Moved the adoption of the report.

He said: Honourable senators, as per rule 12-23(4), I wish to provide brief remarks on the tenth report of the Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, which concerns Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The committee adopted the bill with amendments. As chair of the committee, it is my duty to explain those amendments.

The committee voted to delete clause 28, concerning petroleum and renewable energy activities in portions of the offshore area identified as areas for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection. This clause would have enabled the Governor in Council to prohibit the commencement or continuation of such activities in areas for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection. Clause 28 also stated that no licences would be issued for those zones. The committee also adopted consequential amendments to clause 7 that are directly related to the deletion of clause 28.

The committee agreed to adopt observations by the Honourable Senator Prosper about the importance of consultations with local Indigenous groups at key decision points throughout the decision-making process for offshore petroleum development projects and renewable energy projects.

Honourable senators, I rise today to speak against this report of the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. We know global supply chains are changing, financial markets are changing and the climate is changing. Canada is not immune nor sheltered from any of these changes, which is why we must make thoughtful, deliberate and expeditious choices now.

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. Just this past summer, damages from severe weather cost $7 billion alone, making it the most destructive season on record. The threat of climate change is indisputable, but for Canada, action on climate change doesn’t have to just mitigate floods, fires and drought. It also presents a significant economic opportunity. Already, we have seen global finance and global economy begin to rapidly transform in ways that are creating economic opportunities for those who approach the transition to a low carbon future in a thoughtful, focused manner.

Colleagues, we find ourselves in a global race to net zero. We must take action and establish the regulatory environments and support Canadian communities. Canadian companies need to compete in this race. If we don’t, investments will go elsewhere, and Canadians will miss out on this generational opportunity.

That is what Bill C-49 represents and delivers — a generational economic opportunity. This legislation puts in force regulatory frameworks to enable the development of offshore wind projects in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. It will create thousands of jobs for Atlantic Canada, attract enormous private sector investment, deliver economic benefits to Indigenous peoples, enable the future development of Canada’s clean hydrogen sector and help power Atlantic Canada’s economy with clean energy.

This bill is an example of cooperative federalism at its best. It is a product of close collaboration and negotiation between Canada and the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Colleagues, as we review this legislation, it is essential that we all appreciate the unique nature of Bill C-49. In order to function, this legislation requires mirror legislation to be passed in the provincial legislatures, which Nova Scotia has already done. The provinces are unanimous in their support for this legislation to be adopted without amendments. They both know what is at stake in the global race to net zero and the enormous economic benefits this legislation would bring to their communities.

The amendments put forward to Bill C-49, which remove clause 28 and a portion of the corresponding measures outlined in clause 7, put the enormous economic opportunities presented by this bill at risk. The amendments contained within this report go against the principle of joint management — which is at the heart of the Atlantic Accords — decrease regulatory certainty and limit both jurisdictions’ ability to protect marine environments and fishers.

Clause 28 provides tools to the federal minister and the Newfoundland and Labrador minister to together agree upon and make regulations on the issuance of licences or historical permits for offshore renewable energy or petroleum in an area that is or will be identified as an area for environmental or wildlife conservation or protection. Should both the federal and provincial minister agree to identify an area for marine conservation in the joint Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, they may together develop prohibition regulations for renewables or petroleum development, negotiate compensation with interest holders for surrendering permits such as historical permits and cancel the interest if negotiations fail or the interest holder doesn’t surrender the permits after successful negotiations.

Clause 28 and its reference in clause 7 are essential to Canada’s achievement of the internationally negotiated commitment to protect 30% of Canada’s oceans by 2030.

The principles of joint management have been central to the Atlantic Accords going on now for close to 40 years. Clause 28 ensures that the federal minister cannot make unilateral decisions to limit development of petroleum or renewable energy in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, and that any such decision must be made and agreed to by both the federal and provincial governments. By removing this clause, future federal ministers under other acts of Parliament could limit offshore development without the province’s agreement, thereby increasing legal uncertainty and inconsistencies between the acts.

