Moved third reading of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak at third reading about 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.

Today, Canada finds itself in a unique position. Around the world and in the context of the transition from fossil fuels that is occurring, major investment is flowing toward renewable energy projects. This is creating jobs and economic opportunity, and this is particularly true for the offshore wind industry.

With the longest coastlines in the world and wind speeds rivalled only by those of the North Sea, where this industry began, there is every reason why Canada should benefit from this investment.

In my province, with its portfolio of offshore oil and gas projects, prospective projects and onshore hydroelectric resources, the 2019 Premier’s Economic Recovery Team, of which I was proud to be a member, identified the potential for wind energy projects to assist in green energy self-sufficiency. The report concluded that this would drive investment and employment in low-carbon and green manufacturing and processing industries, including in the hydrogen space.

Five years later, I am proud to say that onshore wind projects are now proceeding through the provincial regulatory process. If these projects are approved and sanctioned, they will help my province achieve green energy self-sufficiency, benefit the economy and improve the livelihoods of families and communities across the province.

Colleagues, I am urging you to support Bill C-49 so the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the rest of Canada can capitalize on the enormous economic opportunities that will come from offshore wind, an industry that will soon be worth $1 trillion worldwide. This important legislation will establish the necessary frameworks to enable the development of offshore wind energy projects to proceed in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

Colleagues, the pace of wind energy development is increasing. The U.K. has set its intention to bring forward new offshore wind developments that have the potential to deliver up to 20 to 30 gigawatts of extra offshore wind seabed leases to the market by 2030. The U.K.’s most recent auction to allocate contracts for clean energy projects concluded earlier this month and has been its most successful to date, with nearly five gigawatts of capacity expected to come from offshore wind.

Many countries are eager to seize their share of this trillion-dollar opportunity. Recently, New Zealand had a particularly dry summer, which triggered lower-than-usual hydroelectricity production and record power prices, mobilizing efforts to get the country’s offshore wind sector off the ground. Australia handed out feasibility licences to six offshore wind projects in April of 2024. In the United States, the Biden administration set an offshore wind target of 30 gigawatts by 2030. Last month, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced plans to hold an offshore wind energy lease sale this October for two areas off the coast of southern Oregon. These two new areas, if fully developed, could together power approximately one million homes.

In total, the U.S., the EU and the U.K. have over 340 projects already in development, and it is estimated that China possesses nearly half of the world’s offshore wind capacity today.

An analysis by the International Energy Agency confirms the surge in the offshore wind energy industry over the last decade. According to their analysis, it now produces almost twenty times the energy in 2021 that was being produced in 2010. It also predicts the offshore wind industry will be worth $1 trillion by 2040.

Offshore wind will also help power the burgeoning hydrogen sector, which is projected to be worth almost $12 trillion by 2050. This is a massive economic opportunity for Canada, for coastal provinces, for our highly skilled workers and for our planet.

Atlantic Canada is ready to join the world in moving forward with offshore wind energy, creating a strong and profitable offshore wind and hydrogen sector that will drive jobs, economic opportunity and help us to assist our European partners in decarbonizing and improving energy security. The first step is to pass Bill C-49 at third reading.

Bill C-49 is the product of years of collaboration and negotiation between the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and the federal government, a true example of cooperative federalism at its best. In fact, Nova Scotia has already passed their own mirror legislation, and Newfoundland and Labrador must pass their own to bring these joint management measures into effect.

This legislation is the next step in a joint commitment made between the federal government and these two provinces in the 1980s when each province signed an accord with the Government of Canada, pledging to work together in managing the offshore oil and gas sectors of each province.

They also created two joint federal-provincial bodies to manage offshore oil and gas development, which are the regulators in established and mature regulatory regimes.

As you’ve heard before, Bill C-49 would broaden their mandates by authorizing them to regulate offshore renewable energy. These agreements provide equal authority to the provinces and the federal government over the management of offshore energy resources — a proven joint management system that is almost 40 years old — with the principal beneficiaries being the two coastal provinces. In the same spirit of those two pieces of historic legislation, the Government of Canada has developed Bill C-49 hand in hand with these two provinces.

