SoVote

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

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

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/11/24 4:32:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, I disagree with her conclusions. At the end of the day, when this legislation passes and is ultimately put into place, it would assist the government, whatever political stripe it might be, to be in a better position to not only transition but to generate and create opportunities in a coordinated fashion for future renewable energy jobs. There is absolutely no denying that. When the consultations are done and there is an effective advisory committee that would bring the evidence to the minister, the minister would be better able to make the decisions that would ultimately provide the types of policy necessary to have a positive impact. When we think of the environment, we need to take a look at it with a 30,000-foot, holistic approach, incorporating legislation such as this, the net-zero legislation, budgetary measures and other policy statements regarding single-use plastics or trees. There are all sorts of initiatives. If we look at what we have been able to put together, it speaks volumes in terms of future jobs, a future healthier environment and a stronger leadership role for Canada to play in the world in dealing with the climate crisis that we have.

218 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/11/24 4:34:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope the member will listen very closely to the question. He is great at political spin. This bill talks about creating a framework that would leave upwards of 10,000 of my constituents without work. I want him to hear that again, up to 10,000 of my constituents both directly and indirectly depend on our world-class energy sector of oil and gas. There is a growing renewable sector, but we cannot be ignorant of the fact that oil and gas can and will play a significant role in the global economy for decades to come. I want the member to answer this. What would he say to the close to 10,000 constituents who could see job losses or pay cuts because of a radical environmental agenda that refuses to inject an element of realism into the global energy conversation? What would he say to those 10,000 of my constituents that he wants to put out of work?

164 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/11/24 4:35:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that they should not listen to Conservative facts because they are most often misleading. Following that, I would remind the member and others that if they want to talk about job numbers, it took 10 years for Stephen Harper to create just about a million jobs. In eight years, the Liberals have created over two million jobs. At the end of the day, we have taken budgetary and legislative measures that would ensure there is a higher sense of fairness for Canadians, whether they are generation Z, the middle class as a whole or those who are aspiring to become a part of the middle class. We understand the needs of generation Z and generation X, and we are going to be there with—

134 words

Harper
Jobs

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:36:16 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Emergency Preparedness.

