44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 15, 2024 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, globalism is, of course, a political theory that believes in policies being designed by global organizations and then being imposed on sovereign countries through global agreements. That is what globalism is. It is where the concepts of the just transition comes from. It has been developed at exactly those kinds of meetings over the course of decades, and instead of putting Canadian jobs, the Canadian economy, Canadian security, Canadian sovereignty and Canadian energy independence first and ensuring that Canada can be the world's top-most supplier of our energy products and technology, the Liberals, through Bill C-50, the just transition, are imposing that concept that comes from the globalist globalism theory and thinking.
The Speaker made exactly the right point, which I would also like to emphasize. Again, it is very telling when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources will not even get up on her feet and actually defend the bill, actually clarify if she thinks there are claims that I have made that are not true and actually stand up for what they are doing here. However, the Liberals will avoid that at all costs, just like they will not let any Canadian speak about the bill.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 12:57:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I greatly admire my colleague from Lakeland, with whom I serve on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. She is always kind and gracious. However, I still have to ask her a rather difficult question, because there is one thing that has been nagging at me when I think about all of the things she has said in committee.
Does she believe in climate change and does she think that the oil and gas industry are currently taking any responsibility when it comes to climate change?
I would like her to give a rather simple answer to those two short questions.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe that governments and politicians have to be honest about their policies and about what they stand for. Just as was the case under the former Conservative government, just as our leader says, just as all of my common-sense Conservative colleagues say, I believe that emissions reductions should be achieved through technology and not taxes, and through Canadians workers, Canadian ingenuity and the Canadian private sector.
I want to appreciate and acknowledge the Bloc's participation on the bill. Several times, its members supported provincial jurisdiction and in that way would tell the federal government to back off from its top-down, central planning, micromanagement embodied in Bill C-50. I certainly appreciate the Bloc's support on those principles.
I would also note that Bloc members themselves tried to make amendments to have Bill C-50 include language about preserving existing jobs in all these sectors that will be hurt by the just transition. Also, the Bloc tried to insert, in substantive ways, the concepts of fairness, transparency and equity within Bill C-50, but all those amendments that the Bloc proposed were rejected by the NDP-Liberals, too.
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 12:59:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I did not hear the member talk about the climate emergency we are facing. The member comes from the province of Alberta where forest fires are already burning. We have been told to expect a potentially worse wildfire season this year.
Like her, I come from western Canada where some of our provinces are facing potentially severe droughts. Workers in the resource sector in our province tell me that they are concerned about the future of their children. They understand we need to find a way to transition to sustainable work for a livable future.
Does the member not think we need to support workers in the face of climate change, which means bold action in terms of supporting the kind of work they can do on a livable planet?
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:00:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, after nine years, I hope that Canadians can judge me by my words and actions in the same way as the actions and words of all my common-sense Conservative colleagues.
To the exclusion of almost all else from time to time, it feels that for nine years I have championed supporting workers in the oil and gas industry, in clean tech and in all facets of energy development and technology production in Canada. I recognize the reality that the vast majority of private sector investment in renewable and alternative energy, including in clean tech, comes from traditional oil and gas companies, from oil sands and pipeline companies.
That is why right now, as has been the case for decades, Alberta, for example, is the leader in renewable energy and clean tech investment. In fact, there was a lot to be said about the premier's pause to ensure certainty and clarity in conditions for renewable development in Alberta. What her opponents will not mention is that the dollar value of investment in renewable energy in Canada, which dwarfs the investments in other provinces, doubled since she took the time to be clear and certain about those conditions.
Alberta is the leader in the country on renewable and clean tech. Common-sense Conservatives have always fought for those workers and will continue to do so.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the work she is doing in defending the jobs of energy workers and families and indigenous communities right across the country. She has been a steadfast advocate of the energy sector.
One of the things that she understands is the global demand for LNG and the impact and role Canada can play in meeting that demand. We have seen others with less environmental standards, less labour and less human rights standards fill that void, like Qatar.