This also means that the Marine Protected Areas Protection Standard may lack legal certainty within the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Area. This undermines the very regulatory certainty proponents seek when advancing potential projects. Removing this clause, as proposed in this report, removes the tools that could help the province and the federal government manage future moratoriums on renewables or petroleum that would protect the livelihood of fishers. For instance, clause 28’s identical partner, clause 137, which applies to Nova Scotia, provides tools to manage the Georges Bank moratorium, a moratorium that is important to protecting the livelihood of fishers and the ecology found there.

Furthermore, striking out clause 28, as proposed in this report, would result in an inconsistent legislative framework between Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Removing these tools only for Newfoundland and Labrador, as outlined in this report’s amendment, would offer Nova Scotia a competitive advantage over its neighbour, as it would be bestowed with greater legal certainty than Newfoundland and Labrador.

I want to reiterate that this legislation is the product of years of collaboration and extensive negotiations between Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. The legislation, as agreed to by all three governments and as presented to the Senate committee in its original form, ensures both provinces are on equal footing.

The inclusion of clause 28 is so important to the province that almost immediately after the committee voted to remove it, the Newfoundland and Labrador Minister of Industry, Energy and Technology, Andrew Parsons, wrote in a letter to the committee:

Clause 28 is designed to mitigate regulatory and legal uncertainty by making clear that the authority to prohibit petroleum activities within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore area rests within the Accord Act. Under no circumstance does Clause 28 provide a federal Minister the authority to unilaterally cancel or revoke an interest, or to make regulations that would prohibit activities or the issuance of an interest in a marine conservation area. In fact, it ensures that the approval of both federal and provincial Ministers is required through a joint order.

The inclusion of Clause 28 will ensure that the principles of joint management are upheld and reduces investor risk by ensuring that petroleum prohibitions in the Accord Area are not established under the authority of other federal legislation.

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is currently drafting “mirror legislation” to amend our version of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation . . . Act to implement the new offshore legislative and regulatory regime and we wish to implement the version we agreed to, without amendments.

The offshore plays a critical role in the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. It offers significant opportunities and benefits to the province and our citizens, and Bill C-49 further expands those opportunities to include renewable energy. We eagerly await the progression of the Bill to realize those opportunities. I want to reconfirm the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador’s unequivocal support for Bill C-49 as it is currently drafted and ask that you pass it as is without undue delay.

Colleagues, the support for clause 28 is not limited to the Government of Canada or the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is broad consensus from government, the oil and gas sector, the renewable energy sector and environmental organizations. In fact, some environmental organizations were so concerned with the committee’s vote to remove clause 28 that they have been in touch with my office multiple times and have provided a statement for me to read as part of my speech.

SeaBlue Canada, which is a joint project of eight Canadian NGOs working on marine protection and includes the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, the David Suzuki Foundation, East Coast Environmental Law, Ecology Action Centre, Nature Canada, Oceans North, West Coast Environmental Law and WWF-Canada, wrote:

Canadians care about the ocean, and support efforts to protect it. In 2022 polling commissioned by the SeaBlue Canada coalition, 97 per cent of Canadians polled supported strong marine protected areas, which are areas of the ocean set aside so marine life can rebound and thrive. Clause 28 ensures that the marine protected areas that Canadians value are safeguarded from these harmful activities, while still taking into account any pre-existing economic interests. As we testified to you earlier in February, we, and many other Canadians, support the swift passage of this Bill, and this includes the balanced regime as laid out by clause 28.

SeaBlue Canada also sent a letter to our Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee members yesterday afternoon, stressing the vital nature of clause 28 to Bill C-49.

Colleagues, should we delay in taking action, in establishing the regulatory framework that is Bill C-49, we risk putting Atlantic Canadians at a disadvantage in the race to net-zero economy and in the race to take advantage of the many significant economic opportunities this bill will enable.

Therefore, I urge all honourable colleagues to vote against this report and, thereby, against the removal of clause 28 from Bill C-49. Thank you.

