House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

    While I am on my feet, I move:

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded vote.

    Call in the members.

    Before the Clerk announced the results of the vote:

    Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to verify the photo of the member for Papineau. His face is not visible. I would like you to check with the clerks to see whether his vote counts.

    I am not sure whether the hon. member for Papineau is online. If not, his vote does not count.

    I declare the motion carried.

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

    The decision of the government to proceed to the orders of the day prevents the presentation of private members' bills. I have an important private member's bill on Ukraine and munitions. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow members of all parties, if they have private members' bills, to table them now.

    Some hon. members: No.

    I already hear “no”. I am assuming that the member—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Order. I just want to remind members that they maybe want to have a conversation with other members ahead of time before asking for unanimous consent. That way they will be more successful in their attempts.

    I also want to remind members that the House is in session and that if they wish to have conversations to please take them outside, because I have trouble hearing what is going on.

    moved that a ways and means motion to introduce a bill entitled An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be concurred in.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     moved that Bill C-69, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 16, 2024, be read the first time and printed.

    Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege that was raised by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on Monday. He and I, and my hon. colleague here, belong to a group called IPAC. It is an international group, the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and it appears we have attracted some unwanted attention.

    Last Wednesday, the member and I were on a call with IPAC in London and were advised of this form of cyber-attack. I am at an age and stage when I do not pretend to understand exactly what they were talking about, but I am given to understand that a group called APT31, or Advanced Persistent Threat 31, was conducting cyber-attacks against some colleagues here and indeed around the world.

    The only reason we found out about it was that the FBI was conducting a surveillance operation a couple of years ago, and we were caught up in that surveillance operation. That was a couple of years ago, so the question becomes this: Why did we not know about it? IPAC contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and asked why we did not know about it.

    The U.S. Department of Justice did notify the relevant nations, sovereignty to sovereignty. IPAC then compared the FBI list with its own list, and the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, myself and my colleague here were on that list. The question becomes this: How come we did not know about it?

    Since then, we have been advised that the FBI did notify the Canada Security Establishment, or CSE, and CSE, in turn, notified Parliament, or the IT service that runs Parliament. A security check was run in a timely fashion, and the good news is that the system we have here was not breached. In that respect, it worked.

    However, at that point, a decision was made to not notify the affected members of Parliament and the affected senators; I think there are about 13 of us in total. That is a bit more problematic, so this is why I support the member's privilege question because I do think this needs to be investigated.

    I am given to understand that there are literally hundreds of thousands of attacks on our IT system on a daily basis, literally a massive volume, and it becomes difficult to know, when attacks are unsuccessful, when and how and if members should be notified because our inboxes could be literally filled on a daily basis with notifications of attacks.

    On the other hand, if I, as a member who is interested in security matters and defence matters, have an unusual volume of attacks or if other members, for other reasons, have unusual volumes or patterns of attacks, then that seems to be quite relevant to the interests of those individual members.

    The reason I am supporting the hon. member's question of privilege is that we need to start to review these protocols, and do it sooner rather than later. I want to make the point that this is not a government issue; this is a Parliament issue.

    The government did its job, so to speak, in that CSE reported it to our security services and the people who run them. However, I believe that PROC needs to look at this. It needs to review the sequence of events to make sure that, as I am describing it to the House, they were correct; to examine the decisions that were made when the information became available to Canadian authorities; and to review whether this is the kind of information that should be shared with members and, if so, in what format, how frequently, etc.

    I do not think we can take this very lightly. The analogy I have drawn in the past has been that it is like somebody looking at one's mail in the post office. I think we would all be pretty upset with somebody examining our mail. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that, but it gives the sense in which the emails that are coming into our offices need to have security not only for ourselves but also for our correspondents and our constituents. These are significant volumes of emails.

    I just want to raise what I believe is a question of privilege. I hope the Speaker finds it to be a question of privilege and asks the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan to move the relevant motion.

    As I said, this is a significant issue. The chamber needs to deal with it in a timely sort of way; I hope PROC ultimately does as well.

    Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I just want to add my comments to those of both of my colleagues, who are the co-chairs for Canada on the IPAC organization.

    I do not believe it ends there. I want to see this go forward. It is great that the firewall held and nothing was penetrated. However, if these attacks are happening, as members of Parliament, we need to be briefed better than we currently are. If there is any overabundance of attacks on my system for some particular reason, I would like to know that.

    I appreciate the fact that the firewall held up, but it is a question of where we go from here. If we are getting thousands of attacks every day, all parliamentarians need to be more aware and make sure that we are doing what we need to do to protect ourselves. I also think that the parliamentarians who were under surveillance from various areas need to know that to protect themselves.

    I do not think it should change the fact that many of us stand up on files on human rights issues that we care about. I would not want to see intimidation be a factor in stopping us from doing our jobs.

    I believe that the more information we have, the better informed we are and the better we are able to protect ourselves and our citizens.

    I appreciate the hon. members' interventions. We will certainly take that under consideration as we deliberate on bringing back a statement on this.

    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.

     moved that the bill be concurred in.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, we are prepared to have this pass on division.

    Madam Speaker, we would like a recorded vote.

    Call in the members.

    I declare the motion carried.

     When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

    I move:

    All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

    It is agreed.

    The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

    I am sorry. I had my hand up to try to vote, but you announced the vote.

    I apologize, but with unanimous consent we can do all kinds of things here.

    Mr. Speaker, I hope to find unanimous consent to vote yea.

    Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    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.

    He said: 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.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. minister on his speech. My area has the second-largest group of people who came from his province to work in the resource sector for many years, and we have a strong connection with his province. I appreciate that he believes the resource sector is responsible, and its workers have tremendous skills.

    The one thing I would ask him is this: What is the government going to build, and what resource sector would it depend on for all the parts and pieces to build it and the fluids to drive it?

    Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that it is oil and gas. I do not know whether that is such a difficult answer to say, but it is oil and gas, and proudly so.

    In fact if we look at wind turbines, they take an awful lot of copper, about 60,000 pounds, so there is a lot of mining involved not just in this country but around the world. All of this brings good Canadian jobs if we play our cards right.