Nova Scotia has already passed its mirror legislation and stated its intention to launch a competition next year for offshore land leases, with the hope of putting enough turbines in place to produce five gigawatts of power — enough for roughly 1.5 million homes, three times the number of households in the entire province.

Tory Rushton, Nova Scotia’s Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables was clear when he spoke to the Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources in June 2024, calling offshore wind and green hydrogen, “. . . game changers for Nova Scotia.”

The Honourable Andrew Parsons, Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, has every confidence in Newfoundland and Labrador’s workforce being able to thrive in the offshore wind industry. In June 2024, he told the Senate standing committee where to look for examples of a strong and capable workforce:

Look no further than every major resource project in our province, which have all been built by a highly skilled workforce, strengthened by a world-class supply and service sector and supported by our internationally recognized offshore education and training. We can take an abundant renewable resource like our wind resource and build a new sector that will both create jobs and reduce carbon emissions.

Honourable colleagues, with our world-class offshore wind resources, the future for the offshore wind energy industry in Canada has arrived.

Colleagues, according to the Public Policy Forum, the installation of 15 gigawatts of offshore wind generation would create an average of approximately 30,000 direct jobs annually. Net Zero Atlantic estimates 5,000 jobs will be created at the onset of this industry.

Investors have already shown intense interest in being a part of this industry, many of whom are focusing on potential opportunities on Canada’s East Coast. This bill will help secure those investment dollars that are coming to Canada.

Both provinces have received the attention of EverWind Fuels. In summer 2023, the company announced a Nova Scotia project that would produce green ammonia in partnership with Indigenous groups. The project plans to use onshore wind to supply its power in the second phase of the project and then switch to offshore wind for phase three.

Local communities are already reaping the rewards. Paqtnkek First Nation, Potlotek First Nation and Membertou First Nation have all partnered on the project. More than $100 million was invested by EverWind into the region to support the project last year.

And it will be one of the largest employers along the Strait of Canso, employing more than 100 skilled workers. The company is also working to develop training programs and a green hydrogen educational curriculum at local education centres.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, EverWind is also pursuing a green hydrogen project, partly influenced by their successful experience in Nova Scotia. This newer initiative would be considered a sister project, located on the Burin Peninsula.

Four potential projects in the province have been given the go-ahead to apply to use Crown land for their onshore wind projects. To put the potential of offshore wind projects in context, it’s expected that if all four are successful, the total capital that could be spent on these projects could be as high as $66 billion. Collectively, they could add $206 billion to the GDP and create provincial revenues of almost $1 billion. During the busy construction phases, job opportunities will top out at over 11,000 full-time equivalent positions.

While this legislation will create new economic opportunities, this bill ensures it is done so in a way that consults Indigenous peoples, protects the livelihoods of fishers and protects the environment.

The duty to consult on any matter that affects the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples throughout the life cycle of offshore renewable energy projects is one that is taken seriously.

Consultation and engagement will be required in the regional assessments; the wind energy area identification processes; call for information processes; impact assessments and Accord Act assessments for specific projects; regulatory authorizations and permitting decisions; and in the development of regulations and other tools.

Bill C-49 allows the offshore energy regulators to establish participant funding programs for Indigenous groups. This gives the regulators further ability to engage and consult with Indigenous groups, as well as build meaningful relationships with Indigenous groups whose rights may be affected by offshore energy projects.

As someone who began her career in the fishing industry and was raised in Port de Grave — a vibrant fishing community — protecting this vital industry and those who work in it is personal to me. The Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are both staunch advocates and defenders of the fishing industry, as they stated in their testimony to our Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.

Clause 28 and clause 137 provide the federal and provincial ministers, together, with tools to protect fishers and important ecosystems. Additional clauses include specific considerations for fishers in the submerged land licence process, establish a compensation regime and ensure that fishers are engaged throughout environmental and regional assessment processes.

Additionally, the offshore regulators in both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have long-established relationships with fishers built through their collaborative work in the offshore petroleum sector. Nova Scotia’s regulator has established a Fisheries Advisory Committee for this very purpose. These relationships will continue as they have for the past 30 years.