Senator Petten, will you take a question?

Yes, of course.

It is a friendly question. I was very surprised to see this clause removed. It looked like there was some strange kind of horse-trading going on at this committee, and I’m not a member of the committee, but I had somebody observing it for me. It makes zero sense to me to remove this clause for any reason.

I’m from Nova Scotia, as you know. You’ve heard me say it over and over again. Nova Scotia is going to be just fine with onshore wind providing electricity for us, but Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are going to be providing wind energy to the rest of Canada and helping the rest of Canada meet its decarbonization goals, and that’s very significant, in addition to the economic impacts for our own area.

Could you tell me what the rationale was for removing this clause because I can’t, for the life of me, find a viable rationale that makes any sense to me, other than perhaps there was some horse-trading going on?

Senator Petten, there is about 15 seconds left. Are you asking for more time to answer the question?

Yes.

Is leave granted?

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. It also includes the offshore renewable energy opportunities.

Senator Coyle has a question. Senator Kutcher, will you accept a question?

I only have one.

Thank you for your remarks. As I mentioned in my last question, this is something that is very important to our province — the Province of Newfoundland — but it’s also important to all of Canada. I want to continue to underline the importance of this to all of Canada, not just for economic reasons but also for meeting our net-zero emissions targets and for dealing, once and for all, with the urgent issue related to climate change.

We’re concerned on a number of levels, as I understand from what you’re saying: first, the protection of the marine environment; second, our economic interests; third, cooperative federalism at risk; and finally, what I just mentioned, the impact on the rest of our country and the world, because we’ll be exporting beyond Canada’s borders.

Senator Kutcher, if we were to pass this report and this bill as is, and we know Nova Scotia has already passed its mirror legislation based on this, what are the practical implications going forward for the federal government, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia? What would that do to our timeline here for this very important industry?

Honourable senators, I want to stand today and also ask that we not accept the report from the committee as it is and that we consider an alternative to it.

In 1985, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador signed the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord. The accord is wisely considered to be a watershed in my province’s economic development. With its signing, the first commercial offshore oil field, Hibernia, began.

I was at the hotel in St. John’s on that February 11, 1985, night when former prime minister Brian Mulroney; former premier Brian Peckford; the federal and provincial energy ministers Pat Carney and William Marshall; and the federal Minister of Justice, our very own John Crosbie signed that agreement. As a matter of fact, I have a picture in my office of myself and former Minister Crosbie that night. My hair was a different colour, but that’s okay.

The accord granted my home province significant decision-making powers and financial benefits. It made the federal and provincial governments equal partners in the management of offshore development.

As I mentioned earlier, that accord was signed on February 11, 1985. We are just a few months away from celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the signing of that important and life-changing agreement.

There is no doubt that the oil and gas industry has brought tremendous benefits to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that it has changed how we live, how we work and how rural Newfoundland and Labrador operates.

It hasn’t all been positive. No big development that creates major economic activity and puts immense amounts of dollars in people’s pockets is all positive. It brings its troubles. It brings its challenges. But the Atlantic Accord that was signed in 1985 brought tremendous opportunity to people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It brought tremendous opportunity, especially to the young, the next generation of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It’s one of those agreements with the federal government that many people talk about today and will talk about for a long time to come, because there is no doubt that it changed us in many ways.

For many years we were a “have-not” province. The Atlantic Accord gave us the opportunity, for at least a period of time, to be a “have” province. I’ll never forget the day that then-premier Danny Williams announced that we had reached the status of a “have” province. There was a tremendous amount of pride in every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, because we felt, and feel today, that we make a significant contribution to this country.

Friends, because of the vital importance of Bill C-49 and the significant implications it will have on my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I consulted far and wide on that particular piece of legislation — especially so in the last week. I’ll get to that in a moment. My consultations included those with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, as Senator Petten touched on earlier, we had correspondence from the Minister of Energy in the last couple of days, and we had correspondence from Premier Andrew Furey a few days ago, all supporting the passage of Bill C-49 as it is, without amendments.

