SoVote

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

Mr. Clifford Small

Dec/4/23 7:54:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member is being irrelevant with his question.

10 words

Irrelevant

The Deputy Speaker

Dec/4/23 7:54:49 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

That is just debate. I know we are all trying to stick to the debate we have before us, which is the motion on Bill C-50. The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

34 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:55:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a great deflection that was. Canadians despise the government. The polling shows that. They also really despise this legislation because it is forcing them out of jobs. They are having enough trouble paying for their mortgages, their heat, their food and their groceries. Canadians are sick and tired of a government trying to divide them. Instead, we need a Conservative government that is ready to unite Canadians and create prosperity for this country.

76 words

Despise

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Dec/4/23 7:55:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, which I found to be entertaining. Just before him, his colleague from Calgary Centre said that he was asking the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-50 because it does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions. We told him that we agree with that. My colleague from Mirabel told the member for Calgary Centre that we were on the same page and asked him if we could count on the Conservative Party to support the Bloc Québécois every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, but we did not get an answer. Can my colleague who has the floor now tell me whether we can count on the Conservatives' co-operation every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions?

145 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:56:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is actually one thing that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois and I can agree on. Provinces have jurisdiction, and I think, collectively, we agree that this federal Liberal-NDP coalition continues to run roughshod over provinces' jurisdiction, whether it be oil and gas, mining or any sort of energy creation. We should let provinces dictate and decide how they can regulate their own prosperity; that is absolutely something we can agree on.

80 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Dec/4/23 7:56:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking at some of the financial information from the oil and gas sector. There is very clear evidence that it has now shifted to a capital discipline, flat growth and high shareholder return strategy. In fact, most of the obscene profits right now are going into stock buybacks and dividend payouts, often to foreign investors. If we want to talk about capital that is fleeing the country, it is the obscene profits from oil and gas companies that are leaving the country and not being reinvested in Canada. The reason Wayne Gretzky was such a good hockey player is that he always went to where the puck was going to be. Why can the Conservatives not see this? Why, every time they are in this House, do they stand up for their corporate buddies instead of the workers who are in those industries, who want to make this transition and have the jobs that are going to be prevalent in a 21st-century economy?

169 words

Mr. Branden Leslie

Dec/4/23 7:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing right now. We want to stand up for the workers, who want to have their voices heard in the face of a government that is trying to put their livelihood not just at risk but out of business. The reason that money is flowing out of this country is the regulatory uncertainty that the Liberal-NDP coalition is imposing on investors. Why on earth would one want to invest in a country where cabinet could just decide, no, that has passed all environmental objectives, so we will just cancel the project? That is why investment is flooding away from this country.

110 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261