44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/11/24 3:08:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost I would like to say that I have talked to the mother of Mansour Shouman many times, as he was obviously struggling in Gaza, and we made sure that he could come safely back home, working with the Minister of Immigration on this very issue.
Second, on the question of Israel, Hamas and the war, of course we know that the situation in Gaza is completely catastrophic and the violence must stop. We need a ceasefire now. We need to make sure that hostages are released. We need humanitarian aid to go in, and my colleague already knows that when it comes to arms, we have not sent arms—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:09:26 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Kitchener Centre has the floor.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:09:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been two years since the government committed $1.5 billion to build co-op housing across the country, yet two years later, instead of returning to annual predictable investments in deeply affordable co-op housing, this one-time program has not even launched. Instead, last week we heard more announcements while thousands of shovel-ready co-op projects are still waiting.
What is the point of making announcements, if they are not going spend the money, and when will the minister commit to these much-needed co-op homes being built?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:10:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, whether it is co-op housing, missing middle housing, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes or mid-rise apartments, the focus of the government is building more and dealing with that crisis in supply. This is what the government is seized with.
In fact, I recently met with the federation responsible for co-op housing and its advocacy in this country. They remarked how happy they were with the progress that has been made. Of course, there is more to do, but lifting the GST off that type of construction is something that I point out to the member as well. There is a larger context here, as well, to pay attention to. We are getting it done. We are getting that work done. We are going to see more building.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:11:12 p.m.
- Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26, 2024, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
The opposition House leader claimed that the bill's contents had been leaked to the media, as evidenced in two separate reports from CBC and CTV News. Pointing to the anonymous quotes in the news reports, he concluded his remarks by positing that the information was leaked intentionally, knowing that it was wrong. In doing so, it breached the rights of members of Parliament and the House.
For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that the envisioned legislation's objectives were widely known and already in the public domain long before the bill was placed on notice and introduced, given the government's prior commitments and extensive public consultations. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary emphatically rejected the allegations that the government had shared the bill before it was introduced.
The House leader of the official opposition is correct in asserting that there are abundant precedents that once a bill is placed on notice, its contents are not to be disclosed prior to introduction, thus ensuring that members have the first opportunity to take note of the bill. The premature disclosure of bills has usually been seen as a contempt of the House.
I will invite MPs to please take their conversations outside of the House, including the member for Scarborough—Guildwood.
In a ruling on October 4, 2010, which can be found at page 4711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote:
It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills it will consider.
On the substantive matter raised in this question of privilege, as members know, the policy direction leading to a government bill is not typically developed in the strict isolation of a government department. Prior to the putting on notice and introduction of most modern legislation, extensive consultations and public debate frequently occur for months or even years. Past precedents from the Chair address this reality, and Bill C-63 seems to be another example of that pattern.
On June 8, 2017, Speaker Regan emphasized the need for balance between members' right to have the first opportunity to see the bill and the need for prior public consultation. He said, at page 12320 of the Debates:
The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation.
In the same ruling, Speaker Regan indicated that the denial of a premature disclosure of the bill by the government, and the absence of evidence that members were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties, had led him to find that the matter was not a prima facie case of privilege.
Having reviewed the contents of the bill against what was reported in the media, and considering the assurance given by the parliamentary secretary that the government did not share the text of the bill between its placement on notice and its introduction, it cannot be determined that the information that appeared in the news media necessarily came from a premature disclosure of the bill by so-called senior government sources.
The title of the bill, combined with the various sources of information mentioned above, such as background information provided during the consultation process, could have easily informed as to the specific objectives of the bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that the scope, objectives and targets of the bill were known prior to its being placed on notice and introduced.
Not being able to say with certainty that the information in the media reports came from the bill itself, I cannot determine that any member was impeded in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties, or that the dignity of the House was transgressed. As such, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.
That being said, the Chair shares the members' concerns when detailed information on proposed legislation, whether accurate or not, appears in media stories prior to their introduction.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to—
Order. I am going to remind all members that one of the fundamental rules of being a member and being a Speaker in this House is that members are not to question or to insult the Speaker, unless they are doing it through a motion which would call into question the Speaker's role. I would like to remind all members about this fundamental rule. I know that I have had some conversations with members in the past about this.
I will continue.
It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to understandable frustration.
I thank all members for their attention.
908 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:18:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking the Thursday question, because the calendar seems to change at a moment's notice, but if the government House leader would like to give us something we can hope for next week, I will let him do so now.
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, with whom we have, of course, ongoing co-operation and good work.
I can assure the hon. member that we will continue today with the report stage of Bill C-50, the sustainable jobs act, despite the 20,000 automated, AI-generated robo-amendments that the Conservatives put up to obstruct this bill. We will take up third reading debate on that bill on Monday.
On Tuesday, we will commence second reading debate on Bill C-64, an act respecting pharmacare.
