and growing the number of good-paying jobs available across all Atlantic provinces.

We have already reached an agreement with the Germans and the Europeans on hydrogen exports. Both premiers support this bill, and the industry has been calling for it to be implemented. The only obstacle is the Conservative Party of Canada and its shameful campaign against all forms of climate action. However—

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

Madam Speaker, companies and countries around the world are making decisions to ensure that they are able to access and deliver energy that is reliable, clean and affordable. That is true in Canada and around the world.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine included significant impacts on global energy markets and supply chains. That is why the European Union signalled that it is looking to secure sustainable sources of energy, stating that it is clean energy that will play the largest role in their long-term energy security. We must be skating where the puck is going.

The Conservatives may deny climate change, but they have to at least acknowledge that is not the case for our partners and allies in Europe.

We know that energy security and climate action go hand in hand. When it comes to supporting Canadian projects to provide energy to our allies, I can confirm to the member across the way that our government has a better record than the Conservatives do on every level.

To give members an example, we have approved, as the member mentioned, the Cedar LNG project in B.C., led by the Haisla Nation. It is a small-scale floating facility and marine export terminal. Beyond LNG, there are many increasingly important resources of low-carbon fuel that we are working actively on. One of the top 10 hydrogen-producing countries is Canada, which has emerged as a leader in developing new hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

Allow me to add that Atlantic Canada will be a significant driver of that as well. The Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance will also export hydrogen to Germany as early as 2025. Just last week, we announced the financing of major hydrogen projects in Nova Scotia using wind power.

Once the Conservatives stop their shameful opposition to Bill C‑49, we can begin to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. That means thousands of jobs, a lot of clean energy for the power grid and emissions-free hydrogen production for export. While the Conservatives denigrate our economic future, we are taking measures to build the future.

On top of this, I will briefly mention our efforts to bring clean nuclear energy and biofuels to our allies. There are growing opportunities for Canada's CANDU technology. Earlier this year, the minister of energy joined the Romanian minister to announce a $3-billion loan to Romania, which will be best spent on building two new CANDU reactors in Romania.

All of this money will be spent on Canadian companies and good jobs for the clean sector. We will be powering Romania at no cost to the taxpayer. This will help Romania phase out coal and provide clean power to countries that are looking to move away from Russia.

On biofuels, we continue to invest this year in Canadian innovation to support our allies' energy needs. In May, we announced $86 million to save and retool the Come By Chance refinery in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that the former oil refinery can lead the region in sustainable biofuel production. Canada will continue to be a reliable and steady global supplier of clean energy.

Carbon Pricing

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, people may be entitled to their opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

The commissioner this morning actually said that it was effective and it was working, and so do all of the academics. I do not know where that person gets her facts, but at the end of the day, the facts are the facts.

The fact is that those folks do not have a plan for climate change, but they also do not have a plan for the economy. In fact, right now, in the natural resources committee, the Conservatives are blocking moving forward with Bill C-49, which is about enabling the development of an offshore wind and hydrogen program in Atlantic Canada, something that is supported by the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is bizarre.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend across the way used the word “revolting”. What is revolting are the tactics and the circus act that are going on in the natural resources committee, blocking the passage of Bill C-49. It is endangering the health and safety of the translators in that committee. It is an enormous waste of taxpayer money. It is opposing the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. The bill would create jobs and economic opportunity for the future in a manner that is consistent with fighting the climate crisis. Shame on him.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, we have a serious plan, a real policy, that addresses affordability and addresses the climate crisis. The leader of official opposition has no plan. He mouths tag lines like “technology, not taxes”. This is coming from a guy who has zero background in technology and zero background in business. This is coming from somebody who has been opposing the deployment of offshore wind technology through the passage of Bill C-49, which is supported by the Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Shame on them for having no plan for climate change and having no plan for the economy of the future.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are not giving all of the information.

There is a rebate provided to Canadians. There is also what we have done: Last week, we doubled the rural top-up to 20%, which is important. If the member cared about jobs, he would have voted for Bill C-49. If the member cared about jobs, he would tell his party to stop filibustering at the natural resources committee so it could pass legislation on Bill C-49. They will not even have the legislation come to committee for debate, to bring in the premiers and to bring in witnesses to talk about it.

It is shameful and it is reckless, and Conservatives are not there for Canadians.

Natural Resources

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the natural resources committee have had their work brought to a standstill by a reckless and wasteful Conservative filibuster. The Conservatives are deliberately trying to stop workers from getting a seat at the table and trying to end Atlantic Canada's offshore renewable energy opportunities by opposing vital legislation.

Can the parliamentary secretary please share with the House the negative impacts that delaying these important bills, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, will have on the lives of Canadian workers?

Climate Change

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will just reiterate what a refreshing debate this has been to participate in.

I sincerely wish we could be having conversations in this House about how to fight climate change, not about whether to fight climate change, as with the Conservatives. Climate change is an existential threat. We are in an emergency, and the debate from the Conservatives over whether we should do the bare minimum is beyond the pale.

Fighting climate change is about creating good, sustainable jobs for generations to come and is not beyond our government, but it is so disappointing to see the Conservative Party of Canada filibustering the sustainable jobs act. Earlier today, the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million workers, called on Conservatives to end that debate. The Conservatives are also against Bill C-49.

It is astonishing what we have to tolerate in this House with respect to the level of debate when it comes to climate change. I once again thank my friend and colleague for her extraordinary leadership on this. I appreciate everything she does. I hope we can debate and have a conversation in person sometime very soon.

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

—by taking the floor away from him on the debate on the programming motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her hard work for her community and for workers across Canada. The Atlantic accords act and the Canadian sustainable jobs act are key to unlocking generational economic opportunities for Canada.

The Atlantic accords act would allow for the development of an offshore wind industry, which would create thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada. The sustainable jobs act would bring workers to the table and equip them with the tools and skills they need to thrive.

I call upon the Conservative Party to end its wasteful filibuster and allow committee members to consider these bills. It should heed the call of premiers, industry, workers and the House to advance Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is simply wasting time and the money of taxpayers.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to the detriment of our economy, the Conservative Party is blocking two vital pieces of legislation that would create sustainable jobs, bring workers to the table and build important renewable energy projects.

First, it blocked workers from speaking at committee. Then it cancelled debate in this chamber, and now it is filibustering the natural resources committee to stop consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Could the minister inform the House of the importance of the sustainable jobs act and the Atlantic accords act?

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

Thank you, Chair.

We will continue to push forward on this. This legislation has to be passed.

This committee had 56 meetings with 133 witnesses and over 112 hours of testimony. We know what the energy file is. We know what the sustainable jobs issue is. We need to get this legislation passed.

We are hearing from labour groups across the country who are very concerned. I'm hearing from investors who are looking to shift investment to the United States because they are seeing that Canada is becoming a gridlock, with the Conservatives blocking Bill C-49, when there are such opportunities.

To that, this motion that I read, or my attempt to speak to this, was referred to us because two pieces of legislation were referred to our committee. As someone who has been in Parliament for multiple years and in opposition for all that time, I don't always agree with how government works. I know that when government moves legislation to the committee, it becomes the priority of the committee. The committee has to address that legislation.

What we saw from the Conservatives was an attempt to monkeywrench that motion on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 by introducing another study on top of that. I reached out to the Conservatives. I said that I'd be more than willing to look at that study, but that study would have to come in order. It doesn't get to pre-empt the work that has been given to us by Parliament. There is a timeline ticking on this. We need to get this done. This is what we're hearing from labour.

We have a series of these amendments that are very.... First, it was Sudbury. Suddenly, we're going to have people from Sudbury. It wasn't really clear who we were going to have from Sudbury, but we were going to get somebody from Sudbury. The Conservatives suddenly were really fascinated. It's funny. They didn't have anybody come when the coal transition happened. It was the New Democrats who brought representatives who went through the coal transition. They didn't bring anybody. Suddenly, they wanted someone from Sudbury.

I believe the motion was that they wanted representatives from the mining industry in Timmins, which I think is a great idea. I would love to have a set of meetings with representatives from the mining region of Timmins, maybe Val-d'Or, maybe Sudbury, but outside of this meeting on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because it would certainly be a huge education to my Conservative colleagues.

If they think that the mining representatives from northern Ontario are going to come down and back their climate-denying anti-investment in EV technology, I think they're going to be in for a big surprise.

We have Alamos Gold in Matachewan that's running 8,000 tonnes of gold a day underground. That's massive. When I go underground at Alamos, we talk about the really important need to move from diesel to electric trucks. That's a huge investment. Those ITCs will be huge for being able to move those kinds of underground pit trucks to battery power.

There's the Newmont mine. I would love to invite Newmont to come and talk about Borden. Borden is a mine that's running almost entirely green now. It is possible.

Again, this is something my Conservative colleagues would not probably know anything about. When you work underground in a diesel environment and work with oil from the drills, the lung cancers and stomach cancers are enormous, just from what you're breathing.

When you go into a clean battery-driven mine, the air is so much cleaner, and it drops your costs enormously. What you pay in battery investments, you actually make up in less cost for underground fans. When you have to run fans, let's say at Creighton, deep, 9,000 feet underground, you're pumping a lot of cool air down at those depths. When you run diesel motors at that depth, you have to run really heavy fans.

I talk to mining representatives, and I'm sure they would love to come to this committee to talk about how ITCs would help in those investments so that we could make switches. For example, I believe Vale, which is not in my region, but is in Ms. Lapointe's region, is running 72-ton haulage trucks now on batteries. That's a really transformative moment. People didn't think that was possible. Certainly the flat earth EV deniers would say that you couldn't run trucks that big. What they can do now, because of how they've tied the batteries to the braking energy on those pit trucks, is run from six hours to 10 hours. A 10-hour shift on a battery hauling 72 tons of ore is a major transformative moment.

I would love to have them come and talk about that technology and why they are absolutely committed to the clean-tech future, because they see the opportunities for mining.

Whenever I talk to people in the mining sector, they get it. If we're going to be competing against China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where there are horrific human rights abuses, we need to have a supply chain that is free of the abuses that are happening in places like Congo, but also that has a clean energy footprint. We can't say we're going to be a clean energy superpower and get critical minerals unless our mines are able to start running on clean energy.

That leads to questions on the grid.

I know, Chair, when you were sitting as just one of the members, we were going to study the grid, something my Conservative colleagues don't seem to want to deal with. But the grid is important, because we actually can't move some of this battery technology for big industrial projects without dealing with issues of the grid.

I think it would be really great to have representatives of the Timmins mining industry. They would also explain to the Conservatives that Bill C-69 has really nothing to do with how mine projects are developed. I know Conservatives are going on that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine up and running, and they blame the Liberal government for that. Well, it always takes 10 to 15 years for a mine, because when you're talking about a multi-million dollar investment underground, you have to make sure you really know where you're putting your infrastructure. If you put the shaft in the wrong place, you're going to go bankrupt pretty quickly, and you're not going to be able to raise the money on the international market until you've done all the important steps that are necessary.

Take Doug Ford. He announced he was going to run a bulldozer through the Ring of Fire. Well, that didn't go so well. I wouldn't be betting any money on the Ring of Fire right now, because it was Conservative politicians who shot their mouths off about the Ring of Fire. If you go to Neskantaga First Nation, they're saying, “It ain't going to happen, because it's not done properly.” To build a mine properly, you have to have a proper environmental plan, a proper financial plan, the support of first nations, because when you have the support of first nations, things move a lot quicker.

For example, we had representatives from the Timmins mining region come—

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

Thank you, Chair.

It's interesting, because, again, we have not been able to discuss this at all without the Conservatives losing their minds on this, interrupting, demanding that I speak on what they want me to speak about.

I am here to speak about important legislation, two pieces of legislation, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we move Bill C-50 forward. What we've seen is interference by the Conservatives to discuss other things, to move ahead, to ignore something that was moved in legislation. Bill C-49 is absolutely essential, because we are dealing with the need to be able to compete on the maritime east coast when we're losing out to the Biden administration. That is something the Conservatives don't want us to talk about, so I'm not surprised they are interfering and attempting to, again, play gong show games here.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Angus started the meeting with the floor. He was not interrupted until he finished reading the motion, but he conveniently left out the amendment the Conservatives put forward to make sure that Bill C-49 is actually given precedence. We want to undertake a study on Bill C-69, but of consequence, we want Bill C-49 to go ahead of Bill C-50, for the sake of ordering.

I just want to make sure all committee members remember that Bill C-49 should come ahead of Bill C-50, and we would like to see Bill C-49 first.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think we're now six meetings into my attempt to have the floor so that I can carry out my basic function as a parliamentarian, which is to participate in legislation, legislation that was voted on in the House and passed to our committee, and so, it's a priority for our committee to address the motion.

Being that we've had so much monkey business, people might forget what we were actually discussing. I'm going to read the motion and then explain why we need to address these.

The motion that was brought by the Liberal government for debate by the parties was:

That given Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;

I will stop there. November 8 has passed because of the monkey business that was going on with the Conservatives. The minister who could've come and explained his position was not given that opportunity and I, as an opposition member, was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the minister.

b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday, December 6, 2023;

We haven't crossed that date yet, but it's moving up on us.

c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12 pm on Friday November 3, 2023—

—which we have done as New Democrats—

—and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12 pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;

f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;

h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and

i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5 pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.

That's what we set out to discuss, I believe, six meetings ago.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I would just point out that I thank Mr. Kelloway for his participation here. I do look forward to his support of my subamendment, which of course is asking for Bill C-49 to be studied first, as it was introduced, passed and time allocated through the House of Commons. Of course, Mr. Sorbara's scheduling programming motion puts it second. I just want to clarify that.

Chair, to the point of order related to chapter 20, we had asked to hear from the clerk on a number of issues. I just want to quote chapter 20.

Is that okay?

You've addressed chapter 20 a lot, so I'm going to too.

As a non-partisan and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties;

The clerk advises all members:

The Clerk is at the service of all Members, regardless of party affiliation, and must act with impartiality and discretion.

Of course, there are a lot more words than that. I'm sure the clerk can advise you.

We on a number of occasions have asked for the clerk, who serves us equally and in a non-partisan way and who would respond to us all as MPs who are duly elected and equal in our capacities here on behalf of the people who have sent us here to do these jobs.... Although it's a pattern, I guess, of censorship and shutting down free speech, I just wonder why we can't actually have the clerk address us on a number of issues we're raising that relate to a lack of confidence and credibility in the chair's own equal and impartial enforcement of the rules.

Why is it that we can't hear from the clerk when we've asked to hear from the clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Colleagues, I want to provide a reminder once again. We had a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, and the Atlantic accords, Bill C-49. We have an amendment brought forward to Mr. Sorbara's main motion by Ms. Stubbs. We have had a subamendment brought forward by Mr. Falk.

We are on the subamendment by Mr. Falk. Mr. Angus has the floor on the subamendment with many other members waiting.

We have a few folks on a point of order. I'm going to go through the points of order of a few people.

I'm going to go to Ms. Stubbs first on a point order. Then we'll go to the next member after Ms. Stubbs.

Ms. Stubbs, as I reminded other committee members, please be succinct on your point order.

The floor is yours on the point of order.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

If we can go down that tangent as quickly as possible, Bill C-49 is important for Atlantic Canadians and Bill C-50 is important for all Canadians.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Chair, I very much wish to be quite brief.

I put forward a motion, I believe a regular scheduling motion, for our committee to go over Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

It is November 8 today, if I am correct. We would have had the minister here with us today at committee looking at two important pieces of legislation for all Canadians and for all parts of the country. I believe there's an amendment on the table, or a subamendment on the floor, if I could get clarification.

There's a subamendment that is being debated right now. I would hope that all parties can get to a point where we can vote on the subamendment and then vote on the revised amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I've given you an opportunity to present your point of order. I've given Mr. Angus an opportunity to respond. I'm going to ask you to hold for a second.

Thank you for the point of order, Mr. Genuis. I do not find Mr. Angus's intervention unparliamentary, not from what he said and just restated. Clarification was provided.

I will ask all members once again to not use unparliamentary language in this committee room with one another. Focus on the work we are here to do in committee, not on making accusations and using unparliamentary language against one another, whoever that may be. We've had a number of meetings. We should not be resorting to using unparliamentary language. Canadians from coast to coast to coast are watching our deliberations today.

Focus on the task at hand. I will remind everybody that the task at hand is the motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara regarding Bill C-50 the Canadian sustainable jobs act, and Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords bill. The motion was moved by Mr. Sorbara. An amendment was moved by Ms. Stubbs. Then a subamendment was moved by Mr. Falk. That's where we are.

Mr. Angus has the floor. The chair's ruling has not been challenged. This committee is at the point where Mr. Angus has the floor to debate. We have other points of order. I'm going through the other points of order.

Mr. Falk, you have a point of order. Thank you for waiting very patiently.

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

The issue here, Mr. Chair, is this. The member has denied that I had the floor, which is a falsehood. The chair has ruled on that, but he will not challenge him. The chair has ruled. The ruling of the chair has been sustained.

Now we see his attempt to drag out a fight with Ms. Lapointe, who I think has held herself with dignity.

This attempt to personalize it with me is.... I am somehow a problem for being denied the ability to participate by these constant attempts to interfere.

I would ask, Mr. Chair, to move on, because I have the floor.

I am certainly ready to start speaking to the motion regarding Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, because I have workers who depend on us doing something. If Mr. Genuis's feelings are being hurt because he's being called out for his behaviour, misconduct and disorder, as you said, that is his issue. My issue is speaking for the workers of this country.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I am going to ask you to hold, Mr. Patzer. We are not going to engage, as I mentioned earlier.

A point of order is for a procedural issue, not for debate. I do have you on the list. At the time when you have the debate, if you would like to debate on the subamendment, you'll have the opportunity to do so, but we have dealt with the point of order.

I've already dealt with the issues of committee disorder earlier in my opening remarks. I think colleagues are quite aware that I've had to suspend many meetings over the last several weeks because of disorder, and I have done so again today.

I would ask members throughout the meeting to allow other members to participate, and to use parliamentary language, because as honourable members we all have the honour and privilege of being on this committee to do important work for Canadians. We'll remind everyone we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara on the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act, Bill C-50, and on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accords. We also have an amendment placed by Ms. Stubbs and we now have a subamendment placed by Mr. Falk on Timmins—James Bay. That is where we're at.

I have Ms. Dabrusin. I know you've been very patient. Thank you.

I have one more point of order by Ms. Stubbs and then we will proceed to.... We'll go to Ms. Stubbs on a point of order.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I am building on what our colleague, Mr. Angus, raised.

Chapter 20 talks about points of order and when they can be raised. It indicates proceedings can be temporarily suspended, but points of order must be considered by the chair, who determines whether the point of order has merit. The chair will generally make an immediate decision on a point of order, but sometimes the chair needs to take it under advisement.

The points of order being raised, we've been listening to them for days—for hours and hours, and for days and days.

I will make two points.

One is that we've heard the points of order. You made your decisions, including on speaking order, and we need to be able to move on. I've made that case before, but we're still stuck in this debate. I remind people that the chair, when a point of order is raised, needs to make a decision. That has happened. It's been sustained through a challenge to the chair.

Furthermore, to the point of the chair being accused of interrupting people, the chair's role is to maintain the flow and decorum within in. I challenge all members to.... When the chair's microphone comes on, the respectful thing to do is pause and let the chair make his ruling and provide direction. That's the only way this committee can function. Otherwise, we have the dysfunction we've been seeing for several days now.

I ask us to abide by the Standing Orders we have. We've had enough repetition. We've had enough challenges to the chair. We've ruled on them. Let's move on. Let's debate the subamendment before us on northern Ontario and see whether we can do the work we've been sent here to do.

My office is getting thousands of letters right now from Albertans asking us to move forward with this legislation, and from Atlantic Canadians who want to see Bill C-49 move forward. This is not doing justice to why we have been brought to Ottawa.

The Standing Orders provide us with the rules needed to move forward.

I ask all members to do the work we've been sent here to do.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It is actually great to be here. I know you're probably thinking, “What did he have to drink before he came here”, but I certainly didn't drink anything.

Number one, I'm hoping I get to hear Mr. Angus take the floor, but I also want to highlight how important the motion and Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 are, if I may. In Atlantic Canada, in Nova Scotia, and in particular in Cape Breton—Canso, where I'm from, the amendment to the Atlantic accord—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

I think I have addressed your point of order. If you have another point of order, I'll ask you—

Once again, colleagues, I don't need a number of people to tell me who's next or who's not. I heard a point of order on your point of order. I've addressed that. If there is another member, I will address them.

I want to remind colleagues that we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Sorbara. We have an amendment by Ms. Stubbs. We have another subamendment on Timmins, for which Mr. Angus last had the floor. He is our next speaker, who hasn't been allowed to speak.

Colleagues, we all discussed last meeting the importance of this bill and the amendments. I hope today we can get through this subamendment on Timmins, go through our speaking order on Timmins—all the members who want to debate this important component of the subamendment—so we can get to the amendment that Ms. Stubbs brought forward. We can debate that and we can get to the main motion.

I'm really hoping that we can work together as a committee, the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, studying the motion that Mr. Sorbara brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and then the additional amendment that Ms. Stubbs has brought forward.

This is the work of this committee, which Canadians expect us to do. If we can work together, everybody will have an opportunity to participate in debate and we can move forward.

I need all members to be very clear on where we are.

Ms. Dabrusin, you reminded us, and I should remind committee members of where we are as well, so there is no confusion.

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

Thank you.

Under Standing Order 116 and the ability of members to speak, we've had 56 meetings, 133 witnesses and 112 hours on the energy file. We're more than ready to move forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I'm looking at the motion that was provided by the Liberals. Given that we've had this relentless gong show of interruptions, people might not be aware of what we are actually debating. I think it's important to read it into the record:

That given Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to start by moving that the privilege of the member for Peace River—Westlock had been breached when the chair and the committee refused to allow him to speak on Bill C-69. That is a privilege motion, which is now properly before the committee.

I will now speak on that question of privilege, and it will be up to the committee ultimately to determine whether to forward a report on that matter of privilege to the House. That is a privilege motion and I will now speak to it.

We were undertaking a debate on an important matter, which is Bill C-69, an amendment in relation to a programming motion on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. There was an amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you.

Mr. Patzer had the floor on a point of order, and that's the ruling.

The committee upheld and sustained the ruling of the chair. With that, I see that the committee members have confidence in what we are doing today and the important work on C-50 and C-49, the motion that was brought forward, the amendments and now the subamendment.

I would like to get back to the subamendment and to the individuals who were speaking so that we can continue to debate the subamendment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you.

We can spend the whole day naming everyone's ridings and saying we want to add them, but I don't think that'll change much. We can also shout the words "common sense" at each other 15 times, but I don't necessarily think that's "rational".

I see that my Conservative colleagues want to be heard. The best way to do that maybe to conduct the clause‑by-clause consideration of Bill C‑50. If they don't agree, they need only vote against it. I personally voted against Bill C‑50 in the House and did the same with Bill C‑49. I'm nevertheless prepared to hear the witnesses who will be here to express their views on the bill, just as I'm prepared to hear the minister and officials tell us about bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I don't know what my Conservative colleagues are trying to do with this mountain of oddball amendments they're proposing to us this morning, but I know that people are watching us now. Some of them are starting to think my colleagues' conduct is a bit much. The Conservative Party leadership tells the House that people are requesting medical assistance in dying because they have nothing to eat. Some people in my riding who hear that find it appalling.

There are some MPs here today who, instead of seriously discussing a bill, are proposing oddball amendments and citing the ridings of certain members in an attempt to find an excerpt that suggests those members don't want to listen to the people. I don't think that's a serious gambit. If we're being serious today, this afternoon, we will promptly vote on the subamendment and Ms. Stubbs' amendment. Then we'll decide on the motion before us so we can begin the work we have to do on bills C‑50 and C‑49.

I'm telling you that even though I voted against those bills in the House. I'm prepared to hear witnesses because the mandate given to me by the people in the riding of Jonquière is to act as a legislator, not as a buffoon. I therefore request a vote on my colleague's subamendment.

Perhaps then we can move on to something else.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your ruling on that.

The whole issue here is that we need to hear directly from people who have been impacted by Bill C-69, and the people who have been directly impacted are people in the natural resource sector, like oil and gas, like mining, and these people need a voice at the table. They don't feel that they're being represented. There are lots of not only workers there but also companies that support all those jobs. We need to hear from them on how they feel about Bill C-69.

Once we can determine that and can get Bill C-69 to the point where it is actually constitutionally sustainable and compliant, then we're much better positioned once that bill is corrected. We don't want the Supreme Court to have to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 and correct those again because of all the references made to Bill C-69, which would probably make it also not compliant.

Why would we want them to do all that duplicate...? They have important cases to hear. They don't need to hear about the failures of the Liberal-NDP government having presented legislation, which wasn't compliant, to Parliament. They knew it wasn't compliant. The Conservatives argued long and hard, when that legislation was before us in 2018, that this was not charter-compliant and that this did not meet the litmus test that was required for it to be constitutionally sustainable. We weren't listened to. We were mocked, and we were criticized. Now you see what we have today, and that's the Supreme Court making a reference opinion on that piece of legislation and asking for that to be corrected.

It's incumbent on this committee—we're the natural resources committee—to study that piece of legislation. Let's help the government get it right.

Thank you.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm a bit puzzled here. I know I missed a few hours of the Conservative filibustering here on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Where in this motion are heat pumps? Clearly, there are issues here where we're looking at inviting the minister to come to speak on both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49—

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's a pleasure for me to talk to this amendment brought by my colleague, Ms. Stubbs.

Just to bring people up to speed again, I'm going to read what the amendment actually is so that viewers watching this by television understand what it is that we're talking about. The amendment is that prior to engaging in the Liberal study motion that was brought forward, we:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

The rest of the motion that was brought forward would follow that.

Really, putting things in the right order is what this motion is doing. We've heard from the Supreme Court in their reference opinion that Bill C-69 has many parts of it that are not charter-compliant and are not constitutionally sustainable.

Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 all have references to Bill C-69 in there and, because of that—sometimes the language is verbatim—need to be studied in the light of Bill C-69, which should at least be charter-compliant and constitutionally sustainable. At the moment, it's not.

That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to take a look at Bill C-69 and look at the reference opinion that the Supreme Court has provided. Then, in the light of that report, we're better able to deal.... Once we've done a fulsome study on Bill C-69 and the Supreme Court's opinion, we're better able, once that legislation has been modified and has become compliant, to look at Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

What I would like to do is make a subamendment to the amendment at this time. I'd like the subamendment to be that the witness list for the study of Bill C-69, as proposed in the amendment, include representatives of the resource companies from Timmins—James Bay. I can repeat that: that the study include witnesses, that a representative of the resource companies operating in Timmins—James Bay....

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I just want to acknowledge the subamendment that's been made by MP Patzer. I do want to talk about how important the work of this committee is and how important it is that we get to the motion that was tabled this morning by MP Sorbara about our dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. These bills are very important for us all across Canada, as well as specifically for Sudbury, as the subamendment has been tabled.

As I stated and will reiterate, the people of Sudbury certainly want to talk about creating good, sustainable jobs for workers. We also want to talk about economic growth within a net-zero economy. This is extremely important. Critical minerals will be a very important aspect to our reaching net zero, and Sudbury will be a key player in that. We look forward to our role in that. This committee did a study around the Inflation Reduction Act and how Sudbury can position itself in Canada, as well, around being not only competitive but also collaborative with that. It will be very important. Critical minerals present a generational opportunity for wealth for Sudbury and in turn Ontario and Canada.

It is vitally important that this committee get on with the work of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. I look forward to doing that. I look forward to inviting some really good expert witnesses from Sudbury and northern Ontario, as well, to weigh in on this important discussion that Canadians and people from Sudbury want us to have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, prior to having the point of order, I was actually speaking about where the folks of Sudbury are getting their energy, where their power generation comes from and where rural Ontario gets it from. This is why we put that specific common-sense subamendment in place. There was a point of order while I was talking about that. I was merely offering up a quick response to the point of order because I found it quite fascinating myself, to be honest. What I was getting at was the fact that there's over 10,000 megawatts of gas and oil being used for power and energy for rural Ontario and for communities like Sudbury.

It is important, when we have a common-sense subamendment outlining the people of Sudbury, how it relates to the motion, which is its link to Bill C-69. This is because of the reference case by the Supreme Court of Canada making it largely unconstitutional. How's that going to implicate Bill C-50?

Again, let's just pretend for a moment that Bill C-50 was somehow magically going to work. It's not going to work because it's a job-killing initiative, but let's just pretend for a moment that it would. There are going to be issues trying to get the jobs and the energy transition for these workers and for these communities like Sudbury to be able to have reliable, affordable energy going forward.

In order for Bill C-50 to possibly be effective, Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first and foremost. When we see that gas and oil is 28% in Ontario for the high-voltage provincial grid, it is important that we speak to why Bill C-50 has a part to play and what's going to happen to the people of Sudbury—which is what my subamendment is all about.

Providing context to amendments and subamendments is important. That's what I am trying to do. That's the point I'm trying to make and, unfortunately, I keep on getting points of order over that.

I don't know if it's because when people hear how this is going to go and how this will be laid out...because, as I mentioned earlier, there was already an attempt at a coal transition in rural areas of Alberta. I mentioned the thousands of jobs that were lost. Workers were not transitioned into other jobs. They were certainly not given what was mentioned, which was that there would be sustainable, well-paying jobs for everybody.

Again, it's fantasyland to think that the 177,000-plus direct jobs are all of a sudden going to get the same or jobs or greater jobs that are talked about by the minister in the just transition or the Canadian sustainable jobs act.

We know it's not going to be a just transition. That's why the government has moved to try to change the name and the title of it. The Minister of Labour actually admitted that people don't like the phrase “just transition”. I think it's because people know what it actually means. It's just going to be a transition into unemployment for a lot of folks, or into a position where they are going to be out of work or be paid substantively less. We heard a witness the other day say that 34% less is what people will be paid when and if they are transitioned to a different job.

I can guarantee that the people of Sudbury do not want to take a 34% haircut. That's not what people want. The bill actually does nothing to make sure that it is going to say...we've seen government internal documents even admit and say that this is not going to happen.

We have on the record from the government that this is going to be problematic, and we're still ramming through legislation that was time-allocated after minimal debate in the House of Commons. That's what happened back in 2018-19 with Bill C-69. It's what happened with Bill C-50. It's what happened with Bill C-49.

It's also important to talk about the energy transformation going forward for the people of Sudbury. That's why we want to have people at committee to testify to this. It's because when we see what the coldest temperature on record for Sudbury was recently, over the last couple of years, last winter, in fact, the coldest temperature was -37°C.

There was no carve-out for the carbon tax in Sudbury. People are going to need to heat their homes with a heat pump that only works up until -7°, which is about 30 degrees short of what people are going to need to stay warm. This is why we're talking specifically about making sure we get people from a community outside of Toronto to testify at committee.

This committee is also going to study the impact of the Supreme Court decision on the resource sector, and we want stakeholders from Sudbury to be included in that study. That's the main point of the common-sense subamendment that we have.

I think it's important that we let the people of Ms. Lapointe's riding have a say. That's why we moved this common-sense subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I'm waiting for an applause. I'm going to end my remarks there.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

They want us to be able to get to the important work of dealing with Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

On a point of order, through you, Chair, we are, to my understanding, dealing with a very specific subamendment at this point in time in the debate about bringing Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 to this committee for study, two pieces of legislation that are very important for Canadians.

I'm not too certain as to the member's comments. Are they with regard to this subamendment or are they with regard to something else?

I'm not seeing the connection there, Chair.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All these bills, Bill C-49, Bill C-50and Bill C-69, which is from a previous Parliament, obviously have a far-reaching impact across this country.

If I recall correctly, after I moved my subamendment, I was speaking to the types of witnesses we would need and the importance of them. I moved the subamendment because we need to hear from witnesses from all across the country.

Mr. Chair, I promised you earlier that I would talk about the good people from southeastern Saskatchewan—actually, south Saskatchewan, the southeast corner of my riding. Geographically it would just be the due south of Saskatchewan there in Coronach and Rockglen and Willow Bunch. It's a great part of the province, a great part of the country.

There are going to be witnesses coming from that region for sure, but, as you know, the reason we have the subamendment is to make sure we don't forget about other parts of the country that are going to be impacted potentially by Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 but also if we do not make changes to Bill C-69. We do know this is the “don't build anything” bill, as it's now become and as we've heard numerous times in committee, whether this committee or industry or environment or any other. Even in finance we hear that regularly. I think it's important that we make sure we address Bill C-69 with witnesses from all over.

I know some of my colleagues from Atlantic Canada are looking forward to bringing witnesses as well. They are obviously going to be bringing in multiple witnesses for multiple pieces of legislation, whether it's Bill C-49 or Bill C-69. I'm sure they will be very keenly interested in Bill C-50, because the fate of Bill C-49 is going to be tied to what happens with the just transition as well, since they are from part of the country that generates its electricity largely from coal and other means. They will also be disproportionately impacted by all the pieces of legislation we're talking about in the motion, the common-sense amendment and the subamendment.

I spoke a little bit about the jobs that are going to be impacted in Saskatchewan. I spoke a little bit about what's happening in Alberta as well, and in Atlantic Canada. I think it's important that we get a good list of witnesses.

Really, people are going to be concerned and talking at length, I would imagine, about the Supreme Court ruling.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Through you, I just wanted to assure my colleague MP Patzer that I look forward to inviting many witnesses from Sudbury on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.

Thank you.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Oh, thank you.

Mr. Chair, I was speaking about the fact that Saskatchewan relies on natural gas and coal for the majority of its baseload power right now. Interestingly enough, on their website for the Government of Saskatchewan—it actually lists this on the SaskPower portion of that website—you can go through and you can see where the province, within the previous 24 hours, got its energy from. You can see where all the kilowatt hours were produced and where they came from. Routinely, about 70% of that was drawn from natural gas and coal. The third highest would be hydro power there. We have a couple of hydro dams in Saskatchewan. Unfortunately, I don't know that we would actually be able to build and complete one single hydro dam in the amount of time that the government is trying to phase out fossil fuels.

We've heard about timelines for approvals. That's part of the problem with Bill C-69, and now we have the largely unconstitutional part with what the Supreme Court made their ruling on. There's also the practicality of what we are going to replace the generation of gas and coal with.

We look at how long it has taken for a few hydro projects around the country to be complete. We're talking decades. Yet the government has this plan that by 2035 there will not be any natural gas. Natural gas would be basically banned at that point in time. Coal is suppose to be gone by 2030. We're seeing some difficulty around the country in trying to get the reliability factor for wind and solar. We've seen the blocking of new technologies such as tidal power already. Now that wasn't in Saskatchewan where the tidal project was moved, of course. It's a landlocked province. I'm just speaking generally about around the country how that's going to work and how that's going to play out.

With wind and solar, solar regularly accounts for less than one per cent of the power usage and energy consumption in Saskatchewan. Wind is regularly less than 10%. It's regularly a single-digit number. Sometimes, it goes a little bit higher. Sometimes it's a little bit lower. Specifically, people are concerned about peak usage and peak demand, right?

