SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24

Apr/11/24 12:26:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Suncor is an energy company. Many of the items it is dealing with, and what it is doing, are renewable energy projects, so there is a mix. There is money being made throughout it. Perhaps there is money being made in the investments they have in solar and wind, but some of that is perhaps coming from government and the policies we have. I think that is important, but it is also important that we recognize what that does for our communities and what it does to make sure we have a health care system and a solid structure throughout our communities.

104 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Apr/11/24 12:27:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege today to rise to speak to Bill C-50. I have spoken to it before. As well, I sit on the natural resources committee, and this is a bill that we studied. We heard a lot of testimony from different folks with all aspects of concern for and support of the bill. I plan to use my time this afternoon to make my case as to why this legislation is bad for Canadians and show the correlation between this bill and the carbon tax. I will address the legislation directly, but I will take a bit of a roundabout way to get there, so I ask for the Chair's indulgence to do that. Only the Liberal government would have the audacity to put forward this piece of legislation and call it a “sustainable jobs” plan. Bill C-50 is simply a rebranding of the Liberals’ so-called “just transition”, a plan that would shut down Canada’s energy sector and move to what they claim will be a more green, sustainable and just economy. The Liberals could not sell it under that name. Nobody was buying it. Now, just like a shifty used car salesman, they have slipped on a new coat of paint and jacked up the price. It seems that the Liberals’ new approach to legislation is to title their bills to say the exact opposite of what they are actually going to do because, to date, the government has failed spectacularly at meeting one single environmental target. The Liberals love to talk about the environment, but their first act in office was to authorize the City of Montreal to dump eight billion litres of raw sewage into the St. Lawrence River. I think most Canadians would call that making pollution free again. Their promise to plant two billion trees never materialized. The said it would be two billion tree over 10 years. They have now had eight years. The time is nearly up, yet how many have they managed to plant? What percentage of those trees are in the ground after eight years? It is 0.05 of 1%, which is not even 1%. They keep talking about net zero, and it is all over this bill, but the government has yet to meet a single emissions reduction target. It keeps upping what it says it will achieve, when it has not met a single target of it should have achieved. Again, the government talks a big game, but it does not execute. Across the board, whether it is the economy, immigration, getting a passport or something as simple as sticking a sapling in the ground, it just cannot get the job done. If we are going to talk about the environment failures, we need look no further than the carbon tax. The Liberal, NDP, and now the Bloc, carbon tax continues to drive inflation and drive up the cost of living for struggling Canadians because the carbon tax is a tax on everything. The only thing, it seems, that remains unaffected by the Prime Minister’s beloved carbon tax is the environment. That the carbon tax has made little to no difference to the environment should not surprise us. The whole thing is a scam. It is another smoke-and-mirrors sales job, just like its “just transition” to cover up the government’s actual goal, which is its real agenda, the one thing that it has so far been successful at achieving, which is the redistribution of wealth. That is what the carbon tax is all about. It is what a significant portion of its COVID policies were all about, and that is what this legislation is about. It is a classical Marxist redistribution of wealth. Members can remember that day a while back when the Minister of the Environment got up in the House to proudly proclaim that he was a socialist, and all the Liberals around him applauded. It was shocking, not just because of the dark and bloody history associated with such regimes, but also because a Liberal minister actually got up and told the truth about what they were doing. That is what this legislation is about. It is about the government picking winners and losers based on a warped ideology and redistributing wealth and opportunity to those it deems worthy. As retired General Rick Hillier put it just this week, “Ideology masking as leadership killed the Canadian dream.” Before they start to claim that this is some far right MAGA conspiracy, I would point my colleagues to an excellent article written by Dr. Vijay Kolinjivadi. He is a post-doctoral fellow at the Institute of Development Policy at the University of Antwerp, an expert in the social and economic ramifications of climate change. Dr. Kolinjivadi is a firm believer that climate change is an existential threat. He says that