Fishing activities have successfully coexisted alongside offshore energy development in Canada for decades. In the United Kingdom, fishing activities continue to occur within offshore wind project areas. There is no reason these two ocean industries cannot coexist here with the stable and mature regulatory regimes we already have in place.

I’d like to confirm that Bill C-49 will ensure that marine protection and conservation are important considerations in this bill. The elements of the bill related to marine conservation have received support from many organizations, including SeaBlue Canada, which is a collaborative organization that includes several of Canada’s most active and well-respected non‑governmental organizations, with the united goal of holding Canada’s government accountable for equitable, impactful and ambitious marine protection.

Of course, pursuing wind energy isn’t at the expense of the oil and gas industry. Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to produce the low-carbon petroleum that the world needs as long as global demand exists. But this important energy sector is looking to diversify to include wind energy, clean hydrogen and other renewable energy sources as the economy continues to shift to green technologies.

Honourable colleagues, Bill C-49 is transformational. It will align the regulation of offshore renewable energy and non‑renewable energy resources under a mature and established regulatory scheme, and it will help enable us to decarbonize our electricity industry, shift us toward electrical power, build our hydrogen sector and create thousands of new sustainable employment opportunities for Canadians.

If Canada is to fulfill its promise to attain net-zero emissions by 2050, offshore wind energy has a crucial role to play while providing a significant economic opportunity that Canadians can capitalize on along the longest coastline in the world. The opportunity before us, represented in Bill C-49, is of national and global significance. As Tory Rushton, the Nova Scotia Minister of Natural Resources and Renewables, testified at the Senate committee hearing, it offers Atlantic Canada the “. . . greatest economic opportunity since the age of sail.”

In closing, I urge each of my honourable colleagues to support the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia — and all Canadians — and vote to adopt Bill C-49. Thank you.

Senator Deacon, will you take a question to set the record straight?

Thank you. Was it, in fact, Senator White who referenced 12 communities not being consulted, or perhaps it was Senator Prosper in Nova Scotia?

It’s very important to my community. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I wish to express my support for Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

In 2021, Nova Scotia passed the Environmental Goals and Climate Change Reduction Act.

This statute legislates a number of climate change targets for the next decade, including phasing out coal-fired electricity generation and generating 80% of electricity from renewables by 2030. In 2023, Nova Scotia Power generated 42.5% of its electricity from renewables.

I listened carefully to the questions and concerns raised by Senator Prosper in committee, particularly about section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Like many of my colleagues, I agree that consultations with Indigenous communities should always be mandatory.

Since I come from a coastal community where fishing is very important, I want to share some of the concerns expressed by commercial fishers. This industry is a major economic driver in Nova Scotia. It generates almost $2 billion in revenue and provides tens of thousands of jobs. According to the Nova Scotia finance department, $2.5 billion in seafood products were exported in 2022.

Nova Scotia has also set a target for offshore wind energy production of up to five gigawatts by 2030. That’s enough energy to power 3.75 million homes.

In fact, there are already more than 300 commercial wind turbines generating electricity in Nova Scotia, with an estimated production capacity of 603 megawatts.

Given Canada’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, it is vital that we increase our green energy projects. Offshore wind energy is a key part of that. Bill C-49 is part of a wider international movement to adopt safer, carbon-neutral energy sources.

In conclusion, I will be voting in favour of Bill C-49.

Thank you. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, today I rise to speak to Bill C-49, the 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, not as a Nova Scotian, a Newfoundlander or Labradorian, but as a New Brunswicker. Many of you may ask what New Brunswick has to do with this bill. I see the economic benefits of this bill as more far-reaching than for just those two provinces. I see the impact it will have on Atlantic Canada as a whole.

I will begin my remarks by stating that I support this bill and intend to vote in favour of it. As many have already stated in this chamber and in committee, this bill is critical to the development of offshore wind energy and renewables in Atlantic Canada and will provide enormous economic opportunities in our region.

For example, six months after Newfoundland and Labrador lifted its 15-year moratorium on the development of wind power, 31 submissions for land-based wind energy projects were received. Now imagine what this would look like if expanded to offshore projects.