Now, for those of you who don't follow the weather patterns of Saskatchewan, in the past week, it's been as cold as -15° already and -19° in some areas. I think it's important that people realize that this assertion that you can just throw a heat pump or two on and you'll be good in the middle of winter—I mean, already in October, most heat pumps wouldn't have worked in Saskatchewan. I think it's important that this be noted.

In fact, when I was driving home on Friday after flying home from Ottawa, one of the news talk radio shows in Saskatchewan had a conversation around heat pumps. There are people who do use them up at their cabins. The people who have them speak specifically to how that is a three-season solution, mainly because it can be used as an air conditioner in the summer. You might be able to get some warmth in late May or early May at the cabin. Certainly, September into October you can get a little bit of warmth out of it.

As I said, it's already been close to -20° in Saskatchewan. That's a common occurrence at this time of year. If you look at October, November, December, January, February, March and into April, the majority of the year, you're not even going to be able to use that as a source of heat in your home reliably.

I think that it's important to have that on the table. We talk about the issue of a supposedly just transition and where people are going to get their energy from to heat their homes, to do their laundry, to cool their homes, and we have those severe differences in our temperatures from summer to winter.

We can be in the plus mid-thirties or in the minus mid-thirties, and sometimes you can see that in a span of a week, depending on the time of year. It's important that people have reliable energy, reliable power.

That's why Bill C-49, Bill C-69 and Bill C-50 all need to be discussed, but it's also why Bill C-69 needs to be dealt with first: because Canada's strategic advantage over the last number of decades has been the affordable, reliable, sustainable energy sources that we have in this country.

There are many countries around the world that would be jealous and envious of the situation we have with our abundance in natural resources and also the diversity of ways in which we generate power and our energy. I think it would be important for us to make sure we keep that. Certainly, Bill C-69 has been a barrier to enabling that to continue, because our population continues to grow, which is always a good thing.... It's good to see our population growing, but it also means that we're going to need more energy.

It's interesting to note that it's not going to be very long before, in a province like Quebec, which has a very robust hydro-powered grid, demand is going to outgrow capacity. I'll give credit to Quebec. They do have one of the more robust energy...where's the specific phrase I had here for it? Its grid is one of the most extensive systems in North America. To their credit, that includes the Americans. Also to their credit, they have a very extensive system, but that doesn't change the fact that if we don't have the capacity we need to continue to grow our population, it becomes a problem. That's where Bill C-69 comes into play.

Certainly, the folks in Atlantic Canada want to see growth in their capacity to produce energy, to produce power, and that's why they want to see Bill C-69 dealt with and addressed, but because it's also tied in with Bill C-49, which is obviously the Atlantic accords, that is why we have a motion and an amendment before us here today.

When we talk about what's happened in other provinces.... For example, with the coal transition that supposedly happened, there were thousands of people who at the end of it were put out of work. They were not transitioned to new jobs. We've seen entire towns in Alberta decimated by that. Bill C-50 is the government's attempt at doing this across the entire country, which is why Conservatives talk about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that are going to be lost, eliminated, because we do have a model to go on that the government has tried.

We've heard in other committee studies about how, when there was a transition that was going to happen in fisheries, it just didn't work. Mr. Angus has talked about how workers have been left out in his riding when it comes to plants being shut down or mining projects being closed. I think it's important that this Bill C-69 that has been looming over our country for the last four or five years gets dealt with, gets addressed and gets prioritized.

Mr. Chair, when it comes to a potential subamendment, I think of one thing that would help to make the original motion work.

I'm just going to discuss this out loud here. I'm not officially moving anything. I just want to talk this out quickly. Some of the dates that are trying to be prescribed in this programming motion obviously are going to be problematic.

In order to make sure that this motion works, getting rid of those dates or bumping them down the calendar at least a little bit, for the flexibility of the committee to be able to properly and appropriately deal with the study—I'm just thinking out loud here—removing those dates is probably going to be best.

We want to make sure that we hear from Canadians, from employers, employees, and certainly we'll hear from the private sector unions. We're definitely going to hear from people who aren't in a union, because we have heard from many people that if we talk about what this just transition supposedly is going to do, it's going to drastically impact the work of folks who don't belong to a union.

When we talk about the indirect jobs, that number is huge as well. We have to make sure that it considers those folks.

That's part of why I think putting in rigid timelines in the programming motion is going to be problematic. It also is going to be a barrier to getting the proper ordering of the motion with the amendment in it that my colleague from Lakeland moved. It would be appropriate for us to look at removing that.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move a subamendment that in section 3, as it's been ordered by my colleague from Lakeland, there be a subamendment that we would remove the reference to the dates in paragraph (a).

Paragraph (a) would read, “That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50”. We'll just leave that open-ended so that we have that flexibility as a committee. Then (b) would say, “That the minister and officials...”. I think we would have to remove (b) all together. Again, that's one that's prescribing. It's programming a set date for officials in there. We haven't even agreed to our witness list yet. We have to do that first before we can start putting dates in there for what point officials should appear.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank my colleague for her respectful intervention there.

No, I've been working toward.... I've been speaking off the motion and the amendment here. I think it would be important, Mr. Chair, that, first of all....

I'm working on a subamendment here, looking at the original motion. When we order Bill C-49 and Bill C-69 ahead of Bill C-50, obviously it will cause some issues, I think, with the original motion as it is. I'm just kind of working toward that subamendment that I think will be needed to address a few things here.

I just wanted to finish a thought I had about the impact on jobs in Saskatchewan. You know, 41% of our available generating capacity comes from gas, and 26% comes from coal. We're already looking at close to 70% of our energy capacity being gas and coal. Yes, we have the just transition legislation in front of the committee, but it still doesn't lay out a plan or a path to actually do something to replace that. It's just a plan to have a plan. That's essentially what that bill is.

I think this speaks to why the priority and the precedent should be given to Bill C-49 first and foremost, so that we can deal with that issue. If we're going to change the generating capacity in Saskatchewan, we need the regulatory certainty to be dealt with, which the government is trying to ignore in Bill C-69. If we don't deal with that, how will any provinces, for that matter, whether it be Saskatchewan or Alberta or whether it be the Maritimes, as we're seeing with the Atlantic accord, deal with that?

Bill C-69 clearly needs to be the priority for this committee. That is the point we have been trying to make all along here. I think it will be important to get to those bills first, to Bill C-49 and Bill C-69, ahead of Bill C-50.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Exactly. He's going to get a chance to learn today how important Canada's energy future is to our generation, to his generation and to the generation that is going to follow after his and how our country is going to work.

It's an important opportunity for us to discuss the division of powers in this country as well, because Bill C-69, as the Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled, has trampled all over that. That is why there is a priority and a precedence on our side to see that we deal with Bill C-49 first, because it directly quotes and references Bill C-69 no less than 33 times.

It is causing some grief for members on the other side that we keep talking about Bill C-69, but, because they are so incredibly linked together, we continue to hammer home this point. We want to make sure that people understand that, in order for us to properly get the best result for Canadians, we are going to start with Bill C-49, which means that we have to deal with Bill C-69 and, as the amendment that was moved states at the very end in point 2—it's a very simple line that we have at the bottom—we complete consideration of Bill C-49.

What that is doing is ordering Bill C-49 to be first. Deal with Bill C-69, as part of it ties in with Bill C-49, but we are going to complete deliberation on Bill C-49 and, at that point, at the end of the amendment, point number 3 would then be the a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h) and i) that was part of the original motion. It includes the original wording and lettering of the original motion, but it includes direction to have an order prioritizing Bill C-49 in advance. It's a very substantive amendment, and I really appreciate the wording that we have in it here, which we came up with to make sure that it was compliant and in order.

It might be worth going over that one more time. At the start of the motion, point 1 is going to be that first we undertake the study on Bill C-69. It references in the opening dialogue about the need to do Bill C-49. We're already establishing that those two bills are going to be part of the motion.

We're going to say that we first undertake the following study on Bill C-69:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then 2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

That's effectively—if I'm allowed to use the term—killing two birds with one stone here, because, when we deal with Bill C-49, we have to deal with Bill C-69. We have to start with BIll C-69 to make sure that Bill C-49 is compliant with that law that is now in place. It has been largely unconstitutional since its implementation, which the government was warned about back then and continues to be warned about now.

This is why we want to prioritize the order of the bills that we have here in this amendment.

There are a few parts to Mr. Sorbara's motion that are still going to have to be addressed and dealt with, possibly in a subamendment.

Before we get to that, Mr. Chair, I think we need to really discuss the impacts that this will have if we don't deal with Bill C-69.

I have read a little bit about Saskatchewan and their response to the reference case and the importance of that. I'll just remind members that at no point in history has a government ignored a reference case. They've always acted upon it and prioritized it. Let's take Saskatchewan as an example. We hear a lot about the government doing consultations and how they've been very engaging with people. Well, only about 15% of Saskatchewanians have heard of the just transition. I would suspect that if the other 85% knew what was happening and what was going on, people would have a lot of concerns.

In particular, as we have seen and heard, the government's initial attempt at a just transition of coal workers substantively and spectacularly failed. I'll get to that in a bit. People have seen their energy prices already go up. That has already happened. At this point, the shuttering of our coal plants has not fully happened just yet, but we have seen energy prices increase as the government has implemented very strong anti-energy development legislation.

Take the cost of the carbon tax alone, for example, on energy production in Saskatchewan. I've heard workers at the coal station talk about how the carbon tax might put them out of a job far in advance of 2030. This is because of the excessive costs that will be associated with producing power as the power plant is phased out and winds down. That escalating cost gets thrown on top, onto the Crown corporation SaskPower.

Then you have the case of Swift Current, where I live. They buy the power from SaskPower. In a sense, you have a doubling of costs and regulation here that is causing this issue of affordability of energy for folks. We've heard the government's own regulations speak to the fact that the people who will be disproportionately impacted are seniors living on a fixed income and single mothers. That was right in the government's own regulations, and yet they are plowing ahead with this legislation that is problematic and causing massive cost overruns for people.

In fact, we just heard on Friday that the government is going to put a pause on the carbon tax in one area of the country because of the issue of cost, but yet we've constantly been told that people receive more than they pay, so therefore it shouldn't be a problem. Well, clearly it is. This is why people are concerned with Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and Bill C-69. This is why getting to Bill C-69 first will be of the utmost importance to people.

In Saskatchewan the working population is 598,000 people, give or take. There were over 43,000 construction jobs, 32,000 manufacturing jobs, and 25,800 agricultural jobs. In forestry, mining and gas there were 19,700 jobs, in utilities about 8,500, in wholesale and retail trade 98,000, and in transportation and warehousing about 30,000 jobs. The potential just transition job impacts are 10,432 direct jobs and 131,500 indirect jobs. A lot of that can be attributed and traced back to the ripple effect of Bill C-69.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you very much, Chair. I do appreciate that.

I think this amendment is solid. We're trying to order Bill C-49 ahead of Bill C-50 with our amendment because of the at least 32 times that Bill C-69 is referenced in Bill C-49. Because the Supreme Court of Canada has provided a reference on the largely unconstitutional nature of Bill C-69 and since it is referenced in Bill C-49, that is why there is a priority by Conservatives to start with Bill C-49, but that would of course mean that we need to deal with the case of Bill C-69. The court specified that legislators had to find ways to answer to the reference—not maybe they should find ways, but they had to find ways.

We spent a big chunk of this meeting laying out the case as to why we need to do the order in this manner now that we have our amendment on. Again, it's of the utmost importance that we do it in this fashion because part of Bill C-50 talks about the jobs. This is a jobs bill. It's a just transition. It's going to kill jobs, but let's just say that the government somehow is able to be successful and transition people to jobs. They won't be, but the issue is that we have heard in this committee—I have been on other committees as well where we heard this—over and over again from the private sector, but also from the public sector, and perhaps even more importantly from indigenous leaders, that Bill C-69 is the single largest barrier to actually getting projects done of any kind of any type of energy, or any type of project they are trying to do whether it's traditional oil and gas, whether it's renewables, whether it's various projects, and we've heard it numerous times.

That speaks to the urgency as to why we need to address Bill C-69 and particularly as it pertains to Bill C-49, because this is obviously about jobs in Atlantic Canada and trying to deal with the energy situation there. It would absolutely be appropriate that we deal with Bill C-69 and the impact it has first and foremost.

There's a good note from the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that Parliament can enact impact assessment legislation to minimize risks that some major projects pose to the environment. However, “this scheme plainly overstepped the mark.” That's what the Supreme Court said. Moreover, “it is open to Parliament and the provincial legislatures to exercise their respective powers over the environment harmoniously, in the spirit of co-operative federalism.” That's another quote from the Supreme Court ruling.

The whole point about Bill C-69 was every single province, every single premier said there were issues, and the territorial leaders did too. It is important that is noted, that going all the way back to 2018-19 when this was debated, flags were raised over issues with this bill by members of Parliament. In particular, all three at this table on the Conservative side spoke to it. In fact, my colleague from Lakeland did multiple times, and the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers spoke against the overreach of this. Particularly the Ontario premier very strongly stated on it.

It's important that this be considered as we look at the ordering of these bills. That is why the Conservatives have put this amendment forward, because we need to respect provincial jurisdiction, which is why the Provincial Court of Alberta made a ruling on Bill C-69, which of course the federal government challenged at the Supreme Court. We then saw the Supreme Court make its ruling in the reference case.

I would just like to note that all throughout the history of Canadian parliaments, any time the Supreme Court has made a reference ruling, Parliament—the government of the day—has decided to make the necessary changes to it.

For the certainty of communities and people who are looking for certainty going forward, I think it's extremely important that we address this first.

I'm going to read something from the Saskatchewan government. The first line here is, “5-2 Decision Finds That The Federal Government Overstepped Constitutional Authority And Should Be More 'Cooperative' With Provinces In The Future.”

The opening statement lays out the case as to why and how co-operative federalism is actually supposed to work. It clearly was not done in this case. The rest of the quote contains kind of no-brainer points. It reads:

Saskatchewan welcomes the Supreme Court of Canada's...ruling against the federal government's environmental Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69.

“This decision is nothing short of a constitutional tipping point and reasserts provinces' rights and primary jurisdiction over natural resources, the environment and power generation,” Justice Minister and Attorney General, Bronwyn Eyre said. “It should also force the federal government to reassess other areas of overreach, including capping oil and gas production and electrical generation. The IAA has stalled everything from Canadian highway and mine projects to LNG facilities and pipelines. It has thwarted investment, competitiveness and productivity across the country. This major decision will correct course.”

That last sentence, “This major decision will correct course”, is why our amendment has been moved. That's why we feel this bill needs to be done first.

I'll finish the article:

The IAA received royal assent in 2019. In 2022, the Alberta Court of Appeal (in a 4-1 majority) held that the IAA was unconstitutional, violated the division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces, and took a “wrecking ball” to exclusive provincial jurisdiction under Section 92 and 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867. The federal government appealed the decision to the [Supreme Court of Canada].

Last March, Saskatchewan was part of the constitutional intervention, along with seven other provinces, before Canada's top court, arguing that the IAA had exceeded federal jurisdiction.

The majority recognized that the IAA is a clear example of federal overreach. Specifically, the Supreme Court majority held that the IAA's designated projects scheme, by which the federal authorities could permanently put a project on hold was an “unconstitutional, arrogation of power by Parliament” and “clearly overstepped the mark.” The majority also found that the Act “grants the decision-maker a practically untrammelled power [of] regulated projects qua projects.”

In 2023, Saskatchewan passed the Saskatchewan First Act to [deal with] matters of provincial jurisdiction.

My own province has made it very clear where it stands on this case and on this point. We know all of the other provinces did as well when it came to the government tabling Bill C-69 back in 2018-19.

The fact that the Supreme Court has made its ruling kind of puts us in the position we're in now, where we have a largely unconstitutional bill impacting a lot of things that the government is trying work on—multiple pieces of legislation. It's not just Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Other issues will arise if it is not dealt with and addressed.

Quite frankly, it is hamstringing the provinces to be able to proceed with projects. We heard about LNG. We heard about simply trying to get highways built or repaired.

I mentioned earlier that some of the first nations leaders were concerned about this as well because they're looking at timelines. They're looking at how there will be opportunity for self-determination, economic participation for their residents and economic reconciliation.

Many of them have earmarked and flagged natural resource projects and development and also renewables, which also gets to the point though of why we have a problem with Bill C-69. They have told us over and over again that even on the renewable side, Bill C-69 is a problem. It's not even just about this being the.... It was originally dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill. This is just a “no more energy” bill. That is what we have here in front of us.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair, for giving me that opportunity.

It's so bizarre. I know that the NDP-Liberals do favour censorship and dictating what people can say, see and these sorts of things, but it's all muddled up if you want to accuse a person of delaying and not doing a thing that they were already doing and then you interrupt them twice.

As you have just suggested I do, I will go back to the amendment that I was already reading. I'll start again:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional;

Even more, this is how big a deal it is. That bill's been law and unconstitutional for half a decade. I'll continue:

for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report; and 2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

Unfortunately, I have no option except to do it this way, since this motion for scheduling was was brought to us today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources did reach out to me over the weekend about planning the schedule for this committee and, of course, I got back to her. I said that our concerns remain the same and our perspective of why this must happen in this order remains consistent with what we've said before and is what we're saying today. Of course it makes sense, because it's the exact order in which the NDP-Liberals have brought in their own legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

There was no harm, no foul on the headset and all of those things. It's just amazing. Even on Friday, I was in a call and forgot to unmute my mike. You'd think that this far in we would know these things, but here we are.

Again, colleagues, I hope I have made an effective case to you and all Canadians about the importance of this work and why we must put first things first in this common-sense approach to our scheduling for this committee, especially because it's so important to bring home affordability and combat the cost of living crisis the NDP-Liberals have caused. They've admitted this as of Friday, with their temporary sham of a relief of the carbon tax for only one area, which pits Canadians against each other. This is their MO. Obviously, all these things are interconnected, and they are extremely important. I agree.

As Conservatives, and as our leader Pierre Poilievre has always said, we want to accelerate both traditional and renewable energy development, exports and technology in Canada. We want light, green projects. We want to make Canada the supplier of choice for all kinds of energy sources and technologies for our allies around the world. We also want to bring home energy security and self-sufficiency, as well as affordable power and fuel bills, especially for people who have no other options, which is the case for many Canadians right across the country.

This is connected to Bill C-69, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. They all work together. In different ways, they are going to hold back, roadblock and gatekeep both traditional and renewable energy development, which will cause a brain drain and limit innovation as well as entrepreneurial and private sector creativity in Canada—for which we are world-renowned—when it comes to developing the fuels of the future and continuing the energy transformation that has been going on for decades among oil and gas workers, energy developers and innovators in Canada. All of these things are extremely consequential. They certainly are to our ridings individually and to the entire country as the resource development-based economy and country we are, which we should be proud of.

I have an amendment to the NDP-Liberal programming motion that seeks to dictate all of the work unilaterally, complete with dates for our committee. Again, I note it's the opposite of the legislative way they brought these bills through in the first place. It still doesn't make any sense.

I move that, before the committee consider Bill C-50, the just transition....

You'll note there was only one committee witness who called it “sustainable jobs”. It was quite clear that when the NDP-Liberals put their documents out, they had done a last-minute copy and paste everywhere it said “just transition” to replace it with “sustainable jobs”. That's because Canadians didn't know what the just transition was, at first. Once they found out, they sure didn't like it. Of course, the NDP-Liberals are masters of words and words over action, and they tried to slip that in and pull the wool over everybody's eyes. I suggest that's not going to happen here, but we'll see.

To that end, I would like to propose an amendment to this programming motion by the costly coalition. Before the committee consider Bill C-50, that it, one, first undertake the following study on Bill C-69: Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Yes. As mentioned, members do have the right to enter the room and leave the room, as many do, to follow the proceedings in the natural resources committee, because we're debating some.... Really, we're talking about some important topics and about an important motion on the floor, brought by Mr. Sorbara, on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, which we're discussing today.

I want to make sure that Ms. Stubbs, because I think she was alluding to.... She might have an amendment or she might be wrapping up—I don't know—so others may get a chance to have the floor and others can debate. I know that others are eagerly waiting to get involved as well.

Ms. Stubbs, there are no more points of order. The floor is yours.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate so much your giving me the opportunity to do this. I know in your riding in Calgary, you represent many oil and gas workers and their families, and oil and gas businesses, so I'm sure that's why you also believe that this is a very critical and crucial discussion for the people that you represent.

We're both Albertans. I have been working on this file for a long time, and I worked on these policy issues long before I was elected, as you may know. I'm certainly very familiar with Calgarians, their values, their priorities, and their deep concern about all these bills, so thank you for this, despite all the interruptions which are delaying this point, for still giving me the time to address this. Thank you.

I do have an amendment, but as you can see, I feel it's my duty, given the delay on dealing effectively with Bill C-69 I really want to make sure I'm making the comprehensive case to Canadians and to all the members here why we certainly cannot support this scheduling motion as written, and as was just brought to this committee with no notice to any of us, and seeks to dictate every single aspect of the work and the timelines of what we do in this committee.

I hope I have already addressed why failing to deal with Bill C-69 is nuts and destructive to the country. The way that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 certainly will open it up to litigation and delays, which no person in Atlantic Canada or the premiers want. They want a clear, predictable regulatory environment for both offshore petroleum and offshore renewable energy. That's why they want the bill and they want the provincial ministers to have a say. They don't want this all just to be cooked up on the back door by the federal representatives. I hope I have explained why those two things are linked and why Bill C-49 has to come first.

Of course, according to the NDP-Liberals' own schedule under which they brought the bills through the House of Commons, which was Bill C-49 first and then Bill C-50.... Of course, the arguments about other ministers or other ministries aren't really relevant on any of them since Bill C-69 was a joint initiative by the environment and natural resources ministers. Bill C-49 was the same. Of course, Bill C-50, the just transition, which will be transition to poverty, was also brought forward jointly by the environment minister, the natural resources minister and the labour minister.

To the schedule which the NDP-Liberals have put on the table today to dictate every single aspect of the work of this committee, here are the problems.

For Bill C-50, we have this date.... No, this one is good. If we can get the minister....

Actually, the minister hasn't been here for a while, so I really appreciate that we do have this date for him to come. Of course, he should come for a whole bunch of other reasons so that's cool beans to me.

Let's go down here. We have the minister again. That's fine. We should have the minister in, obviously, as soon as possible as this motion does outline. Definitely.

Here's where we start getting into the problem. There are dates here that are tying us based on the other work that we have to do to ensure that all Canadians who will be impacted by all of these bills will be heard. They must be heard. In the House of Commons and committee, it is our job to demonstrate our diligence, to demonstrate accountability, to do the work that Canadians expect of us to pass legislation that, for example, won't be litigated until kingdom come and won't be declared to be unconstitutional five years later. We don't want to do that again. I'm sure we all agree. This is why it's so important that we do our jobs.

One can understand that even though parties, various groups and the government have been working behind the scenes—and they have; I mean that's how things get developed—for a year or two years on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50.... For Conservatives as the official opposition, of course, our tools are to litigate that and to do our due diligence in the House of Commons and in committee.

We in the official opposition—Conservatives—who also did gain more votes individually from individual Canadians in 2021 and in 2019, haven't been working on this in the back doors with NDP, Liberals and various other groups for one to two years.

The only thing we can do is fight for the ability to do our jobs on behalf of the common sense of common people who have sent us here. That's our job.

I hope that this helps explain why we can't possibly support this scheduling motion that is aiming to drive through and dictate every step of what we do next on this committee.

Viviane, you asked me if there was an amendment, and there is.

Let me get to it at long last, unless members are still unclear why I am making the case that Bill C-69 is so important and that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 and why Bill C-49 must come first and then we must do Bill C-50. Is anyone still questioning that?

Certainly, not to further delay, but I understand, Marc, that when you have the official opposition, who hasn't been included or involved in any of this work, and they're now really trying to do their jobs as members of Parliament, as the official opposition.... In my case it's as the vice-chair of this committee, as a shadow minister for natural resources. There are my colleagues representing the Saskatchewan riding, Manitoba riding; my colleague, Earl, who's been here, I think, the longest of any of us, and he represents an Alberta riding; and Mario, who needs to do his due diligence for his constituents.

I understand that my colleagues in the NDP-Liberals might find this inconvenient. They might be annoyed at this. I mean, this is democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you for the point of order, Ms. Lapointe.

Ms. Lapointe asked in her point of order if you have an amendment that you're bringing forward, Ms. Stubbs. If you do, I would like to hear it, but also the floor is yours to be able to provide your debate on these important bills, the motion by Mr. Sorbara that was brought forward on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Through your debate, if you can allude to whether an amendment is coming, that would be great. The floor is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

I ask all colleagues to use parliamentary language in all meetings and that we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, whether we're in the House of Commons or this committee room. It's important that we use parliamentary language and respect each other as colleagues. Have vigorous debates. That is important on issues of legislation.

We have a motion on the floor today on the Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50 and on the Atlantic accord bill, Bill C-49, an amendment, and a subamendment for Timmins.

All members have a right to participate.

Mr. Angus has the floor. He was unable to participate in the debate last meeting and is unable to today. I will once again—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes, I have a point of order, Chair.

Of course, the top of Monday's meeting, which is technically still this meeting, was about scheduling. My immediate response, of course, was about an amendment to add to the schedule for this committee business in the exact order that you guys brought in and passed legislation, which was Bill C-49 first and Bill C-50 after. That's what started Monday.

What has elapsed since is hours and hours of NDP and Liberal MPs trying to kick off and shut down Conservative members of Parliament on this committee who have a right to be here. That's what we're talking about now.

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

I'm now into the second day of attempting to speak to legislation that was voted on by Parliament.

I am very concerned, number one, about the health and safety of our interpreters because of the abusive behaviour of the Conservatives. Also, there's the abusive behaviour of attempting to undermine the chair to limit the right of other members to speak. You ruled that I had the floor at the last meeting. I was shut down from speaking by these constant interruptions. I am now over an hour into this attempting to do my good faith diligence on Bill C-50 and BillC-49.

I'm asking, since you have ruled, that we shut down this obvious attempt at intimidation. I would like to hear from my other colleagues, too. We have to move on. This legislation is important to all of us, to Canadians and in particular Canadian workers, who are very frustrated by these tactics to stop us from making sure that workers have a seat at the table.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Well, from my perspective, there does continue to be a delay in my ability to do just that because of all the interruptions. We'll see how far I get this time, Chair.

Here's another section of Bill C-69 that is in Bill C-49. This is why Bill C-69 has to be dealt with first—I'll get to that in a second—and then Bill C-49, and now Bill C-50.

As I was saying, Bill C-49 incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which, again, as we all know, was ruled unconstitutional by the SCC. It was called largely unconstitutional by the majority of the Supreme Court.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is fundamentally connected to the consideration of factors set forth in section 63 of Bill C-69, which, the Supreme Court made clear in paragraph 166, “represents an unconstitutional arrogation of power by Parliament”.

I'll conclude on Bill C-49, hopefully, but this is a fact: Bill C-49 has incorporated all these proposed decision-making processes and facts into several sections in Bill C-49. Given that the decision-making power and the entirety of the “designated projects” scheme are unconstitutional, the risk, and lawyers will certainly litigate this, is that components of Bill C-49 are unconstitutional as well, as written right now. This is why the government had to actually deal with the massive mistake, disaster and mess on Bill C-69 that they were warned about, that's been unconstitutional for five years and that has caused untold destruction in communities, the economy, and jobs and businesses. That's why it has to be dealt with first.

Then with Bill C-49, because that then flows to us being able to deal with Bill C-49, knowing and being confident that these sections from Bill C-69 have been fully corrected and fixed, it seems to me that there's no way we can really do our due diligence on Bill C-49 unless that part is fixed first. Of course, there's Bill C-50, because the topic is relevant, but it's not the same as Bill C-49, where literally verbatim sections and words from Bill C-69 that have been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are in Bill C-49 as written. It was in Bill C-49 as written when it passed the House of Commons. That's why Conservatives opposed. It's in Bill C-49 right now, when it's going to come to us. This is why we're making this issue.

Now, the worst part is that Bill C-49 already had all kinds of problems even before this decision. It already had these lengthy and uncertain timelines with all kinds of opportunities for political intervention. It tripled the timeline. Bill C-49 actually triples the timeline for a final decision on offshore renewable energy as compared with petroleum.

Of course, this bill deliberately—NDP-Liberals do want to shut it down, because that's what the just transition is about—is a death knell for offshore petroleum developers due to all the uncertainty and the lack of clarity in the timelines for private sector proponents, for provinces and for workers in the sector. Those were already problems in the bill. If we'd had more debate in the House of Commons, maybe we would have wrested all this out and known about it.

With that Supreme Court decision, which was an utter indictment of the NDP-Liberal cornerstone major legislation that impacts the entire economy and Canadians everywhere, this is now urgent. I can't get my head around how we are able to assess Bill C-49, given that it contains these various verbatim and as-written sections from Bill C-69 that have now also been declared unconstitutional.

To the scheduling motion, this is why Conservatives, we in the official opposition, who were elected by more individual Canadians in the 2021 election and in the 2019 election....

We might just remind everybody that we're not actually in a majority government scenario here. We are in a minority government —

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you for congratulating me for getting to the point that you want me to get to.

I will just finish, if I could, Chair. I know you're trying to give me every opportunity. Maybe the others around here could help a guy out once you give me this opportunity that you're so generously offering.

I will just finish my explanation, though, about what else of Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 to make the case that Bill C-49 has to come before Bill C-50.

Here's another fact about Bill C-49. Perhaps if there was more debate in the House of Commons all of this would have been wrestled out. Again, it was introduced, time allocated, debate was limited and here we are. So here we are. Bill C-49 also incorporates section 64 of Bill C-69, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'd like to speak on that point order then, Mr. Chair.

Again, I just want to remind colleagues that Bill C-69 is directly referenced no less than 33 times in Bill C-49, so it is relevant, and it is unavoidably part of why Bill C-49 is being discussed. Right now, the two go hand in hand. It is absolutely relevant.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I just wanted to address my honourable colleague. When you're looking at obviously Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and the Conservative members want to bring Bill C-69 into the debate, you'll have an opportunity with this motion. This motion, as I said, would invite the minister. You'll be free to ask questions about Bill C-69 and how it intertwines with Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Let's ask the minister those questions. Plus, as the honourable member knows, you'll be able to invite a lot of witnesses to come to the committee. She references what's happening in the House, but we have the bills. Right now one could argue that the Conservative Party is delaying the witnesses coming in to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

I don't quite understand what the honourable members are bringing forward because we have the opportunity to bring witnesses and talk to the minister about exactly the issues you're bringing forward.

Isn't that what we want to do here as legislators in the committee?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly apologize if I gave that impression. I didn't intend to suggest that Mr. Angus shouldn't be able to speak at this meeting. I just noticed his hand was up, and you had said that I could continue if there weren't any other points of order. I guess you can see it in front of you, Mr. Chair. I was looking behind your head, so I thought I would mention it. I don't have that angle.

Of course, I certainly would not, on this side of the table, vote for censorship, shutting people down or not allowing people to speak. I'm just endeavouring to make my case in a comprehensive way.

It's certainly not our job as the official opposition and the Conservative Party of Canada to fail to argue to do our due diligence to ensure that members of Parliament deal with these consequential pieces of legislation in a rush and in a hurry because others want to get their agenda through on their own timelines, which they are trying to dictate in real time to this committee. It is not our job to help that happen. It is our job to fight for members of Parliament to do their duty, to do their due diligence and to make sure that we get things right and do first things first.

Again, I'm confused about why I'm having to make the argument to the NDP-Liberals about the order of these bills' coming in to committee, which should be Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50. Of course, the NDP-Liberals introduced and time allocated and then passed second reading. In the case of Bill C-49, it was 7.5 hours, over two days, of debate—that's it—in the House of Commons, and it was passed on October 17. The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberals used a very similar tactic with Bill C-50, the just transition, which, at the last minute, they're calling “sustainable jobs” because they're afraid of the fact that when people realize what it is, they don't like it. Bill C-50 was introduced and then time-allocated, also with very little debate on the floor of the House of Commons. That passed on October 23.

I'm actually making the case even for the NDP-Liberals' own legislative schedule and agenda in the way they brought these pieces of legislation forward. I find myself in the position of thinking, like, “Guys, just take yes for an answer. Let's do the order you've already outlined.”

Again, let's go back to Bill C-69. Now, I am going to read it from Bill C-49, as there was a technical issue.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I've sat here fairly patiently and listened to Charlie Angus interrupt the committee several times on a point of order. He always talks about relevance, that Bill C-69 is being referred to.

The problem is that Bill C-69 is so intertwined in both Bill C-49 and Bill C-50 that it needs to be referenced in order for Ms. Stubbs to build a proper road map to try to explain to the committee why the schedule that they've proposed—

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I just want to make sure that Mr. Angus can hear what's being said in this room, because I know we had an issue in camera earlier. Ms. Stubbs is reading from the text of Bill C-49. It's a big bill, a long bill. There's a lot of substance in that bill.

You should maybe have a listen to what Ms. Stubbs has to say, because she actually knows what she's talking about. She has a long career and background in natural resource policy.

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

Each time, we get told that the Conservatives want to debate Bill C-69, then somehow they use Bill C-49 and then Bill C-50 as their platform to discuss Bill C-69. That's not what we're discussing.

The motion is on Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and we actually have the opportunity to bring the ministers here so they could question them. I think that would be flame to those fireworks, but this is—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Okay, thank you.

Listen, I have to admit to everybody here—I'm sure it will surprise no one who has known me for a while—that I was one of those people where my report cards always said “very conscientious and a very good performing student, but talks a little too much”.

Please forgive me. I'm still that same passionate little...well, they used to call me a hyena because of my ridiculous laugh.

Anyway, as my colleague, Jeremy Patzer, pointed out, and I thank him, what I was doing right before the point of order was reading from Bill C-49. I'm a bit concerned about what seems to be—I want to word this properly—a lack of awareness or understanding about how all of these things are connected and the fact that they are connected.

Relative to this last-minute table-drop attempt to dictate the schedule for this committee, this is the case I'm trying to make in a thorough and comprehensive way, so I can't be, as is often the case, attacked for talking this slowly. I think Canadians want to see that their MPs actually know what they're talking about, so that's what I'm trying to do here.

I was reading from Bill C-49 to show everybody here—because it is germane to this scheduling motion—that Bill C-69 absolutely is the five-alarm fire emergency to deal with first, and then Bill C-49, which is actually the NDP-Liberals' own agenda. It reflects the way that these things were brought into the House of Commons. I don't even understand why I'm having to make the argument that we follow the script that the NDP-Liberals have already set—

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

On the motion, again, we talk about Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. The member says she seems to have issues with Bill C-50 being first, and she's okay with Bill C-49.

