SoVote

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 3:53:39 p.m.
Watch

We do not question the intellect or other qualities of members in the House. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

18 words

Apr/11/24 3:53:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my apologies, but it is really hard to explain why any political party of the House of Commons today that is elected to represent people would choose to go to a robotic system to generate amendments to important legislation that would govern hundreds of thousands of people in this country, rather than actually do the heavy lifting themselves to meet with people, to actually sit down in a thoughtful way to write amendments that would strengthen the legislation and ensure that Canadians have jobs into the future. That was not the only thing. The Conservatives also used every opportunity they possible could to stall debate with amendments they were bringing forward. The amendments were not substantial in any way but were to do only thing: hold up the real debate of legislation and disallow many unionized organizations in this country from having the opportunity to sit before committee and give their testimony, answer questions and give their insight into what the legislation would mean. When workers are transitioning in any industry, whether it is the fishery, oil and gas, manufacturing or technology industry, there has to be a focus for how that transition would work for it to be successful. There have to be real people, not robots, at the table, who would determine what that looks like going forward: how people would be trained, whether programs are available, and how they could find and secure new job opportunities that would pay them well and sustain their family. We did not see any of that at our committee from the Conservatives, by the way. In fact, all we saw from them were the attempts to bring in robot-generated amendments to bill. To me, that is not a responsible way to deal with the lives of Canadians. I am sorry, but I just do not see how it would do anything to help people in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or any of the territories. It is like phantom policy; that is what they were doing. They were bringing in phantom policies and trying to say they were doing something substantial. All we hear about is what they are going to cut or, the word they like to use, “axe”. They talk about axing taxes. They do not like to talk publicly about the other things they would like to axe, but we see it as they stand to vote against policies in the House of Commons every single day. Policies designed to serve Canadians in times of financial needs, programs like the Canada child benefit, dental, pharmacy and disability benefits and raises for the Canadian Armed Forces members, are all things the Conservatives have voted against. It is no wonder that the Conservatives are not supportive of workers' transitioning in the energy sector in Canada. When technology came in, when we got computers, we did not get rid of every secretary in every office. They learned how to use the technology. They learned how to grow into the modern-day expectations of the workforce. It is also like when we launch drones in cyberwarfare. The soldiers being trained to use the drones are not the same soldiers being trained for on-the-ground combat. There is a level of transition in every single sector, every single career opportunity that arises, whether it is in the mining sector, the oil and gas sector or the technology sector. There will always be advancements and changes. Why would someone be against working with Canadian workers to ensure that they have secure employment into the future? It makes absolutely zero sense and has zero logic to me. In fact, all I have seen from the Conservatives on the bill before us has been the fact that they are looking at phantom policies that would do absolutely nothing for workers, and they have been voting down all of the important concepts that would protect workers in the energy sector in Canada. I live in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is one of the largest areas of oil production and mining production in this country. I can tell the House that producers are transitioning already, with more energy-efficient equipment, by changing out different technologies within their operations, by training workers to use the new technology they are installing to able to become experts in it so they can transfer their skills across a multitude of industry and resource development sectors. Of course Conservatives do not see any of this as being important for Canadians, and that is wrong. The bill before us would show real accountability and engagement to support Canadians in a low-carbon economy and to seize the opportunities they have available to them. That is the important piece in the legislation. If members support workers in this country, support the unions that represent them and support the resource development sectors, then they will support the legislation.

825 words

Alberta

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Apr/11/24 4:00:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is the member not concerned about, or has she not been able to see, the government's internal memo during the discussions and consultations on the concept of the just transition? However, they are not on Bill C-50, because of course no Canadian will be heard on that. Is she not concerned about the fact the government's own internal memo said that the result of Bill C-50 and the just transition would be the immediate elimination of 170,000 oil and gas jobs and the disruption of the livelihoods of 2.7 million other Canadians in energy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction and transportation? She is saying to me that is not what it would do, but the government's own internal memo says it would. The Liberals know that already. Is she not concerned about that? The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be deeply concerned, since it is the province where oil and gas contributes the most to provincial GDP. Atlantic Canadians and Albertans sure are proud of having built each other's provinces together for the benefit of all Canadians.