    Mr. Speaker, during the committee's study, the Bloc Québécois proposed a number of amendments, including the idea of conducting seabed impact studies before developing wind turbines, which was rejected by the Liberals, among others.

    I have a simple question. Was it simply to avoid setting a precedent for oil and gas development on the seabed, so that there can never really be an environmental assessment or an impact assessment before drilling takes place?

    Mr. Speaker, I fail to see the logic of the hon. member's question. It seems to lean on whether or not oil and gas or renewables are treated the same. Let me assure her that the piece of legislation before us is such a fundamentally sound piece of legislation in the Atlantic accord and has built such a proud and prosperous industry off the shores of my home province that asking me to extend that jurisdiction, which is respectful of provincial jurisdiction, is something that I would think most members of the House would abide by.

    By making sure that our governments work together and that provincial jurisdictions are upheld, we can work together to build a new industry in the same regulatory regime in renewables: wind and hydrogen. We do not have to say no to say yes to others. All of these are going to be important parts of the energy mix.

    Mr. Speaker, New Democrats worked long and hard to make sure that this project for Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia got off the ground, because we need to get serious about the renewable sector.

    What worries me is that the rest of the world is moving much faster. Our main competitor is the United States. There is one project in Rhode Island where 250,000 homes will get energy, and the Vineyard project is 400,000 homes. The Europeans are moving, and China is leaving everybody in the dust, and yet the ITCs, the input tax credits promised by the government in 2023, are still not out there. I am talking to people in the industry, the mining industry in particular, who are looking to go stateside.

    We cannot build this new economy without kick-starting the ITC credits that are needed. When are they going to come out? We cannot leave our regions behind.

    Mr. Speaker, the ITCs are something new, which actually builds the argument for what we are talking about with this piece of legislation. Why would we create something new when what we have works so well? Investment tax credits are new to this country. In particular, I am very proud to say that some of the ITCs are dependent and would only be activated, in other words, investors and companies would only realize them, if investors make sure that union wages are paid or union members are hired. In this case, we have a regulatory regime that works.

    If we want renewables to succeed, as the hon. member brings up, as competition begins, why would we go back to the drawing board and start a whole new regulatory regime for renewables? It would take way too long. Let us use what we have, which works so well. That is what the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are asking us to do.

    Mr. Speaker, with the minister being a colleague of mine from Newfoundland and Labrador, I am sure he is very proud of the oil industry in our province. He mentioned the Port of Argentia. I am sure he remembers being there to announce a $38-million investment as the port gets involved in wind energy.

    I wonder if the minister could talk about that and how important it is to that particular region.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows I love Argentia and I like taking people to Argentia.

    The energy transition is going to be complicated, as the hon. member knows, and I am very proud of my province in the fact that as we continue in one energy sector, we are working in another energy sector. In fact, our industry association has changed its name from NOIA now to Energy NL, with the express purpose of looking at ways to lower emissions and looking at the overall energy mix and how they all work together.

    I am very proud of Argentia as we see the gravity-based structure for the West White Rose project being built. It is being built with wheelbarrows. What they had to do is unbelievable. Right next door to it is the biggest monopile marshalling port on the eastern seaboard. This is where they are stacking all those big monopiles that are going to go up and down the eastern seaboard. These are the same workers, and I am very proud of them. It is a workforce with some of the best experts, when it comes to energy, in the world, developed in the past 30 years in my province. It is taking over the world. It is something to be proud of.

    Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague across the way if he will support the Conservative amendments, given that we consulted with the likes of Mr. Max Ruelokke, who I am sure the member is well aware of, with over 40 years' experience in the management of offshore petroleum resources in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia and in consultations worldwide. In fact, he was the chair and CEO of the C-NLOPB for six years. I am sure my hon. colleague respects him quite highly.

    I heard the minister mention earlier the good union jobs. There are also amendments that were suggested by the FFAW-Unifor, which, in committee, were voted down in a very partisan manner. All Conservatives want is to make this bill work so that the oil and gas industry, the fishing industry and the renewable energy industries can work together and bring investor confidence back to those resource-based industries in Newfoundland and Labrador.

    Will the minister support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and vote for the common-sense Conservative amendments?

    Mr. Speaker, I honestly cannot wait to vote against those amendments, in the same way I could not wait to say no to 20,000 amendments that that party put forward to try to block this piece of legislation. That is not practical investing. That is not investing in the future. That is hoodwinking. This member has accused the premiers of those two provinces of being hoodwinked by us. He has accused us of hoodwinking the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think so.

    Conservatives have done everything they can to get in the way of this.

    The Progressive Conservative Party, which I have spoken very highly of, and John Crosbie, whom I would consider a mentor to me, built this industry, but we know what the Conservative Party has done with this industry. For goodness' sake, when it took 300 days for an environmental assessment for just an exploratory well, Conservatives found a way to make it 900 days. They are the kings of red tape when it comes to our offshore industry. We have reduced it to 90 days.

    They think I am going to pay attention to their amendments because, clutch my pearls, we are being partisan. I do not think so. Get out of the way of investment. Get out of the way of jobs. Get out of the way of the future. This is happening and we are leading.

    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:

    

    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:

    The amendment is in order.

    We will move on to questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I will tell members what we can do. We can do our jobs as His Majesty's loyal opposition to make sure that what gets passed through the House is actually reflective of those whose livelihoods are most dependant upon the very industries that are most affected by the impacts of this bill. We have heard overwhelmingly from those industry stakeholders that this is a flawed bill that needs to be amended and corrected.

    We are doing our job and, yes, we can, and, yes, we will. We will keep fighting to make it a better piece of legislation, so that the concerns of all Canadians, including Atlantic Canadians, are heard.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to provide some clarification. He gave a rather eloquent speech, but I would like to understand why the Conservatives are opposing a bill that promotes greenwashing and that does absolutely nothing to reduce offshore petroleum operations. I would like to understand the Conservatives' position, because, from what I understand, the goal of the Conservative MPs is to protect the interests of the oil and gas industry and ensure that there is as much oil and gas development as possible, which is something this bill allows for. That is why I do not understand the Conservatives' position.

    Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. I find it intriguing that the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois is raising a concern about how we are standing up to reflect the concerns that stakeholders and provinces have raised.

    These concerns are regarding way too much power being granted to a federal minister. They could come in to stamp out some provincial industries and the areas that impact provinces and regions within their jurisdiction. It takes way too much power away from the provinces and puts way too much into the hands of an overreaching, over-encroaching federal government. In particular, a federal minister could have veto power over energy development and resource development.

    As our western friends in Alberta and Saskatchewan know very well, the over-encroachment of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction is stifling and hampering. It hurts business and industry. I am sure my colleague from Quebec would be very concerned if federal ministers started overreaching into areas of provincial jurisdiction. We share that concern, and I hope the member would be onside with our concern regarding that.

    Mr. Speaker, as a prairie girl, this is a little outside of my zone, but I do come from Alberta. The member, in answering the question of my colleague from the Bloc, brought up the example of the oil and gas sector in Alberta and the need for the federal government not to overreach.

    One of the problems I have is that, on occasion, provincial governments, and I would use the example of the Alberta provincial government, do not do a particularly good job of promoting renewables or promoting forward-looking industry. As members know, Danielle Smith paused renewables in Alberta, and $33 billion dollars' worth of investment was chased from our province.

    From the member's perspective, is there a place for the federal government to ensure strings are attached?

    Another example would be when money came from the federal government for orphan wells to be cleaned up in Alberta. There were no strings attached, despite the fact the NDP asked for them, and the wells in Alberta have still not been cleaned up.

    Does he not see the federal government has to have some role to play in developing our resources and in making sure that resources are being developed adequately?

    Mr. Speaker, I must say that my concern, as it relates to the federal government's jurisdiction and the role we can play as a federal government, is this: I believe that the federal government should become the biggest cheerleader for Canadian energy on the planet.

    Canada's energy is the best-sourced energy in the world, and it has the strictest environmental regulations in the world for development and extraction. Instead, the government is talking down our energy sector, putting the boot on our energy producers and taking on provinces that are responsibly extracting and developing their energy resources. Frankly, those are helping the rest of our country have the social programs that we so desperately need and want, whether it is our health care or our education. I know we, in the east, greatly appreciate the transfer payments that have come from our western colleagues.

    I think it is time that the federal government appreciate how dynamic our energy-producing provinces are in bringing economic vitality to this country, so we have a good country. It needs to start cheerleading our energy development and start cheerleading the good advancements that have happened in improving technology and extraction practices. The government needs to get stop getting on the backs of our provinces about them developing their resources for the good of the country as a whole. Let us stand up for Canada's energy.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his passionate speech. He should look at joining a theatre group somewhere along the way.

    Why can we not do them all? Could we not do wind energy, oil energy and tidal energy? We have got an ideal spot to start it right in the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces, to do just that.

    Mr. Speaker, I share the absolute belief in all-of-the-above approach when it comes to energy. Any country that is going to be secure going forward in the geopolitical climate we are in internationally better have solid energy security, reliable energy resources and solid food security. If we do not get those three things right, we are in a lot of trouble. Part of that is all of the above. A big part of that, too, in improving and cleaning not only our atmosphere but the world's, is ensuring we are doing all we can to get great, clean, good, solid Canadian liquefied natural gas on the world markets, displacing dictator oil from dictator regimes.

    Instead of being on the backs of that development and expanding that development, and standing and impeding the progress in those sectors, the government needs to get on the side of Canadian energy and say yes to all the of the above. Let us expand our nuclear capacity; let us expand wind and solar; and, yes, let us expand liquefied natural gas. Let us utilize it and ensure more Canadian petroleum products are on the world market not less. Every bit more of Canadian petroleum and energy we get into the world the world is much better off. Our people get paid good wages and the resources are utilized to improve the overall environment of the planet.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, kind greetings to the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. On this, I simply would say that it is important that we do an all-the-above approach and not be locked in to just renewables or just one avenue, whether it is solar, wind or nuclear. We need all of the above and move with everyone together. A rising tide will lift all boats. An absolutely all-encompassing energy policy will lift not only all Canadians, but it will lift the entire world to a better place.

     Let us get Canadian energy on the world market and improve the world's environment and improve Canada's economy.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised the Bloc would not be supporting this legislation, when one takes into consideration that this legislation is mirror legislation. There are two other provinces with different political parties, both a Liberal premier and a Progressive Conservative premier, and this legislation mirrors their provincial legislation. All three of them ultimately need to pass. The people of two other provinces and the people here in Ottawa are working together on an important issue.

    The Bloc, on the one hand, says that we should be working with provinces. This is a good example of provinces working well with Ottawa to do something of great benefit for their regions, and the Bloc is voting no. From my perspective, that is highly irresponsible given that I always thought the Bloc's mandate was to, at least, work with the provinces. That is constantly what we hear from the Bloc.

    Mr. Speaker, I think that what is irresponsible in the fight against climate change is to continue our out-of-control support for the oil and gas sector. That is irresponsible. I began by saying that one of the stumbling blocks was to determine whether offshore areas fell under federal or provincial jurisdiction. Constitutionally speaking, they are under federal jurisdiction. That is one thing. The federal government can of course have agreements with the provinces, but this bill is clearly not aligned with the energy transition, despite the fact that we tried to improve and enhance it.

     If the government were really interested in the energy transition, most of the strategies included in its budget would not be intended to support the oil and gas industry, but rather to support the clean energy sector, which is not the case. The government would have agreed to amend the bill to prioritize clean energy over fossil fuels. They do not want to prioritize low-carbon-intensity projects over oil and gas projects, even for new and future projects. That is obviously why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill, which is bad for the environment.

    Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources with the member for Jonquière, and he is very passionate about what he believes in. On the oil and gas issue, we would have the exact opposite views. I think we are blessed with a beautiful oil and gas resource here in this country that needs to be used responsibly. As we have seen from our oil and gas producers, they do it responsibly. We have the cleanest and most ethically produced oil and gas in the world.

    On another issue, the issue of proper consultation, I wonder if the member could comment a little further on whether he thinks the Liberal government allowed proper consultation with our fishers and also our lobster harvesters.

    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.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very interesting, and I listened with agreement regarding much of what he said.

    One of the concerns that I have is that we are seeing a lack of actual, meaningful action by the current government to make sure that Canada can be leading on renewable energy. The member will have heard me say many times in the House how disappointed I am with the Province of Alberta and with the premier, Danielle Smith, for pausing renewables in my province.

    However, I am also concerned when I see things like the Liberals promising investment tax credits to kick-start a clean energy economy. They promised that in 2023, and we still have seen nothing. Instead, companies are looking to the south, where there are those credits and that investment. I wonder if the member could comment on how that would be helpful for making sure that Canada can be a leader in a new economy.

    Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

    If we look at the federal government's strategies in the past three or four years, clean energy has never been at the centre of those strategies.

    In the latest budget, we saw tax credits pop up for clean electricity. Those will apply this year. We shall see what that looks like. However, the bulk of the federal government's strategy, the bulk of the financial support—earlier I was talking about $83 billion by 2035—is being offered to the oil and gas sector to support a pipe dream, the low-carbon oil pipe dream.

    Environmentalists all agree that we need to cut oil production. Meanwhile, the federal government is investing in increasing production and trying to reduce carbon intensity. It defies all logic. The oil being produced is going to be burned somewhere. It is going to generate greenhouse gases.

    Canada is one of the countries that invests the least in renewable energy, and we are also one of the countries most heavily tied to the oil and gas sector. In the next 15, 20 or 30 years, much to Alberta's chagrin, it will be a disaster. Other countries are moving forward; they no longer even want to consume products that are made in Canada because of the disproportionately high carbon footprint.

    Somehow the Liberal government and the Conservative government do not seem to see it.

    Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite mentioned that the committee would have liked to fly to Newfoundland to meet with the people at the energy boards and whatnot.

    Could he please inform the House what that plane burns to get Newfoundland?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many litres of fuel it takes to get to Newfoundland and Labrador. The committee did not make it there. If the aim was to have consultations, perhaps they should have made it there.

     However, I can say that I have to drive for six hours every time I travel from Saguenay to Ottawa, and I do it in an electric car. I invite my colleague to do the same when he goes back home.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to get some clarification from the member if I can. What the member was actually telling me in his answer was that there are conditions where Ottawa, or a political party in Ottawa, can be in opposition to what a province wants. Therefore, even though Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia want this legislation passed, because of the policy of the Bloc, its members believe that it is not in Canada's best interests to see it passed.

    Would that same principle apply for all provinces?

    Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the federal government is using this bill as environmental window dressing. The bill has nothing to do with the energy transition. The federal government could have been honest in its presentation of the bill, clearly indicating that what it wanted was continuity in the offshore energy sector. In this case, continuity refers to oil and gas projects.

     Nowhere in the bill does it say that there will be no more new projects. We tried to make the federal government aware of the situation and encourage it, like Quebec, to say that there would be no more oil and gas development. That is what I am trying to explain to the parliamentary secretary. The federal government could have done that, since offshore activities fall under its jurisdiction.

     However, the federal government is not as squeamish when it comes to the issue of caribou in Quebec. The Minister of Natural Resources has a lot to say about that. He knows very well that the delicate issue of the woodland caribou should be resolved in Quebec and that it could be a disaster for large numbers of small communities whose economies rely on the forestry industry. I would like him to be more conciliatory when it comes to the issue of caribou.

    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—

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Peter Julian: Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague says we will be so again, but we are actually going for government. We are fine to leave the Conservatives as the official opposition, which they are currently. I wish I could say they are an effective opposition, but they are not effective at all.

    The reality is that we had an ability for clean energy to thrive in Alberta that was nixed by the premier of the province. I think, right across the country, people would ask why she would do that and hurt her own province. However, I will leave that debate to the Alberta legislature at another time.

    Coming back to the United States, since President Biden was elected, there has been an announcement of $240 billion, a quarter of a trillion dollars, in new clean energy manufacturing investments. The private sector has announced $110 billion in clean energy manufacturing investments, including more than $70 billion in the electric vehicle supply chain and more than $10 billion in solar manufacturing.

    We certainly see the reaction from Conservatives. They do not want to see these kinds of investments taking place in Canada, but the reality is that having a quarter of a trillion dollars in private sector investments in clean energy in the United States shows the incredible potential. According to a variety of estimates, the Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to be creating 1.5 million additional jobs.

    I come back to the issue of Danielle Smith cancelling and basically stopping 33 billion dollars' worth of clean energy investment in Alberta and however many hundreds of thousands of jobs that would have resulted in. Again, it is a decision that makes no sense at all; Conservatives will have to explain why anyone would want to cut on something that could have been a real path for prosperity.

    As a result of President Biden's plan, the U.S. is now on a path to meet the goal of cutting emissions 50% to 52% below 2005 levels by 2030, as well as reaching net-zero emissions by no later than 2050. I contrast that, of course, with the utter failures of the Harper government and the current government. Both have utterly failed in bringing down emissions. Canada has a very poor track record.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Peter Julian: 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.

    Mr. Speaker, I have so many reasons to be proud of my alma mater, and today, I rise to share with Canadians just one: International Students Overcoming War, or ISOW, at Wilfrid Laurier University.

    ISOW was started by Laurier students in 2014, and in the years since, students have contributed to sponsor refugee and at-risk students living in conflict zones, covering both living and tuition costs for recipients. To date, 34 students have been sponsored from eight different countries, including Somalia and Myanmar, with a 100% graduation rate.

    My thanks to Dr. Gavin Brockett for his leadership and support of those incredible students.