I would remind all members that the motion itself is concurrence. We have the opportunity to bring the minister to talk about both motions. Actually, the minister could have been here today, in the next session, to talk about both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. This is important.

Again, as Francesco mentioned, if there is an amendment to this motion, I encourage the member to do so. If not, we can move ahead on these two important pieces of legislation, which the committee has a responsibility to do. It's good for jobs, and it's good for Canadians.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What she is reading is the text from Bill C-49, not Bill C-69.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Very quickly, I think it's extremely important that all members recognize and realize that within Bill C-49, there are no fewer than 33 references to Bill C-69. Therefore, they are intertwined.

If the government had got this right in the first place, it would have made things a lot simpler.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Because Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm talking about Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

In clause 169 of Bill C-49—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

He suggested that I didn't have a motion about Bill C-69 in his last comment. In the comment before that, of course, he said that I did. We'll just leave that there. It gets slippery sometimes. It's slippery here.

The relevance of Bill C-69 to Bill C-49 is that Bill C-69 is in Bill C-49 33 times. There's a reference to Bill C-69 33 times in Bill C-49.

This is, again, why I am saying it's the five-alarm fire and absolute priority for this NDP-Liberal government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and certainly anybody from resource-based ridings. However, everybody who knows the outsized importance of all kinds of natural resources development, which underpins the economy, which gives jobs and opportunity to indigenous communities, often where there are very few, the same thing for remote, rural and northern communities.... Often, resource development is the only option people right across the country have for jobs, for businesses and to support their families. It has been the key driver for decades in Canada, and it is the key driver to close the gaps between the wealthy and the poor in Canada. It's extremely significant.

When we have these sections in Bill C-49 that reference Bill C-69 like this.... Among other provisions, there are the unconstitutional sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, as per paragraph 163 of the majority Supreme Court decision.

By including these parts of Bill C-69, we risk massive litigation, delays, costs and uncertainty. That's something the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador premiers and all of those people certainly don't want to see happen. This is why they want a certain, clear and predictable regulatory framework for their provinces and for the private sector. It's also why they insisted on ensuring that provincial ministers would have a say, not only federal ministers.

Section 64 of Bill C-69 is determined by the Governor in Council's determination. Section 62 is based on section referral to the Governor in Council and section 61, as per the factors of public interest, which is section 63.

In terms of section 61 in Bill C-49, as it relates to Bill C-69, it's this. This section therefore incorporates the unconstitutional conditions of section 64 of Bill C-69 into the licensing approval and authorization process. The entire clause 62 of Bill C-49 incorporates the designated project scheme, which was found to be unconstitutional in paragraph 204 of the Supreme Court decision.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I have a point of order.

I'd just like to do it after Mr. Angus and before Ms. Stubbs begins. I don't want to interrupt her.

On the bills at hand, Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, and on the motion I read out—thank you, Parliamentary Secretary Serré for the differentiation between the scheduling and programming motion. It's always good to have a refresher.

We do operate here on committee and in the House under the Standing Orders. I think we all know that. There are a set of rules and within those rules we debate, bring forth legislation and do the work that our residents, who voted for us, sent us here to do.

I would agree with Ms. Stubbs on that fact.

I would actually like to ask MP Stubbs if there are amendments to be brought forward on the motion that was put forward. We can get work together to ensure we invite the witnesses that all parties wish to invite, so we can look at the legislation.

If there are things the official opposition wishes to bring forward, we're obviously here to work collaboratively to get through the legislation that the House has sent us. It is our responsibility on this committee to look at these two pieces of legislation.

With regard to—

[The Chair, Liberal, George Chahal]

Thank you, Mr. Angus, for your point of order.

I'd ask my colleague to keep relevant to the motions at hand, which are Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and to what's been presented here today.

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

I hate to keep interrupting, but we are debating Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

Ms. Stubbs continually wants to debate Bill C-69. That is not the issue here.

I've reached out to her office and said we're more than willing to bring forward a motion, but she doesn't have a motion. She can't off-end what's being debated now.

I would suggest, Chair, that we keep it focused. We could be here all day and all night perhaps. We have to get this motion passed so we can get down to committee business.

We're discussing Bill C-50 and Bill C-49.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that and certainly appreciate all of the input, the advice and the constructive criticism about all the intricacies of all the rules here in Parliament. You all know me well enough by now to know that I certainly do have to brush up on that stuff, and I thank everybody for their input.

I will never stop fighting for the people I represent and for jobs and for affordable lives for every single Canadian in every corner of this country.

As I was saying, I hope that I have made the case so far in response to this motion that we have received today to dictate the scheduling for this committee without the facts that we need to know in advance and why we must do it in this order.

Let me explain why the C-69 issue must be prioritized because of how it's related to C-49. I'm not sure if all members of this committee have had a chance to read C-49. It is an issue you can imagine that is near and dear to my heart as a person whose mother came from Newfoundland and whose family is there, and whose father came from Nova Scotia. In fact, my grandmother was the first woman mayor of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, so certainly it's near and dear to this first-generation, born and raised Albertan.

Those provincial governments want C-49, but this is the problem, and this is why the government has been so negligent in not dealing with this. The government has been sitting on their hands since the Supreme Court said a law that the NDP and Liberals both voted for which is in place is unconstitutional.

Sections of C-69 are embedded verbatim, identical language, no less than 33 times in C-49. Let me say that again for why it's so important that these things be ordered in the way they are.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the most cornerstone, most significant piece of legislation that the Liberals, the Prime Minister, the ministers at the time rightfully said was their flagship, their most cornerstone legislation underpinning resource development, which I know every member on this committee agrees.... They are people like Viviane, who represents a riding that is very dependent on natural resources development, on mining. She is a champion for those people. I know that it's important for every Canadian in every region. It's important to people in Toronto, too, for example, because of the impact of energy stocks on the TSX and the many jobs that are dependent on that.

The issue here is that this bill is still in law. It's sitting there. It's largely unconstitutional. The government is not fixing it or responding to it in any kind of efficient way whatsoever. The Friday announcement was—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize for the length at which I'm dealing with this issue. It's just that it is crucial to the livelihoods of the people that I represent, to my relatives and my family members in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. I know each and every member of Parliament here takes that seriously for their own constituents, and also for all Canadians.

It might seem to Charlie that this is irrelevant, but it's not. I'll explain why.

We are talking about the order and the scheduling as Marc had pointed out to me. We are talking about the scheduling that will dictate the order by which we do our duties as members of Parliament and assess the bills that must take precedence over our already existing work.

The reason we are saying Bill C-69 must be dealt with urgently.... It's, frankly, by the Prime Minister and the NDP‑Liberals, and it's shocking that this hasn't actually happened in a tangible way yet, but what else is new. They're now going to add more uncertainty, and a lack of clarity.

I'm also talking about Bill C-49 and Bill C-50, because that's germane to this exact motion that has been dropped on the table here, and it is the content of the scheduling that we are discussing. Another reason that Bill C-69 is so germane to the legislation that's coming to this committee—

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

Thank you, Chair.

I've been listening very closely, but we are debating Bill C‑50 and Bill C‑49. We're not debating Bill C‑69. We have a motion before us, and we have to address that motion. If Ms. Stubbs wants to bring another motion, and we finish the legislative agenda, we can actually deal with that, and see what we can do, but right now, she has diverted from the topic at hand. Either she moves on and lets another member speak or she speaks to the motion.

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

He's claiming to have a motion when I have the floor.

Chair, if you will allow me to continue, because I am here to do my job as a parliamentarian to speak on Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 and the need for us to respond to the—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you to my colleague for explaining that to me. You could see, even as you were explaining it, how easy it is to mess those up, so I appreciate that advice and that friendly and constructive criticism of what I've said here. I can certainly tell you one thing, though. The people of Lakeland definitely didn't send me here to worry too much about our navel-gazing, inside baseball or fancy parliamentary procedures. They just want me to be here to fight for their livelihoods and for their communities, and I think all Canadians do as well.

Chair, as I was saying, these are the reasons our position remains the same. Regarding the order when we are discussing these bills coming to committee and the precedence they must take, it is blatantly and blindingly obvious that Bill C-49 must be first because the Atlantic premiers want it, and then Bill C-50 must be after that. We cannot agree to timelines. We cannot agree to clause-by-clause. We can't presuppose how this is all going to unfold, because Canadians must be heard.

Of course, the most pressing and most urgent and biggest issue this committee ought to be dealing with and that, certainly, the government should have addressed by now.... Imagine the outcry if a Conservative government had rammed through a cornerstone, significant, wide-ranging, sweeping bill that was passed and was then on the books and then the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada said, “Hang on a second. The vast majority of this is largely unconstitutional.” I can't imagine. Well, I think we all can. Of course, the most urgent issue of all for the Prime Minister—but since he won't do it, I guess we have to try to deal with it here in committee—is to deal with this decision on Bill C-69 and to fix the bill and fix all the problems that Conservatives warned about, as did all the provinces and territories, indigenous leaders, private sector proponents and municipalities—all of them—when it was leaving the House of Commons.

Then, of course, Alberta pursued a court case against Bill C-69 primarily focusing on jurisdictional division—a warning Conservatives gave on Bill C-69 would become a problem—but, importantly, Alberta was supported by seven other provinces through this charge. The Alberta court said, “Yes, Alberta, you're right. This thing is unconstitutional. Just as Conservative official opposition members said when it was in debate and just as thousands of Canadians spoke out against five years ago, this thing is unconstitutional.” The Prime Minister immediately said he would appeal it to the Supreme Court. What happened a couple of weeks ago was that the Supreme Court said, “Yes, Justin Trudeau, you're wrong, and these seven provinces are right. Get this thing fixed.”

On Friday, the Minister of Environment said he guessed you guys were going to get around to that in the next couple of months, but what's terrifying is that what he said he would do would be to take the approach of these interim guiding principles. Well, I would remind everyone that's exactly what they did in our first term when the Liberals froze all of the existing major projects across all aspects of natural resources development. They froze all of those applications for two years, threw the economy and the sector into utter uncertainty, disarray, lack of clarity and, frankly, fear. The consequence of that was, over the years, losses of literally billions of dollars in projects that are especially important in remote, rural, indigenous and low-income communities.

I'm getting there, Charlie.

This is how important this issue is. This was all ignored, and the Supreme Court has now said it's a big deal. Now the environment minister is saying, “We'll get around to it in a few months, but right now, we're going to do these interim guiding principles,” but that's what happened the first time. It caused chaos for two years, an absolute collapse in oil and gas investment, collapses in all that investment in clean tech that's done in that sector, the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and, of course, as you know, particular harm in Alberta, Saskatchewan, parts of B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, because of the importance of the leading private sector investor in the Canadian economy, and still to this day despite all the hostility and anti-energy, anti-development, anti-private sector policy, it still remains Canada's top export. It underpins the entire Canadian economy, including, obviously, the TSX, the importance of energy stocks there.

People on Bay Street and people in Toronto also need to be worried about their jobs.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

As my colleague has pointed out, of course this is a new motion, an attempt to ram through scheduling, complete with dates and timelines. It presupposes the number of Canadians who must be heard and how long that will take on two bills. Of course, as we explained before, this is before all of those details are worked out, like witnesses, and until we hear from every Canadian who would be impacted by these various bills.

In the case of Bill C-49, people with many different livelihoods, and those impacted provincial governments in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland do of course want this regulatory framework. That's one reason why, of course, this should come first, including coming before Bill C-50, including the fact that it was introduced, time allocated and passed at second reading, all before Bill C-50.

Also regarding Bill C-50, I am aware that this committee did study it. I think I came into the committee on the back end of that. Given the importance, significance, and the scope and scale of Bill C-50, this is at once a plan to plan jobs and skills training, but it is actually about the fundamental economic restructuring to a top-down, central, five-year planning approach that will immediately destroy 170,000 jobs in the oil and gas sector. This will impact the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians otherwise, and cascade through the entire economy, which is what the internal documents of the NDP-Liberal government show.

Of course, years ago we warned on the carbon tax that the same thing would happen.

These bills are extremely significant, and Conservatives can't possibly support this before we have had a discussion with all of the Canadians, who must be heard from on all of these bills. We can't ram through a scheduling motion right now that is full of dates.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I will begin from the top. As someone who has spent my career in opposition, I'm well used to committees having their work schedule thrown out of whack by legislation, which bumps other considerations.

We have two pieces of legislation that have been referred to us over the last two weeks, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. It is essential that we get to them quickly.

In terms of Bill C-50, we had 26 meetings with 64 witnesses in the preparatory study that led up to the legislation. If you add the emissions cap study, that was 21 meetings and 53 witnesses. The emissions reduction fund was nine meetings with 16 witnesses. On energy issues, that totals over 133 witnesses, 56 meetings, over 112 hours of meeting and analysis, so I think we are all very well placed to deal with Bill C-50.

I'm willing to bring forward our witnesses but I do believe that at the end of the day we have to move this because what we learned over many months of studying this is that the world is moving dramatically fast past us in terms of a clean energy portfolio. Half the world is now past peak fossil fuel generation for power. It is going to be peak CO2 emissions in 2023 and then start to dramatically put down. In 2022, imagine this: The investment in clean tech matched pretty much dollar for dollar oil, gas and coal, and that was for the first time. Within less than a year, clean-tech investments have almost doubled that of oil, gas and coal.

If we don't move with a sense of urgency, we are going to be left behind. We cannot allow the sabotage to the Canadian economy, what Danielle Smith has done to the Alberta economy. The Americans are moving dramatically fast. The Chinese are moving. The Europeans are moving. We need to be competitive or we are going to lose out, so the longer we dither and delay and obfuscate, the more Canadian workers are going to lose out.

We've been hearing from Canadian workers again and again. They want this plan in place. There is a sense of urgency that we need to get moving on.

I would agree with my colleagues to move to Bill C-50 first, then move to Bill C-49, which is important. We see massive investments from the Biden administration on offshore Atlantic. We need to be able to compete or we're going to lose out.

I would say that at this point we have an obligation to the Canadian people. We have an obligation to workers and people who are expecting us to deliver. We have an obligation to start setting the stage for the future Canadian economy because this global capital movement of investment is moving and either Canada is going to be at the game or we're going to be left out, and we can't afford that.

I am ready to move on this. I'm ready to sit down and get the work done as soon as we can and get these bills passed. The New Democrats will be there. We will be bringing our witnesses. We'll be bringing our amendments and we're ready to get this job done.

Thank you.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Good morning, everyone. Happy Monday to everyone back in Ottawa and back to work for the constituents and residents of your respective ridings.

Mr. Chair, I want to start this morning by moving a scheduling motion as a basis to begin our committee discussion today. I believe we forwarded the motion to the clerk, who will forward it on to all the honourable and esteemed members who sit on this committee.

I move:

That given Bill C-50, An act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, and 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been both referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;

b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday December 6, 2023;

c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12pm on Friday November 3, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;

f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;

h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and

i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.

Mr. Chair, the committee clerk should be distributing this motion now in both official languages, French and English.

I would add that we've been waiting for the sustainable jobs legislation and amendments to the Atlantic accord acts for some time, given that they were both introduced before the summer.

On Bill C-50 specifically, our study on the topic has already made this committee well acquainted with the subject matter. Now that Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 have both been referred to this committee, it is our obligation as parliamentarians and members of this committee to move forward with examining them. That is our job. Legislation has always been considered a committee priority. The sustainable jobs act is a brief 11 pages. It is self-explanatory, and the committee is well acquainted with the subject matter. Labour groups are calling for its consideration.

Bill C-49 is a much larger bill, and a very important bill that the governments of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are calling on us to advance. It is in the interests of their provinces and our country.

This motion lays out a reasonable timeline to begin consideration of both bills concurrently and to submit witness lists for both bills for the respective public panel hearings.

It would have the minister appearing on Bill C-50 first, perhaps even this week if we can vote on the motion today, and Bill C-49 in the coming weeks. As mentioned, we believe this motion lays out a very reasonable and pragmatic timeline for consideration of both bills, but if members want a little additional flexibility, we are certainly prepared to consider amendments today.

It includes at least four public hearings on Bill C-50 and at least four public hearings on Bill C-49, for a total, if we have two-hour meetings, of 16 hours, and three-hour meetings in addition to. It calls for additional time to be added to scheduled meetings so we can facilitate the inclusion of even more meetings.

At a minimum, we'd be looking at a month or more of public hearings, which will allow for substantial witness participation. It allows time for whatever is required for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-50 and Bill C-49 for the consideration of amendments. It allows for this committee to strenuously and judiciously analyze both bills.

Colleagues, I hope we can allow for a vote on this matter today so that we can move forward on the business of the House of Commons, the business of our residents and the business of all Canadians with regard to this very important committee and the matters that have been referred to this committee.

I thank everyone for listening to me on this Monday morning. I look forward to hearing everybody's feedback and hopefully moving forward as expeditiously and collaboratively as ever.

Thank you, Chair.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, our government tabled Bill C-49 to unlock massive green energy investments in places like my riding of Cape Breton—Canso. The private sector is positioned to invest $1 trillion in offshore wind and green hydrogen and, yes, that is trillion with a “t”.

Our government believes that Atlantic Canadians deserve their fair share, so why are the Conservatives voting against the Atlantic accord amendments when $1 trillion is on the line?

We should all be working together, working together here with industry leaders, with fishers and with indigenous communities like Membertou, to start our green energy future now.

Instead, the opposition is voting against a generation's worth of economic opportunities for Nova Scotia, all because a win for the Atlantic does not go well in their campaign strategy.

The Conservatives are trying to score a political hit but, with our future at stake, Canadians are the ones who are taking the punch.

This is another example of how they are risky and absolutely reckless.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

I'm talking about the Supreme Court ruling on Bill C-69, a bill that's already law. I'm not talking about Bill C-49.

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful that the Conservative Party would use this humanitarian situation to peddle conspiracy theories.

We need to work with our allies to deliver the clean energy they are asking for, whether it is hydrogen or reactors. If the member of the opposition actually cared about supporting Canadian energy and allies, they would not have voted against Bill C-49, which has created good jobs, improved global security and helped our allies.

Wind Energy

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Public Policy Forum concludes that Atlantic Canada's offshore wind potential will make the region an energy powerhouse going forward. Installing turbines around the Sable Island Bank could produce enough energy supply for 6.5 million average Canadian homes, which is almost twice as much as what is being used by Atlantic Canada today.

This boom would mean thousands of jobs and billions of dollars for Atlantic Canada. However, on Tuesday, the Conservatives, including several MPs from Atlantic Canada, voted against Bill C-49, a bill that would allow for the development of the offshore wind industry in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

On this side of the House, people can count on our government to help Atlantic Canadians today and every day.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50.

The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?

Second Reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.

Let us take a look at Bill C-49. The two bills, Bill C-50 and Bill C-49, are fairly close with respect to the environment and jobs.

Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.

Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.

Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.

We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.

Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50.

I am never surprised when I see the Conservative tactics, whether it is on Bill C-50 or Bill C-49. However, Canadians are telling us, as parliamentarians, what issues are important to them, one being jobs.

Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future.

Whether it was Bill C-49 or now Bill C-50, the Government of Canada, in co-operation, in good part, with other parties, although not the Conservative Party, has been able to get important legislation through.

As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country.

Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today.

The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it.

Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today.

Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.

Natural Resources

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his continued advocacy for Atlantic Canadians. He and his Atlantic Liberal colleagues stood up against the Conservatives who opposed Bill C-49. This includes Conservative members from Atlantic Canada whose communities would benefit from the good, sustainable jobs and economic opportunities this bill would bring.

This week, Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to advance collaboration and progress on delivering clean, affordable and reliable electricity while phasing out coal by 2030, driving to a net-zero electricity grid by 2035. This would fight climate change and create good jobs and economic opportunity across Atlantic Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is focused on helping Atlantic Canada drive the tremendous economic opportunities that exist for clean energy in our region.

That is exactly why we advanced Bill C-49, in close partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We also have a mutual goal of getting off coal-fired electricity while expanding clean energy grids. Premiers Higgs and Houston were both in Ottawa this week to talk about their provincial plans to do just that.

Could the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources explain how our government is working in co-operation with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick to support that crucial transition while being mindful of affordability?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that passionate speech. I know he is a hard-working member of his party. We appreciate his work and his suggestions.

I would like to ask him a question. Does he agree that there are several ways to pay off our debts? We can pay off our debts if we grow our country's revenue. Does that not help pay our debt?

If the answer is yes, and I expect it will be, why did he and his party vote against Bill C‑49 today? We asked for changes to the Atlantic accord to open up a market in offshore wind energy with incredible global potential for Canada, and especially for Atlantic Canada.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:25 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, October 16, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from October 16 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to Bill C-49. The legislation would amend the Newfoundland and Labrador accord act, as well as the Nova Scotia accord act, legislation that governs and regulates offshore petroleum management between the federal government and those provinces: Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The legislation before us, in short, would establish a single regulator with respect to conventional offshore petroleum, as well as offshore renewables.

I will say in that regard that Conservatives fully support the principle of establishing a regulator responsible for all offshore energy projects. Moreover, we recognize the need to establish a regulatory framework in order for Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as Nova Scotia, to leverage the opportunity to take advantage of the shift toward offshore wind, in particular, and the opportunities that this would provide those two provinces.

That is not the issue. The issue is in the details of the bill, and a very quick review of the bill evidences that it is a badly drafted piece of legislation. It is indeed another disastrous bill from the disastrous Liberal government.

With respect to the environmental assessment process, the bill incorporates the Liberals' anti-energy Bill C-69's Impact Assessment Act. This is legislation that, last Friday, was largely determined by the Supreme Court of Canada to be unconstitutional. Indeed, of the provisions of the Impact Assessment Act that have been incorporated into Bill C-49, each and every one was determined by the court to be unconstitutional.

Members can think about that for a minute. We have a bill, a substantial component of which pertains to something as significant as the environmental assessment process, and it incorporates a statutory scheme that was deemed to be unconstitutional. The environmental assessment process is a pretty big deal when it comes to offshore energy projects.

One would think that a responsible government would go back to the drawing board to get it right. One would think that a responsible government, at the very least, would reflect on the impact of that very clear repudiation of the government's disastrous Bill C-69, which was supported by its coalition partner, the NDP, against the objections of all 10 provincial premiers. However, this is not a responsible government. It is a reckless government.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada in no uncertain terms repudiated the government. On Monday, the government's response was to shut down debate and impose time allocation to see that the bill receives as little scrutiny as possible. It is a bill that would achieve the opposite of what it is purported to do.

The bill would kill offshore renewable projects before they even got off the ground as a result of a significant amount of new red tape, delay and uncertainty. Indeed, if the Liberals were honest, they would call the bill what it actually is: “an act to kill offshore renewable energy”.

I will give you, Madam Speaker, and all hon. members examples of why that is. Pursuant to the accord acts at this time, the minister has a 30-day period to respond to a decision of the regulator as to whether to approve or reject a project. With respect specifically to renewables, not oil and gas offshore, the current government would double the time for the minister to respond from 30 days to 60 days, which is more delay. This is from a government that talks so much about championing renewable energy. However, that is just the beginning, because this bill would provide that the minister may initiate multiple 30-day extensions, so even more delay. This bill would provide the possibility of an indefinite bidding process, even where the regulator gives the green light to a project. That is an indefinite delay.

Where have we seen that before? It was none other than with the Liberals' disastrous and now largely unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, the Impact Assessment Act. That law came into effect four years ago, again, with the full support of the NDP over the objections of all the provinces. More than 25 projects have been in the queue for approval. How many projects have been approved over four years? The answer is not one, zero. Therefore, the bill has done what we said it would do, which is kill energy projects as a result of delay, uncertainty and red tape. It has also negatively impacted Atlantic Canada, with the $16-billion Bay du Nord project, which is hanging by a thread.

Therefore, they have a disastrous record of zero projects in four years, almost all of them languishing at phase two of a four-phase process. Moving ahead, in the face of that, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada have the audacity to stand up and say that the way to develop renewable offshore energy is to duplicate, copy and paste the very regulatory regime that has resulted in zero projects moving forward. It is really quite incredible.

However, it gets worse—

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on how it is possibly the case that we are in this House of Commons, debating a bill that imports sections from a law that was supported by the NDP and the Liberals, that has been in place for the last five years and that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Friday, when specific sections, such as section 61, section 62 and section 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49?

Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we want to expand the Canadian oil and gas sector so that the world and all Canadians can have energy security and energy self-sufficiency.

The NDP-Liberals warned expert witnesses and warned every province and territory that was against Bill C-69 at the time or called for major overhauls, but this bill contains sections that, as of Friday, the Supreme Court said were unconstitutional. Could my colleague comment on how it can possibly be that the NDP-Liberals are now trying to ram through a bill containing these sections?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

I rise today to speak on the government's latest attempt at over-regulating, bureaucracy-building legislation, Bill C-49.

I have noted in this debate that several speakers on the government side have scarcely spoken about the details in their own legislation. They have spoken solely on the offshore renewable revenue they believe this bill would potentially offer to applicable provinces. I say “potentially” because if the government members had taken more time to study their own bill in greater detail, they would have found that Bill C-49 features such a mess of new red tape, it would be surprising if anyone could complete an offshore project of any kind, let alone have it generate revenue.

This is symptomatic of the government's approach to Canada's resource sector. For every talking point, there are miles of new regulations, new levers for federal bureaucracies to kill jobs and projects, and endless delays. Shovel-ready projects that start with Liberal photo ops are left to be strangled by bureaucratic Liberal laws and regulations.

After eight years, the Liberal government has continued to drop the ball on project after project. We would think the government might act with some humility after last Friday when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the government's previous pipeline-killing legislation, Bill C-69, was unconstitutional.

Conservatives warned the Liberals repeatedly that their no-more-pipelines act, Bill C-69, did not respect provincial jurisdiction, and was a power grab by the Prime Minister and his career activist environment minister to phase out these key sectors.

Liberals were called out by energy workers who wanted to keep their livelihoods; by indigenous communities wanting to sustainably develop their lands; by stakeholders in multiple sectors, including wind, hydro and critical minerals; by nine out of 10 provincial governments and every territorial government; and now by the Supreme Court of Canada.

I could speak for hours on the comments made by provincial and business leaders on the Supreme Court of Canada ruling against the unconstitutionality of the Liberal bill, Bill C-69, but I will mention just a few.

The Premier of Alberta said, “The ruling today represents an opportunity for all provinces to stop that bleeding and begin the process of re-attracting those investments and jobs into our economies.” The premier also said, “And we will continue to fight against Ottawa’s unfair overreach”.

The economies of British Columbia and Alberta have been closely intertwined, especially with the resource sector. Many residents in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country have worked in the resource sector in Alberta in the past.

The president of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association of B.C. said in an interview on Bill C-69 that there is complexity, confusion and cost, and as a result, investors did not know if they were going to be investing in Canada, and whether or not they could get projects to “yes”. That was causing investors to pause and look at other countries rather than Canada.

The World Bank came out a few years ago and ranked Canada number 64 in the world in the length of time it takes to approve a project. That is a very embarrassing statistic for the country.

A 2019 C.D. Howe Institute report titled “A Crisis of Our Own Making: Prospects for Major Natural Resource Projects in Canada”, stated:

With investment in Canada’s resources sector already depressed, the federal government’s proposed Bill C-69 would further discourage investment in the sector by congesting the assessment process with wider public policy concerns and exacerbating the political uncertainty facing proponents with a highly subjective standard for approval.

That is exactly what happened. The cost of the Liberals' refusal to reverse course was billions of dollars in potential investment that was taken out of Canada. Energy projects that would have been built in Canada were instead built in countries with lower environmental standards and fewer labour protections.

This new bill, Bill C-49, should be removed by the government and completely revised because it applies provisions from that now unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69, to Canada's Atlantic offshore sector.

Looking at the core details of Bill C-49, it is very clear in the needless political roadblocks it seeks to create that it would stall projects in our offshore industries.

It triples the approvals timeline from the current framework and takes the final authority in the decision-making away from on-the-ground regulators to ministers in Ottawa. This is once again the Liberal philosophy of “Ottawa knows best”. What would be the result of handing the final approval of offshore energy projects to our Greenpeace activist environment minister? The answer is obvious: no good-paying jobs for hard-working Canadians and instead, political decision-making. We know this from other legislation, like the government's just transition bill, which is seeking to take away jobs from energy workers in exchange for employment that cannot guarantee the same levels of benefits or pay.

Why is the government seeking to hand operational control of the Atlantic offshore industry to a Liberal environment minister who the Newfoundland Liberal member for Avalon said did not understand the “issues of the region”? It is a question only the Liberals can answer.

Regulators who have worked in this sector and this region for years are better placed to make these decisions on a timeline that already works for both regulators and industry. Adding more red tape, which often does nothing more than repeat pre-existing environmental reviews, will do nothing to create good-paying jobs, particularly in renewables. We know this because of the unmitigated disaster the government made of a viable tidal energy power project in Nova Scotia.

Sustainable Marine Energy's Bay of Fundy tidal energy project had enormous potential to deliver clean energy for Canadians. Had it been built, it could have generated up to 2,500 megawatts, while bringing in $100 million in inward investment and eliminating 17,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of taking nearly 3,700 cars off the road. The project was proceeding at pace under the Harper government, but after the Liberal government's election, Sustainable Marine Energy was snagged in a forest of red tape from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

After eight years, that company withdrew the project completely last spring. Despite $28.5 million of taxpayer money having been invested into the project, the government refused to release this clean green project from a regulatory trap of its design. The result: taxpayers are out $28 million, Canada loses out on a powerful source of green energy, and the people of Nova Scotia, who had this environmentally friendly project killed in front of them in Ottawa by bureaucrats, are forced to pay Ottawa's carbon tax now.

Bill C-49 will never deliver a dime of renewable revenue to provinces so long as the Liberal government regulates renewable projects like tidal energy out of existence. It will also not deliver revenue from vital offshore drilling projects when the now unconstitutional Bill C-69 enforces impact assessment reviews that last for more than 1,600 days, or when Bill C-55 allows the fisheries minister to select prohibited development areas solely on her call, the power which the legislation today also reaffirms.

The Prime Minister, in the aftermath of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, said there was no business case for LNG exports to be shipped out through Atlantic Canadian ports to our European allies. The United States became the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in 2021, as projects ramped up production and deliveries surged to Europe to alleviate the energy crisis there.

Just last week, one of Canada's closest and historic allies, France, signed a 27-year deal with Qatar for its LNG production. A 27-year deal would have been a fantastic way to generate revenue for Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Albertans, British Columbians and Canadians. Instead, the Liberal government has no clue about the value of Canada's resources. Instead, it is focused on gaining more political control and its ideological job-killing agenda. It is not even a green agenda because, as I mentioned earlier, the government is happy to kill green projects just as slowly.

A Conservative government will support Canadians in every region by responsibly building energy projects of every variety that bring home jobs for Canadians. We will build green projects to sustain our environment, not just regulate them out of existence. We will champion Canada's world-class resources to our allies and we will deliver results.

The Liberal government only creates more red tape, regulates projects out of existence, drives away investment and brings more control to Ottawa. The Liberal government is just not worth the cost.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we want the bill to go to committee because we want to have this kind of discussion on the clauses. We still have too many questions. We would like to present amendments and proposals.

My colleague mentioned Quebec, but as I said in my speech, Quebec made a clear choice to get away from oil and gas. What we are talking about is Bill C-49. While we are still talking about possible investments in oil and gas, Quebec has decided to make a much greener choice and to truly get away from oil and gas and ban these projects.

I look forward to hearing from my colleagues. They will no doubt deliver a great presentation in committee, putting forward proposals and defending Quebec's environmental interests.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted.

Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49.

Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House this evening to speak to Bill C‑49 at second reading. The bill amends the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. I will briefly talk about the bill, then I will talk about Quebec's choices and, lastly, I will talk about Ottawa's poor choices.

First, under bilateral accords, the federal and provincial governments jointly manage oil and gas resources in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Bill C‑49 amends the federal implementation acts for these accords. I will go over the key changes. Bill C‑49 builds on the existing petroleum regulatory scheme to establish a new regulatory scheme for offshore renewable energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. The Minister of Justice defines renewable energy projects as follows:

An offshore renewable energy project means any work or activity that relates to the exploitation or potential exploitation of a renewable resource to produce an energy project, that is not conducted by or on behalf of a government or educational institution.

Parallel to the legislative amendment, there are two regional assessments under way for offshore wind energy development: one in Nova Scotia and one in Newfoundland and Labrador. These assessments will provide information and analysis regarding future offshore wind energy development activities that would be governed by the amended development legislation.

The government is presenting Bill C-49 as an operation to develop offshore renewable energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. According to the government, “the global offshore wind market alone forecast to attract one trillion dollars in global investment by 2040.” It is worth noting that the goal of developing wind energy is linked to the goal Canada set out in its hydrogen strategy, which aims to supply countries, including Germany, with clean hydrogen.

Second, as mentioned in a December 2022 note on exploratory drilling and marine biodiversity, we know that offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed and seismic surveys interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.

While exploration activities may be noisy, development activities are risky. While accidents can happen and spills have a serious environmental impact, as was the case with the explosion on BP's Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in April 2010, even regular activities create a dangerous amount of pollution for wildlife. Despite its commitments to marine conservation, the federal government is supporting the development of the offshore oil industry and authorizing drilling projects in the very marine refuges it created.

Since the pandemic, the Liberal government has been repeating that the economic recovery depends on a strong, resilient and innovative oil industry, even though the Bloc Québécois has been presenting alternatives since the summer of 2020 through its green recovery plan—I would even go so far as to talk about a green finance plan. I have to give a nod to my colleague from Mirabel who has worked hard on this file. There is something to this.

Speaking of environmental risks and the oil industry, I want to repeat the wise words of the member I used to work for. He used to say, “It is not a matter of whether an accident will occur, but when.” Sooner or later, we will have to repair serious environmental damage.

During the pandemic, the federal government accelerated the environmental assessment process to authorize 40 exploratory drilling projects east of Newfoundland and Labrador in an area frequented by endangered species. Environmental groups initiated proceedings against the federal government because the regional assessment process for exploratory oil and gas drilling off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador was incomplete.

Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador have a plan to double production beyond 2030 to 235 million barrels per year, which will require 100 new drilling projects by 2030. That is a lot.

Ottawa approved Norwegian oil company Equinor's Bay du Nord megaproject off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Despite protests from environmental groups, Bay du Nord appears to be the first of many new oil projects, since new licences were recently auctioned off for oil exploration in over 100,000 square kilometres.

It reminds me of “Drill, baby, drill”. In early November 2022, four oil companies spent $238 million to win auctions for exploration work over an area of 1.2 million hectares. The licences were granted by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, which is under the jurisdiction of the federal government and Newfoundland and Labrador. Its mandate is to facilitate the exploration and development of oil and gas resources.