The budget presentation will take place later that afternoon, at 4 p.m., with the first day of debate on the budget taking place on Thursday of next week.
On Wednesday, we hope to resume debate on second reading of Bill C-61, an act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on first nation lands.
Lastly, on Friday, we will resume debate on the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.
I thank all members for their co-operation.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:19:58 p.m.
- Watch
I am rising on the question of privilege with respect to the government's response to my question on the Order Paper.
On February 14, I submitted an Order Paper question, Question No. 2340, seeking an answer to the following:
With regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006: how much federal funding has been provided to (i) Loblaws, (ii) Metro, (iii) Walmart, (iv) Sobeys, (v) Costco, broken down by company, year, and type of funding?
On Monday, the government tabled its response to my written question stating that “with regard to federal investments in Canada’s grocery sector since January 1, 2006, no federal funding has been provided to” those companies I listed above.
That answer was provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and it contains his signature. However, we know that this answer is disingenuous.
On April 9, 2019, it was reported that Loblaws received $12 million to install new energy-efficient refrigerators. That money was doled out as a part of the low-carbon economy challenge champion stream, a part of the low-carbon economy leadership fund. That certainly sounds like a type of federal funding to which my question very specifically sought an answer about. Catherine McKenna, the Liberal environment minister at the time, was even quoted in the media defending the government's decision to award this enormous sum of money to Loblaws.
In light of this, it is abundantly clear that the government's response provided by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is inaccurate and misleading to Parliament. The spirit of my written question was to find out how many federal tax dollars had been doled out to some of the wealthiest corporations in the country, companies that have been price-gouging Canadians when they shop for food to feed themselves. I should note that this was my second attempt at seeking an answer to this important question. The earlier attempt, having been in the form of a written question, was submitted back on December 12, 2023, to which I received the exact same disingenuous response.
Clearly, this is evidence of a problem. Why does the government believe it can mislead parliamentarians with impunity?
A lot of my work, and indeed the work of all members of Parliament, in this place very much depends on truthful and accurate answers to our questions. It is what allows us to be able to do our jobs not only to hold the government to account but also to appropriately represent our constituents.
I hope, in light of this intervention, that the Chair will review this serious matter and will make the appropriate ruling to prevent this from happening in the future.
458 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:22:57 p.m.
- Watch
I thank the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for his intervention on this question of privilege. The Chair has duly noted his question of privilege and will come back to the House in due time.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:23:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that, when I proposed this bill back when I was the minister of natural resources, the objective being that workers should have a seat at the table when major issues are being discussed like the transitions that are occurring within our economy, most especially the energy economy, I had no idea that Conservatives would have their staff put up some 20,000 amendments to the bill.
That is 20,000 amendments on a 14-page bill. I do not know what AI or CPC GPT they are using, but it is astounding to me that the Conservatives would go through this much trouble to stop something that I think is so astonishingly simple. When they were forced to admit that this stunt perhaps went a little too far even for them, they settled on a mere 200 amendments, which I understand is going to keep us occupied for some time.
What are these very serious and meaningful changes? The Conservatives have created and inserted dozens of random and conflicting dates into the legislation. They amend the same lines repeatedly. They delete entire clauses. As if to prove that they favour slogans over substance, they have even included some of their leader's favourite slogans into the legal text.
I am sure that these 200 amendments are very important, so important that they could not have been done at committee, by picking up the phone or by working with us over the months preceding this. I am sure these changes to the bill will help the member for Provencher finally enjoy his strawberry milkshakes again, as he testified at committee. I hear that the renewable energy industry, the one that employs 430,000 Canadians and has brought in tens of billions of dollars in investments for our country, is starting to make his strawberry milkshakes not as tasty.
I doubt these amendments will do what the party opposite really wants, that they will somehow reverse climate change and erase this booming, multi-trillion dollar renewable energy industry that is frankly an inconvenient truth to the opposition. They are meant to keep workers out of this conversation, out of this important dialogue that we are having about the future of our economy.
I am a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador. We are a proud oil-producing province that depends on our oil revenues for some 50% of our provincial budget. It is important to me and it is important to people out my way that we get this right, because we have skin in the game.
For those who may have missed it, I am happy to say that the provincial legislature of Newfoundland and Labrador, our House of Assembly, is the only jurisdiction in North America to unanimously vote for net zero. It made business sense. It sent the right signals to the business community. It sent the right signal to investors, and it is working. It did that unanimously.
I am proud of my province's offshore industry. I am prouder still to say that representatives of oil companies and their suppliers rebranded their association from the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association, NOIA, to become Energy NL. That is so it can talk not just about oil and gas, which is so tremendously important to our province, but also about hydrogen, renewables and hydroelectricity and how they mix together.