    Let us recognize the powerful impact of initiatives like ISOW and support their work, like a recent proposal that includes supporting women from Gaza, because by helping them, we are helping build a more compassionate future for all.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and celebrate a great Canadian. Tomorrow, Sir Graham Day celebrates his 91st birthday.

    Graham is considered one of Canada's greatest corporate leaders, and he has contributed here at home and across the pond in the United Kingdom. He grew up in Halifax, and after graduating from Dalhousie University with his law degree, he started a practice in Windsor, before he was recruited to work with CP Railway and was eventually headhunted to serve as the CEO of British Shipbuilders.

    Graham has advised two United Kingdom governments, including Margaret Thatcher's efforts to privatize major industrial assets in the 1980s. He served as the chairman and CEO for the Austin Rover Group, Cadbury Schweppes and British Aerospace.

    Graham remains the last Canadian to be knighted. He is an inductee of the Canadian Business Hall of Fame, a recipient of the Order of Nova Scotia and an Officer of the Order of Canada. He is passionate about military service and was appointed the honorary Colonel of the West Nova Scotia Regiment.

    Beyond all of his accomplishments, he is a heck of a guy.

    Happy birthday, to Graham and his family back home in Hantsport.

    Mr. Speaker, absurd, asinine, foolish, bonkers and deranged are synonyms for wacko, and they are exactly the correct adjectives to describe nine years of the Prime Minister's policies and behaviours.

    Hiking the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre is wacko. Letting people smoke meth next to kids in parks is wacko. Creating the censorship laws that Margaret Atwood calls “creeping totalitarianism” is wacko. Two million people accessing a food bank a month in Canada is wacko. Repeat violent offenders walking free and terrorizing communities is wacko. Tent cities—

    I do not mean to interrupt the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha, but I understand that there was no translation.

    There is now translation, and I will ask the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha to start her statement again. However, as the Chair was distracted for a second, I hope the hon. member will make sure that her Standing Order statement will not refer to an individual member. She can talk to a policy, but not about a member.

    The hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha can start from the top.

    Mr. Speaker, absurd, asinine, foolish, bonkers and deranged are synonyms for wacko, and they are exactly the adjectives that describe nine years of the Prime Minister's policies and behaviour.

    Hiking the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre is wacko. Letting people smoke meth next to kids in parks is wacko. Creating censorship laws that Margaret Atwood calls “creeping totalitarianism” is wacko. Two million people accessing food banks each month in Canada is wacko. Repeat violent offenders walking free and terrorizing communities is wacko. Tent cities being the norm in Canada is wacko.

    We cannot manage reality if we do not acknowledge it. Wacko chaos is the reality after nine years of the Prime Minister; he is dangerous. Conservatives will fight every single day to restore public safety, to restore affordability and to restore common sense.

    Mr. Speaker, CHOQ FM is the only fully francophone local community radio station in Toronto. It is located in my riding, Davenport.

     On May 1, 2024, it celebrated 18 years of service to francophones, sharing their history, participating in current affairs and building a solid francophone community in our city and across the country. CHOQ FM offers francophone citizens, leaders, companies and organizations in the greater Toronto area significant and essential visibility, both on the air and in social media.

     For these reasons and many more, I am extremely proud to pay tribute to CHOQ FM for everything it has done to support and revitalize francophone communities across Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honour an exceptional woman who is a shining star in her community, though she prefers to work behind the scenes.

     This positive and dynamic woman provides reassurance and uses her organizational skills to make things happen. I am talking about Diane Charrette, who has been active in her community since age 15. Over the years, she has energized the communities of Saint‑Édouard, Yamachiche and then Sainte‑Ursule.

     Through her involvement in organizations like the Optimist Club, the youth softball club and the FADOQ seniors' club, this amazing woman has always been a real dynamo, pitching in with infectious enthusiasm.

     She is also legendary for making a soup that can warm hearts as well as bellies. This devoted and ever-present mother is also a top-notch administrator. Her ready smile, her warmth and her ability to bring people together make her a joy to one and all.

     For all those qualities, I say kudos and thank you to Diane.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel Boucher, who is retiring after 30 years as executive director of the Société de la francophonie manitobaine.

     He took up this position at the height of the language crisis in Manitoba. This situation motivated him to dedicate his career to striving to make a difference in the francophone community and to advance the cause of Franco-Manitobans.

     Under his leadership, Franco-Manitobans secured several major gains, including the creation of their own school division in 1994 and the passage of Bill C‑5, an inclusive act that ensured the long-term vitality of Manitoba's francophonie.

     Fortified by these developments and by francophone immigration, Manitoba's francophone population is going strong, having grown from 11,000 in 1991 to over 112,000 today.

     I had the privilege of working with him and standing alongside him for several of the advancements he secured for Manitoba. I wish him a long retirement and offer my thanks. We owe him a great deal.

    Mr. Speaker, Sunday, May 5 is Dutch Heritage Day in Canada, and Liberation Day in the Netherlands. It is a time for Canada to honour the sacrifices made by our veterans who played an integral role in the liberation of the Netherlands from Nazi Germany in 1945. Battle of the Scheldt and the liberation of Arnhem were instrumental in freeing the Dutch from occupation.

     After World War II, hundreds of thousands of people made Canada their home, contributing to all aspects of Canadian society. There are now over a million Canadians of Dutch descent who can trace their history to these integral events, which shaped not only Canadian but Dutch identity alike.

     As co-chair of the Canada-Netherlands Friendship Group, I am pleased to recognize Dutch Heritage Day, to thank our veterans, and to recognize the lasting and growing bonds between our nations.

    Fijne Bevrijdingsdag. Happy Dutch Heritage Day.

    Mr. Speaker, on March 21, the Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or TCLCF, celebrated its 35th anniversary.

     Ever since the TCLCF was founded in our riding, Vimy, it has worked for the collective defence of women's rights and for improvements to our quality of life, while representing more than 30,000 Laval women.

     Over the years, its focus has broadened in response to political, economic and social developments in order to address emerging challenges facing women. It continues to fight systemic discrimination through education, awareness raising and community engagement.