In July 2020, Canada joined the Global Ocean Alliance, a U.K. initiative that now includes 73 states that are committed to defending before the UN the goal of 30% global marine protected areas by 2030. One of the key issues in the COP15 negotiations is to include in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework a commitment to protect or conserve at least 30% of the world's oceans through the establishment of highly and fully protected marine areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Let us just say that, with these projects, we are wondering how Canada will manage.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change cannot assume their leadership role at the UN Biodiversity Conference and advocate for the protection of the oceans while authorizing and promoting the development of the oil and gas industry in sensitive marine areas. As I have indicated, the Liberal government authorized oil exploration in the very marine refuge that it itself had created. How could this government have any credibility when it comes to ocean conservation?

According to the department's own words, the Northeast Newfoundland Slope marine refuge is “an Ecologically and Biologically Significant Area that supports high diversity, including several depleted species”. The Liberal government has authorized drilling in that very marine refuge. However, even BHP, the oil company behind the project, recognizes that the marine region is home to many species of fish, birds and marine mammals, 36 of which have been designated at risk.

According to the Liberal government, marine refuges where there are exploratory activities can still count towards Canada's marine conservation objectives until actual extraction and production takes place. In light of scientific knowledge about the dangers of exploratory drilling, this makes no sense. It also flies in the face of international marine conservation standards.

Once and for all, Quebec is putting a stop to oil and gas exploration and production inside its borders. We have made our decision. While the federal government carries on like this, Quebec has officially started its energy transition. On April 12, 2022, the Quebec National Assembly passed an act ending exploration for petroleum and production of petroleum and brine and to eliminate government funding for these activities. This new law prohibits oil and gas exploration and production while revoking all licences active Quebec. It also provides for the closure of wells drilled under these licences and site remediation. The Quebec ministry of natural resources will conduct hydrogeologic studies and perform the monitoring and control activities required to ensure that the work does not harm the environment.

Since August 23, 2022, oil and gas exploration and production has been banned in Quebec, and every licence in connection with these activities has been revoked. There were 165 exploration licences, one production licence, three authorizations to produce brine and two storage leases extant in Quebec. Quebec made a clear choice. Furthermore, holders of a revoked licence must permanently close the wells drilled under their licence and restore the sites. Quebec is the first first North American jurisdiction to ban oil and gas exploration and production in its territory. Quebec is part of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, or BOGA, a coalition of governments that are committed to the same goal. Quebec is aiming to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels by 2030 and achieve net zero by 2050.

Third, I want to make a comparison. In 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador's oil production was 282.7 thousand barrels per day, or 5% of Canada's overall production and 24% of Canada's light oil production. Newfoundland and Labrador is the largest producer of crude oil in eastern Canada and is the third-largest oil-producing province in Canada, after Alberta and Saskatchewan.

In conclusion, let us work on this bill in committee. We can talk about it there. The Bloc Québécois is ready to collaborate in the true spirit of the energy transition.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, could the member explain to the House why it is so important that we get this bill off to committee? I sit on the natural resources committee, and it is waiting for Bill C-49 to get there to be further reflected on and returned to the House.

Could my colleague make a brief statement on why it is so important to get this bill to committee and brought back?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for recognizing my daughter. As a father, I am very proud of her and wish her well in her new adventure as the last standing Liberal MLA in the Province of Manitoba. The Liberal Party in Manitoba, I like to think, has the greatest potential for growth at this stage.

It is interesting that the member referred to me listening to what the Alberta premier has said. In my speech, I made reference to both Progressive Conservative and Liberal premiers in terms of the importance of Bill C-49. Both support the passage of the bill.

My response to the member would be that maybe the Conservative Party should be listening to other premiers aside from the Premier of Alberta, or along with her, too, I guess.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened to a great deal of debate about this particular issue. It is somewhat surprising that the Conservative Party would stand in the way of what is good, sound, solid legislation, and not, at the very least, allow it to go to committee. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives do not recognize the importance of the legislation. Instead, they have chosen to filibuster. We just witnessed a member bringing forward an amendment. Thank goodness we have at least one political party that recognizes that the Conservative Party is, by filibustering this legislation, denying Atlantic provinces, in particular Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the opportunity to work with the government through this legislation to take advantage of the whole idea of renewable energy.

I do not understand why the Conservative Party would deny Atlantic Canada the opportunities within this legislation. If, in fact, the Conservatives have some legitimate rationale, they have the opportunity to allow the legislation to go to committee, which is all we are looking for right now. That is why we had to bring in time allocation. Even when this legislation passes through, we would have to see mirror legislation brought in from the provinces in question. Therefore, we have provincial jurisdictions waiting for this legislation to be able to pass.

The Conservatives try to give a false impression that we are trying to ram something through, when, in fact, a great deal of consultation has taken place. We have seen many Atlantic Liberal caucus members stand up and speak to this legislation because they have seen the value of the potential in Atlantic Canada when it comes to renewable energy. They have recognized that one does not have to be partisan to see that value.

I would like to quote a few individuals. “Newfoundland and Labrador is pleased [with] the [federal government's] proposed...amendments to the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and looks forward to seeing them pass.” That comes from the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Furey.

Another quote from the same person states, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in the green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge the other federal parties to do the same.”

Let us go to a different province and a different political party: the Progressive Conservative Party of Nova Scotia. What does Nova Scotia have to say in a couple of very selective quotes? Referring to Nova Scotia and Canada, this government states, “Both levels of government have the same goal: our aim is to balance progressive, clean energy exploration and responsible environmental stewardship.” That comes from Tim Halman, who is the minister of the environment for the Province of Nova Scotia.

Here is the minister of energy from Newfoundland and Labrador, Andrew Parsons. He says, “This is a big deal for us. Working with the feds in terms of offshore oil has worked well, but knowing that we will have a part of our waterways available for wind development within our jurisdiction was huge.” It continues; he says, “When it comes to the resources, we are the envy of many jurisdictions. We know that there is a huge amount of interest in offshore wind opportunities, so we knew we needed to move forward.”

This is from politicians of different political stripes, and the Conservatives do not even want the bill to go to committee. They would rather filibuster it indefinitely.

It is not just the politicians. I found another interesting quote I would like to share with members. This comes from Elisa Obermann, who is the executive director of Marine Renewables Canada. It is from her press release. She says, “This is an exciting day for Canada and our marine renewable energy sector. The tabling of the amendments is an important milestone towards establishing an offshore wind industry that will play a significant role in our clean energy future”.

There are many other quotes I could actually provide to the House, and that is because I truly believe that, when we take a look at Bill C-49 and what it would do, the essence of it is to ensure ongoing economic development in the whole area of renewable energy resources while at the same time saying there is a responsibility to protect our environment.

The government brought in this legislation quite a while ago now. I know I have had the opportunity to speak to it, and I had initially thought there would be support from the Conservative Party. We would have to pull my speeches from the records to get confirmation of that, but I honestly thought the Conservatives would support this legislation, because we often hear the Conservative Party saying it will support the energy sector, which we do in a very real and tangible way. Clean energy is a part of the energy sector, so by supporting Bill C-49, we would be supporting the energy sector.

It is amazing that the Conservative party tries to say we are trying to push this thing along and no one is supporting it, when nothing could be farther from the truth. We know there is substantial support for renewable energy. I reflect on my home province of Manitoba and the important role Manitoba Hydro plays, or I look at my Quebec colleagues, whether they are members from the Bloc or the Liberal caucus, or even the member from the New Democratic Party. We have within those two provinces great potential in terms of hydro development, and at the end of the day I suspect we will see a growing industry and spinoff benefits.

We can talk about how this energy is brought to life and is ultimately healthier for our environment, but it creates both direct and indirect jobs. Coming from a province that has such a wonderful hydro development and great potential, I am very sympathetic to my Atlantic colleagues who are so passionate on this issue and are wanting to see the legislation pass. That is the reason we had to bring in the time allocation, because we know that the Conservative Party is not prepared to see this legislation and that its members would rather filibuster and put up roadblocks. What we just witnessed with the moving of an amendment reinforces that fact, but the people of Atlantic Canada can know that a majority of people in the chamber see the value of it, and that is why we are going to ensure that it passes.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, in June earlier this year, our leader said, “Under my government, we would green-light green technology to allow for our brilliant engineers to invent the technology that will bring about cleaner, greener and more affordable electricity.”

What stands in the way of this is duplicitous bureaucracy and the government gatekeepers. That is exactly what we are seeing with Bill C-49. It provides no certainty to those stakeholders and the communities that this bill will impact the most, and it gives arbitrary power and authority to a minister, without scientific proof, to designate an area as a marine protected area and to absolutely kill any opportunity.

That is fundamentally wrong.

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

Madam Speaker, I did oppose Bill C-69. Some of the hon. member's colleagues have said that anyone who voted for it obviously did not understand environmental assessment.

I do support Bill C-49. The Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum boards need to have an expanded regulatory capacity to approve offshore wind.

I want to know if he would not agree with me that the tremendous potential for the economy in Atlantic Canada is in wind-generated hydrogen.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, just to be on record, the Conservatives 100% believe that provincial ministers have a say in what goes on in their neck of the woods. What drives us crazy and creates cause for concern is that there is no responsibility built into Bill C-49 for the government and the regulators to do any stakeholder consultation.

We absolutely want the provincial ministers to have a say. They know what is best in their communities and in their provinces, but Bill C-49 provides none of that.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. Premier Furey has stated that he wants this bill and needs this bill to pass, for clarity, for his own well-being.

It is our job in this House to clear up any confusion. The Supreme Court ruled 5-2 that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional. Over a third of Bill C-49 includes policy from Bill C-69. We need to fix this bill now, before it goes further.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-49.

We are all painfully aware of the Liberal government's track record when it comes to tabling confusing legislation: more gatekeepers, more red tape, longer delays and the politicization of decision-making.

Canadians everywhere are tired of the Prime Minister, who scares businesses away from investing in our country. They are tired of stifling bureaucracy and costly Liberal bills. This bill is full of this.

The Prime Minister and his Liberal government have been in power for eight long years. They have nothing to show on the renewable energy front and have made no progress on attracting investment to Canada's energy sector. It is quite the contrary, so forgive me for being somewhat skeptical about the state of this current legislation as it is written.

We have seen this dog-and-pony show over the last eight years, over and over again. We had Bill C-55, Bill C-68 and Bill C-69, to name just a few. The Liberals consult, they equivocate and they blur the lines. They do everything they can to muddy the water, except get the job done.

Bill C-49 proposes to make the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board regulators. At the same time, it would create a regulatory framework for offshore wind and renewable energy, the regulation of which would be added to their mandates.

As my colleagues have stated before on this subject, the Liberals have finally decided to include the provincial governments as partners in decisions affecting their jurisdiction. Of course, they did not do this with Bill C-69, and we all know where that unconstitutional legislation stands.

Bill C-49 would triple the current regulatory timeline for project approval. Currently, the provincial review boards have the final say on the approval or rejection of a project, at which point the relevant provincial or federal ministers are given a 30-day period to respond before the decision is finalized.

Under Bill C-49, ministers would be given 60 days to respond, with the possibility of a further 30-day extension and a further possibility of an indefinite extension.

Thanks to nearly a decade of the Prime Minister, Canada is a country that is characterized by a strict and stifling red tape regime. We are now among the most costly and regulated business environments in the world.

Liberals continue to attack traditional energy development, trying to recklessly phase it out, to the detriment of all.

I will remind the House that the first thing the Prime Minister did after his election in 2015 was to publicly apologize for Canada's natural resources, saying that he wanted Canadians to be known more for our resourcefulness than our natural resources under his government.

It does not get much more out of touch than that. Liberals say they want to boost alternative energy, yet they use a bill like this to suffocate it in regulation and red tape. The proposed framework is not only one that creates more bureaucracy and red tape, but one that politicizes each and every step of the decision-making process. By giving final authority to federal and provincial ministers, the regulators are reduced to the position of giving recommendations only to the government.

To be clear, Canada's Conservatives support the responsible exploration and development of offshore resources, but we also believe it should be done responsibly, through an arm's-length regulatory process, not political decision-making.

An even more disturbing aspect of this legislation is its potential to be used to impose a complete shutdown on offshore oil and gas development projects at any time. I will say this again. This bill could end offshore petroleum extraction in Atlantic provinces for good at the whim of a minister.

This bill is a direct attack on one of Newfoundland and Labrador's key industries, one that generates billions of dollars of revenue and thousands of jobs. Section 28 and section 137 would allow the federal cabinet to halt an offshore drilling or renewable energy project if the area “may be identified” as a marine protected area in the opinion of cabinet.

I bring us back to Bill C-55, a bill Conservatives staunchly opposed. It allows the fisheries minister to unilaterally declare an area to be a marine protected area, essentially using the precautionary principle to shut down projects in the absence of any scientific proof.

Bill C-49 would do exactly the same, and this should scare every Atlantic Canadian. There could be a unilateral decision by a minister that is not based on science, leading to an arbitrary opinion from the cabinet that leads to the shutdown of a vital offshore resource development project our country desperately needs.

This is not the way to govern if Canada ever hopes to attract business investment in our energy sector. Furthermore, this cancellation process for new or currently operating projects provides no meaningful consultation with indigenous or community interests whatsoever. There is zero responsibility for any stakeholder consultation. This abdication of responsibility, this failure to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult with indigenous interests, may also invite extensive court challenges, leading to further delays as was the case with the Trans Mountain pipeline debacle.

As I alluded to before, there are also a number of practicalities with the bill that beg for clarification. For instance, the bill requires some degree of federal funding to cover the expansion of mapping by the regulators, as well as the expansion of offshore activities generally. As for these financial implications, there is no specific funding allocated. We must also question whether the regulators will need additional personnel for technical expertise, along with additional funding to allow them to properly fulfill their new responsibilities under their new mandate. If so, where is this money coming from? Is it even realistic to expect the regulators to be prepared in a timely fashion to deal with this new work that is currently outside their scope? Bill C-49 leaves much to be desired in the way of clarity.

After eight long years of this Prime Minister, Canadians should be very wary of a government that says, “Don't worry about the details; we'll deal with them later.” They need answers now and they deserve answers now, answers this government must be prepared to provide the House.

I was hoping the government would learn from its failure with Bill C-69, which had the same lack of detail on crucial issues, uncertainty about roles and responsibilities and vague timelines, but this legislation shows that they have learned absolutely nothing, which comes as no surprise.

We see the same inefficiencies of Bill C-69 imported into Bill C-49. Not only does the Impact Assessment Act have provisions to allow the federal minister to interfere in any given project if they deem that it is “in the public interest”, but it would also allow them to create any arbitrary conditions to which a project proponent must comply. How does that create confidence or certainty for investors? Is it not the responsibility of government to create an environment in which businesses want to invest, and in which businesses want to create jobs and opportunities for Canadians? This Prime Minister seems to have forgotten this part of his very own mandate.

These provisions go further and would allow the minister, again, to impose arbitrary conditions during project review, which would serve to further delay timelines for an unspecified amount of time, potentially even years. This will only drive industry away from Canada. It provides absolutely no certainty to these businesses that want to invest potentially billions and billions of dollars in our country.

It cannot be overstated how detrimental the consequences of more Liberal uncertainty are. Shamefully, this has been the effect of taking Canada out of the global competition for energy development, both traditional and alternative, when instead we should be a global leader.

Going back to my earlier comments, perhaps this is exactly what the Prime Minister meant. Not once has he championed the Canadian energy sector on the world stage. Instead, he apologized for our existence, which only drives investment to other countries and squanders opportunities for Canadian workers. We have the resources and we have the workforce and industry leaders. We can be a global leader in the energy sector. Instead, the Prime Minister prefers to cede market share to overseas dictators whose environmental human rights standards are non-existent.

It is time to put Canadian energy first, it is time to put Canadian jobs first and it is time to put Canadians first. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques. We need a Conservative prime minister who will green-light new technologies, reduce approval timelines and remove the Liberal gatekeepers so that major energy infrastructure projects can finally be built in this country once again.

With that, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Lakeland, that the bill be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

the House decline to give second reading 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts, since sections 61 to 64 of Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, have been ruled to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada, and those same sections are embedded in Bill C-49.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have just said in my speech that that is the thing. It is not just about traditional development of our resources or energy streams. This bill is also going to affect any type of green energy being produced. That is the problem.

We need to make sure that we have the proper scrutiny in place. There is too much burdensome regulation in this bill. There are many times the minister could just step in, arbitrarily, for whatever decision they want. The government can say that in the future we may have this kind of potential problem, so therefore we need to stop it right now or hold back on the process. I am talking about green energy development.

That is the concern with Bill C-49. It does not allow for proper procedures to follow through and for proper scrutiny.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today. I rise to speak on Bill C-49, a piece of legislation that has garnered significant attention, concern and debate, both in this House and across our vast nation. As the representative of Yellowhead, a region known for its profound commitment to responsible energy development, I feel compelled to voice the concerns of my constituents.

At first glance, Bill C-49 may appear as a simple regulatory measure. However, digging deeper, we unearth layers of bureaucratic red tape that could stifle our nation's energy ambitions. History has shown that Canada's west, which is rich in resources and determination, has the potential to drive our national economy, yet time and time again, we find ourselves grappling with legislation that seems more intent on creating roadblocks than pathways.

A case in point is Bill C-69, which has been dubbed the no-more-pipelines bill by many. While the bill promised streamline processes and heightened project approval rates, the results have been far from encouraging. The stagnation is not just concerning, it is alarming.

Recently, large portions of Bill C-69 were deemed unconstitutional, casting a shadow over its legitimacy and efficacy. Instead of learning from these missteps, Bill C-49 threatens to echo these sentiments.

It layers on more gatekeepers, prolongs timelines and moves us further from our energy development goals. The current 30-day window for cabinet decisions could be stretched out, making it harder for projects to gain momentum. Is this the vision we have for Canada's energy sector?

Section 28 and section 137 of this bill would grant unchecked power to select officials by allowing them to potentially halt projects based on speculation rather than solid evidence. This is not how we should be governing our energy sector, or any sector for that matter.

Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the absence of consultation with the fishing industry. Our commercial fishing communities play a pivotal role in our national fabric. To leave the industry out of the conversations surrounding Bill C-49 is not just an oversight, but a grave error.

I implore my colleagues, especially those representing Atlantic Canada, to critically assess Bill C-49. It is essential that we do not find ourselves down a path reminiscent of the failed and recently found unconstitutional bill, Bill C-69.

It is not just about looking at Bill C-49 in isolation. It is about understanding its place within a larger tapestry of regulations with potential cascading effects and how it communicates our nation's stance on energy development to the world.

When global investors see a nation riddled with regulatory obstacles and prolonged approval processes, they hesitate. They wonder if their investments would be bogged down in red tape, rather than contributing to tangible development and returns. In this globalized era where nations vie for the same pool of investments, we cannot afford to send mixed signals.

Yellowhead, the region I am honoured to represent, embodies the pioneering spirit of Canada. Our people understand the value of hard work, the balance of harnessing resources while preserving the environment and the importance of creating sustainable futures for our children.

When faced with bills like Bill C-49, my constituents cannot help but feel their ambitions are being curtailed and their efforts marginalized. What kind of message are we sending to innovators and entrepreneurs when we allow bureaucracy to overshadow ingenuity? Do we want to be a nation that says we value green energy, yet simultaneously creates hurdles for its implementation?

Our constituents deserve clarity. They deserve to understand where we stand as a nation on energy, be it traditional or renewable. Bills like Bill C-49 do not provide that clarity. Instead, they further muddy the waters, leaving our energy sector, investors and countless Canadians whose livelihoods depend on it in a state of uncertainty.

As we move forward in our deliberations, I urge all members of this House to reflect not just on the specifications of Bill C-49, but on the broader message it sends about Canada's energy ambitions. Are we paving a way for innovation, sustainability and prosperity, or are we creating more roadblocks?

Our path should be clear. It should be one that aligns with our nation's values, our people's ambitions and our shared vision for a prosperous future.

While we have discussed the energy sector at length, there is another point we need to address, which is the overarching issue of governance, checks and balances. The manner in which projects are approved and by whom is critical to any democracy. Our systems are set up to ensure that no single entity has unchecked powers, but Bill C-49 challenges that foundation.

Let us examine the discretionary powers given to certain departments and ministers. This bill is granting a level of authority to officials that is a profound overstep in proper governance. To be clear, this is not about the mistrust of any individual or department; rather, it is about preserving the balance of power and ensuring that our projects undergo rigorous, unbiased scrutiny. The way the bill is written allows for the potential blocking of projects based not on existing tangible concerns but on speculative future possibilities. The implications of such a provision are profound. Can we in good faith stall or reject initiatives based on what might or might not happen in the future? This is a slippery slope.

Today it is a hypothetical future establishment of a marine protected area, but tomorrow it could be any number of speculative scenarios.

Furthermore, the recent decision of Bill C-69 rings in my ears, a bill that was found to be largely unconstitutional.

We are tasked with a duty to create and uphold laws that not only serve our nation's interests but also align with the foundational tenets of our Constitution. We must tread carefully, ensuring that the powers we grant and the decisions we make stand the test of constitutional scrutiny. As representatives, it is our duty to stand up and ensure that any bill, including Bill C-49, does not undermine the checks and balances that are integral to our democracy. It is not just about energy, fisheries or any singular domain, but about ensuring that we safeguard the processes, checks and balances that have served our nation well for over a century.

Let us pivot our attention to the precedents this bill may set, especially in regions like Yellowhead. My constituents are hard-working individuals who are deeply connected to their land and environment. Our region boasts an abundance of natural resources and we wear our badge of responsible stewardship with pride. The decisions we make here have profound ripple effects on their lives and they anticipate a bill that resonates with their aspirations, traditions and future, yet Bill C-49 emanates an unsettling ambiance of unpredictability. By extending decision-making durations, we risk strangling potential projects in the web of red tape. Every additional day waiting for decisions translates to missed ventures, evaporating investments and, tragically, job opportunities slipping through the fingers of deserving Canadians. In an era where global competition is fierce, Canada's industries must remain nimble and compelling. While addressing environmental concerns is non-negotiable, our approach must also facilitate growth and progress. Burdensome regulations that deter investment and impede rapid action can render Canada an unattractive site for both local and global investors.

While the essence of Bill C-49 is noble, its present rendition leaves several questions unanswered. It is incumbent upon us, as representatives of Canada, to ensure our legislation strikes the right chord of fairness, dynamic progress and inclusivity.

I urge my colleagues to reflect deeply on the ramifications of this bill. I intend to hear from our diverse constituents.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have already had the opportunity to speak to Bill C‑49 by saying that this attempt to remove the term “petroleum” from the names of the boards was just more smoke and mirrors from the Liberals when it comes to the environment. In Quebec, we do not need to double oil and gas production.

Could my colleague explain to me why, from coast to coast to coast, there is so much need for oil and gas exploration and for production to be doubled when, in reality, we should be investing in the energy transition? Perhaps he can tell me about his part of the country.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about clean energy and Bill C-49.

I have to say that the government has a very poor record when it comes to clean energy and when it comes to ensuring that Canada meets its obligations related to all the challenges associated with climate change. At least the government is taking a step forward with this bill to support the investments needed for Canada to create a clean energy economy and to create critically important jobs.

We support this bill. We want it to be studied and improved in committee. That way, we will have a bill that is even more robust.

What I do not understand, and I have been listening to the debate throughout the course of the day, is why Conservatives are so adamantly opposed to renewable energy.

I will start off by saying that I am one of the few people in this House who has actually worked in the energy industry. I have been ankle deep in oil as a former refinery worker at the Shellburn oil refinery in Burnaby, B.C., which was closed under the Conservatives, as they did so many times during that dismal decade of the Harper regime. They closed manufacturing jobs across Canada, and, of course, the Shellburn oil refinery was one of the victims of that.

I do not believe there is a single Conservative who has been ankle deep in oil. In that sense, the Conservative caucus is all hat and no cattle. During their dismal regime, the Conservatives provided billions and billions of dollars of support to corporate CEOs in the oil and gas industry but no support for the workers. We have seen this. As energy workers have been laid off across Alberta, there has not been a peep from the Conservative MPs to say that these energy workers are being laid off while we are pumping billions of dollars in subsidies to support oil and gas CEOs.

It is a real puzzlement to me that, given the Conservative track record, we have seen the appalling decisions made in Alberta by Conservatives, such as shutting down renewable energy projects. The NDP has a great track record on that, and I will come back to that in a moment. For Danielle Smith to say, “No, we're going to stop all those renewable energy projects, throw those workers out of work and shut down the renewable energy sector” is unbelievably irresponsible and incompetent, yet we have not had a single Conservative MP stand in this House to condemn Danielle Smith and the Conservatives in Alberta for taking such a woefully irresponsible action. Not a single one. They just have gone into hiding as Albertans are being thrown out of work. One would think that a Conservative MP who represents Alberta would be willing to speak up, but that has not been the case, sadly.

In that sense, I guess they are being somewhat congruent in opposing renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada as well. If they oppose renewable energy projects in Alberta, if they are opposing renewable energy generally and if they deny that climate change even exists, I guess there is a certain coherency to them saying they are going to oppose this bill because it is going to create too many renewable energy jobs and help Canada too much by ensuring that we have the clean energy economy of tomorrow. In that sense, for once Conservatives are being consistent.

The reality is that climate change does exist, and we have been hit by it repeatedly in the last few years. I can speak as a British Columbian for what we have lived through over the last few years.

The heat dome killed 600 people in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Sixty of them at the epicentre of that heat dome, that intense heat that killed people in their apartments, were in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby. We cannot tell people in my riding that climate change does not exist. We cannot tell people in my riding that somehow renewable energy is a bad thing and that we need to cut any possibility of providing supports for renewable energy. We have to just continue to hand money, as Conservative governments have done, to the bankers, billionaires and oil and gas CEOs. We saw with the heat dome the intense impacts of climate change.

Then the atmospheric rivers happened just a few months later, and they cut off the Lower Mainland of British Columbia from the rest of the country. The rock slides, the loss of life, the cutting of rail lines and roads and the flooding of the Fraser Valley all indicate the profound impact of climate change in British Columbia.

The Conservatives say that we do not need renewable energy, that climate change does not exist. The reason British Columbians are so highly opposed to Conservatives and that kind of discourse is that we have seen first-hand what the reality of climate change is.

That is why the government needs to act on these things. The NDP and its leader, the member for Burnaby South, have said repeatedly that things need to change, that the government has to start to walk the talk. The massive oil and gas subsidies going to corporate CEOs have to end and we need to make investments. This is a step forward, but it is by no means the only thing that the government should be doing. There is a whole range of other things that can make a difference, such as creating the kinds of clean energy jobs that help our economy prosper and other economies prosper. These are things that the government needs to be doing.

Just a few years ago, I went to the region of Samsø in Denmark. Samsø is a region that was economically deprived. It lost all its major industries. What the people of Samsø did, in working with the Danish government, is decided that they would retrain the workers in that area in clean energy jobs, and that is what they did. They got support from the national government of Denmark, and the Samsø region then went through a training program. As a result of that and their own investments from the people of the region of Samsø, they decided to build a first onshore wind farm.

These are the people of the islands, an incredibly innovative and entrepreneurial group. That wind farm was so prosperous that they decided to build an offshore wind farm, which was the largest in Europe at the time. It was incredibly prosperous. They then moved from there to biomass. They also moved from there to solar. They have transformed their transportation sector. They transformed their heating sector as well. The entire region is now a fossil fuel-free zone as a result of those investments by the people themselves.

This is where we are seeing other regions of this world and other countries going. They are making the investments in clean energy that have led to untold prosperity. Samsø today is more prosperous than it has ever been because of those investments.

I said at the beginning that I would talk a bit about the NDP record on this. We simply have to look at NDP provincial governments. In Nova Scotia, it was the NDP provincial government that made the investments in tidal power, which is now top of mind. In terms of innovations in tidal power, that NDP government made a huge difference.

In Manitoba, we have just seen the election of Wab Kinew as premier. This is an exciting development because when the Manitoba NDP was in power, it led the country in geothermal investments. We will see Manitoba rise again after the years of the terrible Conservative government there and the hateful campaign that it ran. The Conservatives in Manitoba were thrown out, and now there is an opportunity not only for real development in education and health care, but also for a thriving economy because of the kinds of investments we have seen in the past from the Manitoba NDP, which will come back.

In Saskatchewan, the NDP invested in solar power. In Alberta, it invested in wind power under Rachel Notley, and, of course, in British Columbia it was hydro power. When we look at all the forms of renewable energy, it is NDP administrations that have made the difference. The NDP makes a difference. We will do it nationally too, but in the meantime, we will support this bill and push the government to do better on ensuring a renewable energy future.

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I really appreciate it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleagues do not like when I say “reliable and affordable electricity” because they want to increase electricity rates for Canadians.

We are going to bring immense economic opportunity and provide the world with the hydrogen it needs. According to the Public Policy Forum's new report published today, the installation and maintenance of massive onshore wind generation will create jobs and incomes at high levels of intensity for several decades during build-out, and continuing indefinitely with ongoing maintenance and replacement activity.

It also determined that the installation of 15 gigawatts of offshore wind generation would create an average of approximately 30,000 direct jobs annually during several years of construction and installation and about 1,200 permanent jobs for ongoing operation and maintenance.

Canadian businesses know a good thing when they see it. They are more than ready to invest in offshore renewable energy. They are already doing it. Over the last several years, a number of Canadian companies have bought into international offshore wind projects according to Marine Renewables Canada. This includes Canadian financial institutions like the Bank of Montreal and CIBC, and Northland Power.

Northland Power is a Canadian company that has not waited around to invest billions in offshore wind. Headquartered in Toronto, Northland Power is already a global leader in offshore wind with three large operational offshore wind projects in the North Sea in Dutch and German waters and over 9,000 megawatts of offshore wind projects in development from Scotland to the Asia Pacific. It is a great example of how Canadian experience and ingenuity is moving offshore renewables in the global energy transition forward. That experience was most recently demonstrated in the last few weeks when Northland closed just over $10 billion of financing for two additional offshore wind projects in Poland and Taiwan, despite a challenging economic environment.

Northland is a Canadian success story. It has grown from a purely domestic business 10 years ago to having offices in eight countries; deploying more than 250 people in offshore wind; establishing a centre of excellence for offshore wind in Hamburg, Germany; investing roughly $6.5 billion into assets already in operation; and committing about $9.5 billion into developing more offshore wind projects.

Perhaps the best news of all for Canada's workers and the economy is that it has confirmed that it wants to bring its experience and expertise home. It is so important to it that it decided to come to Parliament earlier this year to be present when the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources introduced this bill. It wants to be a part of fulfilling our offshore renewable energy potential, bringing jobs to Canadians and helping to grow our low-carbon economy. As we speak, the company is exploring opportunities in the Atlantic Ocean that will support both decarbonization efforts and electrification of the burgeoning green hydrogen sector.

I am sure all members agree that Canadian companies are more than willing to invest in this industry. If this legislation goes forward, it is only a matter of time. We are bringing billions of dollars and hundreds of jobs, or even more, to Canada's offshore. This can only happen if we work urgently to pass Bill C-49. That is why I find it so disturbing that Conservative members are so against bringing these economic opportunities to Atlantic Canadians.

I have seen this in my home province of Alberta, where Conservatives in Alberta have put out a moratorium. It is impacting over 118 projects, up to $33 billion in potential losses of investments into our economy, impacting billions of dollars of investment and up to 24,000 jobs. Then, the premier started a misinformation campaign, spending $8 million of taxpayers' money to drive a bus around Ottawa to misinform Canadians. That is $8 million of Albertan taxpayer money being spent to misinform.

The natural environment off of our coasts makes us capable of becoming one of the strongest players in the world in the offshore renewable industry. If we look at the Global Wind Atlas, the winds off our east coast are stronger than those around the U.K. and northern Europe, where there are already wind farms. If we compare our winds to those off the upper east coast of the United States, our offshore area is simply bigger and has higher wind speeds.

According to experts, and as published in Policy Opinions, the online magazine put together by Canada's Institute for Research on Public Policy, the price of electricity generated by offshore wind has also dropped significantly, in part, due to developers backing more efficient and bigger turbines. Now is the time for Canada to board this train, and the sooner the better.

The “Global Offshore Wind Report 2023”, published by the Global Wind Energy Council, is predicting that the industry could face supply chain bottlenecks in every country that produces offshore wind energy by 2026, except for China. We have a timely opportunity here to be a part of minimizing that bottleneck and be part of the solution by developing the offshore wind industry in Canada, and encourage new investments into companies that could supply needed materials and parts to the world.

According to Marine Renewables Canada, getting this legislation passed will only help Canada expand its renewable energy industries. Perhaps this expansion of affordable, clean, renewable energy is the cause of the Conservative Party's opposition to this bill. The Conservatives have been clear that they want to make pollution free again, and now they are voting against Bill C-49 and all of the jobs it would bring to Canadians.

As I wrap up my speech, I would like to briefly remind members that we have so many things already in place that will make Canada's offshore renewable energy a resounding success. Both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are fully on board with this legislation. We created the Canada-Germany hydrogen alliance, so that we can supply Germany and hopefully other European allies looking for secure sources of energy.

Canadians have excelled in so many renewable energy industries. They want this chance to show the world that we can lead in the offshore renewable energy sector too. The door is wide open. We just need to walk through it.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to debate Bill C-49 in the House today. Before I begin, I would like to note that we are standing on the unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe nation.

There is immense potential for offshore renewables, including the offshore wind industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. It has the potential for new sustainable jobs and the potential for a supercharged Canadian low-carbon economy. With some of the fastest winds in the world off our east coast, with Bill C-49 we could build one of the world's greatest offshore wind industries, powering countless Canadian communities with clean, reliable and affordable electricity.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, at the end of his speech, my colleague spoke about the various impacts of voting against Bill C‑49. I wonder whether a vote for Bill C‑49 is a vote for increased oil and gas production in eastern Canada. I think that is a fair question.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the Liberal member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, talk about the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier of Nova Scotia. Those premiers will answer to their electorate if they do the wrong thing by their electorate and by the industries that are going to be impacted either positively or negatively by offshore wind or offshore oil and gas.

There is a little paragraph in the summary of Bill C-49, and if our Liberal members from Atlantic Canada do not have the time to read the bill, they can read this. The bill provides that the Governor in Council, the Prime Minister and his cabinet, can “make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection”. Does the member agree that item (g), referencing proposed section 56 in this bill, could be removed? If so, I would support a bill that takes out—

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House on a matter of great importance for Atlantic Canadians, in particular constituents of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Today, I am going to speak to Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord acts. Introduced by our government this spring, this is a piece of legislation that intends to bring Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador into the green energy future. More specifically, our government intends to strengthen and modernize the regulations governing their offshore regimes.

As a proud Atlantic Canadian, I can tell members about the importance of safeguarding our unique coastal environment, as well as the importance of creating sustainable economic opportunities at home. This is especially true given the events of the past year in Atlantic Canada.

This last year, we saw a once-in-a-lifetime hurricane, Fiona, followed by an uncontrollable once-in-a-lifetime wildfire, followed by deadly once-in-a-lifetime flooding. This devastating sequence of events is no coincidence. It is the consequence of a climate emergency that has been brewing for decades. It is the consequence of leaders who do not recognize that we must act now to protect our communities.