we western governments are “'greening' ourselves to extinction”. What Dr. Kolinjivadi means by that, and he makes a very convincing case for it, is that the so-called green policies of this and other western governments, or what he calls “fake” solutions, not only do nothing to stop climate change but are in fact a smoke-and-mirrors job to help governments and wealthy investors get even richer off the backs of the middle class and the poorest, most vulnerable, people on our planet. That is what he meant when he said that we are “'greening' ourselves to extinction.” He is not alone. There is a growing recognition across the political spectrum that what these governments are doing, what our government is doing with these policies, is about wealth redistribution and not the environment. How do they do it? They do it by destroying the middle class. How did they do that? Members can look no further than the effect its COVID and environmental policies have had on our economy in just the last three years. Can Canadians, particularly those would be the most affected by this legislation, Bill C-50, trust the Liberal government to transition them in a just and sustainable way? I think not, but I like to judge a person by what they do and not what they say. That brings me back to the carbon tax. Let us look at the three main government talking points about the carbon tax. The first is that the carbon tax is putting a price on pollution. This is false. Eight billion litres of raw sewage went into the St. Lawrence River, and there was no price on pollution there. The carbon tax has made no demonstrable change to emissions, and no targets have been met, nor will they be, at least not from the carbon tax. Those on the political left say that the tax is too low to force people to modify their behaviour. They complain that it leaves exemptions for large emitters, which it does. Those on the right are equally correct that taxing carbon in Canada is virtue signalling at best as Canada accounts for a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions. That means that, if we were to shut down every single carbon-producing thing here in Canada, shut our whole economy down, we would make a whopping difference of 1.5% globally. In questioning the sanity of ignoring actual pollution while taxing a life-enhancing element of the very air we breathe, now, with Bill C-50, Liberals want to spend billions more of taxpayers' dollars to shut down not only the largest private sector driver of our economy but also the largest private sector driver of green and renewable technology as well. The second talking point is that eight out of 10 Canadian families will receive more money back in rebates than they paid into it. That is false. Rex Murphy pointed out, in his excellent piece in the National Post: Name a tax that makes the taxpayer richer. What a strange incentive that would be. Half of Canada would be upping the thermostat, putting the air conditioner on in winter, and driving day and night to burn up oil and gas so that they could get more back than they put in. As the PBO has made clear, one is not getting more money back, and hardly anyone is. In fact, by the time the tax is fully implemented in 2030, eight out of 10 households will pay exponentially more, which is a fact even our proud socialist environment minister has admitted to. No tax makes the taxpayer richer. It only makes the government richer, which leads to the third claim. The third talking point the Liberals have about the carbon tax is that it is revenue-neutral. This is false. Even if we were to believe the principle that the taxes collected all go toward rebates, which makes no sense, the Liberals are charging GST on top of the carbon tax, and that goes directly into the government’s coffers. We have learned recently that it is holding back billions of dollars collected by the GST on the carbon tax. All three talking points are demonstrably false. By the way, the Liberals love to repeat their talking points, but one we have not heard in a while is that they are supporting the middle class and those working hard to join it. I guess that has changed. However, what is true is that this tax, like so many others, is costing Canadians more money at a time when most cannot afford it, and despite its obvious failures, the Liberals continue to double down on this failed policy. Why is that? It is because it is successful in one metric, and one metric only, which is the redistribution of wealth. It is to the destruction of the middle class to make more money for billionaires and Liberal insiders and to force more everyday Canadians into total reliance on government. This bill, Bill C-50, would do the exact same thing. It is just the next step in the plan. The Liberals’ so-called sustainable jobs plan would actually kill 170,000 Canadian middle-class jobs, displace 450,000 middle-class workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians. In short, the Liberal government's just transition is anything but just, and its sustainable jobs plan is anything but sustainable. When those jobs have gone, as they were during COVID, when everyone but the giant billionaire chains were shut down, where else will people turn to but the government?

