SoVote

Dec/4/23 7:27:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start over, if I may. We are here tonight to debate exactly what we are trying to ram through the House of Commons, which is a bill the Liberals put on the table over a year ago. I have spoken to many groups in Calgary about what this legislation represents, and I have been speaking to it since it came because there are all kinds of problems with this legislation, many of which have been exacerbated by events that have transpired since it was put on the table over a year ago. Effectively, what we are talking about is the federal government's engagement and accountability framework to guide the government's efforts over time. However, it is based on false narratives. Before I move forward any further, I will let members know that I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Portage—Lisgar. There are a lot of expert opinions being invented to move the bill forward. We can seek expert opinion, pay for it and make sure it says what we want it to say, and this government is very good at that. We found lots of ways it is spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars making sure it gets the right opinions in the right place and puts the money in the right pockets. This is a brazen attempt to unilaterally move into the traditionally provincial jurisdiction of labour, the labour that is being produced in the provinces of Canada. We can think about how provinces actually fund the post-secondary institutions to make sure that jobs in demand are there four, five or six years hence. This is the provinces' job. The bill before us would be another muddying of the water of who is responsible for the outcome of delivering labour in Canada for the jobs we need going forward. We have enough of this muddling in Canada right now, and more of it is not going to accomplish anything. It is going to lead to more stalemates in every province. I am dead surprised at the Bloc Québécois not opposing the bill openly because it is a gross movement into provincial jurisdiction. It is its raison d'être here in the House of Commons to make sure that the federal government does not move into provincial jurisdiction, but I guess the Bloc's hatred for the oil and gas sector, which funds most of what happens in this country, makes its members overrule their raison d'être, which is making sure that provinces have their responsibilities and that the federal government stays in its lane. The bill would advance funding for skill development towards sustainable jobs, but at this point, the federal government, through transfers, already gives $1.8 billion to the provinces to make sure that they develop those jobs. That is partially funded by the federal government, through Canadian taxpayers, who fund the federal government, and part of that comes back to the province of Alberta. For industry, it means a double effort because it is already working with provincial authorities to make sure that we have the labour going forward. Now we have to make sure that we have the federal government onside as well as the provincial government. Well, it is double the effort, double the work. We have to make sure that we make things streamlined and stop creating uncertainty for every business in Canada, for every industry in Canada, primarily our natural resource industries. One of the key actions I really like in the bill, and we can read it in the preamble, of course, is that one of the jobs for the federal government is to identify what data is currently tracked across the federal government and other accessible sources. This is actually what the government is going to spend money doing: finding out what data it already has. Now, this is a ridiculous use of legislation. The government wants to motivate investors with a thing called “sustainable finance”. Members know that I have a background in finance, and “sustainable finance” is an anachronism. There is only finance. There are only numbers. We cannot monkey around with numbers and make the equation different. It is fabrication of the highest order. We need to get past it and realize that, at the end, the math has to work for everybody. The government maintains it would allow us to collaborate and lead on the world stage, which is a joke. The federal government does not collaborate with any of the provinces. At this point, it is doling out cheques to its favourite friends, but it does not lead on the world stage. As a matter of fact, many people in the world are looking at Canada's diminishing role in the world and wondering what has happened. What has happened to Canada after eight years of this government is detestable on the world stage. We have got to get better outcomes and better recognition in the world about how we can contribute to the solutions that the world needs at this point. There is an issue of accountability as well; we know the government is not good with accountability. We have to find a way to become more accountable, and that means staying in our lane. Where are we having an impact, and what do we have to do to make sure we get results for the country going forward? The legislation says it would guide a cohesive approach to climate energy security. I do not think the government even knows what it is talking about with regard to energy security. I think it has been making it up as far as its solutions for the climate, because it continues to fail with every goal it ever sets. I am going to get into this whole notion of the definition of a “sustainable job”. Let us say that a sustainable job in this legislation would remain evergreen in order to evolve over time through consultation with key partners and the public. Liberals do not even know what they are aiming for. It is the most aimless legislation available, and yet they want to continue to move into provincial jurisdiction to basically muddy the waters in getting results. The input on this is that federal efforts must respect provincial jurisdiction, and none of this does so. I beseech my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to recognize that, because they are about to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Industry talks about access to safe, reliable and affordable energy as the most important thing for Canada. Countries without safe, reliable and secure energy are effectively going down the rabbit hole of non-existence in the world. They are looking for solutions, and Canada provides them. We have to get ahead of this and make sure we understand where the world is and where Canada is. Frankly, when one talks to the Canadian public about this bill, people ask what a sustainable job and a just transition are. Is a just transition like what happened in the coal industry in Alberta? Let us go over those numbers, because they are illustrative. They indicate that the government spent $185 million, accomplishing almost nothing. It set up its own commission and its own just transition for Canadian coal workers in communities in 2018. An 11-person panel of experts got $185 million in funding through to 2025. So far, $52 million has been spent, $27 million of that in my province of Alberta, but that included $18 million to build a road far from any of the coal plants. It was just a slush fund, and the government seems pretty good at building slush funds. A case in point is Hanna, Alberta, where there was a coal plant. Hanna's unemployment rate went from 4% in 2011 to 10% in 2021, for the highest unemployment in Alberta. It is worse when we think about the workers there. What happens to them when everyone in the whole town loses their job? The houses become worth much less. The average house price in 2016 was about $177,000 in a rural town in Alberta. In 2022, the same house was worth $65,000. What is the number one type of savings a family has? It is their home. When their home value goes down by over $100,000, almost two-thirds, they recognize that is value they will take a long time to get back. It also means there is no tax loss selling there, because it does not get any tax relief in that respect. It is something we have to make sure we have our eyes on. We should not replicate the same disaster the government had with the coal industry. Is there any indication that the federal government has competence in this realm? No, there is not. It does not know this at all. It is trying to invent it by saying it wants a certain jurisdiction now, because it wants its thumb on the scale about where it gets to see jobs in Canada going forward. It is not enough to continue to spill money out of their jeans in certain sectors that it thinks are going to be more important. It is really the government putting its thumb on the scale to try to determine where the jobs should be in Canada. Those jobs are not anywhere without private sector investment. We are a disaster, as far as the world goes, because we have to continue to spend government money. Private sector investment not happening in this country, because of the uncertainty created by the government, and this bill would add to that uncertainty.