     I would like to thank the board and its chair, Audrey Leclerc, as well as Marie-Eve Surprenant's entire team. I wish them a happy 35th anniversary and many more to come.

    Mr. Speaker, Richmond Hill has gone international.

     On Friday, April 26, Richmond Hill made history by welcoming the new headquarters of the United Nations University Institute for Water Environment and Health to our community. We celebrated this milestone with Minister of International Development, former ambassador Bugailiskis, Dr. Kaveh Madani, his worship, Mayor David West, the city and the UNU-INWEH team, as well as many community members.

    The inauguration remarks, followed by the signing of a joint statement, the flag-raising ceremony, the ribbon cutting and an insightful tour of the UNU's new headquarters in city hall, forever enshrined this event in the history of Richmond hill.

     This once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will unite top minds from academia and government worldwide to tackle water, environment and health challenges. I cannot envision a better location for its new campus, offering a world-class education for environmental sustainability, all made possible by the visionary leadership of Dr. Kaveh Madani and Mayor West.

    Mr. Speaker, on June 6, part of the world will gather to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Normandy landing. This moment of courage, sacrifice and solidarity marked an important turning point in the history of the Second World War.

     More than a hundred thousand men, filled with fear, landed on this beach to confront the enemy. Among them was the Régiment de la Chaudière, the only French Canadian unit to have taken part in the landing.

     Last September, Lieutenant-Colonel Bruno Gilbert became the 27th commander of this regiment. The native of Saint-Georges began his career at the Régiment de la Chaudière in 1986 as an infantry soldier and quickly rose in the ranks. After a stint as sergeant major of the 35th Canadian Brigade Group and being honoured as a member of the Order of Military Merit, he returned to the Régiment de la Chaudière. Mr. Gilbert also passed on his passion for science to youths as a teacher in Beauce-Appalaches CEGEP.

     I wish to congratulate Mr. Gilbert on his nomination and his contribution to the community. I wish him success in his new duties and thank him for proudly representing Beauce.

    Mr. Speaker, being a coastal province, we know that the sea does giveth and, sadly, does taketh away.

    On April 21, the first day of the lobster season in Lark Harbour in Newfoundland and Labrador, Trevor Childs, 44, and his nephew Nicholas Skinner, 28, set off to set their traps. On shore helping were Trevor's dad, his grandfather and some others, getting the traps ready to load aboard their boat for the young men to set off. However, the sea had another plan and swamped their boat. They perished in the cold waters.

    The small communities of Lark Harbour and York Harbour were in shock, but none more than their families.

     Trevor is leaving behind the love of his life, Joanna, and precious Carrie, 9; Addisyn, 6; and Reece, 2. Nicholas leaves the love of his life, Martina, along with his mom, dad, siblings and numerous other family members, friends and the entire fishing community of our province.

     Both of these young men loved the outdoors and all it offered. They were great contributors to their towns, always there to lend a hand.

    These tragedies impact everyone in small rural towns. In moments of loss, communities knit together to help the families heal and move on.

    May Trevor and Bruddy rest in peace.

    Mr. Speaker, after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government's soft-on-crime policies, crime, chaos and disorder have become the norm in our country. Thanks to Liberal bills, Bill C-75 and Bill C-5, violent crime is up 40% and extortion is up 218%.

     Towns and suburbs that were once peaceful are now being terrorized by gangsters. Just this week, a 19-year-old connected to a string of extortions was charged for three separate home shootings, including one where bullets hit a child's play room. He was arrested, charged and let out on bail. Guess what. Now he has fled the country.

    Canadians have lost faith in our justice system. Despite the Prime Minister 's inaction, extortion is a federal responsibility. The Criminal Code is federal. The RCMP responsible for catching these criminals is federal. The catch-and-release bail policies are also federal.

    Only common-sense Conservatives will reverse the damage, stop extortion and bring home safe streets for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, on April 7, we lost a proud British Columbian and great Canadian.

     The Hon. John Allen Fraser served as the 32nd Speaker of the House from 1986 to 1994 and for 21 years as the member of Parliament for Vancouver South. He was held in the highest regard by all who knew him. I and so many sought out his counsel on many public affairs.

    I was honoured to speak at his piping-out ceremony from the Seaforth Highlanders during my tenure as associate minister of national defence. I note that his bride of 59 years was Cate Findlay, not a family member but the right clan.

    John was a UBC-trained lawyer, minister of the Crown and the first Speaker to be elected by secret ballot. He was a voracious reader with a keen sense of humour, and an orator of note who loved the outdoors.

    As chief opposition whip and on behalf of a grateful nation, I thank Speaker Fraser for his service to our province and our country. My thoughts are with his friends and his three daughters Sheena, Anna and Mary, and their children, as they mourn his loss.

    I thank the hon. member for recognizing an extraordinary Canadian, John Allen Fraser.

    Mr. Speaker, May is Borderline Personality Disorder Awareness Month.

     Borderline personality disorder, or BPD, is a serious and complex mental illness stemming mainly from a chronic dysregulation of emotions. People who suffer from BPD, close to 2% of the population, have enormous difficulty controlling their emotions; as a result, they are all particularly sensitive and emotionally reactive.

     The Sashbear Foundation is committed to raising people's awareness about BPD. Since its creation by Lynn Courey and Mike Menu, this charitable organization has restored hope, taught skills and offered a community to more than 10,000 families that have been greatly affected by a loved one's mental health.

     Every year, the foundation organizes the Sashbear Walk, which gathers hundreds of sympathizers to create an orange sea of support, reduce stigmatization and raise awareness about this illness and our national mental health crisis.

     I urge my colleagues to visit sashbear.org to learn more about BPD.

    Mr. Speaker, teams from around the world are gathering in Calgary next week for the World Para Hockey Championship. I am so pleased to share that the starting goalie for Team Canada is none other than Adam Kingsmill from my home community of Smithers, B.C.

     Despite losing his leg in a tragic lawnmower accident when he was just a toddler, Adam became an accomplished athlete, playing softball, racing motocross and excelling at stand-up hockey, all with the incredible support of his parents Bobbie and Grange.