186 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Apr/11/24 4:01:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I do know is that Canadian jobs are going to transition whether we bring in the legislation or not, because that is the way the world is. Bringing forward the legislation would allow more stability and security for the workers. That is what the member is missing. If we go back to the cod moratorium, the Conservative government of the day did not bring in a transition plan, and thousands of families were left without a way to put food on the table or a job to go to. We are not going to gamble on this in the oil and gas industry; we are going to have a firm energy transition so workers will have those jobs and the skills they need to do the work. What I can tell the member is that the new transition to a greener economy, whether it is transitioning in mining, oil and gas, or whatever sector, would be creating new, high-paying jobs, and the member knows that.

169 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Apr/11/24 4:02:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a bit sad when we debate bills that are in any way related to the fight against climate change. We are always witnessing some sort of battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals to see who does the least to fight climate change in this country. It makes absolutely no sense. I can hear my colleague bragging a bit about her government and how well things are going. However, Canada is the worst country in the G20 when it comes to average greenhouse gas emissions per capita. The Liberals have been in power for eight years. We are the only country in the G20 whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the Paris Agreement. I did say that they have increased. We are not even talking about stabilizing them. Canada ranks second in the G20 for public investment in fossil fuels. In short, Canada is a disaster for the environment. Is my colleague not a little ashamed of the speech she made here today?

169 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Apr/11/24 4:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the government's record and what we have done. I am very proud of the fact that we have done more to reduce carbon in this country than anyone else. We have invested more in a clean energy transition. We are looking out for workers while we do that. We have invested more in infrastructure to support clean energy in Canada, and we will continue to do that. For the record, I want to say to the member opposite that many companies, industries and communities have signed on to the environmental plan and are looking for continued investments to ensure that we have a cleaner environment, a greener economy and more opportunity for Canada in the future.

124 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Apr/11/24 4:04:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course, we know this is a small step. It is not the biggest step, but it is a good step in the right direction. The United States has made quite big strides, especially in clean tech. Biden's IRA has created about 170,000 jobs in clean tech, yet in the Canadian clean-tech sector, investment tax credits that have been promised for quite some time have still not been delivered. The credits will be a step in continuing the work we need to do to support jobs in this new industry, as well as the sustainable jobs that we are talking about today. When will the hon. member's government deliver on the promise of those clean-tech investment tax credits?

125 words

Ms. Yvonne Jones

Apr/11/24 4:05:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that, before we came into government, there was not even a line item in terms of investment in clean tech. We created that as a government. It is the focus of our economy. We can see companies such as Braya fuels converting their refinery to renewable diesel, while companies in Nova Scotia and Quebec are doing so much work around clean energy and transitioning to produce other renewables. In Ontario, we can see massive investments in the entirety of the electric vehicle value chain. We are seeing investments in—

98 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:05:39 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

