SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

Apr/15/24 12:23:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government always talks about supporting union jobs and supporting a transition. I would like to ask the member opposite about this. The oil sands and the potential for LNG could create the capital necessary to give opportunities not only to first nations but also to unions and workers to be able to grow a stronger economy, export, bring dollars from outside of Canada and support our allies. Instead, the government wants to put a cap on oil sands development, and the B.C. NDP wants to put a similar cap on LNG. If we are going to make a place in this world where we are going to create the new technology and employ Canadians, the answer is a free market approach, not a managed approach, such as the government, with this bill, wants to do. Establishing a new committee to manage the destruction of that capital formation is the wrong direction. Could the member answer some of these arguments?

163 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Ms. Julie Dabrusin

Apr/15/24 12:26:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, delay is never a good thing when we are trying to make sure we are moving forward in meeting the challenges faced by climate change and to seize those opportunities. The world is moving ahead in this direction. When we look at the International Energy Agency and its predictions, the world is moving toward renewables. We see it in the investments that are happening right now. When I talk with union representatives in my community, they talk about needing more skilled workers to build mass timber buildings, for example, and all of the different types of jobs that are there. However, if we disempower workers by not allowing them to have a seat at the table, we are harming those opportunities from going forward.

126 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)

Apr/15/24 1:28:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I disagree on nearly everything when it comes to energy policy, but I enjoy very much working with him on committee. I want to acknowledge both the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party for actually being honest about what Bill C-50, the just transition, is, which is a plan to end oil and gas, kill Canadian oil and gas jobs and, as the member pointed out, create a government committee to create a government committee to implement economic restructuring plans from the top down. I would note for the member that the leading driver of the creation of new union jobs in Canada is the oil and gas expansions by major multinationals in Alberta and other provinces where they operate, yet on the other hand, 93% of Canadian oil and gas businesses have fewer than 100 employees; they are small businesses. Since he is interested in engaging what is in the legislation, I appreciate that he will oppose the just transition in order to protect provincial jurisdiction and because he can see that the bill would not do anything that its proponents claim it would in terms of jobs training, new jobs or skills training. What does the member think about the fact that what Bill C-50 would do is end oil and gas, the leading creator of new union jobs and big multinationals right now, yet would not contemplate at all the 90% of Canadian oil and gas companies that have fewer than 100 employees?

259 words