The hon. member and I met with a European Union official. His sole purpose is to source energy, nuclear and LNG around the world. They prefer to do business with like-minded countries like Canada, with similar rules of law that are environmentally sustainable as well.
Could she talk about the role Canada can play in supplying the world with clean energy?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ontario who has also been a reliable, steadfast and passionate supporter of energy workers. He knows, for the sector and for individuals, it benefits the entire country.
Ontario has a lot at stake with BillC-50, given the negative impacts on manufacturing, construction and transportation that would come from it. He is exactly right; it has been a travesty. I do not know if the word “treason” is too much when we watch our Prime Minister say that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. He is apparently the only world leader who thinks there is no business case for Canadian LNG, since our allies and world leaders everywhere are literally begging for us to provide it to them.
Of course he is also a person who says that there is no business case for the development of those projects, even though 15 private sector proponents tried to get LNG projects built in Canada in the last nine years since he has been in government. They have all been blocked.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:03:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend from Lakeland was asking rhetorically if the word “treason” was too strong. Let me just put on the record the word “treason” is far too strong.
For my dear friend from Lakeland, I do not think anyone would ever imagine the MP for Lakeland was cowering. We are friends but we do not agree on this.
Let me just point out the many ways in which I found her speech varied. From my understanding, there is a global shift away from fossil fuels. The recent report from the International Energy Agency verifies that of energy spending globally, renewables are increasing the pace at which they are a greater investment globally, and this is an investment for people who want to make money on their investments, than investments in fossil fuels. Germany reached the lowest level of coal use in its history, while having renewables over 50% last year. Sweden brought in a climate carbon tax in 1991 and has expanded it.
Let us try to agree on shared facts and movement about climate action.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:04:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, last summer, Sweden paused all efforts of its official government policy toward net-zero and is ramping up the production of fossil fuels. Last year, Germany brought more coal online than ever before in history.
We can quote the International Energy Agency. We can look at the examples of individual countries that have gone way further down the road in this policy agenda and see what is happening now. They now are facing the consequences of high expensive bills, of expensive essentials, of expensive and unreliable power, of collapsing agricultural communities and rural areas, and of collapsing secondary and tertiary job creation in the private sectors dependent on oil and gas.
I think the member is sort of making a false dichotomy that is not coming from the Conservatives. The Conservatives are recognizing the fact that oil and gas development, as private sector investments, are the biggest investors in alternative energy and in clean tech and fuels of the future. We are saying not to cut that off at the knees to the detriment and peril of Canadian workers, the Canadian economy, Canadian security, Canadian self-sufficiency and Canadian energy independence in order to force, not something that is just happening, the economy into the exact same situation these other countries are already in, which is the citizens protesting and governments rolling back those bad agendas.
228 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, earlier I heard my colleague from Lakeland answer my question by stating that politicians have to be honest. It seems to me that Bill C-50 may in part address this issue of honesty. If we want to be honest with the people of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces, whose economy depends mainly on oil, we must tackle climate change and find solutions. That is what I originally thought a bill on the just transition would do. I thought it would help us find solutions to figure out a way to minimize the impact of a necessary transition on workers.
Everyone recognizes that fossil fuels are largely responsible for climate warming and climate disruption. Everyone recognizes that, except maybe certain Conservatives. Everyone recognizes it, but the way to prove that is by taking action. When my colleague says that politicians should be honest, that applies to everyone. I suspect some of our colleagues in the Conservative Party are going to wake up 10 years from now with a pretty bad headache after blowing up the endless balloon of an oil- and gas-based economy.
As far as I am concerned, Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. I mentioned honesty earlier because I feel that political processes are powerless in the face of the oil and gas sector, which is kind of steering the Canadian economy. As a dispassionate observer, I see the oil and gas sector as a symbol of Canada's identity, such a strong symbol that it makes dialogue on the energy transition impossible. These positions are irreconcilable.
