SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/4/23 7:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up, but he will be able to continue in questions and comments if he wishes to add anything. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

36 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:05:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member put forward the scheduling motion at committee. The Conservatives put forward an amendment and a few subsequent subamendments. My main point is that when the Liberals and the NDP had the floor, not once did they bring up the substance of the subamendments or the amendment we had put forward, which would have been to get the bills to a place where we could go through them in proper order, the same order the House of Commons passed them to the committee in. I am wondering why there was zero dialogue or zero effort from their side to try to get to a point where we could work on the bills in the order they came to the committee from the House of Commons.

128 words

Scheduling

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/4/23 7:06:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have much respect for the hon. member. He always provides insight at committee meetings. Very simply, when amendments are provided to a main programming or scheduling motion, it would be great, once they are discussed, for them to come to a vote. At committee, there was no possibility of having the motion come to an up and down vote. That is the way democracy should work. Unfortunately, the official opposition decided to filibuster all of the meetings and basically, to be blunt, waste everyone's time.

89 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Dec/4/23 7:07:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to follow up on something the member just said about wasting time. During the four hours I was at committee, some of the speaking going on was really unfortunate. I have been around a long time. I am in my fifth decade, so I know what it is like to be silenced around a table of men who want to have their way. I do not appreciate the way this is being handled. We have totally forgotten that women are involved in sustainable jobs and in the next economy. We know they were left behind the first time around. I would like to hear from the member when we will hear from some women about what is happening in the economy these days.

127 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/4/23 7:07:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member reminded me of something important. When I went to the industrial heartland, I met with an organization that I think many hon. members would know. It is called Women Building Futures. It is encouraging women, especially in Alberta, to enter the labour force in the energy sector and some sectors where women are under-represented. I know it is doing phenomenal work, and I know it is supported by both the provincial and federal governments and locally. It was an organization that I met with when I was in Edmonton. That was pre-COVID. I hope to go back next year to the Alberta industrial heartland to see the exciting work being done in what I would call the traditional petrochemical sector, which is the chemical sector, with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada and its member partners. Again, there was an $11-billion investment by Dow. It will be great to see that investment, and it will be even better to see this company and the entities around there ensure that indigenous folks, women, racialized minorities and anybody who is under-represented get a chance to work in the energy sector. As the hon. member said earlier in his speech, Canadians benefit from the bountiful natural resources that Canada is blessed with.

218 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:09:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who sits on the natural resources committee, as I do, for his thoughts on this legislation. We did hear from many witnesses who attempted to come forward to share their testimony when we did our own study on sustainable jobs. Much of that was filibustered, as we are seeing again with the current study on Bill C-50. I would like my colleague to take a moment to reflect on why this is so important. We heard a question asked of the minister today about why we have to take this step in the House to move forward. Having been part of the more than 25 hours of filibustering we have seen, I would like his thoughts and reflections on why we are at this point in the House to try to move forward with this very important legislation.

148 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Dec/4/23 7:09:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening because of the filibuster that was in place by the opposition for about 10 meetings. We are moving toward a net-zero economy. That is several decades away, over three by my math. At the same time, we know that energy production, renewable and non-renewable, is very important for Canada. It is also very important for our economy as we move toward a net-zero economy. We need to ensure that Canadians have the skills, the human capital as we economists call it, to succeed in not only today's workforce but tomorrow's workforce.

103 words

Mr. John Aldag (Cloverdale—Langley City, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:10:41 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58 Bill C-50 Bill C-49

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement, to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three. Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple. The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber. Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party. The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to. The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward. Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study. I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all. The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way. When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day. It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health. The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil. Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money. After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future. There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass. This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”. I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers. Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations. As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that. We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants. The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.” In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation. Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

1924 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments on this bill and why we are at the stage we are at today. We are here because the Conservatives on the committee are trying to make sure the government understands there is a whole bunch at play here. Number one is jobs. Number two is we are wasting our time here again and again. That time is being wasted because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this twice now in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act where it sets the guidelines, but most recently in the Impact Assessment Act where it says very clearly what is provincial jurisdiction and what is federal jurisdiction. Will he admit that he has to go back and get an actual judgment ahead of time, a pre-ruling, on whether this transcends federal jurisdiction to step into exclusively provincial jurisdiction at this point in time?

152 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:21:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who I had the chance to serve with on the natural resources committee with at one point. Again, on the idea of court rulings, we have heard many times about the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the Supreme Court challenge on Bill C-69 that it is not throwing out the entire thing as unconstitutional. I think our minister has spoken very clearly about how there are some precise measures that can be taken to deal with that. I think our government is very aware of what is constitutional and I think the courts will find that it is good legislation. It has a leadership role for the federal government, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this realm.

127 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Dec/4/23 7:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was pausing a little and reflecting on what question I wanted to ask because I have so many. I am sure people can empathize that it can be very frustrating sitting in the House of Commons when we are in a climate crisis. We are experiencing the impacts all around us. There are so many who are worried, and instead, we are witnessing so many political games being played. In particular, we are watching the Conservatives filibustering and blocking in order to ensure that their rich CEO friends' pockets are lined in big oil and gas. It is evident that this, again, is what is at hand here with climate denialism and inaction. To my colleague in the Liberal government, what does he feel is the number one thing that we need to do as parliamentarians to show future generations that we hear them and that we are truly taking action to address the climate crisis we are facing today?

163 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:23:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very thoughtful question, which I expect from a fellow British Columbian who cares a lot about not only the environment, but workers. One of the things we can do is show workers that they have a place in the economy right now. That is why Bill C-50 is so important. It is creating a place and a very clear future for Canadians to make sure that we have good-paying jobs going forward. We know that the world is in a transition. We know the world is a changing place. The economy is changing and we want to make sure that no workers are left behind. It is by having conversations with business and labour that we can actually make sure that there is that bright future, and make sure that we balance economic and environmental interests. I think that both can be done in such a way that we create a winning situation for workers, for the economy and for the environment.

172 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why it is a jurisdictional issue. I mean, we are talking about workers and transitions, and the potential loss of jobs, yet EI is run by the federal government. Also, in the past, I believe the federal government worked with stakeholders to create human resource councils in different industry sectors. Can the member clarify why some think this is a jurisdictional issue that has to be fought tooth and nail?

77 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:25:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we have seen that the federal government can work very well with provinces and territories in a wide realm of areas to make a better country and a better economy, while also dealing with environmental challenges. As my colleague said, there are many examples from employment insurance to jobs and skills training, to immigration and many other areas where we work very closely, and collaborate with the provinces and territories. This is yet another example of that. It is about working together to create a better Canada, the kind of Canada that I want to work in and want my kids to live in.

108 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:25:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my honour tonight to rise and speak to this filibuster that these people are claiming it is at this point in time. We have a number of motions that we have to address through committee processes—

41 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you could ask the member to clarify what is meant by “these people” and what it means—

30 words

People
Means

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/4/23 7:26:23 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

19 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:26:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am speaking about the bill in front of us at this point in time. I apologize if my colleague does not know that. I have been speaking about this since it arose over a year ago—

40 words

Speaking
Us

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:26:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Could I get a summary of what we are debating, if the member feels that I do not know what it is? Could the member clarify what it is?

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/4/23 7:26:53 p.m.
Watch

This is a point of debate. I just want to remind members to please be mindful of the language that they use and how they use it, so it does not disrupt the House. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

40 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261