Atlantic Canadians needed economic growth this year. What they did not need was a significant taxpayer bill for climate disaster cleanups. That is why Bill C-49 would support Canada's clean energy sector to fight the climate crisis. That is why Bill C-49 would unlock the incredible economic potential that lies in the renewable industries within Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

I cannot speak for the official opposition, but my constituents in Cape Breton—Canso sent me here to do my part to make government work for them. The same is true for my government colleagues on this side. We are here to work for all Atlantic Canadians and for all Canadians. With that, our government intends to do the right thing for the economic and environmental future of Atlantic Canadians. I will discuss how this legislation is going to help in that effort.

The world is now looking for cleaner sources of energy, and offshore renewables are becoming a leading contender in that very search. As we look to the future of Canadian energy, offshore renewables have the potential to not only help Canada achieve its net-zero goals, but bolster our energy capacity in sustainable ways. However, current regulations are standing in the way of these very crucial renewable projects. That is why Bill C-49 would remove the red tape that is currently preventing green energy projects from getting under way. In fact, without this legislation, not a single offshore wind project can be built, which is an important fact to note. This fact alone should be sufficient to convey the importance of passing this bill.

The reality of the situation is that if we do not create the regulatory environment that allows these clean energy projects to go forward, then massive private sector opportunity will go elsewhere. In other words, Canada has the opportunity right now to be a leader in the emerging offshore renewable industry. If we do not rise to the occasion and become the leader, another jurisdiction surely will. Our government believes that meeting this moment to chart a new path for Atlantic Canada and indeed all Canadians is here.

However, Bill C-49 is not just about removing red tape. It is also about advancing our commitment toward strengthening our environmental protection. This legislation would ensure that the Government of Canada's MPA protection standard is applied in a manner that respects the joint management framework for the Atlantic offshore. It would also provide the federal minister and provincial officials with the ability to prohibit oil and gas activities in areas that could be important for marine conservation and protection.

This is an incredible step forward in our commitment toward expanding Canada's energy capacities in a responsible and sustainable way. It is also reflective of the great partnership we forged with our stakeholders and provincial counterparts, which has allowed us to work together toward common goals. It is why the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have declared their support for this bill. In fact, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador has gone so far as to publicly urge the federal opposition parties to support the passing of Bill C-49. I wish to echo this statement and reiterate to my opposition colleagues that the legislation is indeed critical for the future of Canadian energy. I would say it is critical for economic development in Atlantic Canada writ large.

The Conservatives, and many of them are colleagues of mine, have been talking a lot about common sense, but on this item, they seem to intend to vote against Bill C-49. I do not see the common sense in that. I believe that the magnitude of the opportunity before us is real and that the regulatory framework is strong. It is important for me, as a member of Parliament, to reach across party lines and ask for their support. It is support for Atlantic Canadians and support for coastal communities.

This regulatory framework would indeed provide it to rural communities like mine in Cape Breton—Canso. Historically, in my riding, we have felt left behind in large-scale investments. The large-scale investment that I think can happen here is the best case scenario. It is private sector investment. Eventually, no doubt there will be government support, but this should be led by the private sector, which is so key.

We are partnering with Atlantic Canadians to work on offshore wind and green hydrogen. I think that is fundamentally what common sense is about. It is about working together and working together for the common good. Canada is well positioned to lead, as we all know in this chamber, the clean energy economy, but we need to make the right choices now. That is what Bill C-49 is all about.

With that, there is a simple conclusion that I would like to make here. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against unlocking historic economic investments in Atlantic Canada. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against bringing good, sustainable jobs to my area, to the Atlantic region. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against the premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, with whom we have worked together to bring these projects to life. A vote against Bill C-49 is a vote against putting partisan politics aside for the betterment of our constituents.

I implore each member of this honourable House to vote with us on this legislation. Let us all do the right thing for Atlantic Canada with Atlantic Canada. Let us work to pass Bill C-49.

I am thankful for this opportunity. I look forward to working not only with members on this side of the House but with the opposition to make this legislation a reality.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly an honour for me to stand in the House and speak in support of Bill C-49. It has had a great history behind it, with much debate that took place in the 1950s and 1960s about resources off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Typically, as we see in Canada, compromises were made, and the Atlantic accords were put in place to deal with the jurisdiction off Newfoundland and Labrador's coast and followed by Nova Scotia a year later.

The original agreement was, as Newfoundland and Labrador's then premier, Brian Peckford, stated, consistent “with a strong and united Canada”. The day the first of the two accords was signed, the agreement between Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada, the prime minister at the time, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, said in his speech, “It is unquestionably an historic Accord, probably the most important agreement reached between Ottawa and St. John's since Newfoundland entered Confederation”.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for addressing this legislation and for speaking the truth about the negative impacts it would have on both offshore petroleum development and the future of renewable offshore development.

I wonder if he would expand on how disastrous it would be to proceed with Bill C-49 now, given that sections from Bill C-69, sections 61, 62 and 64, which are all embedded in Bill C-69, have now been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, on Friday, to be largely unconstitutional.

I wonder if he would expand on exactly the perils of proceeding with this legislation, which they are rushing through on time allocation, given that we would all know that we were passing a bill with significant clauses that are unconstitutional.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not need that Liberal member to get me a meeting with Tim Houston. As a matter of fact, I met him on Saturday, oddly enough.

Do members know what Premier Houston said? He said that the Liberals need to think more clearly about what Bill C-49 means now that we know that Bill C-69 has been declared unconstitutional. He also made reference, very clearly, that they are not taking seriously the problem with the Chignecto Isthmus in Nova Scotia.

He also made it very clear that he knows that Atlantic Canadians, and specifically Nova Scotians, are suffering under this punishing carbon tax. He wonders how, in heaven's name, the Atlantic Liberals could stand up and vote 23 times for a carbon tax, which they continue to want to raise, punishing Atlantic Canadians for living rurally, mainly living in single family dwellings, not having public transit and those kinds of things. When I met with the premier on Saturday, those were the things that were important to him.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the folks from Cumberland—Colchester, especially when it is to speak to a bill that would negatively affect potential development in Nova Scotia. We have heard from many people in the House, Atlantic members of Parliament specifically, wanting to now portray themselves as the saviours of Nova Scotia. They are going on, touting how many people really want to be a part of the bill, which we know is utter hogwash.

We know that Bill C-49 would create uncertainty and control. By that, I mean it would create uncertainty and control related to the cabinet members of the NDP-Liberal coalition government. The difficulty we see there is that they are the ones who would assume the ultimate decision-making process when looking at the development of the offshore industries in Nova Scotia. We know very clearly that they would want to stop projects in the ocean to have ultimate control of their fiefdom, as they have had on land now for many years, and to effectively kill the oil and gas industry in Nova Scotia. It is really quite shocking.

We know that representatives from Germany came to specifically Nova Scotia in Canada and said that they would like to have our natural gas. The Prime Minister said that there is no case for natural gas. He asked who would need natural gas and why anyone would want natural gas. We also know that the NDP-Liberal government has killed 17 natural gas projects in this country, which obviously shows its true colours. Those members not only want to control it, but also to control the destiny of people in Atlantic Canada.

We know that the bill is rife with difficulties, red tape, long delays, stifling unproductivity and an unfriendly business environment. That part of this really hearkens to the words of a friend whom I had an opportunity to see during the break week, who said that, for people who build houses, the red tape, delays, bureaucracy and cost that the NDP-Liberal coalition has created really make it absolutely unpleasant, unpalatable, unfair and unpredictable for someone to even want to build simple housing in this country. Going forward, why would Canadians want to continue to have the voice of the NDP-Liberal coalition, and cabinet members in particular, making those decisions?

We know that, as my colleague spoke to before, at the discretion of a cabinet member, it could possibly create marine protected areas for anything that could possibly, at any time in the future, be examined or have difficulties. With any of the ambiguous language put forward, they would create marine protected areas that, of course, would stymie development.

We also know that the track record of the government, when it comes to offshore projects, is absolutely atrocious. We know that Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project, offshore in Nova Scotia, partly in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, was effectively stopped by the government. We know that Sustainable Marine simply asked for direction going forward from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and it got absolutely nothing from the department.

This was the first time a project in the development of tidal energy had put energy back into the grid, and it was measurable. It also had significant abilities to monitor for fish strikes. Even the government arm of monitoring, called FORCE, on the tidal energy project, readily admitted, when I met with those folks and Sustainable Marine energy, that there were no worrisome signals or fish strikes. There was one fish that swam through one of the turbines, but other than that, no fish were harmed in this process.

The scope of Sustainable Marine's tidal energy project is really related to the fact that, if it were able to harness a significant amount of the energy off the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world, there would be potential there to power all of Atlantic Canada in perpetuity with minimal cost. When we look at that kind of a project, which the Liberal government has absolutely no ability to support or go forward with, then I ask again why Canadians would want to say that we should allow the cabinet minister to have the opportunity to decide when projects should or should not go forward.

The difficulty, and my colleague, the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame mentioned this, is that there are many sections of overlap from Bill C-69 embedded in Bill C-49. We know that the Supreme Court of Canada has very clearly declared Bill C-69 unconstitutional.

Just a few things, if I may. Clauses 61, 62, 169 and 170 of Bill C-49 invoke section 64 of Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, where the minister finds that a given project's adverse effects within federal jurisdiction and its adverse direct or incidental effects are in public interest, section 64 allows, and in fact requires, the minister to create any conditions which they deem appropriate in relation to those effects and with which the project proponent must comply.

In Bill C-69, the Liberals forced all offshore drilling to be subject to a review panel, increasing the timeline from 300 to 600-plus days for offshore reviews. Conservatives raised this as a major point of concern with Bill C-69. The impact assessment by the agency can take 1,605 days, which, sadly, is four and a half years, if all aspects of the process are followed.

This bill specifies section 64 of IAA, which allows the minister to create any condition they wish, based on an impact assessment report, which could add another 330 days to the process, if it was stated in clause 62 of Bill C-49, required by the regulator or prescribed.

What we are talking about is a country where people cannot afford to feed themselves, to put a roof over their heads and to generally look after their families. When we understand that the NDP-Liberal coalition continues to want to put up red tape, barriers and concerns, then we know what is on the mind of Atlantic Canadians.

Those of us who went back to our ridings last week talked to people, and they talked about the carbon tax and the cost of living. We know that the Atlantic Liberals over on that side of the House have voted 24 times in favour of a carbon tax, over and over again.

There is one person on that side of the House, a Liberal, who has suddenly found religion, or perhaps he has found the Conservative common sense. I cannot exactly explain why, but we do know that he was on TV and was quoted multiple times. I think it is germane to read into the record one of the great quotes:

I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.

A gentleman on the opposite side said that. When we go back to our ridings in Atlantic Canada and hear of the difficulties, we understand very clearly that the Atlantic Liberals continue, over and over, to vote for a punishing carbon tax. What do they want to do now? They want to create further problems for Atlantic Canadians by stopping projects in the ocean.

We already know that they continue to do this on land with the statistics that I quoted previously, the delays of four and a half years on projects. Again, I will tie that to the builders we hear from to understand very clearly that they are giving up on their dreams of building houses and projects for Atlantic Canadians because it is an untenable position.

It is intolerable. It is unacceptable. It is unexplainable why the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to continue to stymie development in Atlantic Canada. That is something, on this side of the House, that we will not stand for.

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

Madam Speaker, I wish the member for Kings—Hants were as familiar as my hon. colleague about what is going on with the gatekeeping in our offshore oil and gas industry.

In response to the member's question, anything that is related to Bill C-69 in Bill C-49 needs to be scrapped, given how the court just ruled and how Bill C-69 is now in total jeopardy.

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

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court recently ruled that Bill C-69 is unconstitutional. Since Bill C-69 is embedded in the bill we are discussing, Bill C-49, it would also make this bill unconstitutional. What does the member think the proper response should be?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my opening remarks a couple of days ago, Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accord, desperately needs amendments. As with all Liberal legislation, the devil is in the details, or, in this case, the lack thereof.

Bill C-49, as it stands, would end all future expansion of the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry. In addition, the entire fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is fearful of the mass installation of wind turbines on its fishing grounds.

The fishing industry is not against the development of offshore wind energy; however, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations, from its point of view. That industry has a history of a lack of meaningful consultation with the Liberal government, especially when it comes to the setting up of marine protected areas, otherwise known as MPAs. MPAs have been arbitrarily created, oftentimes on prime fishing grounds, even though objections have been raised by fishermen. Their concerns are never taken into account, but the Liberal government goes ahead and forces fishers off their lucrative fishing grounds, endangering their livelihoods.

Why am I talking so much about fishermen and their experience with MPAs? It is because they fear that the exact same thing will happen in the designation and development of offshore wind farms. Bill C-49 is far too inadequate in relieving those fears. The process of consultation, negotiation and, in some cases, compensation needs to be clearly defined in this legislation. Fishermen are sick and tired of attacks by the Liberal government on their livelihoods, and they tell me that it is time for them to have an effective seat at the table. The bill before us needs to address this.

The fishing industry is not the only industry concerned with the arbitrary implementation of MPAs. The oil and gas industry has similar concerns. Bill C-49 would effectively kill all offshore oil and gas exploration and development in the future in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Any significant petroleum discovery or renewable energy project not yet developed would be governed by amendments to the Atlantic accord.

I see my hon. colleague, the member for Avalon, looking across at me. I am sure he has read the bill inside and out. However, I will read from the summary of the bill. It says:

the Governor in Council may make regulations to prohibit the commencement or continuation of petroleum resource or renewable energy activities, or the issuance of interests, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is located in an area that has been or may be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection

That is an area that may be identified as an MPA. Also, item (h) would give out the power to decide whether or not to compensate for the cancellation of such projects.

We all know that the Liberal government and its extreme environmental restraints have one goal in mind when it comes to Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil and gas industry, and that is to shut it down. The stakeholders I have talked to say that Bill C-49 puts the long-held fears of their industry on paper in black and white.

The Liberal government destroyed the Bay du Nord project by delaying approval after the longest environmental assessment in Canadian history. It used Bill C-69 as its tool to do that, and it can still do that in the future because that part of the bill was not destroyed by the court, unfortunately. Bill C-49 would be another tool in the anti-oil tool box, and Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada, especially those from Newfoundland and Labrador, should be ashamed to support the bill as it stands.

What oil and gas company would want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to explore the offshore in Atlantic Canada and have a significant find, only to be told that it cannot develop because the area may become a future MPA? The answer is none. This bill would drive much-needed investment dollars out of our offshore, which is already protected by the most stringent environmental regulations in the world, and would send that investment into jurisdictions with not only a poor environmental record but also a poor human rights record.

I cannot, as the lone supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's oil and gas industry in the House of Commons, vote for a bill aimed at killing that industry. Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada should feel the same way, but they do not. They tell me that I need to vote with them to support this bill for the good of my province. I ask if they are cracked. How can a bill that has the potential to kill all new oil and gas production off our shores be good for my province? This bill was created to wedge Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, and our propaganda machine, the CBC, even said it itself.

The member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl said that the Conservatives should not be meddling in the Atlantic accord, that we should support their amendments. If he is in this place, where he should be, he can get on his feet when I am done speaking and explain how members on my side of the House are meddling in the Atlantic accord when it is his party, under his ineffective guidance, that brought these amendments forward. How can Conservatives be meddling when we did not bring these amendments forward?

Then there is the Liberal member from Nova Scotia, whom I chatted with not that long ago. He said that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen was looking for trouble. It is unbelievable. If he wants to stand and clarify what he said when I am finished, he can do so as well. The fishing industry is all ears.

Trying to use this Liberal legislation to wedge Conservatives, the only party in this House that supports the oil and gas industry in Canada, is just a distraction. It is a distraction from the eight-year record of the current NDP-Liberal government, which sees Canadians reeling from the effects of the carbon tax on everything they buy and from food bank usage at the highest rate in 42 years. However, we will not be distracted. Not only do we support the oil and gas industry, but we support the mining industry.

Guess what else supports the mining industry. It is the wind power industry. To produce a single gigawatt of wind power, it takes 44 million pounds of copper, 150,000 tonnes of steel, 24,000 tonnes of iron, 1,000 tonnes of aluminum, 700,000 tonnes of concrete and a whopping 12,000 tonnes of fibreglass. That is what is required to produce one gigawatt. Where does fibreglass come from? It will not come from oil produced on the Grand Banks if the Liberals have their way; I can say that.

The House resumed from October 6 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-49—Time Allocation Motion

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

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

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

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

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

The legislation in Bill C-49, which is before the House, is important. Is this something you were involved in the consultation on? I presume that, as energy stakeholders, you at least had some feedback mechanism into the work that was happening there.

Bill C-49—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of 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 and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as with most Liberal legislation, when it comes to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the Atlantic accord, the devil is always in the details. This bill is a framework for the development of offshore wind energy in Atlantic Canada, and it is necessary, but it needs to be done right.

In my speech today, I will address concerns brought to me by the fishing industry, in my role as shadow minister for Fisheries and Oceans, and by representatives and stakeholders in the oil and gas industry. As I am the only MP from Newfoundland and Labrador who has the freedom to address the shortcomings of Bill C-49, stakeholders from these industries have put their faith in me to address their concerns on the floor of the House.

I will start with what I have heard from representatives of seven fish harvester organizations, which are mainly in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as throughout Atlantic Canada. The main concern raised by stakeholders is the lack of detail on the consultation process required with their industry.

Most in the industry, including those who sat in on an information session on September 12 by the committee for the regional assessment of offshore wind development in Newfoundland and Labrador, are concerned about the process. Lobster fishermen I met with in Nova Scotia are concerned with how offshore wind energy will impact their ability to fish.

The Liberal government, which is heavily influenced by hard-core environmentalists who often proclaim themselves to be stakeholders, does not have a good track record when it comes to setting aside areas where fishing activity is no longer permitted or where new restrictions are put in place.

The fishing industry is not against development of offshore wind energy. However, from its point of view, Bill C-49 pays lip service to consultations.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from British Columbia asked an excellent question. I could not have said it any better myself. I think we need all parties to come together in the House to work on advancing clean energy and the transition to decarbonize our economy.

Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of the east coast's commitment to that transition. The provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, are clearly asking for this. It is up to the House to provide this enabling legislation so provincial legislation can follow, and projects that are already being studied can get developed. It is a very important piece of legislation. I ask all parties to come together quickly to get this legislation through the House.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-49 is a clear demonstration of our government's commitment to that transition to clean energy. We will have, for the short term, continued extraction of carbon-based fuels in our country. Bill C-49 would be a very important way of enabling the offshore energy boards to bring in clean energy, such as wind. I talked in my speech about how important this is for sustainable jobs and the economy, and to help us tap into what is needed in the world right now to decarbonize our economy.

I do not necessarily agree with my colleague's premise, but I think this is an important step in making sure that clean energy is available in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for clean energy projects.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply offer that, if we are going to have these inflammatory questions, we should be able to address them. That is what I am doing. I am saying that climate change is real. It is happening, and there is a cost to the inaction of not dealing with it.

Bill C-49 clearly addresses that. British Columbians have had a price on carbon in my province since 2008, and it is one of the mechanisms to help reduce the impacts of consumer behaviours. The point is simply that we need to take action. Clean energy is important, and Bill C-49 will get us there.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in the chair today.

I appreciate having the chance to stand in the House today to speak to Bill C-49. I would like to mention that as I deliver my comments I do so on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the fact that the other side likes to downplay and ignore climate change. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I can tell members that my constituents have faced some of the worst impacts of fires and floods, which have been exacerbated by climate change. From winter storms taking down power lines in Quebec to storms battering our coasts, the fact is that the climate crisis is a serious issue that requires serious responses. Today, we are here to talk about a plan to help expand job-creating climate action in Atlantic Canada, which is certainly a region that has seen no shortage of climate impacts.

Let us take Nova Scotia. Nova Scotia’s workers and their families have been through not one, not two, but three climate disasters in the last 13 months: hurricane Fiona, the wildfires in the Halifax Regional Municipality and Shelburne County, and the flash flooding that tragically led to the deaths of four Nova Scotians, including three children. It is time to stand behind the people of Nova Scotia and all of Atlantic Canada as we move forward with opportunities that will support the fight against climate change and benefit the region’s long-term economic future.

Developing the offshore renewable energy industry should be a priority for all members of Parliament, which is precisely why I am here today as a member of Parliament from British Columbia. Enabling the offshore renewables industry to move forward will not only help the people who live and work in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, but also help Canada as a whole in the effort to do the following: help reduce emissions and meet emissions targets; create a clean, reliable and affordable grid; create good-paying sustainable jobs; enhance Canada's ability to compete in the global low-carbon economy across all sectors; and, further grow our economy today.

It is clear that Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforces are ready to move forward with these offshore opportunities. The citizens of these provinces have the skills we need, and they bring generations of experience in a range of marine industries to the table. Like British Columbians, our east coast colleagues are talented in other areas that are expected to benefit the offshore renewable energy industry, including shipbuilding, aquaculture, defence, research and ocean technology.

My Atlantic colleagues have been clear when they have spoken in this chamber. These provinces, and the livelihoods of all who call them home, have been shaped by the sea, providing rich maritime heritage and a passion for the environment, both of which make offshore wind and other renewable energy projects a natural fit for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Of course, they also benefit from the geography and energy context that makes these projects so attractive. Nova Scotia’s current energy mix means that affordable and reliable offshore wind power will support lowering prices for ratepayers, and as Newfoundland and Labrador uses its hydro capacity to support the electrification of buildings, industry and transportation, more and more power will be needed in the future. This is true across the country, yet the offshore potential of Atlantic Canada is one of the greatest on earth. Unlocking this potential is a critical part of achieving our commitments to the global fight against climate change.

Members on the other side like to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the climate crisis, as we see time and again in this place. Our side knows that ambitious action provides us with an opportunity to show the world that Canada is a reliable partner and leader in solving the great challenge of our era in a manner that supports the creation of sustainable jobs. To ensure we honour our commitments to Canadians and the world, and to ensure our economy does not surrender opportunity to our competitors as the rest of the world races towards net zero, we need to move quickly. That urgency brings us to the business before us today, and our provincial counterparts agree that we must move quickly.

Nova Scotia, for instance, has stated that coal-fired power plants are going to become a thing of the past by 2030, and that 80% of the province’s power will, by then, come from clean energy. That is only six years away. Nova Scotia’s Progressive Conservative government and citizens are asking for this House to get this bill passed so they can start building the renewable energy they need.

Atlantic Canadians, in particular, are calling on the Conservative Party to end its campaign of climate action obstruction and join us in passing this bill. Everyone is asking the Conservative Party to stop blocking jobs, investments and the renewable energy that will power their homes and businesses. The question is whether or not the leader of the Conservative Party will take his head out of the sand and heed this call.

Make no mistake. We will advance this legislation and deliver for Atlantic Canada either way. Doing so makes sense from both an environmental and economic perspective.

The potential for job creation and environmental benefits in renewable energy is so strong in Nova Scotia that the provincial government has already made several significant moves toward making offshore renewable energy projects a reality in preparation for this bill’s passing. Nova Scotia has joined the federal government in carrying out the regional assessment on offshore wind that is currently under way. Right now, the regional assessment committee is hosting public open houses to provide information on the process itself and get feedback on potential project locations.

Nova Scotia also released the first module of their offshore wind road map in June, which clearly delineates its vision for offshore wind energy and the regulatory pathway and timelines for project development. The road map provides certainty for businesses looking to invest, as well as giving a line of sight on what is coming for stakeholders, indigenous groups and other interested parties. The road map also outlines the seabed leasing opportunities, noting that access to seabed rights that are solely under the province’s jurisdiction could be available for commercial projects as early as next year.

For this to happen, Bill C-49 needs to pass quickly through this chamber. I again encourage my Conservative colleagues to listen to the people of Atlantic Canada, as well as both the Liberal Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia. I encourage them to reverse their thoughtless and ideological position and vote in favour of this common-sense bill. Bill C-49 affords the House the opportunity to deliver good sustainable jobs, good renewable energy projects and major economic opportunities for all while combatting climate change.

The two boards, the C-NLOPB and the CNSOPB, which has held the provinces’ offshore energy industry accountable for many years, are the natural choice to take on an expanded mandate for the regulation of the provinces’ offshore energy projects. It is a perfect fit. The offshore board already ensures that licensed project operators adhere to offshore regulations. It engages and consults with stakeholders, indigenous groups and the public to get feedback on potential and existing projects. It has years of experience in offshore safety and environmental protection and holds operators to account through the boards’ comprehensive compliance and enforcement activities.

The boards are also an excellent collaborator. They have put several agreements and memoranda of understanding in place with other organizations and agencies to make it easier for them to share information, expertise and resources with each other and coordinate their initiatives. This includes agreements with the Canadian Coast Guard, Transport Canada, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, Employment and Social Development Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canada Energy Regulator, Natural Resources Canada, the Transportation Safety Board and more. With these many agreements already in place, the offshore boards are a clear and logical choice for overseeing the development of offshore wind projects, as well as other renewable energy projects off the shores of Nova Scotia.

Economically, this bill makes good financial sense. We have heard that it is expected that as much as $1 trillion will be invested in offshore wind globally by 2040. That investment is already starting to flow to offshore markets around the world. This is why it is so urgent that the Conservatives end their opposition to these jobs and investments so that all members of Parliament can come together to get Bill C-49 passed.

We need to seize this massive economic opportunity, not just for Atlantic Canada but for all of Canada. This bill is key to ensuring that our country is a leader in the global race to net-zero. All members of all parties of all regions should not delay this bill any further, or else we will throw away the opportunity to attract investment, the opportunity to build a world-class offshore wind industry and the opportunity to create the thousands and thousands of jobs associated with it.

Bill C-49 makes sense for Atlantic Canada’s workforce, and Canada more broadly. When Canada builds major new industries, Canadians from across the country contribute and benefit. The benefits of this economic activity help to spur waves of labour development, and that is critical to the economic well-being of Canada as a whole, along with the restoration of many coastal communities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

The world needs Canadian clean energy and technologies in order to advance the fight against climate change and access long-term energy security. When Chancellor Scholz came to Newfoundland and Labrador last summer, he made it clear that Germany is looking to buy clean Canadian hydrogen made from offshore wind.

I am happy to take questions about Bill C-49, a very important piece of legislation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois often finds that, when either the Conservatives or the government members open their mouths, all we hear are speeches from oil companies.

When I think about Bill C‑49, what comes to mind is an image of oil wells with wind turbines on top them. The content of this bill looks a little bit like that. This bill could be worthwhile, but some of the decisions go completely against combatting climate change and keeping Canada's international commitments.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I must say that my hon. colleague is always present and always has questions. I am always amazed. Sometimes I wonder if he ever sleeps because he must be studying every bill.

Why are the Conservatives against this? Every time we talk about climate change, the Conservatives are against it. We always wonder if they believe in fighting climate change. They do not make the connection between health and climate change; they do not tie these two things together, when it is very important.

However, coming back to Bill C‑49, there are rules for future offshore wind projects, but the government wants to pursue oil projects. We take issue with the government saying one thing and doing another. It is typical of the Liberal government.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to start my speech with some compliments and then move on to the criticisms.

This bill seeks to amend the 1986 agreement, which was not bad, because, even though the Supreme Court said that the federal government has jurisdiction over offshore issues, the federal government entered into an agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador to work together in that regard. That is a good thing, and I want to point it out, because there are not many good things.

At that time, wind energy did not exist. Bill C‑49 will tie the federal government to all parliaments affected once they have entered into the new agreement, which affects the management of offshore wind projects. This bill could pave the way to real action in the area of renewable energy for the east coast. It makes improvements, such as the joint management of renewable offshore energy resources and the option of cancelling seabed oil concessions. It also promotes relations with indigenous peoples and their active involvement in the use of renewable energy. Those were the compliments.

Now, here are the criticisms. Bill C‑49 continues to maintain exploration and development mechanisms that lead to oil drilling. The government may have missed an opportunity here. It could have taken advantage of this opportunity to do something about that.

I want to start by reiterating one thing. When Canada makes international commitments about the environment, protecting biodiversity and fighting climate change, and the whole world sees the political decisions that have been made, it seems to me that at some point, action should follow. An emergency requires immediate action. Even young children understand that word. Given that we are in a climate crisis and biodiversity crisis, every decision made should align with Canada's commitments to fight climate change. We shall see about that.

In April 2019, the government announced a total ban on oil and gas work as well as mining, waste dumping and bottom trawling in all of Canada's marine protected areas. It was also urging other countries to do the same because, as we know, the government likes to lecture. It was telling other countries to do more to protect the environment. Marine refuges, however, were not included in that commitment. I like to say that words matter, and here is an example. Marine refuges were overlooked.

A little later, in 2020, Canada introduced new regulations that exempted future drilling from environmental assessment. The government's intention was to accelerate underwater oil drilling, and this after having lectured other countries.

The bill does not give more teeth to the regional assessments that, by the admission of the individuals in charge, are inadequate. Again, the government could have used Bill C‑49 to address that. I could talk about assessments at length because there are so many irregularities, but again the industry comes out ahead. There are no societal gains here.

In November 2020, the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board agreed to provide Building Product of Canada, or BP Canada, access to 264,500 hectares of ocean in exchange for a commitment to do exploration work worth $27 million. They say one thing and do another. This area is essential to marine biodiversity. It contains coral and sponges that other marine species use as spawning grounds or nurseries. Fisheries and Oceans Canada said so itself.

Meanwhile, with his customary emotional delivery, the Prime Minister promised to reaffirm Canada's commitment to protect 25% of our lands and waters by 2025 and to reach 30% by 2030. While BP Canada is making its little deals with the board, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has already started watering down his discourse. Regarding offshore drilling projects, he said at a committee meeting that the regulation will guarantee that all drilling projects comply with the strict standards of environmental protection and that the regulation establishes a clear and efficient process for assessing exploratory drilling projects.

In other words, the government supports such projects. Offshore drilling poses a threat to marine life. For example, the acoustic devices used to explore the seabed interfere with the communication, orientation and hunting activities of blue whales and right whales, two endangered species in Canada.

The lighting on the oil platforms and infrastructure is harmful to birds because it causes confusion about places for them to rest, find food and so on.

The Liberal government is committing to marine conservation and claiming it is possible to accomplish that goal while promoting the development of the offshore oil industry. One can see why The Guardian and Oil Change International are saying that Canada is a climate hypocrite.

I would like to remind members that the purpose of exploration is extraction and development.

I want to briefly mention Bay du Nord. Many countries were shocked when the government made that announcement as it was preparing for the COP15 on biodiversity in Montreal. Perhaps that explains the comments of The Guardian and Oil Change International.

Equinor, the company that spearheaded the project, was the one that decided not to move forward with it, at least for the time being. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change who approved the Bay du Nord project used to be a committed environmental activist.

Regardless of the outcome of Bay du Nord, this first deep-water project, with the government's about-face, doublespeak, selective terminology and broken policy and climate commitments, Canada is being two-faced, acting like a good participant when, let us face it, under the changes set out in Bill C‑49 it is still quite likely that permits will be granted and offshore oil activities will be promoted.

Just days after introducing Bill C‑49, the government announced new drilling permits to double offshore oil production.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the devil is in the details. If the government wanted us to oppose this then it went about it the right way, in other words introduce a good bill and the next day announce more drilling. One might say it is sabotaging its own legislation. The government had an opportunity to show that it could let go of fossil fuel. There is still time for that. We are used to the greenwashing language that the Prime Minister has mastered.

That said, legislation paving the way for renewable energy in this region of Canada would be good. I repeat: Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels is imperative. Just like western Canada, the Maritimes need a helping hand to do that. In both regions, the environment and biodiversity are under attack.

Our caucus has serious doubts about the probity of the commitments set out in Bill C‑49. What better ruse could there be than to slip poison into an innocent-looking treat that everyone likes? We will be watchful.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets, let us just distinguish on the last point that was being made between who started a fire, whether it was a lightening strike or somebody who threw a cigarette butt out a window, and the fuel load in place that causes the wildfires. He knows this perfectly well because we have talked about this. We share many things, including a history in Nova Scotia.

The month of May in Nova Scotia is historically wet and cold. One could not start a forest fire there if one tried most years for many years. However, year after year, recently, and very recently because of climate change and global warming, the month of May in Nova Scotia has been hot and dry. This year, for the first time, we had extensive wildfires because of climate change. Regardless of who lit the match that hit the fuel load, it was hot and dry and ready to catch fire because of climate change.

As to the earlier points, the bill we are debating right now, Bill C-49, I am sure he will recall that it was our mutual friend, the late Pat Carney, who negotiated the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. The difference between tidal power and offshore wind is that offshore wind is a fully developed technology and ready to implement. We are still working to try to develop tidal power as it is not yet fully formed. It has not yet solved the threats to fisheries.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-49, an act that would amend the mandates of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic accord. The primary goal of this legislation is to provide for a new approval process for the development of oil and gas projects off Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the mandates of these two boards.

When second reading of this bill started a week or so ago, Liberal MPs from Atlantic Canada thought they would use their speeches and the speeches of the official opposition to try to make this about some sort of strange “If one is not with the Liberals on Bill C-49, then one must be against Atlantic Canada” idea.

In fact, they came out of their caucus meeting and actually said that they think they could distract people after giving the Prime Minister all of this bad news about what we have been hearing in the summer. They thought they would come out of the caucus meeting and try to hold a shiny thing over here to see if their constituents would be distracted. The distraction attempt for Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians was from the Liberals' failure to address the primary concern they heard over the summer from their communities: the cost of living.

There have been 24 times that all of them, except for one now, have voted to increase the cost of everything. One can almost hear the Liberals in their meetings saying that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, people might forget that their home heating oil bills have more than doubled under the NDP-Liberals; that, maybe, if they talk about Bill C-49, all the complaints they heard from people in the summer, of having lost faith in this government and forcing the cost of everything up, might be forgotten; and that, maybe, all of the damage they have done to themselves and their constituents will be forgotten.

Just so everyone knows, it is tied to Bill C-49 because they were using that as a bright, shiny object to try to distract from those failures. What are those failures they are using Bill C-49 to try to distract from? I think they are actually best captured by the words of the member for Avalon. For those watching, the member for Avalon is a Liberal member of Parliament from Newfoundland. On the show Power and Politics, he said this, and let me start with this quote, as I think it is a great one: “I believe we have to change the way we're approaching the climate change incentive, whatever you want to call it. I think what we're using right now, at this point in time, is putting a bigger burden on people who are now struggling with an affordability crisis.” That affordability crisis, of course, is that which Conservatives have been talking about for the last year, and of which Liberal members of Parliament live in denial.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on, on the program, to say, “I think [the carbon tax is] hurting them a fair bit”, with “them” being his constituents. He says, “Everywhere I go, people come up to me and say, ‘You know, we're losing faith in the Liberal Party.’ I've had people tell me they can't afford to buy groceries.” The Liberal member for Avalon then goes on to say, “They can't afford to heat their homes, and that's hard to hear from, especially, seniors who live alone and tell me they go around their house in the spring and wintertime with a blanket wrapped around them, because they can't afford the home heating fuel. They can't afford to buy beef or chicken.” We have been telling the Liberals that, yet they are trying to use Bill C-49 as a distraction from the day-to-day challenges they have caused Canadians.

