SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 299

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
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
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)
  • Apr/15/24 1:31:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, although I was a little surprised by the conclusion. He talked about a consensus within civil society. The current bill may not be ambitious enough and may not be perfect, but we think it is a step in the right direction. It is supported by the Canadian Labour Congress, Environmental Defence, Climate Action Network, 350 Canada, Equiterre, the Pembina Institute, Ecojustice, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Council of Canadians and the David Suzuki Foundation. That is a lot of people, a lot of environmental groups. I know that some Quebec unions support it as well. I have attended various COPs, and people from both the FTQ and the CSN have talked about wanting a just transition. I think we are heading in that direction, with room for the labour movement at the table. This was an essential demand from these groups, and Bill C-50 came through on that. I wonder if the Bloc Québécois might be open to reconsidering its position.
177 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24
Mr. Mario Simard
  • Apr/15/24 1:32:15 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, as for reconsidering our position, the answer is definitely no. As I told my colleague, we had numerous meetings with people from the environmental and labour communities. People from the environmental community have mixed feelings about the bill. For them, the fact that the notion of a just transition has been squeezed out is a defeat. Still, they would rather have legislation than nothing at all, and I do not blame them. My goal was to improve the bill. As I was saying earlier, if the government had been open, we might have been able to improve the bill. The main reason we will be voting against this bill is that the government does not recognize the asymmetrical agreements it has with Quebec. I have spoken to all the unions about this, and they have even written letters to the minister, urging him to acknowledge the asymmetry that exists in workforce training. Unfortunately, that has not happened.
159 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border