I also consulted with the Government of Nova Scotia, representatives of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and representatives of Energy Newfoundland and Labrador. My impression was that everyone I talked to felt that Bill C-49 needed to be passed in its entirety so we could get on with the new developments that are on our doorstep.

For a period of time, I had the understanding that the passage of Bill C-49, including clause 28, would give the federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources the unilateral right to shut down an offshore project in our province. With that understanding, I voted to remove clause 28 and make consequential amendments to clause 7. I guess the lesson here is that you’re never too old to learn.

Since that vote I have consulted much more with many of the players that I touched on earlier, and I reached the decision that you can’t turn back the page. I’ve been around politics too long to know that a decision made yesterday is a decision that is in the past. There’s nothing you can do about yesterday, but you can do a whole lot about today.

With the information I have now, the consultations that I had and the discussions I have had, I call on all senators here to reject this report, to give us the opportunity to put clause 28 back into the bill and to make the corrections to the consequential amendments to clause 7 that need to be made.

Bill C-49 will create economic opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador and economic opportunity for Nova Scotia. We need Bill C-49 to pass.

It’s not easy for me to stand here today to say that I voted for something last week on one side and that I’m asking all of you to vote on the other. But it is what it is, and sometimes these things happen. And I just feel that it’s necessary for me to stand on my feet today and ask you to reject the report and to put Bill C-49 back in its proper place so we can move on with the developments in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am proud to be a senator. I am proud to be a Canadian, but I am first and foremost a Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Honourable senators, we have had healthy debate inside the chamber, inside the committee rooms and in the corridors, in the offices and on the phone.

It seems that Senator Manning and I have consulted many of the same people. I maybe have the added benefit of having served at a senior level at the board for three years before I was appointed to the Senate. I want to correct some of the things that were said. I know Senator Coyle asked Senator Petten why an amendment was made. It was my amendment, so maybe I can help you with that, Senator Coyle.

I rise to support adoption of this report as amended. Bill C-49 was sold to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as a legislative necessity to add offshore wind and other renewables to the suite of authorities for the offshore boards to regulate.

I am supportive of this effort to have the boards take on that role and agree that the Atlantic Accords acts require amending to affect this authority. To go back in time, as Senator Manning did correctly, the Supreme Court ruled back in 1984 that the offshore was federal jurisdiction, full stop. The Atlantic Accords addressed this ruling by becoming an agreement between the federal and provincial governments that stated the offshore projects, both in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador, would be treated as though they were on land, just like in Alberta or Saskatchewan or any other land-based resource project. The management of it would be joint, that is through the offshore petroleum boards, and clause 28 removes this promise and this agreement.

There was an additional provision in Bill C-49 which we’re all now aware of that has nothing to do with wind energy. It doesn’t threaten wind energy or Nova Scotians’ opportunities. It doesn’t threaten Newfoundland and Labrador’s opportunities with wind energy or any other offshore renewable resource. It directly impacts the promise and the intent of the Atlantic Accord of 1985 that the resource be treated as though it was on land and that Newfoundland and Labrador be the prime beneficiary of the resource that it brought into Confederation in 1949.

Clause 28, by adding to section 56 of the accord act — and I may be one of the few in the room who have read the accord act because I had to implement it while I was with the board — is an addition that specifically allows for the cancellation of an exploration or production licence even after legal and binding regulatory approval has been given. That’s really important.

Clause 28 was removed from the bill at committee despite efforts from the government to have the committee’s decision to remove that clause reconsidered and, obviously, then reversed. The committee stopped that as well. There have been some fundamental misunderstandings as to the potential impact that clause 28 can have on the oil and gas industry. There were many instances where this occurred. I’ll go through two just to make it clear. I’ll be reading directly from Bill C-49.