The member for Avalon obviously had a private conversation with the Minister of Finance around this time. He said, “I told the minister, when she came to Newfoundland, about this, and she told me, she said, ‘I'm going to correct this. You're right.’” She actually said she is going to correct it. We are still waiting. Not only do they break promises to Canadians; they also break promises to their own backbenchers.

The Liberal member for Avalon goes on to say, “We can't keep adding on to expenses, and David,” which is the name of the host, “you know that everything in our province comes in by boat and truck. They burn fuel. Lots of it. That's the cost to bring it in, and it's going to be added to every item that gets on a store shelf somewhere.”

That is punishing anybody who goes to buy something, whether it is a chocolate bar or a tin of milk. It is anything. A piece of two-by-four will go up, which will make homes more expensive to build. I think our leader has been saying that for a year, and there has been nothing but deaf ears on the other side, except for one fellow who found religion after talking to his constituents for three months in the summer.

The same Liberal member went onto say, “I think they,” being the Liberals, “will lose seats not just in Newfoundland, not just in Atlantic Canada, but indeed right across the country if they don't get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. It is interesting that he is calling his own party “they” as if he is not part of them anymore and had not voted 23 times before this for the carbon tax. Now, on the 24th time, he has changed his mind and flip-flopped. It is unusual for a Liberal to flip-flop.

He said “get a grasp on this the way that I think they should”. This one is hitting home to everybody I speak to and it is a grassroots issue. If an election were called today, I am not sure the Liberal Party would actually form the government. I am pretty sure that would not happen if an election were held today, and they would not be in government.

The hurt and pain that has been caused by the Liberals out there, because of their inflationary deficits and carbon tax, is causing a great deal of hardship that is not recognized by 157 Liberal members, and their cohorts in the NDP who support all of this, but the 158th member has finally got it. Maybe it will take another two years for the other Liberals to get it.

This is the counter to the bright, shiny distraction the Liberals are trying to do with Bill C-49. They are trying to make some crazy accusations about who supports Atlantic Canadians. Apparently, according to the member for Avalon, Liberals do not support Atlantic Canadians. He goes on to say, “And I know the government is pushing people to switch over to heat pumps.” We hear that all the time, including today from the member for Central Nova. He says, “Many homes, especially the older homes, are not designed for that. They are not built to sustain the heat from a heat pump, so I don't think it works.”

Quite frankly, to show how out of touch the member for Central Nova is with his bright, shiny $10,000 heat pumps that he is pushing for all the companies that he knows and likes in Nova Scotia, the fact is if someone is living on CPP, disability or a fixed income, they do not have $10,000 for a heat pump.

Apparently, in the golden world the Liberals live in with $200,000 vacations for the Prime Minister and the fancy world the member for Central Nova lives in with his chauffeured car as a minister, he thinks people on CPP, OAS and GIS can afford $10,000 out of their cash flow for a heat pump. The Liberals' disconnection from reality knows no bounds.

Finally, in that interview, in response to the issue of the messenger, the messenger being the Minister of Environment who believes orange is a very nice colour to wear, the member for Avalon said, “No, he is not”, meaning he is not the right messenger. “No, he's not, and because he's so entrenched in this, and I get it, I mean, where he came from and his whole idea of making a big difference in climate change, but you can't do it overnight. You can't make it more expensive on people than what they can handle, and that's exactly what's happening right now.”

The member from Atlantic Canada's request was that they actually increase the payments to people so that the revenue-neutral carbon tax, which they claim, would cost more out of the treasury. The solution for cancer was to give us more cancer. It was not to say that they were going to get at the root of the disease, and the root of the disease, the cause of this inflation, is the carbon tax. That is what they should be getting rid of.

Bill C-49, which they are trying to use as a distraction from this reality, includes a process to review renewable energy projects in the ocean. I can inform this House that while the NDP-Liberal government claims to support renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada, the track record says that it actually does not do that. Over the decades, we have been trying in Nova Scotia to harness the enormous power of the Bay of Fundy tides to generate clean renewable electricity. There have been about half a dozen projects and hundreds of millions of private-sector dollars spent trying to figure out how to harness the Bay of Fundy tides. All but one project have failed. These are very large turbines. The projects that failed had these large turbines built and put on the floor of the Bay of Fundy. These turbines are about five storeys high.

For those members who do not know, the Bay of Fundy rises and falls every day by 52 feet. Twice each day, 160 billion tonnes of seawater flows in and out of the Bay of Fundy, which is more than the combined river flows of the world. The Bay of Fundy's tides transform the shorelines and tidal flats and expose the sea bottom as they flood into the bay and its harbours and estuaries. It is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy could contribute up to $1.7 billion to Nova Scotia's GDP and create up to 22,000 jobs. That is almost as many people as work in our number-one industry, which is the fishery.

Besides the money, how big is that in terms of energy? Three hundred megawatts of tidal energy can power a quarter of all Nova Scotia homes. That is just a fraction of the Bay of Fundy's 2,500-megawatt potential. That means Nova Scotia could become a net exporter of clean renewable tidal power.

However, how are we doing on that? With respect to every project, as I said, that has had these turbines placed on the bottom of the ocean floor, within about 48 hours they failed. The power of the tides had blown the turbines apart. However, people at an innovative company called Sustainable Marine Energy had a different idea: What if we floated those turbines on the top of the water instead of sinking them to the ocean floor? Guess what: It worked. The first project to consistently put power into Nova Scotia's power grid and to be paid for that power by Nova Scotia Power was successful. They were the first turbines not to be destroyed by the power of the Bay of Fundy tides.

One would think that the NDP-Liberal government would be thrilled and that the approval of such a successful green renewable-energy project would be fast-tracked, but that is not what happened. The Atlantic Liberals had the Department of Fisheries and Oceans refuse to extend the permit for further piloting of the project. They used DFO to kill the project. That is important to Bill C-49 because of the power it would give DFO over all energy projects in Atlantic Canada. Those turbines are now out of the water. They are disassembled, the technology is shelved and the company is bankrupt. I say thanks to Atlantic Liberals and their commitment to renewable energy from our oceans. They talk the talk, but walk away when it comes time to move forward. It is typical of these Liberals. It is all about the input, without any results.

Therefore, this bill is not about approving projects in renewable ocean energy and oil and gas development to get the world off coal and dirty dictator oil. No, it would formalize a process designed to make sure these projects never see the light of day. What the NDP-Liberals have done here in this bill is put more gatekeepers in place to stop energy project development in Atlantic Canada. They imported four sections from the disastrous Bill C-69, the no pipelines bill, into Bill C-49. With Bill C-69, the NDP-Liberals had said that more projects would get approved when they approved that. How many have been approved? There have been none. How many have been proposed? There have been none. It magically drove all capital out of Canada for energy projects.

Now, Bill C-49 would bring that process and that incredible success rate to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy projects. It would impose the same process, and imposing the same process would yield the same result. This bill would triple the current timelines for approval of offshore energy projects. Currently, a decision by the offshore regulatory board has 30 days for cabinet to agree or disagree. The Liberals would extend that in this bill.

Sections 28 and 137 give the federal cabinet the ability to end offshore drilling and renewable energy projects and also give the Minister of Fisheries a veto to propose developments in areas that the minister said that there may be a time in the future when there might be a marine protected area, MPA. It is not that there is a marine protected area, but maybe someday, if the minister thinks there might be one, and so, no, we cannot go there. It is sort of like Whac-a-Mole, which is what DFO has been doing on land with the rivers for any energy projects, and using the passage of one shrivelled up river as a reason to stop a project. Now, that same power would be given to DFO.

Why is that possible? An MPA is a part in the ocean. Fish swim and do not know the boundaries of the parts. However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans a few years ago met with the fishing groups in Nova Scotia and, in effect, said, “We're going to shut down 30% of the commercial fishery in Nova Scotia using MPAs. Work with us and you can pick which fisheries we shut down. Don't work with us, and we'll pick what is on.” The department uses its excessive power for other political purposes, and that is being imposed in the bill.

The bill brings the inefficiencies of the federal government's Impact Assessment Act into the bill as well. It adds sections 61, 62, 169 and 170 of the IAA where the federal minister has the power to impose conditions on authorizations. It also invokes section 64 of the IAA, which allows a federal minister to interfere in a project if they think it is in the public interest and create any condition, without limit, they think is necessary regardless of what the regulator decides.

Adding these Bill C-69 provisions to Atlantic Canada's offshore energy process extends the process through unlimited federal delays at any time, but at a minimum it is going to be over 1,600 days, which is four and a half years. That is the process that Bill C-69 sets out. It is a minimum of four and a half years for the approval of any project. That really efficient process, which has led to no projects being approved in western Canada, is now being imposed on Atlantic Canada. It is a recipe to end all our offshore energy projects in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

There are no provisions in the bill that require commercial fishing communities to be at the table when all of these projects are being considered. There has been no consultation with the fishing industry about these projects. Why is that important? It is because, in Atlantic Canada, that is our largest industry. To not require their involvement when most of these projects impact their ability to earn a living is a betrayal by Atlantic Canada MPs to the critically important industry they supposedly represent as members of Parliament and to the tens of thousands of people who work in it.

Finally, the current Atlantic accord treats Nova Scotia and Newfoundland differently. The Nova Scotia government has the ability to designate areas under provincial jurisdiction as energy projects within the bays of a province, or the “jaws of the land” as it is called. However, Newfoundland and Labrador does not have that power. I am shocked, frankly, and they should really give their heads a shake, a favourite saying of one of the MPs over there. Newfoundland and Labrador Liberal MPs are okay with Nova Scotia having authorities that the Newfoundland and Labrador government does not. What else would we expect from these silent Liberals? Well, they are silent except for the member for Avalon who apparently is not comfortable in his own caucus any more.

It is time for Atlantic Liberals to get their heads out of the sand. It is time for them to speak up and recognize that the bill before us does for Atlantic energy projects what Bill C-69 did for energy projects in western Canada. Atlantic Liberal MPs need to join us in fixing these issues in committee when we propose solid and thoughtful amendments to ensure that projects get done and not stopped by Liberal gatekeepers.

It is also time for Atlantic Liberal MPs to stop voting with the NDP-Liberal government to increase the cost of everything with the carbon tax. It is about time they do that. Well, this week, they voted once again to impose a quadrupling of taxes on their own constituents. If they truly care about the economy, they will speak up for their region and axe the carbon tax and they will amend this bad bill so that projects can actually get approved.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Carbon Pricing

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past eight years, we have had a number of opportunities to see where the Conservative Party stands when it comes to supporting measures that are actually going to fight climate change and create good jobs in our region.

Time after time, they oppose reasonable measures that are going to reduce pollution and prevent the kinds of severe weather events that my communities have been impacted by. These events include hurricane Fiona, wildfires such as we have never seen and floods that have literally taken the lives of my community members.

The Conservatives have a chance to support a concrete measure by voting for Bill C-49, which would create well-paying jobs in clean industries. Why does the member oppose well-paying jobs in his community?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is my take on Bill C-49. Climate change is like watching a bathtub that is about to overflow. Relying on offshore wind power would be like using a spoon to try to empty the bathtub. Meanwhile, this bill keeps the tap running full blast. That is what this government is doing, because it is going to double oil production off the coast of Newfoundland.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on Bill C‑49. Aside from the local benefits and spinoffs he mentioned, is this a bill that will really help tackle climate change at last?

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some Nova Scotians who might be affected by Bill C-49, even though the member for Windsor West really did not.

My friend and former physician colleague Beau Blois and his family have been named provincial Woodland Owner of the Year. They have a round barn. They have Angus beef, and they are renowned in the region for what they do. I thank Beau and Laura for what they do.

Next, I would like to highlight Jeremy Dobson and Justin McKay, who have created the first significant Afghanistan memorial in my riding.

Finally, I offer heartfelt condolences to my assistant Holly Miller, whose father, sadly, has passed. Her father, Gary, would have been significantly affected by Bill C-49.

I am thankful for the opportunity to highlight those folks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look at Bill C-49 as an opportunity where we have consensus for a very important region of the nation. Our regions look for economic development and prosperity. I look at the accord, what we are debating today, as something that has virtually universal support. We want to see this legislation pass. We have seen numerous members of the Atlantic Liberal caucus actually speak to the legislation and its importance.

Given the wide spectrum of support for the legislation, is the member at all surprised that the Conservatives seem to want to sit on the legislation or are not being outspoken in favour of seeing the legislation in the first place?

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that my colleague is listening to me, so that is good. It is Bill C-49. I appreciate the correction. We would not want that to stand in the record here.

I want to talk about the connection to my community and renewables and also what is taking place with this bill in Atlantic Canada.

I asked my previous question about 911 calls that were dropped because we saw the east coast suffer significantly from the climate change that we are witnessing across the globe and across Canada, everything from wildfires to rain and other types of flooding events.

Even in my region, there are consequences with the Great Lakes, in southern Ontario. I think it is important, when we do public policy, that we start to remediate and look at some of the consequences of poor actions by Conservatives and Liberals in the past when it comes to the telco industry and communications, which are paramount in this.

I have spoken many times in this chamber about the fact that we are in our current problem with regard to cellphone and, especially, rural service, because we chose certain actions.

This government and the previous government set up an auction process for our spectrums. They gobbled up around $23 billion from the spectrum auctions since 2000. They are then making Canadians pay some of the highest prices because we do not have a telephone bill of rights.

Where did that money go? Successive governments, from Chrétien to Martin to Harper and now to our current administration, have raked all that cash in. At the same time, we have had no regulation on prices and accountability.

The accountability part is important because, in 2018, we witnessed a terrible situation here in Ottawa, with regard to tornadoes. We had special hearings about that, because 911 was out for a period of time or was reduced in service and quality and so forth. Even this past summer, the same thing just took place again in the Halifax region.

Shame on us for not forcing the telcos to provide better, reliable service. It is interesting, because the minister, in the Rogers thing, picked up the phone and called Rogers. He said that when he speaks, Rogers is going to actually listen and do something. It sounds like the grocery store plan that he has right now with the CEOs.

We know it did not work because Rogers recently sued the Competition Bureau and the tribunal process. It is getting Canadian taxpayers' money for the Competition Bureau fighting for Canadians against the acquisition of Shaw.

We have a system in place that has run amok. Under climate change, the consequences for communication are real, as we move quickly away from land lines, especially with the cost of operations. People cannot afford cellphone plans like family plans and a land line any more. Then other services are not available any longer.

It is a public interest aspect that is critical to our public policy, because the spectrum auction and the way that we roll out and have these companies abuse Canadians can all be taken in-house here.

We have seen other countries do that, but we will not do it because they lobby so hard and they basically have a hands-off policy. We do not have a telco bill of rights, which the NDP has been fighting for. We do not use a spectrum auction to make sure that we have lower prices, better access and higher accountability.

We have not done any of those things. I am worried that, with this bill here, we still have public policy with this void and the gap in the difference, which we could actually improve as transition takes place with climate change.

One of the things that has taken place in my region is with the auto sector. I was mentioning the transition in the auto sector. In my region, we were number two in the world in assembly and we have dropped to eighth. We have had to fight back most recently. Without a national auto policy, we have been slow off the mark for transitioning to a greener, cleaner auto industry.

We did our first press conference, with Joe Comartin and David Suzuki, in Windsor, on a green auto strategy back in 2006. That is also when I showed the film Who Killed the Electric Car?. That was an original GM vehicle; it was a clean, green machine that they took off the market.

We are finally seeing some good transitions. Yesterday, we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in front of industry committee, and I was asking questions. We have recent announcements on Volkswagen and Stellantis, which add up to about $28 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned that these returns would not be as quick as the government was saying.

It was really good to get at that during the hearing. We realized, through the testimony, that it was still a better deal than the Trans Mountain pipeline. He had to look at the two situations, as requested. The Trans Mountain pipeline is already up to $31 billion, has fewer jobs connected to it and has greater environmental degradation related to it.

Meanwhile, on the Volkswagen and Stellantis deal, the money is only guaranteed, for the most part, if there is battery production. We have to meet it because our free-market American friends have brought in the Inflation Reduction Act. They are massively subsidizing their capital investments in the auto industry and other factors. In fact, they are just ramping it up.

I was at the national state legislatures meeting this past summer. The year coming up and another year after that will have the Democrats and Republicans spending more money than ever before, and doing it through corporate subsidization. That is allowed because of our situation regarding a trade agreement.

All we did was match what the U.S. did for Stellantis and Volkswagen, and thank goodness. This is a good shout-out for our UNIFOR workers who have been at the forefront of the transition for the economy for auto from day one. Dave Cassidy, John D'Agnolo and others in my region have been at the forefront making sure that we actually have a green transition economy and we get some of the new plants.

That is important because those vehicles are shipped primarily within Canada and the United States, and other parts of the world, and we will start being able to compete. The point is that, at least with that transition, we are going to see some improvements in the job guarantee components and the subsidy. Some of it goes to capital operations, but the vast majority goes to production.

We did not want to put him on the spot by asking which investment he would choose, between this and Trans Mountain, but it is just basically out the door all the time. There are no qualifications on any of that whatsoever. It was an interesting conversation yesterday and it fits well with what we are trying to do with climate change and reducing emissions on vehicles.

The auto industry has been one of the more centralized themes, in its producing and creating, as one of the toughest things that we have to change but it also offers some potential solutions. If we look at some of the products that are coming out now from the auto industry with this transition to batteries and so forth, it is also becoming generators and capacities within people's homes. We have other subsequent issues that we can apply our vehicles to in our houses to reduce emissions. There is a new future with that coming forward.

That applies to this act because it will help offset other areas of climate change. If we look at Newfoundland and Labrador, and Halifax, and we look at those offshore capabilities, those are also some of the things that were done in my region regarding windmills and wind turbines. They are not perfect by any means, but they are also part of the solution to advance different types of energy.

Sadly, the McGuinty government at that time and then the Wynne government brought in bad policy that still lingers to this day. That is why we will have to be looking to make sure that Bill C-49 would be a solid bill at the end of the day, and have subsequent follow-through. They brought in some private sector proponents and it turned into a fundraiser when it came to the issue of the Green Energy Act that was passed in Ontario.

The important aspect of this is that, when we see these projects and the subsidies going forward to them, and the policies that are happening, people feel confident in them. That is what I am hoping will come from this bill. I hope when the elements become real and substantial, people will support them.

I noticed a significant difference in my community in the auto sector. We have one of the most successful manufacturing plants from the Second World War building the Chrysler minivan. It was not Stellantis, but it was Chrysler.

We fought for years in this House for a basic auto policy that would be transparent, and that is what is going to be necessary for new projects in Bill C-49.

I was part of the discussion yesterday when we had the Parliamentary Budget Officer in place. I noted that we had to rescue Chrysler in the past, and that led to a plant that still exists today and the government made money on it, as it was done right. Most recently, we have had some auto investment for helping General Motors and others. Had the Conservatives not cashed in the shares they got from General Motors, we would have made more money on that investment, but they cashed them out early for ideological reasons and we did not get the return we should have.

I stood here in this chamber when Jim Flaherty said that we cannot pick winners or losers and could not do anything about it. Thank goodness he switched his position. I am eternally grateful for that. He was a hard worker, somebody one could approach, and he did a lot of work for Canada. He switched his position on that, which is how we rescued General Motors at that time, despite the objections of many people and parties. It was a forethought that this could open up the new investment that we are getting now not only in the Oshawa area, but in Ingersoll and other places where we see the auto return.

In fact, it is coming back to Quebec. The Sainte-Thérèse plant closed a long time ago, which was a shame because our auto investment in our supply chain was critical along the lines. It was important to rescue that plant, but at that time there was no support from the government and it was unfortunately lost, but that is one of the returns we are seeing now. They are involved in new battery manufacturing, which is critical, because Ontario and Quebec manufacturing is very solid.

When projects come forward, in this bill I am hoping there is also going to be the potential for other provinces to tap into some of the manufacturing, supply and servicing that is going to be required for some of the new investments for clean energy. We have seen that in a number of years in our region, as parts of the manufacturing took place for the wind turbines in Windsor and Essex County, and in other places it had to be shipped in. Some of it was shipped in from overseas, but there was a lot domestically produced, so we have an advantage hopefully to prepare and to be the manufacturers of the materials, goods, services and servicing.

As a side topic to some of this, the planning has to be done because we are looking at energy. I am a long-time critic of the deep repository for nuclear waste that is being proposed in the Bruce Peninsula area. It wants to be one of the first places ever in the world to do this, bury nuclear waste next to some of the largest freshwater reserves in the world. Only a couple of these facilities have been built, which have caught on fire or leaked. It wants to build and bury that for over 100 million years. That is a legacy of nuclear waste that we have to factor in, so there is a decision pending on that. The government and other members have been quiet on this. I have not because I have been there and have seen what is happening. The community is being greased by the nuclear industry with respect to extra resources and a number of things. There is lobbying going on, and that is fine, but it has to be based on reasonable expectations. Ironically, the original proposal was turned down by the Saugeen First Nation, so it moved a mile off the site and proposed a new one there.

The point I am making is there is a legacy cost involved in all of this, and servicing costs, and we have to build those in. That is why this opportunity in Bill C-49 is important for jobs and the economy. It is important that we try and get in front of some of the domestic work we can do.

The climate change aspect is critical in this; to fight back against these things is going to take large and small projects. It is important that we feel momentum and that we can control some of these measures and have input. When people turn on the TV and see the mess that is taking place not only in Canada, but other places in the world, I get a lot of young people asking what we can do. There are a lot of things we can do regarding our own behaviour, our country's behaviour internationally, and how we respond to this. I have a private member's bill on the Ojibway national urban park to do that.

It would actually create a green space that would stop flooding and soak up the negative resources with regard to the water in the spillage that can take place into industrial areas and residential areas. It would also have an effect for 200 of Canada's 500 endangered species.

When we look at these projects that are taking place and go forward with Bill C-49, I am hoping they also get community benefits. I want to talk about community benefits a little because it does not have them in now, which is why local members from that area should be fighting tooth and nail for this addition. If the bill concludes with some of those elements later on, it would provide control and supports for the community.

My first public meeting to get a new border crossing in Windsor was in 1998. We went for a long period of time. We fought off an American billionaire who wanted to twin the Ambassador Bridge and ram it right through the west end of the city, cutting us off. We fought off OMERS, one of the largest pension funds, which wanted to put a truck route right through south Windsor, destroying the environment with a truck route.

We finally got a compromise for a new bridge. Part of the new bridge project includes community benefits on both the Canadian and American sides. Those benefits allow the community to opt in to these larger projects. It is a $5-billion project. All we could get was $10 million on both sides, but at least it was a start. It was historic, the first time it was done. However, the $10 million goes into a community fund from which other projects then emerge. There is conservation money and money for homes with regard to greening, offsetting the damage of the construction that is taking place. The inclusion of projects would build a legacy. All of those things make people feel better and stronger about the massive investment they get with regard to an energy project or something else.

I am hoping that there is going to be an opportunity for community benefits to be put into this bill to ensure people there get to see what we have seen so strongly in our area. Again, the community benefits process is everything from not only the project getting done but also constant community consultation about what those things would be, and control. That is critical when it comes to having some empowerment, so the people feel stronger about the investments, and also the value when they look out and see the windmills and some of the changes that physically take place. That was a concern we had with regard to our project.

What also has to happen, and the reason I mentioned the nuclear component and the legacy costs, is that we still have to look at what we do with the end of the life cycle of a windmill and wind turbine. We did have some testimony at the industry committee recently about this. I asked about those things. There is no real plan for any of that right now. We do not want to have to basically rip things down and ship them hundreds of miles away on large transportation platforms that would create more greenhouse gas emissions, just to be recycled. We have to think about a long-term plan, because as of now, Windsor-Essex County and Chatham-Kent have a scattering of windmills across them, creating green energy. Eventually, the windmills' lifespan is going to cease and they will need either refurbishment, replacement or recycling.

These are important elements that we should be building into the cost of things. It is kind of the argument the NDP has been making for years on manufacturing's extended producer liability. That is critical because with public funds involved, it is not just the cost of the moment. This is what federal governments have been really particularly abusive of in the past: getting in on the capital of something at the very beginning and then walking away from the operational legacy. We have seen this in the housing industry. There are so many market rental units right now that need fixing up.

I want to say that I am appreciative of the opportunity to speak to this bill, because my region has a connection through the work that has been done. I want to conclude by again saying that we have to take seriously the public infrastructure that we have. Why I started with telco on this is because climate change is going to require us to be quicker and more responsive. No longer should governments be letting the three giants run their way with the rest of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Please make sure that we are speaking to Bill C-49.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to give our hon. colleague an opportunity to correct himself. I believe he is standing up talking on Bill C-48 and the topic today is Bill C-49.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his speech. His commitment to the environment is beyond any doubt.

As for Bill C-49, I have many questions.

As I read this bill, it struck me as a great way to conceal malicious intentions around oil and gas development.

Wind energy is great. Saying that we are going to produce green hydrogen is great. That is the positive side of the bill. However, is it not true that the bill sugar-coats a bitter pill?

The bill appears to promote wind energy, but is it not true that its real intention is to allow twice as much offshore oil and gas production and development down the road, as announced soon after this bill was introduced?

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the double-talk around this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member for Sydney—Victoria talk at great length on the consultation with indigenous peoples on Bill C-49, which is very important. Not long ago, I spoke with one of his fellow Nova Scotian colleagues, who reiterated the same, so I asked him about consultation with non-indigenous fishermen. His response to me was, “Who cares about them? Why are you looking for trouble?”

Does the member for Sydney—Victoria agree with his fellow Nova Scotian Liberal colleague that consulting with non-indigenous fishermen is asking for trouble?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for this opportunity to talk about Bill C-49 while standing on the unceded territory of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation.

I would like to start by acknowledging that indigenous leadership, knowledge and culture are critical to Canada's effort to fight climate change. For hundreds of generations, indigenous peoples have been the stewards of the land and waters, including Canada's oceans, as I was in my home of Unama'kik. It is clear that they continue to have a deep connection to the oceans that surround Canada. In my riding of Sydney—Victoria, the Mi'kmaq have a long and mutually beneficial relationship with the lakes and oceans that surround us.

In the spring of 2022, the federal government, in partnership with the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, announced their joint intention to expand the mandate of existing offshore boards to regulate offshore renewable energy projects. That fall and into this past winter, officials from NRCan invited indigenous groups in Atlantic Canada to engage in the amendments that we are discussing today. That invitation was accepted, and government representatives were able to share information with interested indigenous communities about the proposed amendments and listen to the initial thoughts on the evolving offshore energy industry. As this bill was tabled, NRCan reached out again to indigenous groups and proposed further meetings, so they could discuss these amendments in even greater detail.

I can assure the House that the government remains committed to learning from and sharing information with indigenous groups, so we can better understand how offshore wind turbines and the economy they support will support indigenous peoples, including those in Sydney—Victoria.

Engagement efforts continued in the two regional assessments for offshore wind development in Atlantic Canada that were launched in March. Before they began, an independent committee was assembled to lead each assessment and work alongside indigenous groups to seek nominations for committee members. These members are required to develop and carry out indigenous participation plans, and the perspectives and knowledge of indigenous peoples will also be sought through indigenous knowledge advisory groups that were created for each regional assessment.

This government is deeply grateful that indigenous peoples are playing key roles in the development and success of Canada's energy industries. As project leaders, company owners, skilled managers and workers, and holders of indigenous knowledge, they are critical to observing, interpreting and addressing climate change.

Indigenous energy leadership is continuing into the clean technologies space, and I can attest first-hand that EverWind is looking to build a hydrogen production facility in Point Tupper and planning to power it with three wind farms. It is partnering with the Membertou Mi'kmaq community to jointly develop and operate two proposed farms: the 20-turbine Kmtnuk project and the 15-turbine Bear Lake project. That is an example of indigenous leadership in energy sectors to deliver clean, reliable and affordable power to our grids. These projects will create good, sustainable jobs and secure revenue for nations in the years ahead. These opportunities do not end at our shores; they extend well beyond them.

With global investments in offshore wind set to be worth $1 trillion, this bill is key to ensuring that this success continues. It will bring sustainable jobs and unlock unprecedented economic opportunity for indigenous peoples in my home of Sydney—Victoria and across the country. This is one reason that it is incredibly discouraging to hear the Conservative Party oppose this bill, attempting to block indigenous communities in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador from benefiting from new renewable energy projects.

Some members of the House have expressed concern that offshore energy regulators in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador will not carry out sufficient consultation with the indigenous groups potentially affected by offshore renewable energy projects. However, to the contrary, these boards are extremely capable of carrying out indigenous consultation and accommodation obligations on behalf of the government, and they have done so for many years.

The amendments proposed through this bill will simply clarify what is already established by case law and current practice: that both the Government of Canada and provincial governments can rely on the offshore regulators, the two boards, to fulfill the Crown's duty to consult and accommodate. The government remains ultimately responsible for the quality of the consultations and accommodations. The provinces understand this, and so do we.

By confirming this accords act, we reaffirm our commitments to both joint management Canada's offshore with the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and ongoing reconciliation with indigenous people.

To further underscore this point, these amendments include the authority for the offshore energy regulators to establish a participant funding program for any matter within their jurisdiction. This authority would ensure that they can facilitate engagement and consultation with indigenous groups and are able to carry out meaningful relationship-building with indigenous groups whose rights may be adversely affected by offshore energy activities.

Taken together, these amendments would strengthen the quality and the credibility of the efforts of the offshore energy regulators and contribute to open, balanced decision-making. It is also consistent with the authorities currently in place for other regulators, such as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, the Canada Energy Regulator and the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada.

With Bill C-49, both offshore energy boards will have enough resources to undertake indigenous consultation, stakeholder engagement and thorough regulatory reviews of proposed projects. As we advance this legislation, I can assure the members of the House that, going forward, there will continue to be opportunities where indigenous groups are able to provide their valuable feedback on offshore wind.

First, there are two regional assessments that I have previously mentioned, and indigenous people will be included in any calls for information regarding wind energy areas of interest or actual calls for bids. This will allow indigenous groups to participate and lead in the development of good, renewable energy projects.

We know the government has a duty to consult with indigenous people on actions that could impact indigenous or treaty rights. We propose that, with these amendments, the government will be able to rely on Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore energy regulators to meaningfully consult with indigenous groups on the government's behalf and make necessary assessments on the Crown's behalf to mitigate adverse impacts on indigenous and treaty rights. This does not mean that the Crown can abdicate its responsibility to fulfill its duty to consult and accommodate, as some have suggested it does. We actually think that it allows for a more robust process. The Crown will ensure that this duty is met.

I would like to conclude by highlighting the benefits that Bill C-49 will bring to the communities across Nova Scotia and, specifically, Cape Breton. The economic boom in Sydney—Victoria did not happen by chance. It happened because of bold investments and actions on the part of our government. Bill C-49 is another step in that direction.

Amendments to the Canada-Nova Scotia accord would expand the mandate of the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore board to regulate offshore renewable energy projects, including tidal, in the existing Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord area. As a result, the benefit for all communities in Cape Breton would be vast. Not only would it continue to contribute to our ongoing economic boom through job creation, but it would also bring our province and country another step closer to meeting our emissions reduction targets.

All communities stand to benefit from the passage of Bill C-49. It would represent a vital step in the future of Nova Scotia offshore wind and offshore renewable energy technologies, which have the potential to electrify and decarbonize Canada's economy, creating substantial jobs and contributing to Canada's emerging clean hydro sector. Sydney—Victoria stands to benefit, and so does the rest of Nova Scotia.

It is deeply important that this bill pass swiftly, so indigenous communities such as those in my riding can benefit from the immense economic opportunity and new well-paying, sustainable jobs that will come with the offshore renewable industry. That is why we continue to make indigenous knowledge, and the commitment to protect the environment, an essential part of expanding our offshore energy industry. We continue to encourage our Conservative colleagues to do the same by agreeing to stop their opposition of the creation of new indigenous economic opportunities and by supporting this important legislation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on Bill C-49. This is an important issue for my region. It is an important issue for me. Two of the main reasons that I decided to seek public office in the first instance was that I care deeply about creating jobs in Atlantic Canada and want to do more to protect our environment as we build a clean economy. These elements are key to the purpose of Bill C-49 and form a major part of the reason I am so strongly in support of this important piece of legislation.

Let me begin by stating what I hope will be taken as obvious: Climate change is real and its impacts are serious. We need to do more to combat climate change and make sure that our communities adapt to mitigate the consequences of severe weather events, which are arriving with a greater sense of frequency.

In Nova Scotia, our shared home province, we know the importance of doing more to combat climate change. In particular, over the past 12 months or so, we have seen severe weather events that I could not possibly have imagined just a few years ago. The devastating impacts of hurricane Fiona are now well understood by members of this House. We have seen forest fires spread through our province like we have never experienced before. We have seen dangerous floods claim the lives of family members of the province we both call home.

Though we may face hurricanes, storm surges and other severe events, Atlantic Canada is not the only region of the country that has been impacted by the changing climate impacting our communities. We see heat waves in Quebec and Ontario. We see atmospheric rivers in British Colombia. We see wildfires that have displaced families and endangered critical infrastructure in nearly every region of this country.

It is important that I make these points and put them on the record to ensure that the perspective of government is well understood. Climate change is real, the impacts are serious and we need to do more to combat it.

In addition to making sure we address climate change fully with the different ideas we can come up with, we need to understand that not only is it the right thing to do from an environmental perspective, but it is in our self-interest because the cost of inaction is simply too great to ignore.

Members will have seen, as I have, the physical damage that can result from severe weather events. Over the course of the first 20 years or so of my life, it was typical to see insured losses in the range of $250 million to $450 million a year across this country. Within a few short years, that number could potentially reach $5 billion. The reality is that it is expensive not to take action on climate change, and we all pay the consequences.

It is not merely an issue of insured losses. Look at the contributions that governments need to make to deal with the fallout of severe weather events. Look at the hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps in excess of $1 billion, just in Nova Scotia as a result of the fallout of hurricane Fiona last year. Look at the consequences to the health and well-being of families of letting climate change run its course without intervention. Look at the impact we see when businesses are forced to shut down, as we sometimes lose power for weeks. Crops have been lost in this country that have cost local farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars as a result of these severe weather events. As I mentioned, they can endanger our critical infrastructure, upon which our communities rely for their well-being.

The good news, despite the very serious impacts of climate events, is that we can do something about them. Bill C-49 presents an opportunity. In fact, in my opinion, Nova Scotia has the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to creating job opportunities for people in the green economy. Members will have seen increasing global demand for clean energy products when it comes to powering our economies, when it comes to transportation globally and when it comes to construction and manufacturing. The entire world is hungry for climate-friendly solutions to solve problems for businesses.