Some organizations predict that global offshore wind energy capacity may increase fifteenfold, but, despite having one of the longest coastlines in the world, Canada has no offshore wind infrastructure currently in operation. We have to start somewhere, and businesses stand at the ready to invest in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and contribute to a greener energy future in Canada.

This bill truly has the ability to change the energy landscape. From labour needs and supply chain resources to business innovation and renewables, these future projects will have an impact on all of us. I commend Senator Petten and others for their hard work on this bill. This can also serve as an inspiration or a path forward for other coastal provinces and communities when advocating to move into the space of offshore wind energy.

However, I have concerns about the process of this bill. It has been stated by the government that they enjoy support from Indigenous communities, which is true. There are communities in support of it, and I don’t want to downplay their support and the work they’ve done. However, this isn’t about individual projects or bands giving support or not giving support; this is about a consultation process that we must go through.

Throughout the development of this bill, the government and the minister have been careful to say they engaged with Indigenous communities. Colleagues, “engagement” has no legal definition and no duty associated with it. What has been absent throughout this entire process is true consultation. In fact, even our own Energy Committee struggled to include Indigenous consultation throughout the study. I commend my colleague Senator Prosper, who could not be here today, for recognizing the need for Indigenous witnesses and highlighting the blind spots in this bill when it comes to consultation.

What consultation would look like is the federal government participating in the already-established Terms of Reference for a Mi’kmaq-Nova Scotia-Canada Consultation Process, also known as the Made-in-Nova Scotia Process.

What engagement looked like was two letters from Natural Resources Canada dated September 7, 2022, and May 26, 2023. Engagement and consultation are two different things. Words matter, and, colleagues, in reviewing legislation that impacts Canadians, we are in the business of language.

It concerns me that we hear time and time again from federal governments, “trust us,” “we promise,” “you have my personal commitment,” and that whatever legislation is before us is too important to slow down. But when is it enough?

In asserting their treaty rights, the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs have been placed in a position where they are deemed to be delaying important legislation, pitting economic prosperity for Nova Scotians against Mi’kmaw in their fight to assert their rights.

Colleagues, while I will definitely be voting in favour of this bill, the government needs to do better. Consultation isn’t something that’s nice to do, but something we must do. “Trust us” and promises aren’t good enough.

Thank you, woliwon.

Honourable senators, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

Aside from the Terms of Union when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949, the Atlantic Accord is the most consequential piece of legislation for my province. Bill C-49 fundamentally changes the Accord Acts, the accords that this bill seeks to amend. Those accords, as one of the witnesses at committee described them, are “the most important piece of legislation enacted in the last four decades for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.”

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney, who signed the Atlantic Accord, wrote in his memoirs:

I fulfilled a pledge I’d made eight months before as opposition leader when I told the people of —

— Newfoundland and Labrador —

— that I believed that both the federal government and provincial government should play equal roles in the management of offshore resources.

This was no small matter. At the stroke of a pen, my have-not province earned the chance for economic viability and would add another resource with which we could build our future. The Atlantic Accords are an example of federal legislation having an enormous impact on provincial matters, and any federal bill, like Bill C-49, that tries to modify those accords needs the full attention of all those who live in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Today, the offshore industry that sprung from the Atlantic Accords directly accounts for more than 4,000 jobs in my province and thousands more indirectly — and not just in my province: For every direct job in the offshore petroleum industry, 1.8 jobs are created in the rest of Canada.

It is also a significant contributor to our provincial treasury. In 2023 alone, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador was expected to receive $1.2 billion in royalties from offshore oil production. That amounts to approximately 15% of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador’s budget and far more from taxes to individuals and companies.

Offshore operators spent an estimated $1.6 billion in capital investment in the region. It plays an important role in our provincial economy, accounting for 25% of our GDP and the export of over $9 billion in oil and refined petroleum products. In fact, oil and gas together make up 41% of Newfoundland and Labrador’s exports.

It plays an important role in Canada’s economy. We are the third-largest oil producer in the country, and St. John’s, our capital, is the centre of the oil and gas industry in Eastern Canada and one of 19 World Energy Cities.