1778 words

Mr. Ken Hardie (Fleetwood—Port Kells, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 12:37:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, really, the most difficult output of fossil fuels is when they are burned for fuel. However, other things could be done with the things that we dig up out of the ground. Could the hon. member talk about the innovation in the petrochemical industry? Has he heard from the industry about the sort of things that could be done that would certainly make for a very bright future for the petrochemical industry when we, at least, rely a lot less on burning it for energy?

87 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Apr/11/24 12:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else we would do with fossil fuel energy other than burn it. I suppose plastics and rubber could be made out of it. That would be certainly useful and seems to be working. However, there is a ban on plastics. I have said before, here and at committee, that when I go to McDonald's or Burger King, and try to slurp up their super thick strawberry milkshakes, their paper straws collapse. That frustrates me to no end, it is true. The member raised a good point as it allows me to, again, indicate that Canada's oil and gas industry is the biggest contributor, the biggest researcher and developer of renewable energy. That has been proven. The industry has shown that. The industry is looking to green things up as much as it can as well and to be environmentally responsible.

149 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Apr/11/24 12:39:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing my colleague did not really focus on and did not say much about. That is, of course, economic growth in a so-called net-zero economy. That is part of the bill. It is an essential part of the bill. How can this become a reality under a Conservative government, given the Conservatives' love of oil? Is it possible, conceivable and realistic to talk about a net-zero economy?

76 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Apr/11/24 12:40:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, similar to how I answered the previous member's question, the oil and gas industry is doing lots of research and development into transitioning to other energy sources that contribute less CO. When we allow something to naturally transform, and when the economies actually make sense in terms of producing energy in an alternative method, it will happen. It should not require government influence. This bill would require billions of federal taxpayer dollars to be successful, and we will have to subsidize those sustainable jobs. It really is what the government called it initially: At best, it is a transition bill.

103 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Apr/11/24 12:41:00 p.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, a Calgary economic development study estimated that Alberta could see $61 billion pumped into its economy through clean technology investments. Does the member agree that transitioning to sustainable energy is the way to go, so provinces such as Alberta could continue to see their economies grow?

47 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Apr/11/24 12:41:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the member is concerned about job growth and the economy growing in Calgary, the oil and gas industry in Alberta has proven that it has excellent corporate citizens. It has been the best thing that ever happened to the Alberta economy. If the government were to wilfully shut that industry down, displace 450,000 workers and put 2.7 million people at risk, that would not be very prudent at all.

74 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/11/24 12:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I agree with my friend from Provencher on one point. This bill should have been called the just transition act. The government and governments around the world, largely because of the work of Canadian trade unions, which were in Paris at COP21. They worked hard to ensure that climate action would not compromise the jobs of workers in the fossil fuel sector and that they would receive help and support. As a Maritimer, I lived through what was called the “TAGS program” or the “groundfish strategy”. They told workers who had just lost all their work from the cod fishery to trade the fish net for the Internet; these were ridiculous notions. We need to support the workers and communities that are going to be impacted by the climate crisis and by actions to address it. This bill is the result of the Liberals trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths, while accomplishing nothing.

166 words

Mr. Ted Falk

Apr/11/24 12:43:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said: This bill would accomplish absolutely nothing, and the Liberals are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