I can point to a number of examples in our home provinces that are creating good-paying jobs for my neighbours today and for the residents of Nova Scotia. I can point to the carbon sequestration technology from a company like CarbonCure in Nova Scotia, which has been celebrated as one of the leading global companies when it comes to sequestration. I can look at Graphite Innovation and Technologies, which has invented a technology supported by research funding through Transport Canada. It has a more efficient hull paint for vessels that can make them 20% more efficient, not only reducing their fuel consumption but reducing the cost for people who use vessels to transport goods.

There are companies, such as the Trinity Group of Companies in my own community, that have embraced energy efficiency as a growth model for their community. When we shared news of a policy that allows homeowners to transition to heat pumps from home heating oil, it happened to be hosted at that particular location, and they were celebrating the fact that that day they had added their 100th employee. These are good-paying jobs in communities like mine.

There is no shortage of other examples. I look at Sheet Harbour, again in my constituency, and the work that RJ MacIsaac is doing to decommission and recycle the components of ships that would otherwise be run aground in some foreign country and left to rot, posing serious environmental consequences. Instead, RJ MacIsaac is creating good jobs in a small community like Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia.

I would like to draw members' attention as well to a billion-dollar opportunity for our province in a new industry. The industry is green hydrogen and the company is EverWind Fuels. It plans to create a green hydrogen option that will create export opportunities to develop clean energy in my home province. It could be powered by offshore wind, allowing it to offer one of the cleanest fuel sources, which is in extraordinarily high demand.

It is important that we look at the pathway to success for opportunities like this and not merely ascribe our strategy to being one of hope. It also has to involve a thoughtful approach to policy development. That is where Bill C-49 comes in. This bill is important because it would amend the accord acts, which gave life to the Atlantic accords, political arrangements reached a number of decades ago, to expand the scope of the regulatory framework to include offshore renewable energy and not simply offshore oil and gas. Members will have seen the significant economic production of the offshore oil and gas industry in Atlantic Canada over the course of our lifetimes, but we have not seen the same return when it comes to offshore renewable opportunities.

With the introduction of Bill C-49, we would be creating a regulatory framework that would give certainty to investors that says we welcome their business here in Atlantic Canada and want them to create opportunities for our community members to work in our economy in a way that is sustainable and renewable and will help us power the next generation of the economy in Atlantic Canada by providing clean electricity. As the cost of pollution continues to rise and continues to have an impact on our communities, we need to do more to generate energy from renewable sources, including offshore wind, for example.

There are very real proposals to build companies and advance projects that create good-paying jobs for Nova Scotians in the offshore renewable sector. However, without a regulatory framework, investors will not know whether projects will have a clear pathway to approval, and they will potentially flee our jurisdiction in search of a more friendly country or province where they can make an investment.

Over the next 15 or perhaps 20 years, we expect to see investments approaching $1 trillion globally in the offshore renewable sector. We need to put our hands up and say that we want the investments that are going to create good-paying jobs for our neighbours in provinces like Nova Scotia. It is rare that we have the opportunity to debate legislation that has a specific impact on just a few provinces, including my home province of Nova Scotia, that may not be national in scale. However, by working with provincial governments such as those in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, both of which support this bill, we are going to advance opportunities to create good-paying jobs for people in our communities.

I should point out that although there is some anxiety among workers who traditionally take part in the energy sector about the potential to transition to a clean economy, I want to communicate that this bill would create opportunity for those same people to continue to work in good-paying jobs. I look at opportunities for friends of mine whom I have known since I was seven years old. They are heavy equipment operators, who traditionally are involved in road building or projects for replacing municipal water and sewers. When I speak to them now, they are increasingly working on projects that deal with the prevention of coastal erosion or projects that will make our communities more sustainable, such as, as I mentioned, decommissioning ships that could otherwise be left to rot somewhere, posing great environmental concerns.

With the introduction of Bill C-49, we have an opportunity to say we are going to create regulatory certainty for the businesses that want to make investments. We have found out that we can monetize wind in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that wind is in plentiful supply in our part of the country. If we embrace the opportunity to tap into a new natural resource to create renewable energy for our economies, we can power the economy in a way that is good for our environment and good for the people who call your region and my region home.

We have only one planet. It is our duty to protect it, but by doing so we can create economic opportunities for a generation of workers who would otherwise not be able to have good-paying jobs so they can provide for their families. I am in support of this bill. I understand there is some division between the different parties in the House, but I would encourage all members, if they care about creating good-paying jobs in Nova Scotia and care about protecting our environment, to support this bill. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do.

The House resumed from September 19 consideration of the motion that 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 and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Carbon Pricing

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I have 75,000 masters who live in northern Nova Scotia. They are telling me that they want the government to come up with a plan that is going to reduce emissions, so we can protect the environment for future generations. They are telling me that they want me to stand up and support Bill C-49, which is actually going to establish an offshore energy industry in the province where we have the resource.

We have the ability to do the right thing for our planet and create well-paying jobs at home. I will defend well-paying jobs at home, I will defend affordability and I will not compromise the need to protect our environment as that member would.

Offshore Renewable Energy Sector

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I stand today in the House to strongly encourage my Conservative colleagues to support Bill C-49, an important bill for Nova Scotia's future. The proposed amendments in the Atlantic accord would create a framework for the offshore renewable energy sector under the act for the province of Nova Scotia.

With an estimated $1 trillion to be invested in the sector globally by 2040, it is crucial that Canada position itself to attract investment and become world leaders in clean energy. Despite having the longest coastline and best wind speed in the world, Canada does not have one commissioned offshore wind project to show today.

Passing Bill C-49 would go a long way towards meeting our emission targets and decarbonizing the power grid, and it would bring great jobs to Nova Scotians.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to come back to the subject of the debate, which is Bill C‑50 and not Bill C‑49.

First, I want to say that what I just heard made my skin crawl and it proves that the Conservatives are speaking for the private oil sector, which is made up of billionaires. A recent poll revealed that two-thirds of Albertans polled on the moratorium on solar and wind development disagree with their premier.

Do the Conservatives know that there are other sources of energy other than oil, gas and coal?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that question because it gives me the ability to address the reality of Bill C-49 rather than the Liberals' false claims.

Here is the truth about Bill C-49. It imports a number of clauses from Bill C-69 and includes a number of clauses from another bill, Bill C-55. The consequences of both of those bills embedded in Bill C-49 are exactly what has unfolded and what Conservatives warned about in previous debates. Bill C-49 would hold up, delay, road block and gatekeep alternative and renewable offshore development, just as it is also a simultaneous attack on petroleum offshore development.

I am not sure if Liberals do not read bills, do not know what they are talking about or are just reading what someone says, but these issues are grave. They are serious for the underpinning of our economy and our standard of living. We oppose Bill C-49 because it is an attack on energy to end petroleum offshore opportunities, and it would hold up, road block, delay and gatekeep renewable and alternative offshore energy development. Conservatives are going to accelerate approvals, make sure projects can get built, cut timelines and make both traditional and alternative energy sources available at affordable—

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to start our debate on Bill C-50, an act respecting federal accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy.

By introducing legislation for sustainable jobs, the Government of Canada is providing strong leadership through good governance, strong accountability and effective engagement. We would take action through five key elements.

The first element is to introduce guiding principles that ensure a cohesive approach to economic development and climate action, including measures to support workers and help to create sustainable jobs, all while aligning with international best practices and sending a strong signal to investors that Canada is ready to lead in an emerging clean-growth industry world.

The second element is to create a sustainable jobs partnership council tasked with providing independent annual advice to the Government of Canada and engaging with Canadians. This council will ensure that experts including workers, indigenous leaders, industry and young people are at the table to guide governmental actions.

The third element is a requirement to publish action plans every five years, informed by input from stakeholders and partners, as well as expert advice from the partnership council.

The fourth element is to create a sustainable jobs secretariat to ensure coordinated action on the implementation of the act across the federal government.

The fifth and final element is to designate responsible and specified ministers to carry out this legislation.

Much like the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act, this legislation would help to ensure that the Government of Canada has every region of Canada and every Canadian worker at the centre of its policy and decision-making with respect to sustainable jobs. The Canadian sustainable jobs act would respect Canada’s workers, regardless of the industry they work in, and would be inclusive of Canadians of all stripes, no matter what their background or where they live.

This legislation builds on the progress we have made over several years, as the government encouraged significant growth in our clean energy industries and other sectors that help us achieve net-zero emissions.

Since 2015, we have invested more than $120 billion in clean growth initiatives and pledged more than $80 billion in tax incentives.

If we had followed the path advocated by some Conservatives—one of austerity and inaction—our constituents and their communities would be at a considerable disadvantage. This head-in-the-sand approach fails to take into account the areas where investments are being made, namely, natural resources, energy, buildings, transportation, manufacturing and many others.

An approach of inaction would let competing nations take leadership roles in the sectors and industries where Canada is a natural leader, letting them innovate and attract global investments, while we wait and simply hope for the best. Such a reckless approach of inaction would put our economic well-being and our environmental stability at risk, but we are not going to let that happen. Instead we are acting decisively.

Whether it is this bill to ensure Canadian workers can seize the economic opportunity in front of us, or Bill C-49, which is helping to deploy an offshore wind industry in Atlantic Canada, or our historic budget investments that allowed us to compete with the U.S. IRA and attract new job-creating sustainable investments, initiatives that support the creation of sustainable jobs are happening across government.

Canadians have an opportunity to take the lead in many fields in jobs that play a key role in reducing energy consumption like developing new green housing plans, retrofitting existing homes and buildings, or innovating in cutting-edge low-carbon technology.

These activities will all create sustainable jobs from coast to coast for our people, whether we are talking about a skilled worker at the Volkswagen plant in St. Thomas, another who installs heat pumps in Nova Scotia or yet another who builds the batteries of the future at the new Northvolt plant we announced yesterday in Quebec.

We know that such investments are essential if we want to grow the Canadian economy and, consequently, create sustainable jobs.

While we attract industrial development, we are also focused on building out the backbone of Canada's economy, namely, Canada's electrical grid. The federal government is proud to support growing, sustainable industries, like renewable energy, hydrogen and nuclear energy. They are helping us to scale new technologies while delivering clean, reliable and affordable power to Canadian homes and industry.

Canada's clean electricity advantage has helped us to land international investors like Northvolt, Umicore, Ford and many others. We need to keep expanding our electricity system to attract investment, create sustainable jobs and fight climate change. That is why we have invested to deploy job-creating clean energy projects, like the 47-megawatt wind farm we announced yesterday near Medicine Hat, Alberta, or the 45-megawatt Burchill wind project in New Brunswick. These projects are helping to deploy more clean power to our grid every day.

The Government of Canada is also investing to deliver clean power storage, like the 250-megawatt Oneida project being built in the Six Nations of the Grand River in Ontario.

All of these projects include indigenous leaders. This kind of work is critical to advancing economic reconciliation with indigenous peoples. Accordingly, an important commitment in this legislation is to create more meaningful, ongoing, respectful relationships with indigenous peoples. We need more indigenous peoples to lead business as directors, managers and workers. Their skills, knowledge and leadership are helping accelerate the fight against climate change, the modernization of our energy sector and the development of sustainable jobs for Canadian workers, including in the energy space.

As I mentioned earlier, we need a connected, affordable, reliable and non-emitting grid to supply more electrical energy than ever before. Not only will it power our emerging sources of new energy, it will also become a standard part of heating our homes, powering our vehicles and driving all types of industry.

There are lots of jobs associated with this new era of clean-power development. It is no wonder that the IBEW, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, endorsed our sustainable job plan and this bill. Its vice-president endorsed our plan and said, “The IBEW's almost 70,000 members in Canada are ready to help build the next generation of Canada's vital energy infrastructure to help us reach our net-zero goals.”

The work being done to build out our grid, a job that is so massive that it must be tackled jointly by every level of government, will facilitate the growth of our nation's economy and our jobs, thanks to its status as a multi-trillion dollar market.

The eight years of investments made by our entire government have put us on the road to a strong economy that supports workers and job creation.

As a government, we have made informed choices aimed at supporting and growing our economy and modernizing our industrial sectors so we can succeed in the global race to invest in the clean economy.

The legislation we are debating today complements the billions of dollars in job-creating investments we have released so far, as well as our climate action policies, including pollution pricing and the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

That act requires us to set greenhouse gas emissions targets, encourages transparency and accountability, and calls on us to take immediate and ambitious action to reach these targets.

Bill C‑50 builds on that act and on the clean industries strategy described in budget 2023. Thanks to this solid base, Canada and its workforce are in an enviable position compared to most countries of the world.

We are privileged, because we live in a peaceful country that has a wealth of sustainable resources, resources that demand a central role in whether we will be able to reach our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, resources that are abundant and diverse and that provide our workers and communities with opportunities that only come with concerted, determined shifts toward a low-carbon future.

As we focus on driving down the emissions that are fuelling the climate crisis, we are equally determined to ensure our young people have a bright future ahead of them in careers that help build a strong, sustainable and prosperous economy. Both are possible and they go hand in hand.

As Sean Strickland, the executive director of Canada's Building Trades Unions said, “If you take climate change seriously, you must, by definition, be pro-worker.”

If the world wants more clean energy, and it does, let our talented workforce meet that demand. If the world wants more products made by cleaner manufacturing processes, let us attract the business that helps our workers fill that gap.

The Royal Bank of Canada estimates that in this decade alone, just in the next few years, the global shift to a low-carbon economy will create up to 400,000 new Canadian jobs in fields where enhanced skills will be required. Some of these are because of action we are taking to partner with industry, communities and others, to pair talent with training.

Last Monday, in Edmonton, we announced support for over 20,000 new green jobs being supported by ESDC. Of the 400,000 jobs that require upskilling, a good percentage of those jobs are thanks to the sustainable development of our natural resources, which includes clean energy and hydrogen.

There is no question we are blessed with an abundance of resources, but to access the potential they provide, we must also ensure our workforce is well equipped. That is exactly what this legislation would do.

During the many discussions we had in the lead-up to this legislation, many of Canada's indigenous leaders, provinces, territories and local leaders identified tangible opportunities to pursue the development of new industries. They are taking concrete steps to realize their economic future. They are facing what much of the world sees as an enviable task of narrowing those options down to the top few that will create good-paying jobs and prosperity in their communities.

Our existing resources and initiatives created an ideal footing for our interim sustainable jobs plan. The strengths of the plan are the concrete actions it contains; notably, this legislation. There is also the start of a lot of work on nine other federal actions that will have a positive impact on the number of good, sustainable jobs in every part of this country.

I would like to speak to some of those actions today with the time I have left. First and foremost, I will mention the call to establish new legislation, the one we are debating today. It offers a framework that would allow us to take sound actions to address both the opportunities and challenges in a low-carbon economy, informed by ongoing engagement between government and Canada's workers, partners and stakeholders, as well as indigenous peoples.

This legislation would also put accountability front and centre by designating a lead minister to guide these efforts. This would be accompanied by a requirement the government publish five-year action plans Canadians can use to measure and judge our efforts, supported by regular reporting on our progress, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

The legislation would also make good on another action item from the sustainable jobs plan, which is the establishment of a sustainable jobs partnership council. This would be an independent body that would provide advice to government on how it can best support the shift to a low-carbon economy. If we really want to give workers a voice, if we sincerely intend to empower them to influence the decisions that affect their jobs and their future, then we must create this council.

Through these efforts, workers, rural and remote communities, provinces and territories, indigenous groups, industry, young people, academics and others will be able to provide the council and the federal government with invaluable advice as we continue to move ahead.

What we are talking about is real-world perspectives and information from those individuals in the workplace who are experiencing the transformation of our economy.

The council would apply its own expertise to these lived experiences to provide independent, actionable advice on how to create good-paying, skilled, sustainable jobs for Canada's workers and ensure that workers have the supports that they need to succeed. Through the council, we would have the opportunity to bring many voices to the table, working together in the process known as social dialogue, essentially bringing workers, employers and governments together to find solutions that work for real life.

Some of my colleagues will go into more detail about the other elements in this legislation, like the commitment to releasing regular action plans and the sustainable job secretariat that would be created to work across federal departments and agencies on those plans.

The Canadian sustainable jobs act will ensure that Canadian workers have a clear path to the future. The measures we are taking here will help Canada lead the competition as our economy achieves net-zero emissions.

This plan is based on the thoughts and experiences of thousands of Canadians over more than two years of engagement and consultation. I would like to express our deep gratitude for their work and for their interest in helping us develop this legislation.

It was views like these that helped build the strong bill we have before us today. We even won endorsements from groups like the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents three million Canadian workers. It said that the plan in this bill would be a big win for workers. We know that when workers win, so does Canada. This legislation is needed to ensure that the interim plan can support workers today while standing up the partnership council and secretariat to ensure an ongoing process.

When I speak about endorsements from the groups that have looked at this legislation, I wanted to also include the voice of the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals. The act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs for our future economy.”

Today, it is up to us to make the smartest possible choices and to put in place a framework that commits our government to supporting workers as they seek to build the sustainable economy of the future.

This bill reflects consultation with indigenous peoples, union members, new Canadians, industry leaders and community advocates from every region of the country. We owe it to them and to all Canadians to ensure that we are advancing a thoughtful plan to help them ensure that our country succeeds and that we can access great careers for generations to come.

This legislation will be used to create solidarity measures and strengthen training opportunities for all workers in Canada. It will ensure that Canadian workers can participate in discussions and enjoy equal opportunities to obtain and benefit from the jobs of the future. Like many of our government's initiatives, this bill is based on the need to tackle the existential threat of the climate crisis head-on, and to seize once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunities.

Countries around the world know that we have two choices ahead of us. We can advance plans for the future that allow us to seize economic opportunities while fighting climate change, or we can simply stick our heads in the sand and hope for the best. I sincerely hope that every member of the House agrees to choose the first path, because as countries around the world race to seize economic opportunities ahead of us, we must also quickly pass Bill C-50. We need to keep working to ensure and build a sustainable future while securing abundant, sustainable jobs for future generations.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

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

Madam Speaker, I had to take out a pen because there were about 16 interventions in that question. I hope I will get time to answer.

On the isthmus, we are there with 50%. As I said on Radio-Canada this week, if the courts indeed determine that this is a purely federal responsibility, we will be there with 100% of the cost.

I stand here asking for adjustments to the carbon price. The member opposite suggests that carbon pricing should not exist in Canada, contrary to the fact that 77 jurisdictions around the world point to this as being an effective policy. Beyond that, the Conservatives have provided no credible plan on how they are going to challenge and address the issue before us. Therefore, the member has some explaining to do as well.

On Bill C-49, so that when the member clips this and sends it home to his constituents, this is a generational opportunity for Atlantic Canada for offshore wind. The premiers of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador want it. The member stands against it. He needs to go home and explain why he is standing in the way of billions of dollars of generational opportunity, especially when the line from the Conservatives is “technology, not taxes”.

Last, with respect to the 50-cent difference between Maine and New Brunswick, if he goes to Maine, I am sure he will find that there is a 50-cent difference between the price of milk in Maine and in New Brunswick. There are a lot of price differentials. He is tying this exactly to what we are talking about today, which is not necessarily a true reflection of the fact that there is a price differential between Canada and the U.S. on a number of products. Maybe he is saying that he does not want to support the dairy farmers in New Brunswick and across this country and that he wants to get rid of supply management, which we have seen from the Conservative Party. It has not been strong on that policy that matters for rural Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not really know, as I am not responsible for drafting opposition motions. As I said, there are many issues with this Conservative motion. I do not know the answer.

I do, however, want to raise an important question regarding Bill C‑49. The aim of this bill is to create an opportunity for offshore wind farming in the Atlantic. We know that Hydro-Québec has concerns regarding a shortage of electricity and clean energy in Quebec. Members from Quebec and the Atlantic provinces have a great opportunity to work together to ensure a very clean and very green energy supply for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

I am very happy to work collaboratively with my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, after I am done answering this, I am going to walk some Q-tips over to the hon. member and see whether he was able to listen to the 20-minute speech in which I provided very clear answers to where I stand on this policy.

I actually had a conversation with Premier Houston in May 2022 to say that I would hope that the provincial government would implement its own made-in-Nova Scotia carbon pricing plan. The Conservatives stand against that. I believe in the intent of the policy, but there needs to be some serious adjustments. I am on record in the House. The member can look at the record afterward, and he can read it so he can understand where I stand. I have been very clear.

However, where is the member as it relates to Bill C-49 and the great opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador? He will have to answer to the good people of his riding on that one.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, it is a pleasure to meet with my colleagues in the House of Commons to discuss and debate a motion moved by the Conservative Party for their opposition day. I am always pleased when I have the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with my Conservative colleagues on their proposals because it is an opportunity to understand their position, their priorities and their vision for Canada.

I am not usually one to get upset, but unfortunately, most of the proposals they have made over the past few years have made me sad because they are bad for Canada. Today, we are studying a motion on the carbon pricing. More specifically, the Conservatives are calling on the government to introduce a bill to eliminate all carbon pricing to lower the price of gas, groceries and heating.

I will begin by explaining why the government put a price on carbon.

The threat posed by climate change is very real. It is not a problem that is only going to happen in the future. It is happening now. All of our regions felt it this summer when we had the worst wildfire season in the history of Canada. There has also been flooding across the country, particularly in my riding of Kings—Hants. What is more, the frequency and intensity of storms is definitely a challenge for all Canadians. It is a challenge for everyone. We are familiar with this reality.

The initiatives put in place by the government and all parliamentarians in the House are for our children and grandchildren. Of course, we also answered questions today about changes in practice and other initiatives because climate change is real. It is happening right now.

I want to highlight that there are 77 carbon pricing initiatives around the world. I have had the opportunity to go to the World Bank site, and people can actually look at where they exist in the world and what types of initiatives other countries, other jurisdictions, have taken on. It is not as though Canada is the only country in the world that has a price on carbon. There are many other countries that go that way.

The Conservatives like to draw attention to carbon pricing. Nowhere did the Government of Canada, on this side, ever suggest that carbon pricing alone is going to be a silver bullet mechanism to help solve climate change. In fact, it is one mechanism among many that this government has presented. However, as I have said and perhaps teased some of my Conservative colleagues opposite on, the idea of introducing a price signal into the market and letting the market respond accordingly is inherently a small-c conservative principle.

I asked the member for Calgary Forest Lawn about the fact that there are projects across this country from companies that are responding to the price signal and driving really important innovation. The Conservatives like to talk about the slogan “technology, not taxes”, and it is indeed a slogan because they have no evidence of how they are going to incentivize the private sector and our great Canadian companies to make innovations and drive transitional change. Billions of dollars in this country are premised on that, and not only do companies now understand that it is in their best interests to do this because it is where there are generational opportunities, but of course they want to get around the price signal.

The Conservatives stand here today and do not signal that they are willing to support any form of carbon pricing in this country. That is problematic because billions of dollars of investment in this country rest upon that. Indeed, I will not suggest that we have it perfect, and I will get into that in my remarks, but the Conservatives do not offer a compelling alternative whatsoever. They just simply oppose without putting forward any solutions of their own.

From a political perspective, I am curious about and interested in this motion, particularly the way it is worded. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois are fighting. The Conservatives named the Bloc Québécois in the text of their motion. I think there must be some kind of argument going on between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Perhaps the alliance between the two parties has started to break down because of the Conservatives' actions. We will see, but that is what I think is happening right now.

I want to start with the clean fuel standard. I note this initiative just so that all my colleagues, Canadians watching at home and perhaps people here in the gallery can understand what it is. The clean fuel standard is an initiative to reduce the carbon intensity in the fuels that we use. There have been other initiatives throughout time that I would say are similar to it. For example, there were times that we moved on regulations to remove lead from the fuel we use in our cars. I believe that initiative was championed by the Mulroney government some years ago, back when the Conservatives were progressive and we had actual action on climate and environmental initiatives coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. However, indeed, it was the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I will continue to remind Canadians that there is a difference. My constituents remind me every day that there is a big difference between the predecessor party that someone like Scott Brison was elected to in 1997 and what the Conservative Party of Canada has become today.

This is the initiative: to decarbonize our fuels. We are essentially asking oil and gas refiners in Canada to do that. They can do so with a number of different initiatives. They can add biofuels into the content of their fuels. They can work with farmers. There are tremendous opportunities in the agriculture sector to do offsets through credits. They can work on putting out charging stations. They can put home heating pump programs in place to demonstrate that they are getting the carbon intensity of their fuel down. There are a ton of options.

I want to talk about the projects. The Conservatives often talk about the cost. Indeed, they have in the text of this motion “17 cents per litre”. The parliamentary budget office has said that perhaps in 10 to 12 years there will be a 17¢ cost. In Nova Scotia, that was three cents a litre this summer. Yes, the program is not designed to rebate, but the program also drives industrial action. For example, the Conservatives have not stepped up today and talked about Come By Chance, the sustainable aviation fuel facility in Newfoundland and Labrador, with 87 million dollars' worth of investment in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It matters. The Conservatives have not talked about the electrolyzer. I have to be honest: I do not know what that is, but Irving Oil knows that it matters to its clean energy future. It has invested $90 million in it as part of the hydrogen strategy.

I was out in Regina, Saskatchewan. Perhaps a Saskatchewan member of Parliament will engage with me on this. A big billion-dollar co-operative is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help drive its initiatives, in part because of the clean fuel standard. However, the Conservatives never talk about that, and it is important to note it.

The Conservatives are concerned about the three cents a litre in Nova Scotia, and I do not want to sound dismissive; I know every penny matters right now. The affordability question is an important one. However, if the Conservatives want to highlight the three-cents-a-litre increase on gasoline in Nova Scotia as a result of the clean fuel standard, they also need to highlight the major industrial investments being made in the Atlantic region. Maybe, as I have done publicly, they could encourage the provinces to see that, while the program was not designed to rebate, provinces have more money in their treasuries as a result of these major industrial projects and could reduce the provincial gas tax to make sure that is taken care of. They could do that. These are some suggestions that I offer to my Conservative colleagues.

The text of the motion is inherently, and I better not use the word “misleading”, but I have problems with the contents and the way the motion is written. For example, on 17¢ litre, the Conservatives do not give any context to the reader at home about what that means. They talk about things such as quadrupling to 61¢, and they give no context.

It was tripling just a few months ago. We would hear Conservative members, like a flock of crows, saying, “triple, triple, triple”, and we heard that for months. I guess now they are going to have to say “quadruple, quadruple, quadruple, quadruple”. I do not know how it has changed, but it has changed. They play a little loose and fast with the facts.

Again, the question around affordability and the question about whether or not we can look at adjusting measures under the carbon price is fair game. I am there, and I am going to get to that in my speech, but it is the idea that somehow they just basically put this out that I have problems with it.

The member for Calgary Forest Lawn stood up in this House a few speeches ago and said that the carbon price applies to a tractor driving on a farm. That is fundamentally untrue. If the Conservatives want to suggest that the carbon price applies to grain drying and that it should be removed, then yes, that is factually correct. They can go there. I have stood here and voted for the bill that came forward, Bill C-234.

However, we have to keep the debate in some realm of fact. It is like we are in a post-truth era, when people get up to say anything. I know we can have different perspectives on this, and I know that there is a range of debate, but we have to keep this in the confines of what is actually real.

On that, as we have talked about the price of fuel, groceries and home heating, I have an article from the National Post. I know that the Conservatives read the National Post because, of course, it is a bit more conservative leaning. I think some of it is fair. I read it too. The article is from September 21, 2023, so not that long ago, and I would encourage all members of the House to read it. There was a question about how much the carbon price contributes to the things the Conservatives are talking about today. I will read from the article, which I am happy to table later if I get unanimous consent. It says that the Bank of Canada estimates that 0.15% of inflation is tied to carbon pricing. Yes, there is some impact, but what we do not talk about, of course, is that the money is being rebated back to households.

The article also says that the carbon price contributes to less than 1% of the cost of groceries. When we look at what the Conservatives are calling for, yes, every dollar matters, but when we talk about this being a mechanism to drive some of those industrial projects I talked about earlier, that is extremely important. In fact, Trevor Tombe, who is an economist from Alberta, cites that it is 30¢ on every $100 grocery bill.

This is an important question, but the Conservatives are essentially calling for a reduction of 30¢ on every $100 that is spent on groceries in this country. I think they should join us in other initiatives that really matter for being helpful support: child care, the Canada child benefit and supports for seniors. There are a lot of different initiatives that they can get on board with. I am not so convinced that this one alone would solve the question of affordability.

I have talked about carbon pricing as it relates to major industrial projects, and I think I have exhausted that one. However, I look forward to my hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame standing up. We will have a great debate on whether or not that matters to his province, and we will get that on the record.

I want to talk about the position of Atlantic MPs, because we Liberal Atlantic MPs are specifically noted in the text of the motion before us. I cannot speak for every one of my Atlantic Liberal colleagues, as that would be inappropriate, but I will speak as one Atlantic Liberal member of Parliament.

Unlike what the leader of the official opposition had to say in question period today, I am not against carbon pricing. I am calling on this government to have adjustments to its approach on the federal backstop.

Unlike my Conservative colleagues, who just want to burn it down and say, “No, this is terrible”, but offer no solutions, I am trying to be constructive in both my comments here in the House, anything I say publicly, and what I say to my constituents on the intent of the policy. I go back to climate change and the generational challenge that we have before us.

This government is trying to move in the right direction, and the intent is the right one, but I think there are a couple of things that need to be adjusted. I am happy to talk about them.

First of all, the definition of what qualifies as a rural community has to be re-examined. Right now, if one lives in a census metropolitan area versus if one is outside defines whether one is urban or rural. We know the country is a bit more nuanced than that. There is an opportunity to re-evaluate that. There are some communities that may be within a CMA but are inherently and objectively rural communities. I have said that before and will continue to say it.

The rural rebate provided for constituents outside of those CMAs could be examined and could be increased, and not because rural Canadians do not want to be a part of the fight on climate change. We have to make sure there is a difference between the lived realities in urban and rural areas.

On affordability of home heating, I want to note that this government put $118 million into Atlantic Canada in October. We have not heard one single mention of that from the Conservative benches. It is a program that makes a difference on energy efficiency, and it is a program that makes a difference on home heating oil usage. It is good for the environment, but particularly to the intent of this bill, it is really important for affordability. There was not one word mentioned on that.

There has to be more time for those programs to work out, and I made it very clear that I hope the government will consider exempting or otherwise indemnifying individuals until such time that the merits of that program to help people get transitioned off can be in place.

The last thing I would say is we need to continue to focus on the supply side with, for example, EV charging stations and maybe perhaps more of an emphasis on the heat pump program. I have talked to the member for Long Range Mountains, and I know in Newfoundland and Labrador there is some work that has to be done on electricity upgrades to ensure the heat pumps can actually function and we can move forward. However, this is all really good for focusing on affordability and also tackling the issue of climate change. That is my proposition, which is that it is not mutually exclusive. These things need to happen at the same time.

I want to go to Bill C-49. The Conservatives are going to roll their eyes because I have been at them over the last week, but I am still perplexed as to why the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in this country, is opposing a bill that is supported by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the clean energy sector, indigenous communities and business stakeholders. We are engaging with fisheries, and I say that because I can image the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame is going to ask about the fisheries. They are extremely important stakeholders who deserve to be and are part of that conversation.

Everyone is on board, this is the way to enable it, yet Conservatives stand in opposition. They have something to answer to Atlantic Canadians on that question because they are standing against the interests of Atlantic Canadians. They talk about the technology, the future of renewable energy in Atlantic Canada, not taxes, but they will not even let the technology drive forward. It is so hypocritical.

I have really enjoyed engaging in this. I cannot wait for questions. I am going to move quickly so we can get as many members in as possible.

To conclude, carbon pricing is an initiative that is implemented around the world to help create a mechanism to drive change. This government is focused on investing on the supply side to help people make that change. We have made sure, in the way the program is designed, that money goes back disproportionately to households to help protect them.

I have talked about the statistics, and about how much carbon pricing, according to the Bank of Canada and according to economists in the National Post, a paper I hope the Conservatives read, is contributing very little to the overall things they are talking about here today.

I have explained my position on carbon pricing. I believe in the intent. I believe in the inherent nature of why we are doing this. However, I am calling for adjustments. I stand here proud, as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament, recognizing that, for the constituents I represent, the national program needs to be adjusted to better reflect their reality. I am offering solutions. I look across the way, and I see very little in terms of solutions.

On a bill that represents billions of dollars to Atlantic Canada's economy, let us forget the fact that this represents an ability to decarbonize our electricity grid and perhaps provide power to my good friends over in Quebec through Atlantic Canada. This is about jobs, prosperity and great economic opportunities for communities. The Conservatives continue to stand against that.

I look forward to a member of Parliament from the Conservative caucus of Newfoundland and Labrador or Nova Scotia getting up and going on the record here today and explaining to their constituents why they are standing in the way of billions of dollars of opportunities, and I think I am going to get that answer right now.

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

Madam Speaker, as a Nova Scotia member of Parliament, I stood in this House last week and was frankly disturbed by the fact that the Conservative Party of Canada is standing against Bill C-49, which is a piece of legislation that drives Atlantic Canada's offshore future. I was calling on the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, who are Conservative, to stand up for their constituencies to be able to make a difference. Of course, the Conservatives like to talk about the carbon price, but they refuse to talk about ways we enable renewable energy and the way that we drive innovation forward.

Can the member for Kingston and the Islands provide some reflections of his surprise about the fact that the Conservatives will not support us on this bill?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, what does not make sense is that the member voted 23 times to support the cost of living increase. What does not make sense is that the Green/NDP member, trying to make up her mind on what her belief is, is willing to actually vote for a bill that would impose a process on the development of offshore energy in Atlantic Canada using the same process exported from Bill C-69 into Bill C-49. That process has resulted in absolutely no energy projects being developed in western Canada. That same approach would have the same result on Atlantic energy development in Atlantic Canada, which is that zero projects would get approved, even the renewable energy ones that we all want.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, is my colleague talking about Bill C‑49? Yes? Okay.

I find that rather strange. The Conservatives are probably against this bill for their own reasons. What I find odd about this bill is the addition of the term “renewable energy”. To me, oil has never been renewable energy. I do not know what others think, but I do not believe that oil is a renewable energy source.

They can speak for themselves, but I would say to my colleague that we have to be very careful. The Liberal government has a tendency to greenwash the oil and gas sector. Unfortunately, it is a lot like our Conservative colleagues in that regard.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you. I'm glad it's in the mail and not in the wind.

Thank you, Mr. Kram, for the refinement to the motion on the specific project.

With regard to why it's important, over the last few decades numerous companies have been involved. That includes a large one where Nova Scotia Power had a partnership for various technologies to try to find a way to harness the power of the Bay of Fundy. In particular, I think Nova Scotia Power had invested over $100 million in trying to get theirs.... Generally, as I said at the last meeting, these are large turbines. Just to give you some scale, some of them are almost five storeys high and sunk into the bottom of the Bay of Fundy.