1639 words

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

Dec/4/23 7:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to constituents about Parliament, they often focus on question period. They say that it is so chaotic that they lose faith in the system. I reassure them by saying that the real work in this place often gets done in committee; that is where amendments are proposed, and so on. However, I substituted for one meeting at committee, and it was an absolute circus. I would have expected to see even those who oppose the legislation propose amendments that could then be debated, but I did not see that. Could the hon. member tell us why the opposition was not doing its job, in terms of submitting substantive amendments to try to get its point across?

121 words

Debated

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:38:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member across the way. I was a member of his committee once. He was a really good Chair of that committee, one of the best Chairs on the Liberal side of the House that I have had to work with. Let me say that when there are rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada in the midst of legislation that more or less says that, no matter what, the legislation moving forward is going to face a Supreme Court challenge, it is time to revisit the legislation, bring it back and rewrite it so it is actually pertinent and might go somewhere. At this point in time, we are going to spin our wheels in the House of Commons, going through legislation which is likely going to be overturned. That is the point we are trying to make here: get back to work where we are actually accomplishing something for Canadians.

156 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/4/23 7:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, whom I very much appreciate, used the good old Conservative technique of misinformation, because this bill does encroach on Quebec jurisdictions. That is why we voted against it twice. We are calling on the federal government to recognize the Commission des partenaires des marchés du travail, the sectoral tables, and we are also calling on the federal government to uphold the workforce training agreements between Quebec and Ottawa. We could not be more opposed to interference in Quebec jurisdictions. We voted against it twice. Since my colleague did not seem to know this, I wonder if he and his party are prepared today to solemnly commit to supporting the Bloc Québécois from now on, every time we continue defending Quebec jurisdictions?

132 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I made a mistake, I apologize. I listened to his colleague's speech, which seemed to suggest that he was in favour of the bill. I was sure that he was in favour of the bill, because I know him well. I know that he does not like the oil and gas sector, especially in Alberta, but I do not know exactly why, because we have discussed some facts pertaining to the oil sector. If I made a mistake and my colleague was against the bill, I am very sorry. I must have heard his colleague's speech wrong.

102 words

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

Dec/4/23 7:40:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that workers are asking to be part of the process of a necessary transition. We are in a climate crisis and a transition is required. What they are asking for is to be part of the discussion. Jobs are being lost. There are 45,000 jobs in the energy sector that have already been lost, with at least 1,500 more being lost this year. We know that many more jobs are expected to be lost, while the oil and gas industry racks up record profits. What I am trying to understand is whether the member agrees that workers deserve to have a voice in this process. If so, why are we seeing the Conservatives blocking important legislation and the committee where the voices could come forward so we could see a path moving forward that would involve the workers who are impacted?