32 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson (Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 12:43:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to a vital piece of legislation, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. To set the context, climate change is altering our world's natural environment in numerous harmful ways. In fact, last summer, Canadians experienced the worst wildfire season on record, destroying homes and livelihoods, blanketing cities and towns in smoke and putting brave first responders in harm's way. While some political leaders choose to deny, deflect and downplay such events, Canadians know the facts: Our planet is burning up, and climate change is the cause. At the same time, climate change is also rapidly transforming the global economy and finance in ways that are creating enormous economic opportunities for those who approach the shift to a low-carbon world in a thoughtful, determined and strategic manner. The global energy transition that is already well under way is both an environmental imperative to protect the planet for our children and an economic opportunity on a scale similar to that of the Industrial Revolution. In releasing “World Energy Outlook 2023”, Dr. Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, stated, “The transition to clean energy is happening worldwide and it’s unstoppable. It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’”. The majority of Canadians are indeed concerned about climate change, but they are also concerned about their economic situation, and they want good jobs and economic opportunities for themselves and their children in the future. In order for Canada to seize the extraordinary opportunities offered by the transition to a net-zero economy, we must accept the scientific reality of climate change and ensure that it informs and shapes Canada's economic strategy. Since 2015, the federal government has committed almost $200 billion to the fight against climate change and to accelerating the development of a prosperous low-carbon economy. This includes the nearly $86 billion that last year's budget committed for tools, including major investment tax credits, to accelerate clean growth and ensure Canadian competitiveness; we are seeing significant progress from these investments right across the country. In Newfoundland, Braya Renewable Fuels is converting its refinery to renewable diesel. In Nova Scotia, EverWind Fuels recently received approval to build North America's first facility to produce hydrogen from renewables. In Quebec, progress was made on new lithium mines and the announcement of TES Canada's $4-billion hydrogen project. In Ontario, we are seeing massive investments in the entirety of the electric vehicle value chain. In Saskatchewan, BHP is constructing the largest potash mine with the lowest emissions in the world. Companies in Alberta are developing net-zero and low-carbon industrial facilities, including Air Products' clean hydrogen facility and Dow's recently announced $12-billion net-zero petrochemical facility. In B.C., the recently announced $1-billion investment in the E-One Moli battery facility will create almost 500 jobs and will generate further employment in upstream activities. To date, we have invested over $1.5 billion in measures for skills programming, supporting communities and industries across the country. The sustainable jobs action plan and the sustainable jobs act are both about creating low-carbon economic opportunities in all regions of the country that will create jobs and opportunities for generations. They are about ensuring that we prepare workers and communities to fully seize these opportunities. As far as this piece of legislation is concerned, there are five key elements. Firstly, the bill establishes guiding principles that ensure workers are at the heart of building a net-zero future. The original bill was enhanced by an amendment to include additional considerations of environmental sustainability and equity. This amendment ensures alignment with commitments made under the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act and Canada's 2030 emissions reduction plan. Secondly, the bill would create a sustainable jobs partnership council composed of Canadians from sectors involved in the shift to a net-zero economy. This part of the bill reflects a tripartite-plus approach, ensuring dialogue among industry, labour, indigenous and other experts in policy-making. Amendments to the original bill provide further clarity about the exact composition of the council, as well as the co-chair and member appointments. This council would provide valuable advice to the Government of Canada, sourced, in part, from dialogues engaged in across the country, ensuring diverse and well-informed perspectives to shape policy recommendations. Thirdly, accountability is reinforced by the requirement to publish action plans every five years. Amendments to the original bill in this section will ensure that areas of federal-provincial co-operation are taken into account in the development of action plans. The amendments will also ensure that analyses are regularly conducted to assess how action plan measures interact with those of Canada's emissions reduction plan. Fourthly, this bill would establish a sustainable jobs secretariat to coordinate intergovernmental efforts and enforce compliance with the acts. Finally, the bill designates the ministers responsible for implementing the act and the plan. Overall, the amendments being made to this bill are the product of work by committee members, very much including Liberal and NDP members, with some helpful assistance from the member for Jonquière. I would like to specifically thank my Liberal colleagues, the members for Toronto—Danforth, Calgary Skyview, Cloverdale—Langley City, Sudbury, Vaughan—Woodbridge, Nickel Belt and Labrador, for their hard work and dedication. I must also say it has been a pleasure working with the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, whose passion for this work is a strong example of the dedication he has brought to two decades of service to his constituents. He will be missed in the House of Commons. The amendments noted would enhance legislated transparency, ensure effective representation on the partnership council, secure strong linkage to the climate accountability legislation and emphasize the pivotal role of provinces, territories and other levels of government as key partners in advancing sustainable job opportunities. This bill has gained strong support on the part of the labour movement and civil society. I want to thank leaders in the labour movement, and Bea Bruske in particular, for their strong and active support. This legislation underscores the government's commitment to working collaboratively and thoughtfully to advance the prosperity and well-being of all regions of Canada, of all communities and of all workers as we look to seize the massive economic opportunities before us. The fact of the matter is that this legislation represents a thoughtful approach to the future. It has been supported by Clean Energy Canada, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Business Council of Alberta, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Climate Action Network, Electricity Human Resources Canada, the United Steelworkers, Environmental Defence, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the Pembina Institute, the Power Workers' Union and many more. Unfortunately, Conservatives' contempt for Canadian workers led them to engage in months of shenanigans in committee that I could only characterize as legislative vandalism. The fact is that not only has the opposition's obstructionism been a roadblock to environmental progress, but it also represents a direct attack on our economy and the livelihoods and prospects for generations of Canadian workers. In order to keep workers from the decision-making table, the Conservative Party submitted over 20,000 amendments on an 11-page bill. I repeat, the Conservative Party of Canada submitted more than 20,000 amendments to an 11-page bill. Canadians expect better. They expect us to take this work seriously, to look at the bill first and to speak to the substance of the bill, even if we disagree. With their stunts, the Conservatives have proven that they have no interest in dialogue or serious governance issues. They have been busy dog whistling about globalist plots and are increasingly denying the reality of climate change while they neglect their responsibility as parliamentarians, which is to act in the interest of the long-term prosperity of Canadians. For too long, the opposition has put the interests of an extreme climate-denying fringe above the well-being of our planet and of Canadian workers. As we work to build a thriving, dynamic and prosperous low-carbon economy, we must ensure Canadian communities and Canadian workers remain at the centre of this critical work. That is precisely what this legislation would do. I implore all parliamentarians to stand with Canadian workers, who are calling on us to support Bill C-50.