     In 2016, Adam caught the eye of Team Canada's coaches, who convinced him to try para hockey, or sledge hockey. Five years later, he brought home a silver medal from the world championship in the Czech Republic. He followed that up just a year later with another silver, this time at the 2022 Paralympic Games in Beijing, China.

     Adam's indomitable spirit, determination and achievement continue to inspire people across northern B.C. and across Canada. I hope my colleagues will join me in wishing him and his teammates the very best of luck at this year's world championships. Go Canada. Go Adam.

    Mr. Speaker, a woman from Saint‑Hyacinthe has made it into the Guinness Book of World Records. Jani Barré, who has a rare genetic disorder called osteogenesis imperfecta, completed her 10th marathon in a wheelchair in London.

    She completed the fastest women's wheelchair marathon in history, with a time of four hours, 19 minutes and 21 seconds, beating the record set in 1983 by a woman who happened to be an Olympian.

    Jani may have brittle bone disease, but she also has an iron will. Despite having suffered 157 fractures in her lifetime, she has been training for the past 20 years or so at her second home, the Saint‑Hyacinthe boxing club, which was founded by her father, Bernard.

    I am certain that she is not done yet. She is a model of unwavering determination and someone who should inspire us all.

    My dear friend Jani is a source of pride for our region and for all of Quebec.

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians are way past their breaking point. It is so bad that the CEO of Food Banks Canada now says that food banks are becoming unsustainable. Canadian food bank usage is at an historic high, two million people per month. Food banks cannot meet this demand.

     For people who have not been forced to the food banks and still utilize their local grocery store, let us consider some facts from a new report by Canada's food professor. Sixty per cent of Canadians are so desperate that they are eating expired or spoiled food. Twenty per cent of households with the lowest incomes use over 20% of their disposable income just to buy food.

    After nine years of short-sighted policies of the Liberal-NDP government, families are sliding deeper and deeper into debt. This is not the Canada that I grew up in and this is not the Canada in which we want to raise our children. Common-sense Conservatives would rebuild our economy and bring home lower prices for all Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, this February 7, we had a historic vote on my Motion No. 75 in the House of Commons.

    Unanimously, all members of Parliament, spanning various political affiliations and regions of our country, resoundingly gave unwavering support for declaring May as Polish Heritage Month and designating May 3 as Polish Constitution Day in Canada.

    Today, on Polish National Flag Day, parliamentarians from Canada and Poland, the Polish Embassy and Ambassador Dzielski, consuls general, the Canadian Polish Congress and the community at large came together to commemorate these milestones on Parliament Hill for the first-ever Polish flag raising.

     As we recognize and celebrate Polish Heritage Month and, on May 3, Constitution Day from coast to coast to coast, and with the Polish and Canadian flags flying proudly on Parliament Hill, I say, dziękuję bardzo, thanks very much, to the entire Polish Canadian community.

    [Member spoke in Polish]

    Mr. Speaker, when will the Prime Minister make it illegal to smoke crack in a hospital room? Just the date, please.

    Mr. Speaker, the Province of B.C. made a request for a temporary pilot project. B.C. now has concerns about that project, which we share. We are now working together to address those concerns. Opioid addiction is a tragedy that has affected far too many Canadian families. We have to work together to solve it, not score cheap partisan points off the pain of Canadians. There are no pilot projects anywhere else in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, because of the government's decision, it is no longer illegal to smoke crack, meth or shoot up heroin in public spaces in British Columbia like parks, hospitals and public transit. The British Columbia government has now begged the Prime Minister to reverse this decision

    I have a simple question: When will the Prime Minister once again make it illegal to smoke crack in a hospital room? Just the date.

    Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we believe in working together with Canadians to solve our country's most pressing problems. That is why earlier this week I was in touch with Premier Eby, and I assured him that we share his concerns. We are working urgently together to address them.

    Let us remember that opioid addiction is a tragedy afflicting so many Canadian families. Let us work together to help them, not to score cheap partisan points.

    Mr. Speaker, dangerous addictions are hurting Canadians. After the government's decision to change the law, overdose deaths shot up and drug-related crime went through the roof. Now the British Columbia government is asking for the government to reverse its decision. It is a simple question. It is a simple decision to make.

    One final time, on what date will the government make it illegal to smoke crack in a hospital room? Just the date.

    Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative House leader, I have actually been in touch with the Premier of B.C. about this truly pressing issue, and unlike the Conservatives, we are working collaboratively with the Province of B.C. We share its concerns and we are working together to support public health and public safety. What we are not doing is fundraising off the pain, death and suffering of Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, every day that this radical Prime Minister dithers on the deadly experiment of legalizing hard drugs is a day that more people die. Six people a day are dying in British Columbia.

    After nine years of this Prime Minister, Quebec is not immune to this crisis, which is affecting all regions of Canada. The Journal de Montréal reports that crack consumption is surging in Montreal and will increasingly start happening in public places.

    Will the Prime Minister put an end to his extremist experiment in legalizing hard drugs today and say no to any possibility of expanding it to Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, British Columbia requested a pilot project. B.C. now has serious concerns, which we share. That is why we are working urgently and closely with the province to address this concern.

    I want to point out that these are tragedies for families across Canada. It is important not to politicize Canadians' grief.

    Mr. Speaker, it is not politicizing to talk about syringes on the ground, distressing situations and unacceptable behaviour a stone's throw from a school in Montreal. We now know that the Prime Minister's radical experiment to legalize hard drugs in British Columbia, which was supported by the Bloc Québécois, has been catastrophic and deadly.

    The Bloc member for Joliette had this to say in the House: “The hope is that this pilot project will set a course”. The member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said that “the Bloc Québécois fully believes that it is a step in the right direction”.

    Quebec has no interest in going down that road. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will not follow the radical advice of the Bloc Québécois?

    Mr. Speaker, opioid addiction is a tragedy that we must address together by prioritizing public health and safety.

