44th Parl. 1st Sess.
September 29, 2023 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is on behalf of Canadians who certainly believe they have the right to be protected against discrimination. We all do.
Canadians can and do face political discrimination, and it is a fundamental Canadian right to be politically active and vocal. It is in the best interest of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas. Bill C-257 seeks to add protection against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Therefore, these petitioners and residents of Canada call upon the House of Commons to support Bill C-257, which would ban discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of Canadians who are very concerned about the rise in discrimination against political belief and activity. They are calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-257, which will enshrine in the Canadian Human Rights Act that political belief and activity are not subject to discrimination.
The petitioners believe that as we live in a world where fear of political retribution is leading to increasing polarization, in order to preserve Canada as a peaceful and strong democracy, legislation like this must pass.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to table a number of petitions in the House today.
The first petition is in support of private member's bill, Bill C-257, a bill that I put forward, along with a parallel bill, Bill S-257, that has been presented in the Senate by Senator Ataullahjan.
This bill would add political belief and activity as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act. We are seeing an increase in incidents where individuals are discriminated against or threatened with discrimination on the basis of their political views. Not only is this an unjustified form of discrimination like many others, but it has a chilling effect on democratic deliberation, according to the petitioners.
Petitioners call on the House to support Bill C-257, which bans discrimination on the basis of political belief and activity, and defend the rights of all Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/23 12:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the second petition notes the elevated risk of violence that pregnant women face, the absence of specific targeted protections for women in this situation and the fact that the current law does not recognize the impact if an active assault results in the death of the preborn child.
Petitioners call on the House to legislate that the abuse of a pregnant woman or the infliction of harm on a preborn child is an aggravating circumstance for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Code.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/23 12:33:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the final petition that I am tabling for today deals with the government's so-called feminist international policy. Petitioners note that the Muskoka Initiative, launched by the previous Conservative government, involved historic investments in the well-being of women and girls around the world. This initiative emphasized value for money but also ensured that investments were in made priorities identified by local women.
Conversely, the Liberals' so-called feminist international assistance policy, according to petitioners, has shown a lack of respect for the cultural values and autonomy of women in the developing world by pushing organizations that violate local laws and pushing certain objectives at the expense of international development priorities that local women have, such as clean water, access to basic nutrition and economic development.
The petitioners also note that the Liberals' support for international development for women and girls has been criticized by the Auditor General for failing to measure results. Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to align international development spending with the approach taken in the Muskoka Initiative, focusing international development dollars on meeting the basic needs of vulnerable women around the world, rather than pushing ideological agendas that may conflict with local values in developing countries. They also want to see the government do more to measure outcomes.
218 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/23 12:33:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the next petition deals with the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Petitioners note that Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation exercises and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance.
Petitioners describe the campaign of persecution that has been targeting Falun Gong practitioners for more than 20 years, as well as the work that was done by prominent Canadians, David Matas and the late, great David Kilgour on revealing the forced organ harvesting that has targeted and is targeting Falun Gong practitioners.
Petitioners are therefore calling on the House and the government to take additional action to support Falun Gong practitioners to do more on organ harvesting, as well as to publicly call for an end to persecution of Falun Gong practitioners.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/23 12:33:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in all this debate about the sustainable jobs act, what I have not heard is an explanation from the Liberal-NDP government of a credible plan to replace over 25% of Canada's exports. Petroleum and petroleum products account for over $100 billion, over 25% of Canada's annual exports. These exports are absolutely necessary for the protection of the value of the Canada dollar.
If the sustainable jobs act achieves what it intends to achieve, it would cripple our exports and cripple the Canadian dollar, which would lead to a massive increase in inflation, which we are already dealing with. This massive increase in inflation would necessarily be countered by further radical interest rate hikes from the Bank of Canada. Therefore, can my hon. colleague explain the deep economic consequences of this policy that the government simply does not have a credible plan to deal with?
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I touched on this in my remarks earlier, but the hon. member is exactly right, and that is exactly why Canadians can see countries around the world that are 40 years ahead of us on this agenda now rolling back all of those measures. They are doing the very things Conservatives here at home have been asking the current government to do to protect our citizens' cost of living, future opportunities, standard of living and jobs. We have been asking it to control and bring down the cost of living crisis that the government's anti-private-sector, anti-energy, anti-resource-development command-and-control policies have created.
The member touches on a thing that I really find the most important about this debate. It is that the NDP-Liberal government owes these answers to Canadians about how it is going to achieve the targets it set on these timelines. So far, it is causing all economic pain and no environmental gain. That is why Conservatives and Canadians are asking whether it is worth the cost. That is the government's job to answer.
