44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 19, 2023 10:00AM
- Oct/19/23 2:41:10 p.m.
- Watch
plan Mr. Speaker, not only do the Liberals not have a plan for the country's finances, but the ministers do not even have a work plan.
The new ministers announced in July have still not received their mandate letters. Two and a half months after the cabinet shuffle, they still do not know what their priorities are. I am not making this up. The new President of the Treasury Board, who is supposed to control the purse strings, still does not have a mandate. That could go terribly wrong. The ministers of public services, defence, transport, justice, official languages, and several other departments are in the same boat.
When will the Prime Minister give these ministers a mandate?
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I see that I received applause from a Conservative. Apart from you, Mr. Speaker, he is the only one who still claps for me. We will see how long that lasts.
The Bloc Québécois's position is clear. It is imperative that we change our energy trajectory so that Canada, which still includes Quebec, for now, contributes to the effort to prevent average temperatures from rising by 1.5°C. That is essential. We are talking about the future of humanity, the health of our people, the safety of our communities and the future of generations to come. We have to make the effort. That means we have to stop ratcheting up our fossil fuel production. That is point number one. The International Energy Agency says we must not start any new oil and gas production projects. By 2030, we need to gradually reduce oil production, which is part of the problem.
It is completely wrong to think that some kind of capture technology is going to let us increase oil production while reducing our absolute emissions. I am not talking about emissions per barrel, but absolute emissions. These are basic scientific facts. By reducing our oil production, we will gain access to large sums of public money, which is currently being disproportionately invested in fossil fuels. This money could be directed elsewhere so that Canada can transition to a 21st-century economy, focused on the long term, on the future of coming generations and on renewable energy.
We stand in solidarity with the workers who will have to participate in this process. When the Trans Mountain project began, we did not just say that the government should not invest money in that project and that there would be cost overruns. We know that the project is costing over $30 billion. What we said was that we should take that money that was in the Canadian public purse and use it for the transition, for good-paying jobs in the high-tech sector that produce technologies that can be exported, namely, energy storage technologies. By so doing, we would not impoverish communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, who are the primary victims of the lack of transition, who will be among those who will pay the most, and who will be even more disproportionately affected when finally do make the transition when it is too late and it is even more urgent.
The government has done enough greenwashing. We need to take action. Obviously, when we talk about greenwashing, I cannot help but think about this bill, which basically contains nothing of what I just talked about. There is nothing about any of that in this bill. The Liberals are saying that they want to train workers in the clean energy sector, but they are investing billions of dollars in dirty energy. Clean energy workers do not need this bill. They need an employment insurance system that works.
We learned from the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that half of all workers are not covered by employment insurance. When I look at the federal government's investment strategies, and when I look at the Conservatives' plans, I am not sure I would want to apply to set up a wind turbine project. It has been so devalued.
What would it take? First, we need commitments and principles. This bill turns the process upside down and says that workers are going to be trained. It does not begin with what needs to come first. There is no commitment and there are no principles and no targets. It proposes solutions to a problem that has not been defined. Kafka himself could not have come up with this.
Next, we need a collaborative approach. They forget sometimes, but we are in a federation. There are provinces and municipalities. There are ecosystems in the labour market. There are communities, regions, workers, unions, employers, chambers of commerce and investors. There needs to be consultation. The democratic and civic process in the communities needs to be respected, but that is not covered in the bill. The bill provides that committees will submit reports, and it is not quite clear what will be done with those reports. We know that endless reports are issued here, and we know where they end up. They end up in a place where no one reads them. That is what will happen.
Once we have done all that, then we need measures to achieve the objectives. We need to think of the workers, the communities and the first nations communities. That is not happening at all. The provincial jurisdictions will need to be respected. There will need to be requirements for the planning and production of sectoral reports that cannot solely be the federal government's responsibility.
Labour law is under provincial jurisdiction. The workforce in Quebec has been under Quebec's jurisdiction since the 1990s. Everyone knows that. There are agreements, there is funding. It has not always been easy, but we have those things today. That is not reflected in the bill.
My take on this bill is that I do not doubt the intentions behind it, although given that the title completely eliminates the concept of the just transition, one can doubt the government's intentions. However, the whole thing feels improvised to me. The bill does not define a problem, yet it tries to find solutions. It is funny how the Liberals think a report is the solution to everything.
Since being elected, I have been bewildered to learn that committees work to submit reports to the government, and we vote on motions, but the government never reads them. Why, then, would it read the reports that are going to be produced under this bill? That is not plausible. That is where things stand.
