Taylor Bachrach

[Pharmacare Act, June 3rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands in his speech observed a unique Conservative critique that we have heard emerge. The Conservatives criticize policies as not being good enough, and then they vote against them entirely. If pharmacare is not perfect, the answer, in their minds, is no pharmacare whatsoever. If dental care excludes some Canadians, instead of amending or improving it, the answer is no dental care unless someone has private coverage. If Canada ranks 62nd out of 67 countries on climate change, then the answer is somehow to have no climate plan.

What does the member make of this unique logic?

[Persons with Disabilities, May 28th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities are still waiting for the government to protect their dignity and their safety when they travel with Canadian airlines. We have heard story after story about people being injured and mobility aids being broken or lost. What was the Liberals' response? They held a summit where there was yet again more talk and very little action. The only announcement from the summit was the airlines earnestly promising to do better in the future. The minister can do more than simply ask politely; he can lay down the law and set proper rules. Why does he refuse to do so?

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague seems like he may be confused about a few of the facts. I am just wondering if he might want to correct the record. First of all, he stated somewhat erroneously that all first nations along the corridor wanted the northern gateway pipeline. As someone who lives along the corridor of what was proposed to be the northern gateway pipeline, I can assure him that this is not true. It is a fact that is more usually ascribed to the Coastal GasLink pipeline, which is a totally different project. Most of the bands located along the pipeline route did sign agreements with the company, but not all of them. In fact, the Hagwilget band did not sign an agreement with that company, but that is fair enough.

He also referred to the largest private sector project in Canadian history as being the LNG Canada project, which is indeed true. It is a project I had a chance to tour a couple of weeks ago. However, he mentioned that it is in Prince Rupert, when actually it is in Kitimat. I just wonder if he would like to rise as a British Columbian and correct the record.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to understand where exactly the centre of gravity for Conservatives is on this particular bill because we heard earlier some of the member's colleagues saying they support the bill in principle, but they are disappointed that there are some amendments that did not get made at committee. They want it to go back.

Earlier in his speech, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan stated that this bill “is about furthering the government's anti-energy, antidevelopment agenda.” I am looking for clarity on whether Conservatives support the basic principle of the bill. The vote at second reading was on basic support in principle of the bill, and they voted I believe against it, which would suggest, consistent with the member's statement, that they do not support it in any way, shape or form.

Is that indeed the case? If so, how then are we to understand the comments of his colleagues who say they support it? I am trying to understand where you are coming from.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, listening to the interpretation, it is this: Do I believe that no environmental assessments should be carried out for new projects?

I am missing the question a little bit, but I think that the member and I share a desire to have a strong and effective environmental impact assessment process. If good-faith amendments were brought forward at committee that led in that direction, and they were not carried as part of the bill, then that is certainly disappointing. However, when it comes to the overall thrust of this legislation, I think it is to get the renewable energy industry off the ground in the maritime provinces and, overall, that is something that is heading in the right direction.

Now, the details, of course, are always what matters. When it comes to the impact on the environment, there is a lot of talk about streamlining, cutting red tape and all of these things, but that cannot come at the cost of the integrity of the review process.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but there are several parts to it.

Of course, we need more than good intentions and hopes and dreams; we do need results. However, I think the argument that somehow Canadian energy is going to displace dirtier forms of energy around the world has not been substantially validated and, in many ways, Canadian energy has a higher GHG intensity when we are talking about oil products than many other sources of oil around the world. So, it is a bit of a problematic argument when you look at the energy mix that we are exporting as a whole, but certainly there are opportunities to export. British Columbia exports renewable energy south to the United States, and there are opportunities for exporting green hydrogen, for instance. So, we need to look at that opportunity.

However, one of the biggest things we need to do is meet the targets the federal government promised the Canadian people that Canada would meet, and doing that means reducing our domestic emissions. One way to do that is to get off diesel power, get off coal power, and ensure that renewables are powering our electricity grid. I think that offshore wind and solar are ways that we can get there. It is a huge opportunity, and it is one we should not miss.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for a pretty novel critique of the bill that we have in front of us and the amendment that has been put forward by her party. I have not followed this as closely as some, but it would seem that, if there were infringements into provincial jurisdiction, premiers, such as the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland, would be concerned about that. I would also note that my understanding is that the Supreme Court ruling ruled that Bill C-69 was unconstitutional as far as it infringes into areas of provincial jurisdiction, and that offshore, of course, is clearly a federal jurisdiction. When we talk about offshore projects, they do fall under federal jurisdiction.

However, my question is really around the timing, and the member noted the timing. The Supreme Court ruling came out in October of last year, and the bill before us was in committee starting in January. I did not follow the committee hearings, as I have two other committees I have to track. I am curious if these arguments came up at committee, and if so, what the response was, particularly by government witnesses or department officials who appeared at committee. This is out of honest curiosity.

[Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the speech by my colleague from Manitoba, and it was interesting because it reminded me of other times when we have had bills in the House that Conservative after Conservative got up and spoke against and then somehow all voted for. What kind of jolted me awake midway through the member's speech was that he said that he supported the bill, because everything he had said prior to that gave me the indication that he would not be supporting it. However, that is not my question.

Partway through his speech, the member raised the concern about importing oil from jurisdictions like Saudi Arabia, and he said that really we should be able to use our own oil for domestic use and not have to import oil from jurisdictions that we do not support for one reason or another, which is actually a premise that I support. However, my question, and the reason I think it gets raised time and time again as a red herring, is why the former Conservative government and the current Conservative Party have never brought forward a single proposal to ban or add tariffs to the importing of oil from countries like Saudi Arabia. Why is that?

[Voting Age, May 27th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, “If you can work, if you can pay tax, if you can serve in your armed forces, then you ought to be able to vote” were the words of U.K. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer just last week.

I mention his statement because this week, here in Ottawa, young people from across the country are gathering for the first-ever national Vote16 summit. The Vote16 movement around the world is growing because the issues being discussed in places like this have a profound impact on the lives of young people. It is growing because the evidence shows that when young people are empowered to vote, the voter turnout rate rises, which is a hallmark of a strong democracy. That is why the Northwest Territories' Chief Electoral Officer has recommended that the voting age be changed to 16 in that place, and it is why I tabled my bill, the right to vote at 16 act, here in Ottawa.

I want to wish all the young people gathering in Ottawa for the summit a productive session.