    Conservatives will simply say that our government's policy is extremist and radical. However, do my colleagues know who actually has extremist and radical policies? White supremacists and misogynists. It is time for the Conservatives to condemn policies that are truly extremist and radical.

    Mr. Speaker, La Presse reported today that CBC management is planning for closer ties between the English-language network and Radio-Canada.

    Radio-Canada is not in crisis. CBC is in crisis. Closer ties will mean concessions made at the expense of Quebec culture and Quebec creators. Our cultural identity will be taken away and we will be assimilated into English Canada's identity. This is a very dangerous slippery slope.

    Will the Prime Minister reassure francophones in Quebec and Canada that the government has no intention whatsoever of merging CBC and Radio-Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague for his question because we have the same concerns as all Canadians and especially all Quebeckers about the French language and Quebec culture.

    I can assure all Canadians that French-language broadcasting will not be touched. That is a priority for us.

    Mr. Speaker, we have an idea. Instead of merging aspects of CBC and Radio-Canada, how about making them more independent from each other? CBC has one set of problems, and Radio-Canada has another. The two of them do not have the same cultural identity, the same audience or the same corporate culture. They are two completely different entities. The Liberal-appointed CBC execs' proposal would weaken Radio-Canada to shore up CBC. The ultimate outcome will be assimilation of the francophone public broadcaster.

    Why not make them two completely separate Crown corporations?

    Mr. Speaker, we share the concerns about the French language, francophone culture and Quebec culture in Canada. We will always work hard to support the French language, francophone culture in Canada and francophone Quebec culture. We will always support Radio‑Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, another report, another failure. Under this Minister of Environment, Canada will miss its greenhouse gas emissions targets. That is not surprising.

    Everyone will remember the Liberals' environmental legacy: the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, throwing $34 billion of our money away on one big pipe; the billions more thrown at the oil companies; the waste of public money; the pollution; the ravaging of our climate. The Minister of Environment must be so proud.

    Can the Liberals stop stringing us along and pretending to care about the climate crisis?

    Mr. Speaker, our government is doing more to fight climate change than any other federal government in the history of Canada. We put a price on pollution. We have a major, $93‑billion industry program to stimulate the green transition.

    We are and should be proud of what we are doing, and we know that more needs to be done.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been letting the ultrarich off the hook for years. However, thanks to the NDP's capital gains changes, the wealthiest will pay a little more, and the Conservative leader does not like this. Maybe that is why he is getting wined and dined tonight by Bay Street billionaires at a cash-for-access fundraiser. Like the Liberals, the Conservatives would rather hand out billions to wealthy CEOs than fund the services people really need.

    Why are the Liberals maintaining the Conservatives' corporate giveaways?

    Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the member opposite has raised an issue about which the Conservatives have been notably silent, and that is our increase in the inclusion rate on capital gains. We agree with the member opposite that it is just not fair for a nurse or carpenter to pay tax at a higher marginal rate than a multi-millionaire.

    However, I agree with the member opposite. I think the Conservatives support that kind of unfair tax policy.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal minister responsible for legalizing hard drugs is misleading Canadians. Yesterday she told Canadians that the Liberals were waiting for further information from British Columbia in response to B.C.'s request to end the legalization experiment. However, just yesterday, the B.C. minister responsible told us that it had responded to the government in just a few hours. This has happened when B.C. had 2,500 overdoses in just one year.

    Why are the Liberals misleading Canadians, and will they end their radical drug policy?

    Mr. Speaker, the opioid crisis is affecting communities and families across this country, and it is a tragedy. That is why the B.C. government approached the federal government for a three-year pilot program. B.C. communities are facing extremely serious challenges. People are dying from deadly street drugs, and public consumption is a concern.

    B.C. is amending its proposal, and we are supporting it in this work because that is what we do; we partner together to save lives. What is the Conservatives' plan?

    Mr. Speaker, they did partner together. They partnered together for a radical policy that has led to countless deaths. Imagine an elderly woman in hospital having to lie beside somebody who is smoking crystal meth—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I would ask the hon. member to start again. I am hearing voices from the far end of this room, and I cannot hear.

    The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo from the top.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister is correct. The Liberals partnered with the provincial NDP to create a crisis of unprecedented proportions that led to people dying due to the government's radical policy. After nine years, the Liberal-NDP government is flooding the market with free drugs. This is happening to our brothers, our sisters, our fathers, our mothers and our children. They are all being fuelled with addiction to the free drugs.

    Will the Prime Minister reverse course and end his radical experiment of legalization?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we work with our provincial jurisdictions to ensure the health and safety of Canadians in the face of the toxic drug supply. We are treating the matter with urgency, and all partners are working together to find a path forward as fast as possible to provide operational clarity for law enforcement, health care services and all those involved in saving lives.

    We want the same thing: public safety and access to public health care services for those who need it. Conservatives would cut everything; we are here to save lives.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal minister responsible for legal hard drugs in British Columbia is not being straight with Canadians. Yesterday she said she is waiting for more data from B.C. to decide whether she would reverse her decision to legalize drugs like cocaine, opioids and fentanyl in parks, playgrounds and hospitals. The B.C. NDP confirmed yesterday that it answered the Liberal government's request for more data within hours. After nine years of the Prime Minister, drug deaths tragically rose 380%. It is as if that were not enough data.

    Why will the Liberals not be honest with Canadians and just end their radical drug policies?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we speak to our provincial counterparts, the experts and those with lived and living experience. The member for Carleton will not even meet with Moms Stop the Harm or other experts and those who are advocating for their families and their lives.

    We continue to work with our B.C. counterparts. They have provided amendments to their proposals, and we are working together to face the public consumption issues.

    Mr. Speaker, I speak to residents in my communities, and the minister is not listening to British Columbians. She did not listen to B.C. mayors who wanted to stop open drug use in their communities a year ago. She is not listening to B.C. parents horrified to find crack pipes and needles near schools and playgrounds.

    A student project from a school in my community had students writing to me about issues important to them. Unbelievably, crime and open drug use was the number one issue. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

    Why will the Liberals not be honest with Canadians and just end their radical drug policy?