10 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Apr/11/24 4:05:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country. This unjust just transition bill is the NDP-Liberal coalition's attack on jobs and Canada's economy. This is important legislation that would drastically affect Canada's economy from coast to coast to coast, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for my community and hard-working Canadians. If the NDP-Liberal government truly cares about expanding the alternative energy sector, then it must realize the vast impact this bill would have on every Canadian when prices continue to rise and jobs disappear. It has provided no data, no details and no proof otherwise. If this legislation passes, it would accelerate the shutdown of Canada's energy sector, which would result in the loss of 170,000 direct jobs and the displacement of up to 450,000 direct and indirect jobs. It would create a significant disruption to the manufacturing, agricultural, transportation, energy and construction sectors, affecting 2.7 million Canadian jobs. These numbers come right from a document from the Liberal government itself. The document also states that these jobs would be replaced by other jobs. However, there is no proof and no plan as to what they are or if they would have the same pay and benefits as people have now. We know what the government wants, because the government wrote it down. This is an ideological attack on well-paying jobs. When a manufacturing company cannot buy plastic solvents, lubricants, waxes or other products needed because there is a lack of domestic product from Canada, it will have to import. We need to bring home the good jobs that are leaving the country. Even before this just transition legislation, the government's actions have already caused mass job losses and billions of dollars of investment leaving Canada. We only have to look at the Supreme Court of Canada calling the anti-energy bill, Bill C-69, unconstitutional. How poorly the government thinks through its legislation. This unjust bill is causing my community and people across the country to worry about whether their small business will close or whether they will have a paycheque and where it will come from. As such, how can the Liberal-NDP coalition say it cares about Canadians? I remember, not long ago, when many families living in Kelowna—Lake Country had family members commuting to and from Fort Mac on flights. Both the flights and the jobs are gone. I spoke to a mom, who told me she reluctantly had to go back to work because her husband lost his well-paying job in a senior management position in a resource company. She said they reluctantly had to find child care, and she was not able to volunteer at her kids' school anymore, which broke her heart. Even with both of them working, they were making less than he had made in his one former position. Leaving workers behind and ending responsible and clean Canadian energy jobs will not improve the world environment. It will only result in our allies buying more dirty oil from foreign dictators. Not only is the Liberal-NDP government supporting Canada having to buy energy from other countries, but it is also supporting countries and dictators that have poor environmental standards, concerning human rights issues and a lack of transparency standards. In 2020, Canada imported $11.5 billion worth of crude oil, with Saudi Arabia being the top country we imported from. The Liberal government keeps giving away our energy security. We need to bring it home. This just transition bill is elitist, anti-energy, anti-worker, anti-private sector and anti-free market. It would cause widespread losses of good jobs, as outlined in a government document: 2.7 million jobs. We cannot afford a higher cost of living, especially because Canadians are already suffering under the Prime Minister's government. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians are realizing the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. Alberta, Canada's largest energy province, has the fear that this just transition bill would dismantle the oil and gas industry. The office of Alberta's energy minister reported that it was not consulted on this. Germany, Japan and Greece all asked for Canada's LNG, yet the Prime Minister turned them down. He said there is no business case. This is absolutely not true. Business 101 starts with having a need, and the U.S. knows this. In the last five years, it has become one of the largest exporters of LNG. Canada could be supplying our allies around the world rather than having to turn to other countries that do not have the strong environmental, worker rights or human rights standards we do. Canadians need Canadian energy, and workers are ready to provide it; however, the Prime Minister will not let them. Canada's own energy security is at risk. Canada is at risk of energy poverty. What does the Prime Minister truly think will happen to Canada's economy when one of Canada's main exports is reduced substantially or no longer being exported? The government is forcing Canada to rely on other countries for energy when we could be self-sufficient, surviving and thriving on our own resources as we find ways to support and expand alternative energy development to make Canada more resilient. We know the radical, career activist Liberal environment minister is all for the just transition. In a shocking move, the minister travelled to Beijing, where there is no carbon tax, to sit as the executive vice-chairman on a body established and controlled by Beijing's Communist Party. The minister should be focused on promoting Canada's energy sector, reducing red tape to ensure that Canada's clean energy, clean LNG, can help countries such as China, which are dependent on coal, to drastically reduce emissions. At a time when we have had inflation at a 40-year high and continue to have high interest rates, families need the security of a well-paying job. Instead, the NDP-Liberal coalition is guaranteeing the destruction of a powerful paycheque. We are already in an economic crisis, a mental health crisis, an addiction crisis and a housing crisis. Food bank usage is at a record high, and families are struggling to keep food on the table. Like many Conservatives, I will not stand for the Liberals' true goal of shutting down the energy sector and getting to claim positive action from their destruction of Canadian livelihoods and Canada's economy. Conservatives support the development of Canada's clean energy and support focusing on technological advances. This bill does not mention training or retraining workers for whatever hypothetical jobs the Liberals are alluding to after disrupting 2.7 million jobs. That number is not just about the number of jobs; it is about people and families. As we are debating this just transition legislation, the Liberal MPs want Canadians not to worry and have them think everything will work out and be just fine, to just trust them on the 2.7 million jobs that will be lost or disrupted. However, Canadians have lost trust in the Liberals. This is the same government that, through Environment and Climate Change Canada, is implementing single-use plastics prohibition regulations. An up-and-coming Canadian company out of Calgary, Leaf Environmental Products, produces biodegradable, compostable grocery bags. They are banned through the single-use plastics ban, even though they have no plastic in them. They just look like plastic. How ridiculous is that? Clearly, the government's focus is to bring in legislation and policies that have a nice title but do not consider the ramifications. For the government's just transition plan, the labour minister said at the human resources committee, which I sit on, that he does not like the name “just transition”. This legislation has a new term. It is now called the “sustainable jobs act”, even though a government document states that there will be 2.7 million Canadian jobs affected, creating significant disruption in multiple industries. Today, in debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that it should be called the just transition act because globalist groups call it that, and that is what it is. Putting millions of people out of work while providing no information on the size and scale of the supposed new jobs, making Canada less energy secure, and creating red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies are not things Canadians need right now. Canadians need hope. We need to bring home powerful paycheques, investment and development.