1428 words

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Apr/11/24 12:52:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since the minister was not on the committee, I appreciate his commendation of his cohorts for colluding in the costly coalition cover-up. The Liberal members of his party rejected a Bloc Québécois motion that would have ensured that Bill C-50 supported “the decarbonization of workplaces while preserving existing jobs, minimizing job losses, and encouraging the involvement of workers and trade unions in the associated transition processes”. How can he possibly rationalize that? This is an important question, because in the Canadian energy sector, more than 90% of energy companies are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. In Bill C-50, the just transition actually does not contemplate those workers at all. We supported that Bloc amendment; the Bloc and the Green Party are the only parties being honest about the agenda that is actually included in Bill C-50, instead of pretending that it is about skills and jobs-training programs. That amendment, as well as all the Conservative amendments, were the only measures that would have included provinces, territories and indigenous governance bodies for consultation and collaboration under the central plans by all the secret government committees that would stem from Bill C-50. How on earth can the minister defend Liberal members for rejecting these amendments?

219 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Apr/11/24 12:54:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will let the Bloc members speak to whether they want to be implicated by the globalist conspiracy-spouting Conservative rhetoric. However, I would say that type of amendment actually is already the whole thrust of the bill, which is about building a prosperous economy as we move through a transition to a low-carbon future that includes input from labour, industry, environmental organizations, indigenous communities and youth. The Conservatives' 20,000 robo-amendments that actually would redo the same amendment many different times on each different section were not thoughtful amendments; they were simply about blocking. This is not the way Parliament should work, and the Conservatives should know that.

113 words

Globalist

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Apr/11/24 12:55:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to those nearly 20,000 Conservative amendments. I agree that our democracy should not be operated by robots that block our political and democratic institutions. The problem is that gag orders are also used as a tactic to block democratic and political processes that help improve bills. Another problem arises in a democracy if provincial jurisdictions are not respected when a bill is drafted. Quebec and the provinces were not consulted. The expertise of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail was not taken into account. My question is very simple. We are at report stage. If the minister could go back and rewrite his bill, would he give greater consideration to the reality and the needs of Quebec and the provinces, especially by showing respect for the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail?