The worst part is that the bill speaks to the government's utter ignorance, whether deliberate or not—if it is deliberate, then that is even worse—of Quebec's regional realities and Quebec's labour market. It is a bit like what happened with the early childhood centres. We are way ahead when it comes to skills training and collaboration on skills training. It seems like the federal government always waits 30, 40, 20 or 15 years. It dilly-dallies before eventually saying that Quebec is right and that it will try to push the other provinces to follow Quebec's example. That is precisely what is going on here. There will need to be asymmetry.
In the 1990s, Quebec voiced its demands on workplace skills training. In the 1990s, there were discussions about professional training, which led to federal transfers to Quebec for workplace skills training. This bill is on skills training, but Quebec does that, and it is good at it. If results matter, then the government should be consulting Quebec.
On June 22, 1995, the National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. Since then, Quebec has been in charge of workplace training. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this reform is based on partnerships. In 1997, Quebec created the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. This labour market partners commission repatriated active employment measures from the federal government to Quebec, and are working together to find innovative solutions, not just in green energy, but in all sectors, because every region of Quebec is different. Who are these people? The group brings together employers, employees, labourers, the education sector, universities, vocational training schools, community organizations and economic and social ministries that are familiar with Quebec's realities. It is working. Ottawa needs to stop ignoring that.
When we have immigration files in our ridings, we wait months for labour market surveys for each immigration file when those labour market studies have already been done in each region and in each sector. They are meant to determine what the needs are, what the needs will be in the future, how to plan and how to do things better. By deliberately ignoring Quebec with this bill, the government is saying that it does not want to do better. If Quebeckers want things to be better, they can vote for the Bloc Québécois, because we always defend Quebec's jurisdictions.
What should we do with this bill? We are thinking about it. It is not easy, but maybe something can be done with it. We are thinking it over. For starters, the government needs to listen to these concerns. It needs to consult Quebec. When we asked officials in committee if they consulted Quebec, they said it did not occur to them to do so. They turned red as ripe tomatoes, much like the tomatoes grown in my riding, which are redder than those grown elsewhere. When money is being allocated to implementing the strategies in the bill, Quebec will have to get its fair share. Negotiating labour agreements has never been easy.
Moreover, the government has to honour the Paris Agreement. It also has to honour the COP26 just transition declaration. The generally accepted term in the international community is “just transition”, which emphasizes the importance of making the energy transition and doing so in a way that serves everyone now, in all provinces and all communities, as well as future generations. As for the bill's title, my mouth dried out by the time I finished saying it. That is because someone is trying to hide something.
I think there is a lot of work to be done, and I invite all parties to take the blinders off and really consider Quebec's reality and its institutions. If objectives and achieving those objectives is so important, the government should take a step back and consult the Quebec government.
1648 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.
When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.
Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.
When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.
I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.
However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.
If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?
I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.
Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.
Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.
I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to speak to Bill C-280, which was introduced by the member for York—Simcoe. He sits next to me here in the House, and he is certainly not afraid to make his voice heard when it comes time to defend our produce growers. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to join him in his efforts.
Many members of the Bloc Québécois would have liked to sponsor this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé or the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I, too, could have introduced this bill, because there are a lot of produce growers in my riding of Mirabel. The bill could have also been introduced by the member for Joliette or the member for Repentigny. In short, we all care a lot about this issue.
I therefore want to thank my colleague. There are some nice moments in Parliament when we can say that we are working together to do important things. Perhaps this should have been done sooner. This also reminds us of the importance of private members' bills, because they are inspired by what we see on the ground, by the people and businesses in our ridings. It reminds us of the fundamental work that members must do on the ground. I truly commend my colleague and, obviously, he is invited to come visit the maple capital of the world, Mirabel, any time he likes.
Produce growers, meaning fruit and vegetable producers, are still facing major challenges that continue to grow. We have talked about production costs, the cost of fertilizers and raw materials, and the declining demand for certain niche products as people struggle to afford things that can sometimes be perceived as luxuries at the grocery store.
We have talked about the Conservatives running deficit after deficit when they were in government. Things went from bad to worse under the Liberals. They are the kings of deficits. We have talked about bargaining power. Sometimes, small producers have to negotiate with resellers.
Bad weather is also a factor. I met some produce growers this summer as part of the Canada summer jobs program. I visited some businesses. I met Léanne and Vincent from the Entre Ciel et Terre farm in Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, Stéphanie from the Complètement légume farm in Saint‑Augustin, and Cinthya from Tierra Viva Gardens in Saint‑Augustin.