I saw this at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, where I witnessed blatant filibustering, incivility, and tactics that I believe are totally unworthy of parliamentarians. That is why the Liberals responded in a way that may have been less than optimal—perhaps one of the worst ways possible, in fact—when they took the undemocratic step of shutting down debate. Did they have any other choice? History will not tell us, but this is how the Liberals responded.
The Liberals are not without their faults, either. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is a good minister. He does not seem too partisan to me, and he is open to dialogue. However, he too is in the stranglehold of the oil sector, so there is only so much he will do to move ahead with the necessary transition.
The minister found another dance partner, the NDP. It was only natural. The NDP even swallowed several bitter pills. I saw members go along with certain things on the energy transition at committee. That kind of undercuts their claim that standing up for the fight against climate change is part of their values. I may come back to this later when I talk about the difference between a just transition and sustainable jobs.
I was saying that Bill C‑50 is a textbook example of what is wrong with Canadian politics. With this bill, we saw the full scope of what I call the Carleton method, the member for Carleton's method, which has been in place for a while now. This method can be summed up in one word: intimidation.
We witnessed some fairly major intimidation at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Sometimes, when the Conservative members heckled others during the proceedings, it seemed to me that they were acting like influencers rather than lawmakers. Their goal was to wreak havoc in committee. Then some members recorded themselves on video to show viewers what a great job they were doing defending the public's interests. What an utterly pointless exercise. That is the way things went at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why am I saying this? It is because it feels like Bill C‑50 was never really debated in committee.
Our chance to have a debate by presenting our amendments and getting to discuss them was stolen from us by the Conservatives' attitude. I will repeat this ad nauseam: This attitude of the Conservatives can be explained by what I see as an all-consuming passion for the oil and gas sector.
At the Standing Committee of Natural Resources, I learned that the member for Provencher's argument against Bill C-50 boiled down to the fact that he likes muscle cars and would rather drink his milkshake through a plastic straw. When I learned that, I thought to myself: Our future is guaranteed, this is the way to go, in other words, more muscle cars—I see my colleague nodding his approval—and plastic straws. Is there anything worse than drinking a milkshake through a paper straw? I mean, really.
I also learned from the member for Red Deer—Mountain View that oil could be used to create peace in the world. In my former life, I taught political science, and I used to talk to my students about colonialism. Now I have learned a new concept: eco-colonialism. Apparently, it is eco-colonialist to stop indigenous peoples from developing oil. That is pretty shocking. Can there be a more pernicious reasoning than that? They are basically trying to secure social licence by saying that refusing to develop new oil projects that are affiliated with indigenous communities is a new form of colonialism. Rarely have I seen such twisted logic. My colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View also suggested that oil can bring peace to the world. Supposedly, Canadian oil and gas could stop the conflict in Ukraine and maybe even the conflict in Israel. Apparently, the answer to all the world's problems is oil.
All that is nothing, though. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources, which includes the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who is a world champion at making us go around in circles, spent almost a month arguing over whose turn it was to speak. As members know, each committee is made up of one member of the Bloc Québécois, one member of the NDP and four members of the Conservative Party, and the others are all Liberals. However, five or six Conservatives showed up, all demanding to speak. They started causing a ruckus, saying that their parliamentary privilege was being breached because they were not being allowed to speak. We spent a month on that. If that is not wasting time, I do not know what is.
The worst part was when we did the clause-by-clause study. The member for Brantford—Brant flew into such a rage that I feared for my whip's safety. I had never seen anything like it. He snapped. He just lost it and started yelling. He really loves the oil and gas industry. In my view, he simply lost it. At one point, I was afraid for my whip's safety. All that happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
In my opinion, a legislator's job is to calmly study bills in order to improve the society in which we live, to change the direction in which society is heading. How can we do that in an atmosphere like that? How can we do that when some people's prime objective is to derail the process and make dialogue impossible? In politics, the watchword is “dialogue”, meaning a discussion among people who have different visions but who are able to reach a consensus. It was absolutely impossible to reach a consensus on Bill C‑50.
The Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil industry was only confirmed by Bill C-49. They invited Ches Crosbie, an eccentric character who does not believe in climate change and who thinks that all the investments in fighting climate change are bogus. We have it on video. He was invited to testify by the Conservatives, who thought he might contribute something important to the debate by spewing absurdities. Maybe one day we will hear testimony from someone trying to convince us that the Earth is flat.
The Conservatives' all-consuming passion came to the fore in committee. I see that as the member for Carleton's method. The Conservatives' decision to reject everything that has to do with the fight against climate change can be seen in their never-ending attack on carbon pricing. We have actually started saying that the Conservatives are obsessed with the “carbum” tax, because they are acting like bums. Anything goes. They can say one thing, then contradict themselves. They can say for weeks that a tax applies to Quebec when it does not. They can say for weeks that carbon pricing is responsible for skyrocketing food prices. We saw them say that many times. The worst is what I saw them do in recent weeks, when they exploited the increase in the cost of living and the misfortune of the most vulnerable to help big oil push its agenda.
What the Leader of the Opposition wants to do is keep the economy stuck in the 20th century. He certainly does not want to end our dependence on oil and gas. We see the proof here every day. When someone asks a question about the oil and gas industry, they get a huge round of applause. No, that is not true. There are two things the Conservatives applaud. The first is the oath to the King. They perk right up when that subject comes up. The second is anything having to do with oil. That makes the Conservatives really happy. That is their bread and butter.
There is nothing more ironic than to hear them say we need to deal with inflation and help low-income people, while at the same time defending the agenda of the most wealthy. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that giving $82 billion in tax credits to the oil industry between now and 2034 is ridiculous and that we should use that money to help people in need. I have never heard a Conservative say that. I have never seen a Conservative stand up and say that investing $34 billion in an oil pipeline is absolutely ridiculous. These are the issues that should get their blood boiling, not a potential tax on the greedy oil and gas industry. I would just like to remind the House that, in 2022, this greedy industry raked in $200 billion in profits.
Far be it from me to remind my Conservative colleagues that their former leader, Mr. O'Toole, believed carbon pricing was one of the best ways to fight climate change. I will not do that. Rather, I will focus on the reasons the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-50.
The first reason is that, in my opinion, the bill is not actually about a just transition. Just transition is a concept. Everyone in the western world uses the term “just transition” to describe the efforts we should be making to plan a carbon-free economy while mitigating the negative impact on workers as much as possible. Everyone agrees, except Canada.
Why is Canada the only country that does not want to adopt the concept of a just transition? Some less charitable souls told me that one possibility is that we could make a pun with the Prime Minister's name. In fact, our Conservative friends made a not-so-clever pun with the Prime Minister's name and inflation. If that is why, it is pretty childish. I hope that is not it. The other possible reason why Canada uses “sustainable jobs” instead of “just transition” is apparently because the Premier of Alberta cannot stand the thought of talking about a just transition. For that reason, Canada chose to talk about sustainable jobs rather than just transition.
I figure that if we do not call a spade a spade, that makes it difficult to take the bold measures that need to be taken immediately if we want to deal with climate change. How bold can we be if we cannot call a spade a spade? That made it difficult for us to support the bill on just transition.
What made it impossible to support the bill is the federal government's calculated abandonment of the asymmetrical agreement on workforce management between Quebec and Ottawa. Quebec has the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which allows Quebec society to hold debates between the government, the major unions and employers. We thought that, in Quebec, the concept of a just transition should be debated by these partners and abide by the asymmetrical agreements reached between the governments of Canada and Quebec.