As I mentioned, for every direct job in the offshore oil and gas industry, 1.8 jobs are created in the rest of Canada.

I want you to think about this next fact, honourable colleagues: Newfoundland’s offshore oil and gas industry and the Atlantic Accords that brought it into being directly led to Newfoundland and Labrador being a net payer into the Canadian interprovincial transfer system for the first time ever in 2008. That fulfilled a vision of then-citizen Brian Mulroney, who, in 1981, in a speech to Memorial University, said:

There is an industrial base here that one day soon will be the envy of many; hydro power, oil and gas, fisheries, mining, pulp and paper, tourism — you have it all.

And he was right. We have a lot to thank for to Mr. Mulroney in having given us the accords, and we have a lot to thank for to former premier Brian Peckford, the only remaining living signatory of the document. I have quoted you the words of Mr. Mulroney, who would have applauded adding renewables to the Atlantic Accords but, I think, would have been appalled at the inclusion of clause 28 as being contrary to the spirit of the original accords.

We don’t have to guess how Mr. Peckford would have felt. I quoted his letter to MPs when I spoke at the report stage last week, and I don’t need to repeat them. They are in the record, and they are clear. He sees a betrayal of our province by our representatives who support the dismantling of a robust investment in our most economically important industry.

I also outlined both in committee and here in the chamber why I think the Senate should have supported the bill as amended by the committee. I won’t repeat those arguments at length here other than to say that the bill unamended will create enough uncertainty for investors in the oil and gas industry to consider the risk in Canada’s offshore unacceptable. That was clearly the design of the clause and had nothing to do with renewable energy.

Honourable colleagues, we imperil the spirit of the Atlantic Accords — and, with it, the astounding economic viability of Newfoundland and Labrador — at our own and at the country’s risk. What is most surprising is that we do it so unnecessarily. We could have modernized the accords to include renewables — something everyone, including me, supports — without at the same time slipping in a clause, through stealth, that damages our offshore oil and gas industry, an industry that is going to be vital to our energy needs for decades to come. Whether we like it or not, it also happens to be vital to Canada’s economic well-being, not to mention many other resource-rich countries that will be more than happy to supply the world’s needs when we don’t.

There is no doubt there is a global consensus on transition, but we need to do so methodically, purposefully and thoughtfully. Whatever you say about the petroleum industry, as an energy supply, it is effective, efficient and established. It is a proven source of abundant energy that supplies the world. The same cannot be said for renewables at this stage. We are in the exploratory phase, still figuring things out. The most effective, promising source of clean energy for the future, nuclear power, is verboten among climate activists. We cannot abandon the former while transitioning to the latter. That is hardly a radical or extreme position; it is simply prudent policy.

Those who spoke against the report last week assured us that there was nothing to see here. Clause 28 does not, they argued, give the federal minister unilateral power to cancel licences on a whim. As Senator Petten, sponsor of the bill, put it when arguing against the report:

At committee, it was indicated that with respect to the Atlantic Accords, there wasn’t a joint management decision, and the minister could cancel. This was untrue, not understanding that it has to be a joint decision. . . .

You’ll have to excuse me if I am not overly convinced by all of this. The Trudeau government has been an environmentally activist government from the day it took office, introducing bills like Bill C-48, the oil tanker ban, and Bill C-69, enacting the Impact Assessment Act, also known as the “no more pipelines act,” casting aside legitimate objections to both of those bills as if they didn’t exist only to find that many of the objections were valid, particularly in the case of Bill C-69, the constitutionality of which was struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada. Yet, Bill C-49, the bill before us, references the Impact Assessment Act 73 times.

Those bills were direct attacks on Canada’s oil and gas industry, and it is surely no coincidence that the current federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change is a card-carrying environmental activist whose activities prior to entering politics included being charged for his activism — like those today, arrested for throwing paint on priceless works of art because they believe it will advance their cause.