The first is removal of rights that the board has — when I say the board, it’s joint management — to the federal government. That is:

If an interest is cancelled by an order made under subsection 56.2(4), His Majesty in right of Canada may grant an interest owner the compensation that is specified in the order —

— that’s there —

— If the order cancels a petroleum-related interest, it is subject to section 124 in respect of the amount of that compensation, and, for the purposes of this subsection, any reference to the Regulator —

— joint management —

— in that section is to be read as a reference to the Federal Minister.

It can’t be clearer than that. I’m not parsing it; I’m reading it. So any reference to the regulator is now to be seen as a reference to the federal minister. That’s one instance, colleagues. It’s clear. It leaves little to interpretation.

There are a number, but one other that I did pick out was a reference under the Crown reserve area. The Crown reserve area is federal property, full stop. It’s not joint property. It’s not under the Atlantic Accords acts. It’s not in the Newfoundland offshore area, as we call it. It says here:

The portion of the offshore area subject to the interest referred to in subsection (1) that has been surrendered or the interest referred to in subsection (4) that has been cancelled —

— another reference to cancelling a licence —

— becomes a Crown reserve area.

Colleagues, under the Atlantic Accord, the Newfoundland offshore area is jointly managed. Under Bill C-49 and specifically under clause 28 if it’s cancelled, it reverts to federal control, as it was prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in 1984.

Colleagues, there is no specific section in Bill C-49 that explicitly outlines the federal minister’s unilateral discretion to revoke existing permits and licences in the context of environmental protection. However, based on the general framework of the bill, such authority is implied under the broad regulatory powers given to the federal minister and the Governor-in-Council, which is a federal office, related to environmental protection.

Colleagues, even after billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs — mostly Newfoundlanders’ and Labradorians’ — have been created, after legal regulatory approval by the board as the legal authority under the accord act, an approved project can, in fact, be cancelled. Of course, this has zero to do with wind energy or any other renewable, which, as I said, I fully support.

It is clearly a backdoor path for the anti-petroleum interests of the current governments to kill investment prospects for the offshore. What company would ever invest in our offshore with this possibility on the table? While the government has announced that oil and gas activity in a marine protected area, or MPA, is prohibited, Bill C-49 expands these provisions beyond MPAs, resulting in uncertainty for current and future investors.

Colleagues, we had the committee meeting where this amendment was adopted last Thursday. The very next day, I met with former Newfoundland and Labrador premier Brian Peckford. I flew to Vancouver Island, where he now lives, and I met with him. In fact, when I met with him, he was keen to know what happened. We talked about clause 28, and we talked about the Atlantic Accord. We talked about how it came about. We talked about the intent and the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. He wanted to know why clause 28 was in there and what led to its removal.

Mr. Peckford, as you know, is one of the two signatories — Senator Manning knows it very well — of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador version of the Atlantic Accords. He said, “This is not and was never the intent of the Atlantic Accords.”

In fact, colleagues, he has written a letter to every Newfoundland and Labrador representative in the other place regarding their vote to have clause 28 included as part of Bill C-49: Yvonne Jones, the Honourable Seamus O’Regan, Churence Rogers, Joanne Thompson, the Honourable Gudie Hutchings and Ken McDonald.

I’m going to read the letter because it’s important and because it’s right from the horse’s mouth, right from former Premier Peckford, who was the signatory:

Dear Members of Parliament From the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador:

I wish to record my utter disgust concerning your recorded vote in the House of Commons for Bill C-49 on May 2, 2024. In doing so, you have betrayed your Province.

As one of the very early fighters and later a signatory to the Atlantic Accord —

— that’s Mr. Peckford speaking of himself —

— your affirmative vote signifies that you oppose the basic spirit, intent and words of the Accord, namely joint management, equality of governments, and principal beneficiary.

Section 1 of the Accord says as follows:

The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador have reached an Accord on joint management of the offshore oil and gas resources off Newfoundland and Labrador and the sharing of revenues from the exploitation of these resources. . . .