148 words

Quebec

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Apr/11/24 12:56:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have done a lot of consultation since 2019. We have certainly had conversations with industry, with provinces and territories, with indigenous groups and with environmentalists. The bill was introduced here in June of last year. It stayed here for eight months, which is a long time. Having said that, we respect provincial jurisdiction. This bill focuses on areas of federal jurisdiction.

64 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Apr/11/24 12:56:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, certainly what we have seen from the Conservatives is part of the pattern of toxic disinformation. The only way one can get away with standing up in the House and making ridiculous claims about some kind of international globalist conspiracy that will kill 170,000, 190,000 or millions of jobs is if they try to shut down the facts. We saw at our committee that every time workers came to speak, the Conservatives shut them down. They shut down the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, whose members work in the oil patch. They shut down the carpenters union, whose members work on so many of the building projects. They shut down the Canadian Labour Congress. They shut down Unifor, which represents workers in the EV plants. They shut down the Alberta Federation of Labour. What is it about the Conservatives that they are so angry and are ensuring that the workers who brought the bill forward are not allowed to speak, so the Conservatives can get their disinformation sock puppets to spread falsehoods? Why is it so important that we actually have the voice of labour at the table when we are talking about the transition that is under way?

203 words

Hon. Jonathan Wilkinson

Apr/11/24 12:58:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important that we have the voices of workers at the table. The transition obviously would fundamentally affect them. It would create opportunities that would actually engage workers, their families and their communities in the development of whole new industries around hydrogen, critical minerals and critical minerals processing, biofuels, nuclear technology and a whole range of other things. It is enormously important that good public policy is informed by conversations with the stakeholders affected, and that very much includes the labour movement.

86 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 12:58:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege from the member for La Prairie with respect to announcing certain policy initiatives. Page 899 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states, “Speakers have maintained that [budget] secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.” On November 18, 1981, in relation to budget secrecy, Speaker Sauvé noted, “[budget] secrecy has no impact on the privileges of a member”, and goes on to say, “but [further]...has nothing to do with [the] privilege.” The House will have opportunities to consider the budget when it is properly before the House. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance has announced that she will be presenting the budget to the House at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 16. Following the presentation of the budget, the House will have four days of debate, and the opposition parties will be able to move an amendment and a subamendment to the budget motion. Following a vote on the main motion for the budget, the House will consider a ways and means motion, and, following its adoption, will see the introduction of the budget implementation bill. Where privilege arises is the period between when notice is given of the budget bill and its subsequent introduction. However, if the measures to be contained in the budget implementation bill are tabled in the form of a notice of ways and means motion while the bill is on notice, members of the House will already have the contents of the budget implementation bill to consider, which by its very tabling in the House of Commons obviates the ability to raise an associated question of privilege. Budget secrecy is a matter of convention. The executive has the right and the ability to communicate with Canadians about proposed budget measures in advance of the tabling of the budget. This represents the fundamental right of the duly elected government to present its plan to Canadians about how it will help them, as is the case with the Speech from the Throne. These are policy proposals, and their announcement does not, in any way, interfere with the rights of the members of the House. The matter in no way interferes with the rights and privileges of members, as has been established by precedent. Perhaps it is due to the popularity of the proposals with the public that the member may seem be taking some offence.