Unfortunately, I have had many discussions with the minister. I thought that at some point we could get there. I had a lot of discussions, I met several times with unions to discuss the bill on a just transition. I will admit that some unions were on board. I have friends in the unions who were prepared to put water in their wine and go for sustainable jobs, as a gesture of compromise. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, the federal government did not accede to their demands that the asymmetrical agreements between Canada and Quebec be respected and that the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail be given a more important role. That is why the Bloc Québécois will unfortunately not be supporting the bill.
However, there are some necessary steps that could have been taken. As I said at the beginning of my speech, Canada is in the oil and gas industry's economic stranglehold. What can we do to make a just transition? What action can we take?
First, the government needs to do away with the strategies that it is currently proposing. When I hear talk of a low-carbon economy in Canada, it is immediately clear to me that the government's and even the opposition's proposals are flawed. Among other things, I am talking about blue hydrogen, which uses carbon capture and storage. That is a key piece of the government's plan to fight climate change.
Many witnesses came and told the Standing Committee on Natural Resources that, from a technical standpoint, it is unfeasible to use carbon capture and storage technologies for the volumes that the government is talking about. Many witnesses also told us that it is unfeasible to produce blue hydrogen, or hydrogen from gas, because it is so expensive, and yet the government is investing massive amounts in tax credits and research support for the oil and gas industry's pipe dream.
In Canada, there is talk of developing low-carbon oil. The majority of experts we talk to say that is impossible. However, the Canadian strategy, as I was saying earlier, with its big tax credits, is focused on the pipe dream of producing low-carbon oil. I always tell the same joke: low-carbon oil is like diet poutine. It does not exist. If we want to fight climate change, then we simply cannot insist on economically supporting the oil companies. If we want to go on a diet then we cannot eat poutine. It amounts to the same thing.
I will close with an anecdote. I joined the minister in Berlin where we attended a meeting with people from Siemens. The minister asked them whether Siemens would be interested in producing the technology for blue hydrogen. The people from Siemens answered rather honestly, saying that the production cost would be so high that they would need government support. In addition to that, the technological costs are so high that it is practically impossible. Yet the government's entire strategy is based on a similar pipe dream.
I see that my time is up. Basically, the Canadian oil and gas sector's stranglehold has led us to a dead end. Unfortunately, we will not be able to produce legislation consistent with our goals and a just transition.
2696 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:26:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the member's last comment, poutine is something I really enjoy. If I were on a diet, I might limit the amount I eat, but it is something we all love.
The member expressed some reluctance at the beginning of his comments, regarding the idea of the government's using time allocation and so forth. If one looks at the process we have gone through to get the bill to the stage it is at today, we have seen the opposition using artificial intelligence to come up with 20,000-plus amendments. Yet again we heard misinformation from the opposition critic moments ago, which is on the record, and now she has moved an amendment to the legislation. The Conservatives have absolutely no desire whatsoever to ever allow the legislation to see the light of day.
Would the member not recognize that there is value in using the tool of time allocation in order to get the bill passed?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether my colleague listened to my entire speech, but I had a lot to say about the Conservatives' bad faith. I experienced the Conservatives' bad faith in committee, and I do not consider it the right approach.
The government could also have done things differently. The just transition is a political project that I support. Amendments could have been put forward to seek a strong consensus within civil society. I had many meetings with environmental groups and members of the labour movement. We could have reached a broader consensus and maybe then have pressured our Conservative colleagues to make them listen to reason. I think we could have done a better job on many levels.
I do not believe that invoking closure is ever a good thing.
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:30:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am tempted to give my colleague the same answer she gave me earlier when she said that politicians have to be honest. Every politician has to be honest. The future of the world does not lie in fossil fuels.
The country that is currently investing the most to get off oil is China. The same is happening in the United States. Countries are investing to get off oil, to transition to a low-carbon economy. Why should we be the only ones left in the oil and gas business, waiting to be dealt the death blow in 20 years' time? That would be completely stupid. We need to get moving. We need to move towards renewable energies and, above all, we need to pass legislation that supports people who are at risk of losing their jobs.