2(c) to recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores, consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada;

2(d) to recognize the equality of both governments —

I will pause here, because we’re just reading now that, in section 28, apparently we’re not equal because items that were under joint management are now under the federal minister or Crown reserve.

. . . to recognize the equality of both governments in the management of the resource, and ensure that the pace and manner of development optimize the social and economic benefits to Canada as a whole and to Newfoundland and Labrador in particular . . . .

Bill 49 says the following, and I’m quoting from former premier Peckford’s letter to six members of the other place:

56.‍1 Subject to section 7, the Governor in Council may, for the purpose of the protection of the environment, make regulations prohibiting, in respect of any portion of the offshore area that is specified in those regulations and that is located in an area that is or, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, may be identified —

 — so it doesn’t have to be identified —

— under an Act of Parliament or of the Legislature of the Province as an area for environmental and wildlife conservation and protection . . .

As an aside from the letter, remember, colleagues, that there has been oil production there for over 40 years.

(a) the commencement or continuation of

(i) any work or activity relating to the exploration or drilling for or the production, conservation, processing or transportation of petroleum, or . . .

(b) the issuance of interests.

That is the granting of licences.

Now I return to former premier Peckford:

This violates the principles of joint management, equality of the governments and directly threatens the principle of the Province being the ‘principal beneficiary.’

This is not joint management or equality of the two parties to the Accord but the usurpation of one party to unilaterally decide.

Honourable A. Brian Peckford, Former Premier of The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador (1979-1989)

Colleagues, as I said in committee and in my second reading speech, I fully support renewables. I think it’s important and I think it’s necessary. But that will take generations, and Canada will need Newfoundland and Labrador petroleum until then.

A significant percentage of Newfoundland and Labrador’s revenues come from the oil and gas sector, both in royalties and taxes, both corporate and individual. Taxes from the thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans and, in fact, Canadians who work in the offshore and the hundreds of companies.

Removing clause 28 will not impact renewables, as was stated by many of my colleagues today, or the intent of that aspect of the bill.

I ask you to recall, as we move to third reading of this bill — and possibly a vote at report stage — that my amendment had multipartisan support, and that, in effect, it passed committee with this support twice: once when it was proposed, and once when a motion to revert for reconsideration failed. That, honourable senators, is important. I recognize that the Senate has the final say.

I urge my colleagues to help protect the industry that Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans rely on and keep the amended version that we have before us.

I know there has been quite a bit of pressure to either have this go to a recorded vote or a voice vote. I have no illusion whatsoever that I will win the day and have this amendment remain in Bill C-49. I won’t block that. I know there are ways that I could possibly delay it.

Colleagues, what has happened has nothing to do with renewable resources — nothing whatsoever. In fact, in his speech, Senator Kutcher spent quite a bit of time talking about how bad oil and gas are. That says nothing about renewables at all. I support renewables. I think it’s great. I’m fully in favour of the employment, benefits and revenues it will generate. I’m fully in favour of the transition out of oil and gas that it will help support if that’s what the global markets decide.

Colleagues, I have spoken in the past about the benefits of the petroleum resources off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. It comes out of the ground beneath the seabed in a state that barely requires — and, in fact, in many cases doesn’t require — any processing. It doesn’t need to be removed from sand like in other operations. It doesn’t require pipelines. It goes right to a vessel and right to the market. It employs thousands of people, not just in the capital costs of building the platforms, but also in the ongoing operating costs, and employs many thousands of Newfoundlanders.

The other thing is that the cost of production of oil in Newfoundland and Labrador is around $15 per barrel; in Saudi Arabia it is $10 per barrel; in the oil sands it is about $65 per barrel — colleagues, this is the very last oil that should come out of the ground.

I’m fine for this to go to a voice vote. I respect my colleagues in my own caucus. I don’t want to jam my other colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador who don’t agree with my view. Colleagues, on the voice vote, I urge you to accept the bill as amended. Thank you.

Are senators ready for the question?

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

Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Petten, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)