Honourable senators, as an independent senator representing Nova Scotia, I thought it important to add my voice to the third reading debate on Bill C-49. This bill seeks to achieve outcomes that are hugely important for my province as well as Newfoundland and Labrador and, in fact, our entire country.

Bill C-49 helps us in our fight against climate change and in stimulating economic growth. It is about investing in new technology and about directly addressing our energy needs in a sustainable manner. It is also helping us to adhere to agreements with some of our closest trading partners around the world. For all of these reasons, I support Bill C-49. I do, however, have to raise a concern as it relates to the omission of meaningful consultation between this government and all stakeholders.

I commend my colleague and fellow Nova Scotian Senator Prosper for his deep engagement on this bill. I appreciate his ensuring that our colleagues on the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee become aware of this failure to consult fully as it relates to Bill C-49. Specifically, the provincial and federal governments had ample opportunity to raise Bill C-49 in discussions with the Mi’kmaq, but they have failed to do so with all groups. The Crown’s duty to consult flows from section 35 of the Constitution, and this duty to consult was reaffirmed with the tabling and passing of government legislation adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples reinforces the government’s duty to consult Indigenous communities by requiring free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative measures that may affect them. I find it hard to believe that this duty to consult was unintentionally overlooked by a government that has rightly prioritized both reconciliation and the passing of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson sent the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee a list of all the Indigenous groups who had been consulted; however, Senator White identified that 12 communities had not been consulted.

The Government of Canada needs to do better, especially in light of the fact that, for 17 years, the Mi’kmaq, Nova Scotia and the federal government have successfully and consistently followed a defined consultation framework — a framework that was ignored in this circumstance.

Additionally, in a brief to the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee, the Fisheries Council of Canada identified that Bill C-49 unintentionally weakens spatial protections around Sable Island and Georges Bank because the spatial protections in the Accords acts have not been updated for renewable energy projects. It is my hope that the government will address this issue in subsequent legislation or, if possible, in the regulatory process because the people of Nova Scotia need to have confidence that our fishery will remain protected.

Colleagues, the black box approach to law-making in Ottawa, and regulation-making as well — where meaningful consultation does not occur — has to change, not just where it is constitutionally required, but elsewhere as well. I will absolutely vote in favour of this legislation but expect this government, and any future government, to do a much better job fulfilling its obligations to consult.

Colleagues, achieving a clean energy grid absolutely requires renewables to be part of the mix. Offshore wind power is an underutilized piece of the puzzle, and there is a global race for investment. Most days, there’s not much you can do to predict the weather in Nova Scotia, except for the reliability of the wind. Believe me, I live on the ocean.

With existing technology, we can easily have the ability to not only meet our own need for renewable power but also generate sufficient excess power that we can use to scale our green hydrogen industry for export. Bill C-49 is crucial if we’re to attract the global investment required for our two provinces to benefit from this enormous opportunity.

To this end, in August 2022, Canada and Germany signed a joint declaration establishing a hydrogen alliance and creating a transatlantic supply chain for hydrogen before 2030, with first deliveries aimed for 2025. All Nova Scotians will benefit from enabling these investments. Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston stated:

Bill C-49 is a necessary first step in unlocking our energy potential. There will be many steps along the road but we are hopeful that Bill C-49 passes so we can get started.

I share that sentiment entirely with our premier. We rarely see legislation that is perfect. However, at some point we need to stop accepting grievous oversights in process. The tenuous nature of this Parliament and the crucial synchronization with mirror legislation at the provincial level provides all the confirmation that I need to proceed confidently with passing this important legislation. Thank you, colleagues.

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

Certainly, thank you.

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

Thank you, Senator White. I expect perhaps that may be the case, and I misstated it. My apologies.

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.)