The bay, of course, has the highest tides in the world: 160 billion tonnes of seawater go in and out of that bay every day. That's why it's such a powerful force. The difference with this company is that they did not place their turbines on the bottom. It was a different ship with turbines attached that was at the surface of the water. It was able to produce a significant amount of power and actually survive the power of the Bay of Fundy, which the other projects were not. Some of them got destroyed in as little as 48 hours, whereas this one continued to operate. It continued to generate electricity that was connected by a cable into Nova Scotia Power. Because it was energy generated by the private sector, Nova Scotia Power was paying the company for the power it had generated, for its capital investment.

Now, it had had four approvals so far, up to that date, from DFO to continue this project and make it happen. An enormous amount of research had been provided to DFO over the three years of this, on the plan and the precautions and the impact on the fishery, which of course we all care about. The Bay of Fundy is an important fishery area, primarily at the sea floor, for crustaceans. Lobster, as we know, is the most profitable element of what is fished in the Bay of Fundy. There are some open-net pen farms on the Bay of Fundy as well, but the primary seafood that is harvested commercially in the Bay of Fundy is lobster on both the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia sides.

Obviously, something floating on the top isn't impacting the primary food source and the primary commercial fishery on the bottom. That was a problem for those other ones that were being sunk, but this one was not. It was confusing for the company that had managed to have such success. After the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had issued four permits, it decided not to issue a fifth permit to take it to the next level of operation. The company has said that a large amount of data and a large amount of information had been provided to DFO, and when DFO refused to issue the next permit, they were unwilling to explain why. They were unwilling to share what it was they were looking for in the impact on the ocean and the fishery that hadn't been provided in many scientific studies in the three years before and the one leading up to the permit that allowed this to happen.

In fact, it was so upsetting and baffling that the Premier of Nova Scotia, who generally doesn't intervene on fisheries issues since fisheries issues are a federal responsibility, said in an interview with CTV that he wanted to highlight what he saw as the hypocrisy. That's why I think this motion has to express the failure of the government to move forward on this project specifically, in contrast to the previous, broader motion, which talked about all tidal projects. There are other tidal projects with turbines being sunk at the bottom that are still being tried. The only successful one dealt with this project, which is why there is this refinement to the motion.

The premier was quoted as follows:

“We just need the federal government to wake up on this, it's really ridiculous what's happened here,” he says.

“If their ultimate objective is really and sincerely to protect the planet and green the grid, then it's not through a carbon tax, it's actually through generating green energy through tidal, through wind, through solar, all these mechanisms,” Houston adds.

Meanwhile, the leader of the opposition, who's a Liberal, also criticized the decision to not proceed with this green project.

While, on the one hand, we have a bill that's actually being debated in Parliament tomorrow, called Bill C-49, which gives some existing federal agencies the ability to determine where wind power and offshore energy power go, it's amending the Atlantic accord, which sets out the terms of the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board's mandate in that, and Newfoundland and Labrador's as well, and gives them not only a revised new process but also the additional responsibility to now approve ocean energy projects.

After the blowback from the company and from Nova Scotians and from the premier, the response of this government and the then fisheries minister, Minister Murray, was that we should convene a committee. That seems to be a habit of the Liberals. When faced with a problem, they say, “Let's convene a committee. Let's not actually look at understanding why DFO and the minister herself refused the permit. Let's have a committee look at this and find out what happened.”

Well, it's pretty obvious what happened. DFO was inconsistent in issuing its fifth permit to make sure that clean energy goes through. Why do we need a committee of DFO officials to figure out why DFO officials said no? Why don't the DFO officials just tell everybody why they said no rather than convening another committee to have an internal discussion to figure out how they messed this up?

Maybe it's one department that's not talking to the other. Maybe the fisheries minister wasn't talking to the environment minister. They wanted to see green projects and the DFO didn't. It doesn't seem like the government can get its act straight. That's why we need to express the disappointment of this committee about this specific project by Sustainable Marine Energy.

In that same article from CTV, just to make sure we're citing the sources, besides the premier saying, “Shame on the federal government,” the company itself said, “We have given them so much information about our system's lack of effects on marine life...as well as (pointing) them in the direction of other experts who could maybe help.” However, DFO didn't turn to any of those other experts before saying no.

What was the effect of all this? The effect of all this was that the only functioning tidal power private sector finance technology—not taxes—solution to generating green energy in Nova Scotia was shut down by DFO. The company itself had to remove the equipment from the ocean. It had to disassemble it all. It's proprietary technology that is ultimately owned by the Scottish company that did it. It then took the Canadian subsidiary, and guess what happened? I know you're anxious to know what happened to that company. That company declared bankruptcy as a result of the intervention of DFO. We lost an amazing technology that was not financed by taxpayers but financed by private sector capital to generate new technology and new ways to produce green energy from our oceans.

Remember, DFO is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, yet they decided that, apparently, generating green energy out of the ocean was not something they wanted to see happen. I'm not sure what else besides the commercial fishery they want to see happen. It's just incredible—it's still mind-boggling to this day—that on the one hand the government would be saying in Bill C-49 that we need to utilize green energy projects in the ocean, and then provocative statements are being made by Atlantic Liberal colleagues, who I guess forgot that they were part of turning down a green energy project that was functioning—

Strengthening the Port System and Railway Safety in Canada Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will let the comment about my facial hair stand in the record now forever, but I thank him.

I would like to correct the member because the member asked a question in question period that I found really interesting. It was about how there is support for the bill that he referred to. However, he is quick to point to when premiers and stakeholders will support a bill, while failing to acknowledge when they oppose bills.

What is interesting is the bill he refers to, Bill C-49, specifically references provisions that were implemented through Bill C-69 from a previous Parliament. The very premiers who have said they want energy development, which we all do, whether it is new tech or something associated with traditional energy, also asked the government to repeal Bill C-69. They are now talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the government—

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by recognizing that the member opposite has a tremendous beard, and I mean that with all sincerity. He has been growing it over the summer and it looks “Tom Mulcair-esque”, but I know he will not appreciate that comment as much.

The government has put forward a number of pieces of legislation this week that are non-cost in nature; they are legislative reforms. One was Bill C-33, but there was also Bill C-49, which is about enabling tremendous economic opportunities in the energy sector in Atlantic Canada.

Has my hon. colleague opposite had the opportunity to talk to the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, the member for West Nova, the member for Cumberland—Colchester or the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame about whether they are in support of this bill? This is what the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for, as is the premier of Nova Scotia. Has he had a conversation with them?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his warm congratulations, and as this is my first time at providing the Thursday statement, I would also like to say that I look forward to working with him and the other House leaders to advance legislation.

This afternoon we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-33, which deals with strengthening the port system and railway safety in Canada.

I actually have some good news for my hon. colleague. When it comes to affordable housing, debate on the the bill we introduced today on eliminating the GST for rental housing will begin at noon on Monday. I am sure he is very much looking forward to that. It was introduced this morning by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. We will continue with this legislation on Tuesday as well, and I hope we can count on the support of all parties in this House to advance it for Canadians to bring down the cost of housing and the cost of groceries.

On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-49, amending the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Finally, I would like to inform the House that next Thursday, September 28, shall be an allotted day, which I am sure the member will be pleased about.

Natural Resources

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House debated Bill C-49, an act to amend the Atlantic accords, which is crucial legislation to drive Atlantic Canada's clean energy future. It is supported by the Governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, the clean energy industry, indigenous communities and business stakeholders throughout the region, yet there is only one party in the House that has signalled its intent to be against it, and that is the Conservative Party.

Could the minister shed some light on his conversations with Progressive Conservative Premier Tim Houston and, in St. John's, Liberal Premier Andrew Furey, on their perspective of the importance of this crucial bill?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I believe I've been subbed in and I appreciate listening to this important discussion that we've had today.

With that, I'd like to move another motion, if I could:

That the committee express its disappointment with the regulatory environment created by this government that has led to tidal power projects pulling out of Canada and acknowledges that one of the primary factors contributing to the departure of these capital investments has been recent changes that have created an intricate regulatory landscape.

I believe the clerk has a copy of the motion, and the motion is being distributed. Thank you.

For those who are not aware, obviously for me as the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets in Nova Scotia, the issue is the attempt to create renewable energy opportunities in Atlantic Canada so that we can meet the net-zero target and get off of coal by 2030, as the government has mandated. Nova Scotia is the province that generates the second-largest amount of electricity from coal. The coal comes from Colombia.

There have been a lot of attempts to deal with the power of the Bay of Fundy. If you're not familiar with the Bay of Fundy, it has the largest tides in the world, with a range of 52 feet. It rises and drops every day. The flow of the water through the Bay of Fundy is equivalent to the flow of all rivers in the world. In one day, it goes in and out of the Bay of Fundy. That being the case, there have been many projects trying to harness the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy. Most of them have involved putting turbines on the ocean floor. Most of those did not succeed.

However, there was a recent experiment on tidal energy that had a great deal of success, but it was an experiment and it had a temporary permit. It was by a company called Sustainable Marine Energy Canada. It involved a floating turbine that was on top of the water. It's the first project that actually didn't get destroyed by the tide. Within 24 to 48 hours the power of the Bay of Fundy tide had destroyed all those turbines that were put on the ocean floor. The actual turbines were destroyed by the power of that tide, which you can actually surf on when it comes in.

A new approach was to put it on top of the water, and that succeeded. In fact, it didn't get destroyed. Not only did it not get destroyed, but it actually produced energy into the Nova Scotia power grid directly and is the first tidal project in Canada that has actually produced revenue for the company from the generation of that tidal power.

As some of you may be aware, though, when the project moved to the next stage, the process was stopped. It was stopped by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which has a great deal of power, and not only land-based energy projects to stop pipelines because of fish in a stream or some sort of thing. This has happened many times. They actually have a lot of power. Of course everything in the ocean is a federal responsibility and, therefore, DFO has the ability and responsibility to manage the oceans. In this case, after five years of a project and $60 million of capital invested, when the project was moving to the next step of the first successful tidal power project, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this Liberal government stopped it.

Now that turbine has been removed from the water and actually disassembled, and the company is leaving. That doesn't mean they're not going to try to continue to challenge these things, but to understand what's being missed here and why I think this committee needs to express its disappointment on the issue, I will say that it is estimated that by 2040, the tidal energy industry in Nova Scotia could generate $1.7 billion for Nova Scotia's GDP. It could create 22,000 full-time jobs and generate as much as $815 million in labour income.

More important than that, though, because of the obvious predictability of these tides, because of the moon and the rise of the sea, this zero-emission energy, which has had a successful target.... Three hundred megawatts of generation, which isn't a lot relative to power, could actually power one-quarter of Nova Scotia's homes through tidal power.

Maybe it doesn't seem like a lot, but that's estimated to be just a fraction of the potential tidal energy power—clean renewable energy—of the Bay of Fundy that we all see. It is estimated that 2,500 megawatts could be generated, which means Nova Scotia could become an exporter of clean renewable energy.

However, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the Liberal government, decided that this wasn't worth pursuing and that the first successful project in the history of harnessing tidal power in the Bay of Fundy should be stopped.

As a Nova Scotian and as somebody who cares about getting our province off coal.... Our province is the second-largest generator of electricity from coal, Alberta being the first, and we've already heard from my colleague Mr. Kmiec that most of that generation in Alberta will be ending soon. That would leave Nova Scotia as the largest generator of electricity from coal. More than 50% of our electricity is generated from coal, and it's not the good old Cape Breton coal that we all used to get a lot of jobs out of in Nova Scotia. It's coal that is open-pit mined in Colombia and shipped to Nova Scotia to those coal-powered generating plants.

Our premier, Tim Houston, has been very vocal about, what I'd call, his incredulity as to why this determination was made. In fact, DFO never even told the public or the company why they refused to allow this project to go forward and just used its excessive power under the Fisheries and Oceans Act. The CEO of this company said that the department wouldn't show Sustainable Marine the evidence behind the claims that they were going to harm fish in some way.

However, they did approve every other project that went to the ocean floor, which apparently didn't harm fish. I can tell you, as a former fisheries critic for my party and as somebody who has 7,000 commercial fishermen in my riding, there's a lot of important seafood on the ocean floor—lobsters, crab and all of those things, so it's not just fish that swim—or, as we call them, pelagic fish, but it's crustaceans that move on the floor.

Therefore, if turbines were to harm the fishery, they would have harmed the fishery in the Bay of Fundy, which is quite lucrative in terms of lobster. For some reason, though, the arbitrariness of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans kicked in. The company has given enormous amounts of information on this.

Premier Tim Houston, at the time of the announcement in the spring, said, “Shame on the federal government.” He posted it in a video. It was important that he speak publicly on it. This is a quote from the premier:

“You likely know from the media that the federal government is excited about reaching into your pocket and taking your money in the name of a carbon tax,” he continues, “...yet when faced with real opportunities, to make meaningful positive change...like the one Sustainable Marine is creating, it's shut down.”

Now, I don't know what the ultimate objective of the government is in shutting down an important power project like this. I don't know how the federal government wants Nova Scotia to get off of coal if we can't build a natural gas pipeline. In Bill C-69 they made sure we could not get one to come to Nova Scotia with good ethical Albertan natural gas to replace coal, which would reduce our carbon emissions in Nova Scotia by half. If we can't harness the power of the tides in Nova Scotia, one of the greatest untapped energy sources in the world....

Also, it's really quite ironic, given that the government has introduced Bill C-49, which started second reading this week in the House, and which gives a new mandate to the Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board as well as the Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and sets in C-69-type processes for the development of offshore oil and gas in Atlantic Canada. That means none will happen, because that's the intent of Bill C-69.

Also, it imposes that same rigorous, lengthy, excessive and bureaucratic process on wind energy in the ocean. Obviously DFO will use its ability, because under Bill C-49 DFO has the ability to say no. If they think somewhere in the future, down the way, 50 years from now, they might put a marine protected area, perhaps maybe sort of in that area that you're thinking of putting wind power in, they're not going to let you do it. They have a veto power to do that. That's the kind of excessive overreach on power that the government is doing.

On top of that, there's the inconsistency of the government in putting its message forward saying it believes we should have clean renewable energy, yet when we have the opportunity to do it, it either uses the power of DFO to kill the project or it uses the power of imposing C-69-type bureaucratic processes on the future approval of wind and tidal power projects in Atlantic Canada.

What are we supposed to do but continue to import coal if this government says one thing and does another? It says it wants us on renewable resources, but it puts barriers in the way of actually producing and creating those renewable resources—clean zero-emission energy projects that are right here on the coast of my province, Nova Scotia.

It's incredibly disappointing, and I would ask that this committee seriously consider this motion and the trail of contradictory decisions by this government of saying one thing and doing another when it comes to Atlantic Canada and renewable resources.

I know some of my colleagues have a few things they would like to add as well, because my colleagues—on this side anyway—have shown a great deal of interest in all of the issues around Nova Scotia, certainly the ones I'm passionate about, including all of the issues around the ocean and the issues around the fishery.

It's mind-boggling that DFO would stop such a renewable resource project.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to be able to enter into debate in this place about the important issues facing Canadians, and to be back after a summer break. I am sure I am not alone, but I would like to take a moment to specifically talk about the fact I had the opportunity to travel across Battle River—Crowfoot and the more than 60 municipalities I have the honour of representing; over 53,000 square kilometres of beautiful east country Alberta real estate.

Although I make it home every weekend, it is always good to spend a little more focused time chatting with those good common-sense thinking Canadians who make up those communities across east central Alberta. I can tell the House that what I heard from so many of them emphasizes exactly what I am going to talk about regarding this bill. It comes back to the basic foundation of trust.

One needs to be able to trust, whether it is a bill like we see before us in Bill C-49, whether it is the words of a Prime Minister or whether it is the actions of a cabinet behind closed doors and the cabinet confidences associated with that and the whole range of other elements that make up our institutions within this country. From the thousands of kilometres I drove across east central Alberta, communities where there is no such thing as public transit, from small hamlets to the small city of Camrose, I know these folks are ready for somebody they can trust. Definitively, I can say they do not trust these Liberals. They do not trust their agenda. They do not trust what they say. The unfortunate reality is that history proves that point.

I bring it back now specifically to Bill C-49. We are talking about, in broad strokes, a bill that brings forward a whole host of changes that have the intent, and I use the word “intent” specifically, to provide that framework to allow for renewable development in two of Canada's Atlantic provinces.

I heard the previous speaker, who I do not think actually spent much time listening to some of the concerns Conservatives brought forward over the course of this debate. It is a laudable goal. What is unfortunate is the Liberals, the NDP and I think the Bloc as well are so blinded by the politics of these energy issues that they refuse to acknowledge the reality that exists. I am proud to represent a constituency that is, and I am not sure it is the most but certainly one of the most, bullish on renewable development. There are wind farms being built.

I also am proud to be involved in my family farm. I could go on a lot about some of the complaints I heard from farmers, but I will save that for another day. What is interesting is about the vehicles driving by. In fact, we had to time some of the moving from one field to another and moving large equipment on the roads because of the shift change that was being dealt with at some of these renewable developments.

People in Alberta get energy. We get oil and gas and we get renewables. We get the whole spectrum of it, but the unfortunate reality is the government does not.

I brought forward the issue of trust. I heard about it constantly over the course of the summer. The reason that is so key when it comes to the debate surrounding Bill C-49 is because the government is saying it wants to accomplish all of these things. It is saying it wants to model these regulations and have these objectives, but by the way, it is allowed to interfere in the process, so to just trust it. It is going to model it after the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-69, so it is saying to just trust it on that.

They have dealt with the consultation of the provinces, and I heard many times from members of the Liberal Party that we should support this because there is provincial support. I acknowledge this fully. I am glad there was that consultation that took place and I am glad they were able to come to some sort of consensus.

However, what I find absolutely tragic is that we cannot trust what the Liberals say because, time and time again, when it fits their political narrative, they will throw their provincial partners under the bus. Bill C-69 is referenced in the context of this bill. All 10 provinces in this country wanted that repealed, so how dare the government stand up and righteously say that provinces support the bill? There are not many issues that all 10 provinces of this country will agree upon unanimously, but the Prime Minister accomplished it with the opposition to one of the most absurd pieces of legislation to cross the floor of this place. Forgive me if I come back to the basic premise that we simply cannot trust the Liberals.

When it comes to many of the details of this bill, we look at how it could add red tape. Liberals say that it is okay because they will create a framework and it will be dealt with in regulations. The unfortunate reality is that, when those words are uttered by Liberals, it effectively means that they will accomplish nothing.

I will sum up the energy situation in our country after eight years of a Prime Minister who is absolutely clueless on energy. If I could sum up the conversation of those eight years, I would sum it up in two words: missed opportunity. Why is that? We have seen the untold cost of these additional delays, the red tape, the impacts of Bill C-69, the carbon tax and the fact that the Liberals seem to care more about piling things on their desks than actually dealing with these problems. Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment are gone. That is a missed opportunity, and I will say why it is so significant and why I highlight it here.

We talk often about the fiscal situation of the country, the debt and the deficit. I know provinces talk a lot about investing in schools and hospitals. Municipalities will talk about paving roads and water infrastructure, the whole deal. However, when it comes down to it, the missed opportunity here is the hundreds of billions of dollars that did not get invested in our economy. That means fewer schools, fewer hospitals, fewer paved roads. That means fewer resources to invest in the benefits that the Liberals talk so much about. It is a missed opportunity.

There are the situations around wind, solar, battery production, minerals and resources. These are all very real issues. Once again, I would sum up the last eight years as a missed opportunity. The American president came to this very House and said he wanted to partner, but why would any company invest in a country that it cannot trust would ever be able to build a mine? Once again, I ask the question about trust. There is a whole host of questions on whether the Liberals can be trusted, and their history shows otherwise.

When it comes to the development of renewables, a tidal project got cancelled because the government cannot be trusted when it comes to dealing with the economy. Specifically, that project was cancelled because of cost overruns. Again, we come down to a very fundamental premise: Can we trust that Bill C-49 would build renewable energy projects in Atlantic Canada? The Liberals' history makes that very question one that we cannot answer. The Liberals stand and say a lot of things about that, but the reality speaks otherwise. We need to make sure that we are pragmatic in the way we approach energy issues. There is one way that I think we should be able and willing to do that.

I often hear from my NDP colleagues, and there are only two here from Alberta. They seem quite quick to diminish our oil and gas sector. Sometimes when I listen to them speak in this place, I wonder if they have forgotten that they ran for federal office and not provincial office. I certainly hear quite often from my constituents after they have listened to either question period or some of the debates, and they ask that very question.

We need to be pragmatic and realistic about energy. We need to ensure that, when we are talking about solutions, we understand the impacts that exist. I know there has been a whole host of conversations about renewable projects in Alberta. I did talk about how there are those investments being made, and I know there are other investments.

I had the opportunity for a couple of years, and it was truly an honour and a privilege, to work with former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall. He was proud to be leading at a time when Alberta had fallen into a deep socialist chasm where it had a government that was so clueless that it tried to tell farmers that, if they set foot outside their front door, they might be subject to the rules and regulations put forward by a bureaucrat in the province's capital. Can members believe that? It was a dark time for the province of Alberta and one that I am very thankful the people of Alberta resoundingly rejected only a number of months ago.

However, when it comes to the energy reality we have to face, costs are up. On that subject I hear two things, and quite often they are disconnected. We hear Liberals talk about wanting to address things such as the cost of living crisis, but they also want to increase costs.

Let us look at the former of those two. The Liberals want to address the cost of living crisis, often in the form of government payments. There was support, and I believe it was unanimous support, to increase the GST rebate, which the Liberals renamed the “grocery rebate”. I am not sure the Prime Minister should be bragging that his economic management has led us to so many Canadians not being able to afford groceries without the help of the government. That is a whole other conversation, though.

The cost of living crisis is real. I was replying to some constituents' emails today, and seniors are talking about how they cannot afford energy. They just got a power bill, and they are scared about their upcoming gas bill, not to mention the fact that winter is coming. That is part of it, but let us look at why. Let us have a realistic, pragmatic look at why that is the case.

Part of the reality is a carbon tax. The Liberals do not like it when we bring this up to bridge the connection I am about to make because the reality is that they want costs to go up. The carbon tax, by its very design, is made to increase costs, yet we have the government talking about how one has to address affordability. Can members believe that? The Liberals are intentionally making costs rise, yet they talk a whole host about affordability. That is part one.

Now here is the latter of the two points I made, and it is related to the environment. Let us be real here. The carbon tax and the Liberals' environmental plan are not accomplishing the objectives that they set out to, nor are they truly even an environmental plan. The Liberals talk often about needing to address climate challenges, yet they have failed to do so every step of the way. It is terribly ironic how they laud an increase in costs, yet they are not accomplishing anything. They are subjecting Canadians to so much pain, yet there is no gain. I said that we needed to be real here, and it is that lived reality that so many Canadians are facing.

When it comes to the realistic nature, we need to be a country that can say yes to development. Processes and structures have to be in place to ensure we respect the environment and to ensure human rights. Alberta specifically, but our nation generally, is a leader in this. I applaud my provincial counterparts in Newfoundland.

I spent close to a decade batching wells and throwing pigs. That may be a strange reference to many in the House, but basically that is doing environmental work in the oil patch. If members have questions about that, I would be happy to talk to them about what batching wells and throwing pigs is all about.

The lived reality of what Alberta is, and the unprecedented prosperity in the western world, quite frankly, that we have seen, is an example for so many. I applaud Newfoundland and Labrador. They are visionaries in being able to continue to use their resources, to look at the opportunities that exist and be a leader.

I believe the press conference was in Newfoundland. I may stand corrected on that. When the German chancellor came to Canada with a metaphorical cheque in hand, saying they want our LNG, what did our illustrious Prime Minister say? He said, “Sorry, there is no market for it.” What he forgot to add is that was because he had closed down the market. It is that reality that exists.

I have had conversations with constituents. One constituent called me a number of weeks ago. I want to bring this up because I think it is an interesting idea. Often what happens is that the thinking that takes place in Ottawa, our nation's capital, and sometimes even in corporate headquarters and whatnot, is a little blinded to the reality that exists. Let me throw a couple of things out there.

For those who have seen wind development, they are impressive machines. They are absolutely massive. For those who have seen them moved on trains and trucks, I would note the resources that are required to move them. They are massive machines. I had a constituent bring up an interesting point the other day. They asked, “Why not put solar panels on a windmill?” Why not? Maybe there is something that could be practical about that.

I had another constituent who was frustrated because a solar project was being built without adequate consultation. I am paraphrasing, but he basically shared how frustrated he was that 160 acres, a quarter section, was going to be gravelled over and have solar panels built on it. A quarter section of land was going to be gravelled over, productive ranch land. This constituent brought up to me something that was really interesting. He asked, “Why do they not build the panels an extra three feet tall, and then at least goats or sheep could be run on the land?”

The reason I wanted to bring those things up is that, so often, in what is being discussed in this place, we lose sight of what matters to Canadians. We lose sight of regular folks going about their business, the individuals who are hard at work. They are those who are working in the oil patch, those who are building the wind turbines, those who are driving the trucks and those farmers who are currently, in many places, in the field, including my father. I will say hello to my dad, and I think my wife was in the grain cart today, so I will say hello, sweetheart.

So often, we forget the reason why all of us are here is not for some ideological objective. It is not for some nuanced, political whatever. We are here because of the people. Let us make sure we work for the people. When I spoke to many people across my constituency this summer, they said that they could not trust the Liberals. I stand here today in this place and say history proves that right.

Therefore, we need to work at bringing back trust to our institutions. When it comes to making sure there is energy development in this country, let us get it right, because whether it is traditional energy or new energy, Canadians deserve better than what they have been getting from the Liberals.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, at first glance, Bill C‑49 does not seem to do away with the annual process for the auction and sale of exploratory drilling permits.

Why then was the word “petroleum” removed from the names of the two boards if their mission still involves offshore oil and gas development? Is this more smoke and mirrors from the Liberals when it comes to the environment?

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

Madam Speaker, every so often, when we bring in legislation, there are some surprises.

Yesterday, it was quite encouraging when we brought in Bill C-48 on the bail reform issue and we saw parties come together to recognize the value of the legislation and understand and appreciate how important it was to get it passed.

In fact, later yesterday, after a few hours of debate, a Conservative member suggested that we go ahead with unanimous consent and pass it through the system.

That was a bit of a surprise. I was quite pleased about it. I thought it surprised a number of people. It was quite encouraging because it shows that, if the House recognizes something of great value, collectively, where we have all parties onside, we can accomplish things very quickly inside the House.

I look at Bill C-49, which we are debating today. I am not from Atlantic Canada, as we all know, but I understand the importance of regional development. The Atlantic accord is of critical importance to Atlantic Canada, to two provinces in particular, Newfoundland and Labrador, along with Nova Scotia.

We understand and appreciate all of the efforts. I have had a number of Conservatives stand up and ask why it took so long to bring it before the House. It is not like one can snap one's heels together, wave a wand and make legislation appear. There is a lot of work that is done prior to bringing the legislation forward. There is a timing issue. There is a great deal of consultation that takes place.

As for my quick readthrough, in terms of the legislation, and the passion that I have seen from my Atlantic colleagues in dealing with this legislation, and they are a passionate caucus, as we know, this is good solid legislation that should be supported.

What surprises me today with Bill C-49 is that it is one thing to say one does not want to pass it today. It is another thing to come out saying one opposes the legislation. That is what we are hearing from the Conservative Party today.

The Conservative Party of Canada does not support the principles of this legislation. This is legislation that has the support of every other political entity, from what I understand, inside the House. It also has the support of provincial jurisdictions of different political stripes. We have heard member of Parliament after member of Parliament, at least from some opposition benches and the government benches, talking about how important this legislation is.

Even the Minister of Labour and Seniors came forward, in a very passionate speech. He was not the only member of the caucus who spoke passionately about the importance of this legislation to their respective provinces.

Renewable energy is so critically important when we talk about economic development into the future. I know that first-hand from being a parliamentarian for over 30 years, first as an MLA in Manitoba, and the impact that Manitoba Hydro has had on the residents of Manitoba, to the benefits of Canada as a nation.

It is a renewable energy. It is one of the reasons why, and I do not know if it still is today, and if not, it would be very close, the cheapest energy price in North America, in terms of electrical rates, is in Manitoba. It now might be two or three. I know that when I was a MLA, for a long period of time it was number one, the cheapest rate.

I can tell members that here is an opportunity. When we talk about Canada reaching its climate targets and looking at offshore renewable energy projects, one can very easily get excited to think of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador and other coastal communities, because the opportunities are great.

However, I do not understand why, in looking at the legislation, the Conservative Party of Canada wants to say “no” to Atlantic Canada. It makes no sense whatsoever. When I listen to the energy that is coming from the government benches, which is being driven by my Atlantic colleagues, like the member for Avalon talking about how important this legislation is, there seems to be a disconnect with the Conservative Party.

It was interesting when the member for Avalon posed a question earlier to a Conservative member asking why he did not support the bill. The Conservative member stood up and said that the it is the principle of the legislation and that it is about the carbon tax. Really? I do not think that a number of the Conservative speakers who have stood up really understand what the legislation would do, as they were trying to rope in the issue of a price on pollution and, as that one member implied, base an opinion on a price on pollution to not support the bill. It seems to me that they are being somewhat misguided. I have not heard from any Conservative member, and I have been here all day listening to member after member speak on the legislation, specifically why this legislation cannot be passed.

We had the former Conservative member stand up and speak for 20 minutes about, based on the past, we are going to see time allocation and that we are going to see some opposition parties working with the government in order to get the bill time-allocated in order to pass. Well, I can assure the Conservative Party that there will be time allocation on this bill if the Conservatives are going to filibuster it, because we on the government side see the value of this legislation to Atlantic Canada and to Canada as a whole, which is the reason we will fight tooth and nail to ensure that we see this type of regional economic development take place. If that means working with New Democrat and Bloc members in order to ensure we get time allocation so that we can get legislation passed, I am game for that.

We recognize that we are talking about our environment. We are talking about future jobs and opportunities. I want to see Newfoundland and Labrador continue to be a “have” province. I want to see the prosperity of all regions of our country. I recognize the value of renewable energy, because of the example of Manitoba Hydro. I see where government does play an important role. What I do not see is why the Conservative Party would take an issue such as this and deny two provinces the opportunity where there was an agreement.

After this legislation passes, with the support of at least some opposition parties, and it will pass, it will receive mirror legislation from provincial legislatures in order to enact and make sure that it turns into a reality so that the people who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will have wonderful renewable energy resources being developed and opportunities well into the future.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will not need all my time, as I will be sharing it with the member for Winnipeg North. He will probably have the bulk of the 20 minutes. Since the discussion on the topic began, I have thought it was necessary for a Newfoundlander to stand up and say a few words on it. I know the minister spoke earlier, and I compliment him on his speech.

It is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-49, which is an act to amend the Atlantic accord acts with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a crucial piece of legislation that matters in the global race toward our net-zero future, and Canada is in the driver's seat to be a leader on just that.

The legislation is required to do just that. The Atlantic accords first signed between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1985 and subsequently signed between Nova Scotia and the federal government in 2005 are symbolic of the importance of the work that was done to fight for regional equality in Atlantic Canada. This was done to ensure equity in how the resources of oil and gas at that time were to be distributed in the federation and for the benefit of our provinces. While the oil and gas sector still plays an important role in Newfoundland, today, by amending the accords, we would be setting the path to how best to govern, manage and, ultimately, benefit from the resource of offshore wind.

There are many ways to look at the benefit offshore wind represents to Canada. First and foremost, this opportunity is crucial in our fight against climate change. The science is clear: We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and projects on the Atlantic coast can do just that by harnessing the wind for our collective benefit. The power can help Canada not only to decarbonize its current electricity capacity but also to ensure that it has excess power to supply to other provinces as well.

Beyond the domestic focus, this opportunity represents an enormous export potential for green hydrogen to be transported as ammonia for industrial uses around the world, helping to decarbonize the world. I know that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador just issued permits to four different companies that are interested in creating wind energy in Newfoundland and Labrador and in producing hydrogen to be shipped to other European countries. They are not approved yet, but they are authorized to go to the next level to get that done. As the labour minister mentioned earlier, this is something that will help workers in Newfoundland and Labrador create a new field of expertise. Thus, the workers who built our oil industry will also help build our wind energy.

In his speech, the minister also mentioned the Port of Argentia becoming a port to house the so-called monopiles that will be used in offshore wind energy projects. I had the opportunity to be in Argentia and look at some of those, as they were sitting on the land, that came in the first shipment. They will be used for projects off the east coast of the United States, and Argentia will play a major role in that.

They are able to do that with the help of the federal government. It was only a couple of months ago that the then minister of transport announced major project funding for the Port of Argentia to build and expand its wharfage. It was a $38-million investment from the federal government for a $100-million project that the port is taking on. It has reinvented itself. At one time, Argentia was a U.S. naval base and served the area well, and of course it was a great economic driver when it was there at the time. However, today, it has this to depend on as another major economic driver for that full area.

It boggles my mind to hear people say that nobody wants this to happen. The premiers of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are asking for the renewal of the accords to be done and signed off on by the federal government and the provinces. They can then go out and attract new industry to come to the provinces and create good jobs and good family incomes in the meantime.

Somebody spoke about working with proponents we know who already have a record in this field. That is exactly what it is. These people who are coming to set up the wind farms, whether onshore or offshore, have the experience. They have done it before in many regions around the world and they are certainly looking forward to doing it in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Hopefully, it does get approval to go ahead in both areas.

I know the member mentioned the carbon tax and nobody standing up against it. I would remind people in this House that it was I, as an MP from Newfoundland and Labrador, who stood and voted with a Conservative motion to eliminate the carbon tax on home heating fuel. I still stand by that and I support that vote. I had my own reasons for doing it. I wanted to let the people I represent know that I am prepared to stand up and speak for them when necessary in this House.

I will close off here and answer any questions that anybody has on this particular piece of legislation.

[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 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.

[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—

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is so nice to see that she is recovering and doing well. I wish her all the best for a full and speedy recovery, and I continue to pray for that. I look forward to seeing her back in the House in person.

As it relates to Bill C-49, what is really important is that we feel, overall, that the bill is detrimental to the future development of resources in this country. It tramples all over provincial jurisdiction as well. It causes huge concerns for those who may want to invest in Canada, invest in our resource sector and help grow Canada's economy. They see it as a further impediment to growth, and many premiers have raised huge concerns as it relates to the bill. We will continue to stand against it, because the bill would hamper development, hamper our economy, hamper our economic viability in the future and hamper investment into a vital resource sector in this country that will lead to our future prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, to the hon. colleague for Tobique—Mactaquac, I cannot move to my question without personally thanking him for his really kind email this summer sending prayers after my stroke. I am so grateful.

In the debate all day today I have heard Conservatives say that they do not like C-49. I have been specific about the thing I would like to see changed, which is to go back to the original Canada-Nova Scotia and Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum board acts and remove the conflict of interest that exists that promotes petroleum. However, I do not know, and I have not yet heard from my Conservative colleagues what it is that they want changed in C-49, because it is good legislation and we need to move it forward.