SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Shannon Stubbs

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Lakeland
  • Alberta
  • Voting Attendance: 68%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $115,261.63

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • Apr/11/24 11:24:40 a.m.
  • Watch
moved: Motion No. 129 That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following: “ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble while respecting the constitutional jurisdiction of the provinces and territories;”.” Motion No. 130 That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following: “ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble, including the recognition of an anticipated 170,000 immediate job losses and 2,700,000 other jobs which will be disrupted;” Motion No. 131 That Bill C-50, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 25 on page 10 with the following: “ing the guiding principles set out in the preamble, including the recognition that 93% of the oil and gas sector is composed of small businesses each employing fewer than 100 individuals;”
154 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • Apr/11/24 11:01:37 a.m.
  • Watch
moved: That Bill C-50, in the preamble, be amended by replacing line 30 on page 3 with the following: “tories have their own constitutional jurisdiction relevant to the shift to a net-zero economy;”
37 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • Oct/16/23 7:18:08 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, could my colleague expand on how it is possibly the case that we are in this House of Commons, debating a bill that imports sections from a law that was supported by the NDP and the Liberals, that has been in place for the last five years and that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on Friday, when specific sections, such as section 61, section 62 and section 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49? Conservatives want to green-light green projects, and we want to expand the Canadian oil and gas sector so that the world and all Canadians can have energy security and energy self-sufficiency. The NDP-Liberals warned expert witnesses and warned every province and territory that was against Bill C-69 at the time or called for major overhauls, but this bill contains sections that, as of Friday, the Supreme Court said were unconstitutional. Could my colleague comment on how it can possibly be that the NDP-Liberals are now trying to ram through a bill containing these sections?
180 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • Oct/16/23 7:03:29 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that it was the NDP and the Liberals who voted for Bill C-69 at the end stages. On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that significant sections of Bill C-69, in exactly all the ways that Conservatives warned, were unconstitutional. This is important because the Government of Quebec also opposed Bill C-69 as the Liberals were ramming it through in the end stages. The NDP and the Liberals ignored both the Government of Quebec and the Conservative Party which was raising all the issues that the Supreme Court has now highlighted. Conservatives want to green-light green projects. We want to see petroleum offshore development and renewable offshore development for the people of Atlantic Canada, but here is the problem: Sections 61, 62 and 64 of Bill C-69 are in Bill C-49. Does the member agree that we need to get that right and make sure that we can pass this bill with the certainty, clarity and confidence that all Canadians deserve?
174 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 232 - Oct/16/23
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs (Lakeland, CPC)
  • Oct/16/23 1:54:55 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-49 
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for addressing this legislation and for speaking the truth about the negative impacts it would have on both offshore petroleum development and the future of renewable offshore development. I wonder if he would expand on how disastrous it would be to proceed with Bill C-49 now, given that sections from Bill C-69, sections 61, 62 and 64, which are all embedded in Bill C-69, have now been declared by the Supreme Court of Canada, on Friday, to be largely unconstitutional. I wonder if he would expand on exactly the perils of proceeding with this legislation, which they are rushing through on time allocation, given that we would all know that we were passing a bill with significant clauses that are unconstitutional.
135 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border