As we walked around the plots, they told us that they had lost 100%, 50% or 75% of this or that crop because of the rains. These people do not make a lot of money. They are true artisans. This serves as a reminder, and we cannot stress this enough, of the need for compensation programs here in Ottawa. However, that file is not moving forward quickly.
We can talk about the difficulties associated with climate change, bad weather, labour shortages, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the issue of temporary foreign workers, which creates challenges for our businesses. Then, there is foreign competition, obviously.
It is important to protect these companies when they sell their produce to resellers. How does the current system work? The member for York—Simcoe helped me gain a better understanding of how it works when someone is a fruit and vegetable grower.
Say that an American grows apples and sells them to a grocery store, to a reseller. If the grocery store goes bankrupt, this American has protection. He is registered as a supplier and, if the grocery store goes bankrupt, the government recognizes the fact that, since the supplier has not been paid, these fruits and vegetables belong to him and he is immediately reimbursed. That is the American system. Until 2014, Canadian and Quebec producers benefited from this system because they could sell their produce in the United States. If they sold to a grocery store in the U.S. and the grocery store or chain went bankrupt, they could get reimbursed the same way. This meant that we were relying on the Americans to protect our own producers.
In 2014, the Americans looked at what Canada was doing and found that Canada was in bad shape, that it had a terrible approach. They realized that their producers would not be protected if they sold their produce in Canada. If a Canadian grocery store or reseller went bankrupt, the producers would not get paid unless they went through an extremely costly process, which no small producer would go through if they could avoid it. Logically speaking, our own farmers were not protected either. The Americans told us to wake up, smarten up and protect our farmers and theirs so that there could be some sort of reciprocity.
In 2014, when the Americans tried to clue us in and told us that they were sick of protecting our farmers for us, they thought this would make the Canadian government sit up. They thought they were alerting Canada to take action. What has happened since? Cue the crickets, because nothing happened. The federal government did nothing. Now our farmers are no longer protected either in the United States or here at home. That is tough.
In 2016, we had a new Prime Minister who said, “Canada is back”. That was two years later. He went to the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada and promised to get Canadian farmers back into this U.S. program, which would require Canada to adopt certain measures. Then the same old thing happened that always happens with the federal government when things are urgent: it waited and waited and waited.
Today, a courageous MP decided he would table these changes in the government's place. All of us members who have farmers in our riding are proud of that. We are proud to support him. We think this bill should have been fast-tracked directly to the Senate. We think there should not have been any nonsense. We think that there has been enough nonsense since 2014, and this process should have gone faster.
Right now, if our farmers want help, there are mechanisms. For example, in the United States, they have to file suit. There is a mechanism requiring them to pay a deposit worth twice the amount of the claim. They do not have the means to do that. The idea is to deter them so they never get paid for their fruits and vegetables and the products they sold to a reseller. It is disrespectful to the farmers who feed us and feed our cities. I want to stress that part for those who do not represent agricultural ridings. We are all connected to those farmers in some way.
Not only is it disrespectful, but it is also completely out of touch with the reality of being a farmer. Farmers have plenty to do without having to go to court, hire lawyers and waste their time on administrative procedures. Farmers are on the ground, dealing with all the problems I listed. They are in the fields, the orchards and the greenhouses. They take care of their businesses and their workers. They deal with temporary foreign worker applications while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada takes its sweet time and the federal government does nothing to make the system better. That is what they do.
This bill will make their lives easier. It is going to restore justice. It is going to reduce the risks they bear in one of the riskiest sectors on the market. As we can see, it is getting harder and harder to attract new farmers, because it is not easy work. I want to thank the bill's sponsor for making all this easier for our farmers.
The bill will make the buyer of these products liable for the value of the shipment. The shipment will not belong to the buyer until the invoice has been paid. There will be a kind of priority list so that, if the person who has ordered agricultural products but has not paid their invoice goes bankrupt, the producer will be assured of getting paid without much trouble.
Right now, the system says that farmers have the right to get paid. Fifteen days after the bankruptcy, they have the right to recover the goods that were sold 30 days before. Do members see how little sense that makes for the agricultural industry? If any member of the House is opposed to this bill, I would challenge them to eat a 45-day-old salad or some withered old strawberries or blueberries. They can do it in the lobby and I will film it.
Under the current system, what we are telling farmers is to take back their rotten produce. That is how we are treating them. The current system is rotten. It needs to be changed. We need to move forward on this. This bill needs to move forward. The Senate needs to pay close attention to this so that this bill is passed quickly.
1533 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