So you’ll have to excuse me if I am not convinced by those who argued against the amended report last week; it is quite the opposite. I found it curious that some of those who told us there is nothing to see in clause 28 to upset the oil and gas industry, in the same breath, used it as an opportunity to fan the flames of climate alarmism. Senator Kutcher characterized my prudent position as “drill, baby, drill” — twice. That is neither an accurate nor a thoughtful portrayal of my objections to clause 28. And for someone who is telling me I have nothing to worry about, it reveals to me an underlying motive that indicates I have everything to worry about.

Senator Petten also used her argument against my amendment to ring the climate alarm bells, even as she assured us there was nothing to worry about in clause 28 and even though I have voiced my full-throated support for including renewable energy in the Atlantic Accords and my support for Bill C-49, generally.

She said:

Canada is warming two times faster than the rest of the world. The wildfires just last year blanketed Canada with smoke, burned over 18 billion hectares and displaced 200 communities and 232,000 Canadians.

The cost of natural disasters has ballooned by over 1,200% since the 1970s. . . .

Colleagues, you just heard me speak on Bill C-76, the actual cause of many wildfires in Canada.

We all thought that Bill C-49 was about renewables. I thought it was interesting that Senator Petten used 1970 as her benchmark. Steven Pinker, the author of Enlightenment Now, whom Prime Minister Trudeau called one of the world’s clearest and most vital thinkers, also uses 1970 in his seminal book to identify the dawn of “greenism,” which he calls “a quasi‑religious ideology.”

I came across a report from National Public Radio, which, as many of you know, is not actually a conservative organization; it is one of the most progressive media outlets in the United States today. That report is called “How The Smokey Bear Effect Led To Raging Wildfires.” It concludes, in a nutshell, that it is not climate change that is mostly responsible for the large forest fires we see today; it is bad decision making and bad policy. Forest fires were once natural and small, but once the U.S. Forest Service was formed around 1900, its marching orders were “no fires.” As the article on the report states:

. . . it was the experts who approved the all-out ban on fires in the Southwest. They got it wrong. . . .

“The irony here is that the argument for setting these areas aside as national forests and parks was, to a large extent, to protect them from fire . . . . Instead, over time they became the major habitat for free-burning fire.”

Again, colleagues, we have seen that over the last number of years. The article continues:

So instead of a few dozen trees per acre, the Southwestern mountains of New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah are now choked with trees of all sizes, and grass and shrubs. Essentially, it’s fuel.

And now fires are burning bigger and hotter. They’re not just damaging forests — they’re wiping them out. Last year, more than 74,000 wildfires burned over 8.7 million acres in the U.S.

I’m not arguing that climate change does not play a role, but the reasons for some things are far more complex than the climate alarmists are willing to acknowledge. We need to be prudent going forward on our policy approach fully aware of the unintended and sometimes intended side effects of that policy.

Steven Pinker champions an approach called eco-modernism, which begins with the realization that some degree of pollution is an inescapable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, meaning that no form of energy will avoid causing pollution, whether it be hydrogen power, electric power, wind power or oil and gas. We saw that with the various witnesses who came before our committee worried about what wind power would mean for our fisheries and bird population, and, of course, how to get rid of turbines at their end-of-life point. What we need to do is minimize that.

When it comes to oil and gas, our offshore industry remains the cleanest in the business. There is very little refining and in some cases no refining, no separation from sand, no pipelines or rail needed, modest and regulated flaring for safety purposes. I could go on, and I sometimes do.

In conclusion, colleagues, I want to be on the record saying that as we transition to new forms of energy, if we abandon the old too soon or too precipitously, we do so at our peril. Thank you.

I move the adjournment of the debate in the name of Senator Prosper.

I have a point of order. I thought a speech was delivered on behalf of Senator Prosper, and therefore, an adjournment by the same senator would be out of order.

Senator Prosper has the right to speak. He hasn’t spoken, and I don’t think there was a speech in the name of Senator Prosper.

I was under the impression that Senator Deacon of Nova Scotia spoke on his behalf. No? Thank you. Sorry.

It is moved by the Honourable Senator Tannas and seconded by the Honourable Senator Deacon Nova Scotia that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.

An Hon. Senator: On division.

(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on division.)