The expertise that workers have gained from any one of these industries lends itself so well to so many of these other industries. It is indeed our competitive advantage. During COVID and during a time when we also suffered an oil price war, which occurred because of Saudi Arabia and Russia, so many workers in my riding and jurisdiction said they wanted to have a seat at the table. They wanted to have some say in their future.
In these 14 pages, we would create a table, put them at the head of it and say we will listen to their advice, and that is it. Why does this warrant 20,000 amendments? Even whittled down to 200, why does this occupy the productivity and precious time of members of the House? It is utter and complete nonsense. It is malarkey. It is important that this bill go through. There is nothing, I say to members of the House, to be afraid of. Listen to workers and include them.
739 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:28:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague across the way from Newfoundland and Labrador who was once the minister of natural resources. Since 2015, we have already had 5,000 jobs transition out of our offshore oil and gas industry under that minister's watch. Studies show that peak oil will not happen until well beyond 2030, yet the Liberal government invested over $30 billion in battery plants that will use lithium that will have to come from China.
Are those battery plants going to bring back the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who have had to travel to Borneo, Brazil and the Ivory Coast? Will those battery plants bring those Newfoundlanders and Labradorians back from foreign countries, workers who the government has forced to become international rotational workers?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:29:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would never speak in such a disparaging tone about the proud Newfoundland and Labrador energy and oil and gas workers who travel the world because they are the best at what they do. They often get paid more money and have greater opportunities. They have, because of this industry, the ability to live at home in Newfoundland and Labrador and travel the world to where they are paid the best and where they are attracted. There is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I am proud of it.
It employs many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now. When I go to Argentia and Placentia Bay in Newfoundland and look out at a gravity-based structure that is being built by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians right now, as it stands proudly right next to the biggest monopile marshalling port on the eastern seaboard, do not tell me we cannot have our cake and eat it too. I will take opportunity everywhere I can find it.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:30:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what is malarkey is the fact that the government thinks it knows best and that it should be able to turn off the taps to oil and gas in this country.
What I do not understand is the fact that in the eighties, when the federal government decided to shut down the Atlantic fisheries and do that transition, those workers came right to my home province of Alberta. We welcomed them with open arms. The fact that the minister now wants to shut down those jobs is absolutely shameful.
What does he say to the Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who came to Fort McMurray to work in the oil sands in the eighties when the Liberal government shut down the fisheries?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:31:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it did not happen in the 1980s. I can tell that member that some of us remember exactly where we were in July 1992 when that happened.
Let me add something else, first and foremost, we have developed an expertise in Newfoundland and Labrador in the offshore that not only this government but every Newfoundlander and Labradorian is extremely proud of. We will continue to grow that industry as we welcome new and better opportunities. We will not stand in its way. We will listen to workers.
I ask this member to please tell me where in the bill some dictum comes down from on high. We are creating a table, we are putting workers at the head of that table, and we are saying that we will listen to their advice, full stop.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:32:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in its initial version, the bill would have been a huge encroachment on Quebec’s jurisdictions.
The Bloc Québécois gave them the benefit of the doubt and thought it might have been a mistake. We therefore proposed amendments to make adjustments and achieve a certain level of asymmetry in the bill. However, we soon realized that it was not a mistake, because the Liberals blocked our proposals to make the bill more fair to Quebec.
Is this simply a prelude to the budget and a teaser of intrusive budgetary measures we are seeing?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:32:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also add that while I am very proud of the fact that Quebec has such a low-emitting and predominantly hydroelectric economy, there are workers in other parts of this country, predominately in my province and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, who worry about the future.
They worry about the future of an industry that is changing internationally. I would say to hon. members to not stand in the way of jobs and prosperity, because regardless of what we think in the House, the world of energy is changing. We need to grasp the opportunities that are there. There is nothing that any of us can say or do that will stand in its way. What will make a difference is the number of jobs and the prosperity that we create in an international phenomenon that is called net zero.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:33:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad’s family moved to Fort McMurray in the 1970s to make a better life for themselves, and shortly after moving to Fort McMurray, my grandfather got a job at a place called Syncrude, working to build the extraction plant in anticipation of first oil. My dad, Gord, proudly worked at Syncrude, securing Canada’s energy future, for 42 years. He started in 1978 right after graduation and right before first oil, and he stayed until his retirement. He had three careers within that time: first as a machinist, as a process operator, and, finally, he found his passion in operations integrity and safety.
I eventually followed in my dad’s footsteps. Through university, I took summer student jobs at Syncrude, learning about extraction, maintenance, health and safety, governance, oil sands and so much more. After university, I started working at North American Construction Group in the mining division within the health and safety department. It was such a wonderful experience. I was able to work on so many different job sites throughout the region, wearing steel-toed boots and having dirty fingernails. I absolutely loved my time there.