1453 words

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

Apr/11/24 4:15:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus has come up with this new regime of research called “AI”. That was well demonstrated at committee. They actually came up with 20,000-plus amendments to the legislation. Could the member provide her thoughts on the Conservative Party using that new tool to filibuster good legislation that, ultimately, is going to have a positive impact for the people of Canada and our environment?

71 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Apr/11/24 4:15:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a number of the amendments here that were proposed. With my limited time, I will list a few of them. The amendments proposed were to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, ensure a strong export-orientated energy, avoid regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays, and achieve a fair and equitable net zero with a strong social consensus. Those are examples of some of the amendments, brought forth by Conservatives, that were voted down.

77 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/11/24 4:16:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks and the tone of her speech. As I mentioned to one of her colleagues earlier today, we appreciate the tone—although we do reserve the right to disagree with the content. We appreciate the tone, especially since it strikes such a sharp contrast with what happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. It was a hapless circus until the wee hours of the morning. The Conservatives were shouting over each other on points of order, to the point where the votes that were taken happened without anyone really understanding what was being voted on. The interpreters' ears must have been hurting for an entire day. It was totally disrespectful. I would like to know if her colleagues' tone in committee was acceptable to her. It is a stark contrast to what we saw from her today as she spoke to us in the House. She was an exemplary model of calm and composure. That should be the norm for debate in the House.

176 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Apr/11/24 4:17:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. There are a lot of people who are extremely concerned, so it is really important that we get it right. I can appreciate the work my colleagues did at the committee to bring forth recommendations that make sense. I read a number of them here today that absolutely make sense, and they unfortunately were not voted in favour of. Committee work is very important. It is where the hard work takes place. Sometimes committees take a lot longer, and sometimes we need to make sure that the voices from our communities are heard. It is really important that committees do the hard work. That committee did sit, and I know the members from the Conservative Party were—

127 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:18:59 p.m.
Watch

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Windsor West.

13 words

Windsor

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Apr/11/24 4:19:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when the free trade agreement was signed, Canada's auto sector went from number two in the world to basically 10th or 12th at different points in time. The U.S. has moved forward with the Inflation Reduction Act, through which it is investing billions of dollars over multiple years in battery and electric energy efficiencies for its auto sector. My concern is with the Conservatives cancelling the projects we have, such as those at the Stellantis project in Windsor, at the Volkswagen plant and others. What is their plan for the auto sector in responding to the United States? They are clearly looking at trying to recapture even more of auto assembly manufacturing for the future, and we need a response to that. What is the Conservative plan? I ask because we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.

144 words

Windsor
Plan

Mrs. Tracy Gray

Apr/11/24 4:19:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in Canada we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the resource sector. One example is in forestry. Canada has not had a softwood lumber agreement since 2015. We have lost a lot of forestry workers. We are talking about people transitioning into other jobs, and I am listening to the Liberal representatives talk about that. In my riding, a mill closed and was trying to “transition” people into different jobs. I was talking to mill workers who were saying that mill work was what they wanted to do. It is where their love is, and they do not want to be training for another job. We have to hear those voices when we are talking—

122 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:20:51 p.m.
Watch

We have other voices to hear. Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