147 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:41:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the loss of jobs in Canadian energy since 2015 is a result of government policy. It is government policy that has caused the bulk of Canadian workers in the natural resource sector to leave their jobs, and not of their own accord. They wanted the jobs. They are some of the most productive and most value-added jobs in Canada, yet they have been thrown under the bus by policies of the Liberal government. We can look at the Canadian dollar. It is no longer moving up with the price of oil around the world, because money is not flowing into Canada. It goes somewhere else. Eight years ago, there was no oil being produced in Guyana. Now, Guyana is at almost a million barrels a day. That money is not coming into Canada, and our dollar, as a result, stays low. We have to make sure not only that workers are being encouraged to work in productive sectors but also that they are paid appropriately and in money that actually means something around the world, as opposed to in a devaluing currency, as we have had under the Liberal government.

193 words

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:43:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the folks I represent back home in Portage—Lisgar. However, today, I cannot help but feel that the Liberals are doing a disservice to the constituents I represent and to all Canadians by moving forward with this motion. What the Liberals are doing here is trying to avoid the democratic process by dictating how members will scrutinize Bill C-50, the so-called Canadian sustainable jobs act. Specifically, this motion would limit study of this bill in four ways. First, the national resources committee would have less than two hours to debate this bill. Second, the committee would hear from no witnesses and none of the affected workers during its study of it. Third, the House would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and, last, one day of debate would be allowed during third—

158 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:43:57 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order from the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

15 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:44:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if the member could clarify. Are they talking about what they are doing in committee? I am a bit confused with respect to what they are talking about.

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:44:14 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. That is more about debate. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

19 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:44:19 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, last is that only one day of debate would be allowed during third reading of the bill once we have passed the opportunity for all of those who would lose their jobs to be able to come to committee and tell the government exactly what they think about Bill C-50. Simply put, this Prime Minister and his Liberal-NDP coalition are trying to secure power and silence dissent. The Liberals would not have to be doing this if Canadians actually supported this coalition or their plan to phase out millions of jobs in this great country. The hypocrisy of the Liberal-NDP coalition knows no bounds. It is particularly the NDP, or the more aptly named “no democracy party”. First, the Liberal-NDP coalition tried to call it the just transition, only to realize that Canadians were not big fans of that language; so the members changed the name of it, hoping that people would not mind losing their jobs if the legislation had a different title and sounded a bit better to them. Now, with the new fancy name, they are trying to silence any dissent regarding their plan to shut down industries that drive our economy in favour of leading their new centrally planned government economy.

213 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:45:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what the member is talking about might not be the bill that we are debating. We are talking about the sustainable jobs act. Am I correct? The sustainable jobs act is about getting people to the table. Could you just clarify, Mr. Speaker?

50 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:45:48 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

I want to thank the hon. member for the input. This is Government Business No. 31, proceedings on Bill C-50. I know the hon. member will probably be getting to the point of the bill that we are supposed to be discussing today. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

51 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:46:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50 Bill C-234