I had a first-hand opportunity to see how seriously this industry took health and safety, environmental responsibilities and to see the role it played in not only Fort McMurray's and Alberta's economy but also the Canadian economy. I had the opportunity to meet thousands of hard-working, wonderful people from all across Canada and the world who decided to come to my hometown, to make it their hometown, to work in the oil sands and to make a better life for their families.
My community and the industry that drives it have been a beacon of hope for so many people for so long. In the eighties and the nineties, thousands of Atlantic Canadians flocked to Fort McMurray after the coal mines were shut down in Cape Breton and after the fisheries collapsed. Thousands of people came. They became my friends, my family and my neighbours. They are some of the most amazing people. However, they came to Fort McMurray not by choice, but because some government thought it knew best.
Now, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, my community is struggling. Eco-radicals now sit around a cabinet table and advocate against Canada’s world-class energy industry at every turn. They have made no attempt to even hide their distaste for oil and gas. The Prime Minister has stated on three separate occasions now that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. That is shameful.
The anti-energy agenda of the government has been consistent and punishing over the last eight years: anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions and, frankly, an outright veto of approved export pipelines. It has pushed forward with anti-energy legislation at every turn, including the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69. Despite universal provincial opposition, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Despite the fact that it did not have jurisdiction, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Frankly, the part that really hurts with that bill, particularly, is the Liberal government knew that if the oil could not be moved and was landlocked, it could not be produced. That was its sneaky way of shutting down oil without shutting down oil.
Canada should and could be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice and could be the place of energy security and self-sufficiency. Canada could be completely energy self-sufficient if government could get out of the way. However, ut time and time again, the Liberals continue to put ideology and partisanship above supporting our economy or even reality. They have failed to understand that these are hard-working people. These are our neighbours, our friends, and they work hard every single day.
Politicians in this chamber do not mince their words when it comes to speaking in disdain of this industry. In fact, the member for Timmins—James Bay even went so far as to table legislation to make it illegal to say anything supportive of the oil and gas industry, including true and verifiable facts, which would be punishable by massive fines and up to and including jail time. In fact, if his bill were to pass, saying something that is true and verifiable, such as that natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, would be illegal.
That is insane, yet the NDP-Liberal coalition continues pushing its agenda and continues pushing forward with this bill. I have not heard any members from the Liberals or the NDP denounce this insane bill, Bill C-50, because they probably support it, and that is why we are so fearful of everything the government does when it comes to energy.
I wish politicians could simply be honest about the outcomes of their policies, not wordsmithing, not negotiating, and not transition while calling it somehow “just”. We need to accept in this chamber and across the country that Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs.
The Liberal just transition is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill 170,000 Canadian jobs and risks the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians.
This bill, Bill C-50, is a step, actually more like a leap, toward Soviet-style government-central planning. That is exactly what this is going toward. The NDP-Liberal government claims to value Canadian oil and gas, and yet it wants to increase exports. However, after eight years, it has interfered to kill four pipelines, two of which were specifically designed to export off the west and the east coasts.
Do not worry; hope is on the horizon. Conservatives are going to do everything we can to push back against this legislation. The real solution is electing the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, as our next Prime Minister.
Conservatives would make traditional energy and the development of fuels of the future more affordable and accessible to Canadians. Conservatives would fix what the Liberals broke and would keep westerners, and all provinces, in control of their natural resources. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.
We will respect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and in all other cases. It is absolutely essential that provincial jurisdiction over natural resources be respected.
Conservatives would bring approvals up and would bring costs and timelines down to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency and to increase exports to the world. We need technology, not taxes. We need to support an industry that supports this country.
As I described earlier, to so many Canadians, Fort McMurray was, at one point in time, a beacon of hope, prosperity and a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers, we are a tough competitor that refuses to lie down, but for far too many elected officials across this country, we are simply a cash cow they can abuse.
To the fringe eco-activists, we are unfortunately the enemy, but to me, Fort McMurray has been, and always will be, home. I was born and raised here, and Conservatives of every stripe, federal, provincial and municipal, have always had our backs. They understand that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works.
I will not back down from all the politicians in this chamber who seek to land-lock and firewall our oil sands. Pipelines and energy corridors are items of critical national importance and interest for the long-term viability not only of northeastern Alberta but also of Canada and the world. I urge every member of this chamber to vote against this disastrous bill, Bill C-50.
1309 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:43:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Bill C-50 would really open up the potential of Canada's clean energy agenda. Those who cannot see that are stifling progress in this country. That is what I heard in the speech by the hon. member. Maybe she will agree with the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour or with the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said that in order to “shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs”, we need to have the sustainable jobs act.
People in her province are supporting this proposed act. Many companies are already transitioning. They are giving their workers the skills they need, and I ask the member—
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:43:58 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 3:44:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know of the Business Council of Alberta, and I have questioned it on that very stat that the member and her colleagues have brought forward to this floor—
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