57 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Apr/11/24 4:36:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to stand in this place and participate in debates, it has become commonplace that we have to deal with bills put forward by the Liberal government that are typically ideologically driven, deeply flawed and divisive in nature. Yesterday evening the government changed today's agenda and advised the House that we would be debating Bill C-50, dubbed “the Canadian sustainable jobs act”, at report stage today. For those watching, this means that the bill was tabled in the House and then debated at second reading, where it passed and was referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to be studied and amended, if necessary. It was necessary. More than 200 amendments were put forward. First, the Liberals understood that their just transition bill needed to be rebranded so they renamed it, a rose by any other name. This so-called sustainable jobs plan is just a renamed version of the Liberals' just transition plan, a plan mandated by the government to shut down the most productive sector of Canada's economy and a plan that Canadians opposed. It is just the latest attack, in a long line of attacks, on Canada's energy sector. For years, the government and its anti-energy policies and agenda have been driving investment away from Canada in both traditional and alternative energy. Let us look at some facts. Canada's largest export sector is oil and gas extraction: 18.3%, or $116.8 billion, in 2021. The energy sector provides 10% of Canada’s GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. In 2021 alone, the energy sector generated $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. Of all private sector investment in clean technology, 75% comes from the oil and gas sector. Of Canadian-owned energy companies, 92.9% have fewer than 100 employees, and nearly two-thirds of those have fewer than five. As well, 2.7 million jobs across the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors, for an estimated average of $219 billion in average annual salaries, will face “significant labour market disruptions.” If the bill passes, it would have a devastating effect on energy sector workers. It is beyond the pale that the government continues to introduce legislation that is divisive and disproportionally impacts certain regions. In my province of Saskatchewan alone, the bill would directly impact over 10,000 jobs and indirectly impact over 130,000 jobs. At a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables, the government is threatening their livelihoods. The cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas industry should not be overlooked, and the impact on Canadian workers will be devastating. Staggering job losses were outlined in a memo for the Minister of Natural Resources on their just transition plan: 292,000 jobs in agriculture; 202,000 jobs in the energy sector; 193,000 jobs in manufacturing; 1,400,000 jobs in building; and 642,000 jobs in transportation. This is a grand total of 2,729,000 Canadian jobs, or 13.5% of Canada’s employment. After eight years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so difficult for Canadians. His inflationary spending and ideologically driven taxes have created a broken economy, where businesses cannot survive and Canadians cannot find jobs. In its recently published labour force survey, Statistics Canada reported that Canada lost 2,200 jobs in March, as Canada's unemployment rate grew to 6.1% and as more Canadians competed for fewer jobs. At a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, there is no relief from this NDP-Liberal coalition for struggling Canadians, and this is proof of that. There are just more ideologically driven, half-baked ideas to make Canadians poorer. Instead of capitalizing on Canada’s greatest strength, our natural resources, the government seems intent to smother the oil and gas industry, ensuring it dies a slow death. The destruction of the oil and gas sector will cause significant damage to the economy. Despite the damage caused by the government over the last eight years, the oil and gas sector remains the largest private sector investor in Canada. This will lead to energy poverty for Canadians. As we will continue to need oil and gas for many years to come, we will need to import oil and gas from dictatorships around the world to meet the demands in Canada, driving up prices for Canadians. We have watched as other countries have attempted to switch to solar or wind-based energy economies prematurely and have had to go back to importing oil, gas and coal because they shut down their other sources of energy when making the switch. The top-down plans of shutting down one of the largest, if not the largest, sectors of the Canadian economy will be a disaster for Canadians and will drive up the cost of everything, compounding the difficulties Canadians already face. This bill, much like the carbon tax, is misguided. The government’s stated goal is to reduce emissions in Canada, which it asserts will reduce the number of extreme weather events. However, much like the bubble the government lives in here in Ottawa, ignorant of the struggles that Canadians across the country are facing due to its disastrous policies, it also believes that Canada operates in a bubble. It thinks that all we must do is reduce our emissions and the wildfires would disappear; there would be no more floods or any other adverse weather events. This kind of small thinking is why the government continues to put forward short-sighted and ham-fisted legislation that does more damage than good. Canada can play a primary role on the world stage helping other countries to lower emissions, whether it be through providing new technology or Canadian oil and gas that is produced with fewer emissions and more ethically. Instead of trying to tax Canadians into submission, the government should be capitalizing on our unique circumstances, with our plentiful natural resources and state-of-the-art technology. While the bill is foolhardy, it is not surprising that it is coming out of the most anti-energy government Canada has ever had. The Liberals are intent on suppressing the natural resources of Canada, one of our greatest strengths, and forcing Canadians out of the energy sector. The government would rather funnel billions of dollars to dictators to fund their authoritarian regimes than employ Canadians in a major sector of our economy with good-paying jobs that will boost the prosperity of our country and help all Canadians. It should be utilizing the brilliance of Canadians and their ingenuity. Canadians deserve a government that understands the value of the natural resources that Canada has been blessed with and how to utilize them to increase the prosperity of our country and benefit all Canadians. Conservatives know that environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. We believe in transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives will bring home affordable, accessible traditional and alternative energy, accelerate approvals and put Canadian resources, innovation and workers first to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency. I, together with my colleagues, cannot support a bill that will put hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work in the midst of a cost of living crisis the government has created. Canadians can be assured that the next Conservative government will support our energy sector and its workers, who do so much for the Canadian economy.

1281 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 4:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to bring it back to the points made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I really feel that there is a significant overreaction. We heard previously, for example, from the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that 2.7 million jobs would be lost. We heard from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot that it would be 10,000 in his specific riding. We heard from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. Which is it? In addition, where is it in this legislation? I see an introduction of guiding principles, creating a sustainable jobs partnership council, publishing action plans, creating a secretariat and then designating responsible and specific ministers. Where exactly are the job losses going to come from?

138 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/11/24 4:47:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly my hon. colleague understands math. When we say there will be 10,000 jobs lost in a riding or 100,000 jobs lost in a province, that can translate to almost two million or more across the country.

41 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Apr/11/24 4:47:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I take significant offence to the idea that I do not understand math. I take that as a comment on my intelligence, which you previously ruled on.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:06 p.m.
Watch

Members are not to make comments such as that. I cannot comment on answers given to questions, but they should not comment on people's abilities.

26 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/11/24 4:48:20 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I have the government's own internal briefing document that outlines—

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:28 p.m.
Watch

We are not going to debate the issue. It is done. It is taken care of. An hon. member: I am asking for unanimous consent to table the document. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is there consent? Some hon. members: No.

45 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Apr/11/24 4:48:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether she is—

12 words

Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:55 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member was rising on a point of order; I have to allow the Bloc Québécois to ask a question. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

37 words

Bloc
Baie

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Apr/11/24 4:49:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does my Conservative colleague really believe in the transformation of the oil industry to reduce greenhouse gases? Is she prepared to set explicit policy objectives based on Canada's international climate commitments, responsibilities toward indigenous peoples and just transition obligations?

42 words