Mr. Speaker, this goes to show the view these parties in this House opposite the Conservatives hold about our oil and gas sector, our ag sector and every natural resource sector in this country, and it is so disheartening. Centrally controlled leftist government economies have been tried around the world already, and it turns out they do not work. Canada must not follow the path of these countries of failed economies, like Cuba and Venezuela. I recall a couple of weeks ago the member across the way for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill lamenting at the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development how farmers protesting the Liberal political interference in the Senate over Bill C-234 was leading us toward being a “tinpot dictatorship.” With Bill C-50 and its intent to destroy Canadian jobs with this egregious programming motion, I guess the definition of a tinpot dictatorship is in the eye of the beholder. Since the Liberals are trying to curb criticism on this bill, let us dive into what Bill C-50 would actually do. I have many criticisms of it, as do my constituents. At its core, this piece of legislation would do three things to enable the NDP-Liberal coalition’s so-called just transition. First, it would establish the sustainable jobs partnership council to advise the government on how to implement its vision, with its members appointed by the minister. This is a great way to get policy cover: appoint a bunch of one's friends who already hate Canada’s natural resource sector and agriculture sector to this council to help implement one's shared objective, without regard for the impact on the people I represent and hundreds of members of Parliament represent. Even worse is that while the unjust transition intrudes on provincial jurisdiction, the council would not include provinces, nor would it even be required to consult with them. We should not be surprised, after Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, was slapped down by the Supreme Court for its intrusion on provinces. The Liberals' war on plastic straws was slapped down by the Federal Court, and the clean electricity regulations are certainly going to be slapped down very soon. These Liberals have absolutely no regard for provincial jurisdiction and have learned nothing from these past failures. The only thing the Prime Minister has learned is a cavalier approach, like his father took, that Ottawa knows best. Second, the legislation would require the minister to table a sustainable jobs action plan to Parliament every five years. In other words, the Liberals want to hire more bureaucrats to take time developing a plan to report on the jobs they are able to successfully destroy in this country. The Liberal-NDP coalition will destroy jobs in Canada, because it does not like those types of jobs. It will do it with callous disregard for the rural communities those jobs support and still will not even hit its environmental targets, because of course it thinks the best way to reduce emissions is by reducing the size of our economy. While it has been doing its very best, those pesky, innovative Canadians just keep trying to grow things, to mine things, to manufacture things and to build things in this country. Finally, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat that would “support the implementation of the act”. In different terms, the Liberals are going to further add to the already bloated public service, costing taxpayers more. This is how Liberals actually think we should grow our economy. With every job numbers update that comes out, they always boast of any new jobs being created, but they never highlight where those jobs are being created. They are always a majority of public sector jobs. These are part-time jobs for people picking up jobs to try to pay for the costly carbon tax-driven increase of their cost of living in this country. This is at a time when the federal government is paying more interest on our federal debt than it pays for health care in this country. Canadians can thank the Liberals and their friends in the speNDP for this abject failure of fiscal policy. This is what the Liberal-NDP government is trying to do. It is always trying to find ways to grow the size of government and is never trying to find ways to have Canadians gain meaningful work to feed, heat and house themselves. While I have touched on some of the specifics of Bill C-50, let us talk more about this so-called just transition and what it would cost Canadians. This started back in 2019 with a platform commitment from the Liberals. At its heart, this just transition is planning on devastating our energy industry. We can all recall when the Prime Minister said, “We can't shut down the oil sands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.” This is how the Liberals plan to do it. This is part of the many pieces of legislation where they plan to phase out our entire energy sector. I recognize the Liberals have already gone to work on reducing the size of our economy with their reckless inflationary spending. In fact, Statistics Canada just reported that our economy shrank by 1.1% while the economy of the United States grew by 5.2%. As our great Conservative leader put it, its economy is roaring while ours is snoring. However, the Liberal plan would take it to a whole new level. According to an internal briefing, the plan would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians working in agriculture, construction, energy, manufacturing and transportation. These economic losses would not be felt equally, since the plan is, of course, always meant to be divisive and designed to disproportionately harm natural resource-based regions, which is on brand with the Liberal strategy. What kind of politician sees these numbers and says it is a good idea to get that many Canadians fired? The Liberals must know best. They think since they are in Ottawa, they should dictate how the economy goes. It is appalling to think that any politician standing in this chamber thinks this is a reasonable approach to governing a country. At the end of the day, we should just call the Liberal-NDP coalition the anti-everything coalition. The funnier thing is this piece of legislation is likely to prevent a transition to the clean-tech sector, because 75% of all private sector investment in clean tech comes from the sector the Liberals are trying to destroy: our energy sector. Without this investment, more handouts would be necessary to develop a clean-tech sector.

1149 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:52:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the member please clarify what he means by “energy”? He keeps saying “energy”, but I think he only means oil and gas. I wonder if he might clarify that for me.

45 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:52:49 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate, and I suggest that the hon. member ask a question at the first opportunity, in about a minute, when the hon. member finishes. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

36 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:53:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are probably asking what the point of all this is and what the point of that question was. Let us make it clear. I believe we should be living in an affordable country with good jobs, and we should be supporting Canadians who want to work across this country in any sector that is viable and valuable to our region. While Canadians are struggling to pay their bills because of the Liberal-NDP coalition, the environment minister is off dashing around on his high-cost, high-carbon, high-hypocrisy trip to Dubai. I do not think they understand how ironic that really is. At the end of the day, Bill C-50 has a lot of problems. The programming motion today highlights exactly why this costly Liberal-NDP coalition is trying to crush dissent. We deserve better and Canadians deserve better, and I call on all my colleagues to oppose this programming motion and oppose Bill C-50 and the damage it would do to our country.

170 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, while listening to the member speak, I could not help but reflect on the fact that when he ran for a nomination, he said he would have voted against unanimous consent in this House to ban conversion therapy. I wonder if he would like to stand in the House now and confirm whether that is still his position. Has he come around to being in the same place where even his Conservative colleagues—

76 words

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:54:36 p.m.
Watch

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame.

19 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261