20 words

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

Apr/11/24 4:20:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in the process of passing legislation, we have consistently seen a certain behaviour pattern from the official opposition. That behaviour is dictated by the leader of the Conservative Party. It really is a destructive force. The Conservatives try to, as much as possible, make the House of Commons a dysfunctional place. We see that. The member just finished saying how a lot of hard work is done at the committee stage. For this particular legislation, and I asked the member about this in a question, there were 20,000-plus amendments to an 11-page bill. That is not Conservative hard work at play. That is artificial intelligence, AI, being utilized as a weapon of destruction, if I can put it that way, to try to prevent legislation from passing. I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not recognize that climate change is real. At the end of the day, on the legislation the Conservatives are trying to prevent from passing, they should be talking a little more to Gen Z and Gen X. These are the types of jobs that are going to be there in the future. Members can take a look at what the legislation actually does. What is wrong with forming a council that would provide advice on policy for the government and, ultimately, a five-year action plan? This is such an important issue. It is about transitioning and being able to see those jobs of the future, in multiples of hundreds of thousands. What is wrong with ensuring that there would be a secretariat there to coordinate? The Conservative Party will pop in to say something, whether here or in committee. Conservatives will filibuster. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting. I invite members to think of Bill C-49. Bill C-49 was the Atlantic accord legislation. The committee just finished it earlier this afternoon, maybe half an hour ago, or however long it was. Do members know how many days and weeks ago we passed this in the House, and how we had to drag the Conservative Party to get the bill out of second reading? The Conservative Party opposed the legislation. Conservatives oppose it because, at the end of the day, they want to be able to prevent legislation, good, sound legislation, so they come up with all sorts of excuses. Bill C-49, from my perspective, is a prosperity piece of legislation that would help Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the province of Nova Scotia. It is mirror legislation for those provinces, which are waiting for Ottawa to ultimately pass this bill so they can get on board with moving forward on renewable energy. It seems this is something that the Conservative Party just does not understand. Conservatives want to be stuck in the past and not recognize the future opportunities for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector. It is not just Liberals who are saying this. Bill C-49, which they opposed, involves two premiers, and one of them is a Progressive Conservative premier. I will highlight the fact that I put the word “progressive” ahead of the word “conservative” because, as Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, the current Conservative Party has amputated any sense of being progressive from its name. Former prime minister Joe Clark has said that he never left the Conservative Party, but that the Conservative Party had left him because it had gone so far to the right. Kim Campbell's remarks reinforced what Joe Clark said, and more. We just cannot trust the Conservative Party when it comes to the important issues of jobs, our environment and being there for Canadians in a very real way. We want an economy that works for everyone and a sense of fairness. We want Gen Z and Gen X to be engaged in a very proactive way. By voting against this legislation, members are not thinking of future generations of workers. The Conservative Party is turning its back on green jobs, and its members are demonstrating that by voting against this legislation and voting against Bill C-49. These are opportunities for us to grow. Members can take a look at the legislation itself and ask why the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it. It would create a sustainable jobs partnership council, which is, in essence, what the legislation is primarily there for. The minister would have an advisory group that would help set policy and be there to do some research and support Canadians, all so we would be in a better position to capitalize on renewable energy jobs. What is wrong with that? Why would the Conservatives feel so compelled to not only vote against the legislation, but also propose 20,000 amendments at the committee stage? When I asked that question, a member said, “Well, I had a few of those amendments”. Let us look at the amendments, which the member actually knew a few of. I can guarantee members that there is not one Conservative who knows all 20,000-plus amendments because the Conservative Party did not come up with them. Rather, it was computerized artificial intelligence that ultimately produced that number of amendments so that the Conservative Party of Canada, in its official opposition role, could prevent this legislation from passing. Why is that? It is because it does not want workers, community members or indigenous communities to be engaged in providing ideas on how we can produce government policy. Why not? This is not just about these two pieces of legislation. We can take a look at some of the budgetary measures we have to support renewable jobs. I think one of the largest and most significant announcements that was made was on the Volkswagen plant. We are talking about thousands of direct jobs, and even more indirect jobs. It is not just going to be for one area for the country, as a plant of this magnitude is going to require all sorts of materials. Whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures, members of the Conservative Party of Canada continues to stand up and want to filibuster to prevent good, sound policy. This is done at a substantial cost, which is the cost of future renewable energy jobs and the substantial cost to our environment. I say shame on them for not recognizing that. At the end of the day, they are there not to oppose and prevent things from passing, but to take policy positions for the betterment of Canadians. I am still waiting to see evidence of that.

1121 words

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

Apr/11/24 4:31:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I made this point earlier to the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, and I just want to reiterate it. Not to be insulting or disparaging to my Liberal friends but, really and truly, the only thing that encouraged people to support the previous environmental assessment legislation that was brought forward as Bill C-69 was that the Premier of Alberta said it was the anti-pipeline act. I could not vote for it, because it just as easily could have been the pro-pipeline act. It was a pile of discretion untethered from federal jurisdiction, which is why the Supreme Court, in its reference case, said that part of the bill that was the designated project list was unconstitutional. It was not that the federal government did too much for climate or too much for the environment. It did so little, but it was aided by over-reaction from Conservative benches. I want to plead with my colleague, let us be honest about this bill. It sets up a secretariat that says it might talk about doing something for sustainable jobs. It does not actually help workers. It does not do what was promised in numerous Liberal political platforms. I lament that. If we oversell on each side of the House, the citizens of Canada are left disappointed and without a climate plan.

227 words