If they do not want to do that, there is obviously something there that they do not understand.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:33:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by really acknowledging, in solidarity, my colleague the member for Jonquière for what he has been through on this committee. It is quite incredible. I doubt that the people we represent are aware of all the grandstanding around this bill, which has been reduced to its principle and nothing more.
I am also of the opinion that we, as politicians, elected representatives and legislators, have experienced a totally undemocratic exercise. I am talking about the 64 votes we had to endure that got us nowhere. That is what my question to my colleague is about.
As it now stands and going beyond the principle, which is not about just transition and is ostensibly meant to promote social dialogue, is this bill simply smoke and mirrors?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:34:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has indeed become a bit like smoke and mirrors.
I want to add to what my colleague said. As parliamentarians, we have to realize that some things are not permitted. We can have different ideas and different points of view, but resorting to strategies to intimidate or wear down parliamentarians, to muzzle dialogue or shut down debate on a bill is, in my opinion, unparliamentary.
I have seen this transformation in my Conservative colleagues since the member for Carleton took over as leader. For everyone's sake, I hope they will change their tone in the coming months and weeks.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, finally we are at the point of moving forward with actually a very simple and what should be non-controversial bill. It is a bill that would ensure that workers, environmental groups and indigenous people have a seat at the table as we talk about moving forward with the biggest economic transition since the industrial revolution.
It is a transition that will happen whether Canada decides it is going to participate or not, yet what we have seen in the House is, in my 20 years here, the most deplorable, degrading undermining of democracy, which I could not have imagined would ever happen: the abusive harassment that took place in our committee from the Conservatives' trying to shut down witnesses who came forward; 20,000 bogus amendments brought forward through AI, none of which had anything to do with improving the bill; and two days of absolutely useless voting as another attempt to slow down.
What was being slowed down? It was a bill that had been pushed forward by the labour unions of Canada, which said the transition is happening, their jobs are changing, they want a seat at the table and they have a right to have it because it is their expertise that the government needs to understand if it is going to talk about sustainable jobs and because it is their communities that would be impacted.
Coming from mining country, where I have seen transitions, I can say there is nothing just about them. I have seen them in too many communities, such as Elliot Lake in my region when we lost all the uranium jobs, and my hometown of Cobalt when the iron industry and the silver industry collapsed. It was a calamity, and not just for the workers but also for the businesses, for families and for marriages.
However, this is a different kind of transition. This is a lesson I learned many times in trips to Alberta when meeting with energy workers who were saying, “We are ready to move ahead.” This is the first time we have had an opportunity, when we are seeing something come at us, to put in place the steps needed to draw on the incredible expertise of our workers to create a new energy economy. As I said, this is happening whether the Conservatives admit that the world is round or not. The International Energy Agency, hardly known as a left-wing think tank, in its most recent report said we are witnessing the end of the fossil fuel era and we have to prepare ourselves for the next era. That is the message it has been giving in warning governments to take the steps necessary to prepare.
We can look at China, which has made over $890 billion in clean tech. In a single year, China had more clean tech projects than the rest of the world combined. The result was $1.6 trillion in its economy, which went up 30% in a single year. If we do not act, China will be taking the market. It will take the market in critical minerals, in EV, in solar, geothermal and any other technologies that Canada can be a lead on, but not according to the Conservatives. The Conservatives do not want us to be a lead on that; they want us to sit at the back of the pack.
The transition is going to happen whether we want it or not, while in Biden's government, $500 billion since 2021 has been invested in new projects because the Americans have opened the doors and are working on the principle of good-paying union jobs.
When workers came to our committee to talk about what they believed and knew and about how they could participate and lead the way, the Conservatives would not let them speak. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers representatives were at committee; the Conservatives shut them down. They shut down the carpenters and members of the Canadian Labour Congress. Unifor representatives were there, representing not only the workers of the oil patch in western Canada but also the workers who are going to be running the EV lines. The Conservatives shut them down. The Conservatives did not want to hear from the Alberta Federation of Labour.
