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.