420 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Apr/11/24 1:01:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as every member of the House should know, we are in a climate crisis, with a closing window of opportunity to act. I will share the words of the UN Secretary General about this: “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” He also says, “We are in the fight of our lives. And we are losing....our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible....The global climate fight will be won or lost in this crucial decade – on our watch.” In the face of this crisis, as Greens, we are deeply concerned that the so-called Canadian sustainable jobs act, Bill C-50, remains a massive missed opportunity and an example of checkbox politics rather than substance. This is about checking a partial box from the government’s supply and confidence agreement with the NDP. There are some members of the House who decry the bill as central planning and destroying the economy of Western Canada, but none of this is true. I have the bill here and will share what it would actually do. In fact, it would do three things. First, it would create a group to give the minister advice, which would be called the sustainable jobs partnership council. Second, the bill would require a sustainable jobs action plan. As of the current version of the bill, this would be required by December 31, 2040. As Greens, we are glad the government has proposed amendments to bring the plan sooner. We have put forward an amendment to bring it forward as soon as possible; we have suggested December 31 of this year. Again, we are in a crisis that demands urgent action. Third, the bill would create a sustainable jobs secretariat to help the minister implement this act. That is it. In the words of public policy researcher and author Seth Klein, it is “a snoozer”. There is actually nothing on the words “just transition”, which were long forgotten by the time we moved from the supply and confidence agreement to the bill. They are words that are a key principle of the Paris Agreement. Unions fought for the words “just transition” to be in the Paris Agreement; workers across this country advocated for that to be the case. There is nothing in the bill about meaningful investments in truly sustainable jobs, such as a just transition transfer that could be linked to climate infrastructure projects with training and apprenticeships, in the same way that we already have a Canada health transfer. There is nothing on provincial and territorial just transition agencies to ensure that the funds flow to affected workers. There is nothing on a youth climate corps, a federally funded job training and placement program that already exists in other jurisdictions that could ensure that young people know there will be good, green jobs available to them in the economy in the years to come, as the MP for Victoria has proposed a motion for. There is nothing on investments in training and apprenticeships in the skilled trades, including the carpenters, electricians and plumbers we will need to support as we move to retrofit buildings across the country: homes, businesses and industrial buildings. These are good, well-paying jobs that the bill could have been investing in. There is nothing in the bill that talks about the coal workers that the government consulted with in 2018, made promises to and has since provided no support to for things like job retraining that were promised to them. There is nothing in the bill with respect to Bloc and Green amendments at committee. Of course there were various partisan tactics that led to that not getting debated. However, when it came to the actual vote, none of those were accepted to be in the bill. There is also nothing in the bill when it comes to actually investing in the economy of the future. As Greens, we have been putting forward that it is well past time that we put in place a windfall profit tax on the oil and gas industry. This is a measure that has already been taken by the government when it comes to banks and life insurance companies. It would be just a 15% tax on profits over $1 billion. The largest oil and gas companies in the country, the most recent year we have numbers for, made $36 billion in profits. If we are going to put in place even a 15% windfall profit tax on profits over $1 billion, we would have $4.2 billion that could be invested in affordability measures for Canadians. It could be invested in workers who need that support, like some of the measures I mentioned earlier, or in apprenticeships and job retraining. Those are the investments we could be making. It is important that we point to revenue tools along with the measures that could have been in this bill, but none of it was. Again, we are talking about three measures to put in place a council, an action plan and a secretariat. We are facing a climate emergency and are at a time when workers across the country, many of whom are anxious, recognize that they deserve supports. This was the moment to do it. This legislation was an opportunity to demonstrate to them that they were being listened to, unlike coal workers from 2018, and to build trust with them. It is why we will continue to advocate for better. I encourage Liberals to read A Good War by Mr. Klein. I would encourage them to act like they understand the crisis we are in. The fact is that this remains a unique moment in time, one where we can stand up and say it is possible for us to hold onto 1.5ºC. It is possible to speak to young people today, recognizing the enormity of the challenge we face, and say that their government could take action at federal, provincial and municipal levels to invest in good jobs for them in the future and to take action while we still can, yet that is not what is here. We will continue to advocate for better. We are going to work with all parties that are willing to do so. I will point out again that the Bloc proposed amendments that would have improved this bill, just as Greens did. We brought more forward at report stage to continue that advocacy. We will continue to do so, because we recognize that we are living in a unique moment, one where we still have this opportunity to act. We encourage the government to take it.

1133 words

Sustainable

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 1:09:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague provide further thoughts regarding the benefits of the sustainable jobs action plan? We are talking about every five years, and there is a great deal of merit for that. I do not quite understand why the official opposition would see that as a bad thing. It is more of a longer-term plan that could have a positive outcome, when we start consulting with Canadian workers and others to ultimately come up with a plan. What does he think?

84 words