The reason is very simple: Climate deniers are not trolls on Twitter; they are in the House of Commons. Just like the toxic bots, the only way they can get away with what they are doing is by attacking and by trying to silence the facts, so we have seen relentless attacks on facts and on the witnesses who could speak. The Conservatives did not want the witnesses to speak, even though they were the very workers whose lives would be impacted. They could not allow them to speak, because if they did it would blow apart the bogus arguments being made by the member for Carleton.
Energy workers are not the only ones being affected by the Conservatives' lack of action. We are now in a full on climate disaster. This catastrophe is having a massive impact on all manner of industries, such as the B.C. wine industry this winter, and in my region, the maple syrup industry, which is so crucial to Abitibi, Quebec, and northern Ontario. They have been hammered by the dramatic climate changes. There were 200,000-plus people forced out of their homes from climate fires, while the member who lives in Stornoway was running around and trying to go into communities. As people were being evacuated by catastrophic climate fires, he was saying that he would make burning pollution free.
Let us talk about the effect of what is happening to Canada's agricultural sector. I really encourage people to read the reflection from rancher Bob Tolman from Rumsey, Alberta. His family built up a ranch for 120 years. These are people who know how to live on the land. They have had to give up their farm and cattle because of the ongoing climate disaster that is unfolding in Alberta. However, members will never, ever hear a single Alberta Conservative stand up and talk about the disaster that is affecting Alberta farmers.
Mr. Tolman said that the 2021 drought was the worst drought Alberta had seen since the dirty thirties, but they had enough carry-over in feed and hay from 2020 to get through 2021. Then 2022 came, and it was even worse. Then, in 2023, they had under 40 millilitres of rain. He said that, in a normal year, his farm produced 700 bales of hay. In 2023, it produced just one bale. Members have not heard a single Alberta Conservative stand up and talk about the crisis facing farmers, because they would rather let the planet burn so Rich Kruger could make more profits than make a sustainable agriculture in Canada that is going to affect us in our bottom line.
Mr. Tolman pointed out that, if he was going to keep his cattle herd, it meant he would have to buy feed; of course, because of the drought, the price of cattle feed has risen dramatically. Members have never heard a single Conservative talk about the price of feed; it is all about the carbon tax. He had to pay $300 a tonne. That would have been $200,000 to feed his cattle this year. This is why there is a sell-off of cattle and bison happening in the west. Farmers cannot feed their animals.
We see backbench Conservatives get up and talk about the carbon price and how potatoes in Calgary are being done in by the carbon tax. They get their potatoes from Idaho, which does not pay a carbon tax. Yes, the price went up in the grocery stores for potatoes from Idaho. Why is that? It is because Idaho is being hit by the climate disaster as well. Members never hear a single Conservative speak truths about the impacts of what is happening.
It is fire season in Alberta right now. There are 60 burning wildfires in Alberta and 100 in B.C. Members will never hear a single one of the Conservatives stand up and say that their communities are being done in. Why is that? It is because they do not want to undermine, in any manner at all, the profits being made by big oil. Therefore, we are going to have what we saw with Bill C-50, this campaign of disinformation, rage politics and saying it is some kind of globalist woke agenda. This is the language of Alex Jones and of conspiracy haters, but Conservatives need it, because they cannot tell their supporters that the planet is on fire, that agriculture is being hammered hard and that, last summer, there were so many businesses in northern Ontario that lost out; people would not come up because of the smoke.
They do not want people to deal with that; they want them to get all riled up. People got so riled up that they threw an axe through the window of one of my colleagues to teach him a lesson. That is the mob. This is pitchfork politics. I know of another colleague where they slashed his tires and burned a garage. This is the politics of intimidation. That is what happens when one cranks people up with disinformation.
Therefore, are we going to expect—
1575 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 1:45:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure what the member is talking about specifically, but in good faith, he may want to clarify that no Conservative MP threw an axe through—
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