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I understand that the member cares deeply for the oil and gas sector. She talks about it quite a bit, and I appreciate her prerogative on that. Even if one does not think there is a future in clean tech and that there is opportunity here, this still gives the opportunity to unlock the potential of new jobs in a clean sector. All one has to do is open their eyes and look around throughout the world. This industry is really in a growth stage right now. Even if one does not necessarily agree that it is the future, why would they not still take a very easy risk on betting that it will be a positive outcome for the Canadian economy?
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we do agree it is the future, which we have said multiple times. We just recognize that the reality that the oil and gas sector in Canada still remains the most abundant, available, affordable source of energy for most Canadians throughout this country and is also the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative energies. What the government wants to do is kill the very sector that leads to the innovation and technology.
The Liberals should answer more questions about how on earth they are going to meet their targets in 2035, when they cannot get critical minerals out of the ground, when they are holding back the ring of fire, when interties do not exist and when there is no grid capacity and no end-user distribution system for Canadians on the back end.
Conservatives are saying, “Answer the questions.” How is this going to get done? When, why and in what way will it get done? Who is paying for it? Then, maybe people could have confidence in their plan. However, we all know they are not—
184 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/23 12:37:59 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the energy transition and a fair transition for workers and their families.
For a long time, we have been proposing to change Canada's energy trajectory to make it consistent with the country's commitments and to keep the global increase in temperature below 1.5°C. Those are commitments made by the government and the world. We are proposing to immediately stop the increase in production of fossil fuels and to gradually reduce our total oil and gas production by 2030, not increase it. We are proposing to redirect the money invested in fossil fuels, including generous Liberal subsidies, to developing renewable energy and clean technologies.
We stand in solidarity with workers in the energy sector. Right from the start of the whole Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we were proposing to abandon the project and redirect those amounts to western Canada's energy transition by investing in solutions for workers and their families. We support collaborative efforts among all stakeholders affected by the transition, including businesses, workers, their representatives and the public. We have always known, recognized and affirmed that the energy transition is a challenge for the economic sectors affected, and that public authorities need to plan this transition for workplaces through engagement, training and other measures to support workers and their families.
In that respect, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations for a just transition law coming from environmental groups and labour organizations. They were wise enough to join forces in their demands in favour of this just transition, because they understood that the success of the energy transition and the fight against climate change would depend on the economic and social success of the companies, workers and communities that would be affected by the changes to come. In fact, I recall that at one of the UN conferences on the environment I attended, Antonio Guterres clearly stated that there will be no transition without workers. They are part of the solution. It is simply a question of solidarity. The Bloc Québécois has listened to environmental groups and labour organizations and will support their demands of and recommendations to the government.
We think that just transition legislation should include the following. First, let us call a spade, a spade. This should simply be called the “just transition act”. Then, it should set explicit objectives and principles that are articulated around international commitments on climate, responsibilities to indigenous peoples and obligations with respect to an equitable transition in Canada. This legislation should adopt a collaborative approach that relies on a social dialogue based on equity that respects democratic dialogues already under way in the provinces and territories, especially in Quebec, and respects the democratic choices of that nation, the Quebec nation, and the rights and aspirations of indigenous peoples.
This legislation should set out measures for respecting Canada's objectives and principles when it comes to the just transition, including those related to the climate, indigenous peoples, the need to not leave anyone behind, and groups that deserve equity and suffer inequities related to the degradation of the environment. It is clear that there are people who more or less did not contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions whose environment is directly affected by this degradation. Again, I am thinking in particular about indigenous peoples. This legislation, the mandate and mission of organizations created by the government should not in any way exceed the legislative jurisdictions of the federal Parliament. These organizations have to make recommendations to the federal government in areas of federal jurisdiction that can be mobilized in favour of the transition.
This legislation should provide for regional or sectoral planning and reporting requirements along the lines of those established by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. This legislation should establish an adequate means of funding by setting up funding agreements with the provinces. Those agreements need to be based on real greenhouse gas reduction targets in order to finance the projects needed for the transition.
Unfortunately, Bill C‑50 is not about a just transition. In fact, the Liberal government does not even dare use the term, which really seems to frighten them. Bill C‑50 proposes creating committees that will make recommendations on workforce training to the minister who will be responsible for implementing the legislation. That is it.
Workforce training, while not the only aspect of the just transition, is certainly part of the discussion. It is a sphere of activity to must be taken into account in planning the transition. If we want to legislate workforce training, then we need to take into consideration the legislative jurisdictions of the different governments and take into consideration the official agreements that already exist between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. Unfortunately, on this, the government still seems to have completely forgotten Quebec in its process of developing Bill C‑50. Its advisory body, its secretariat for supporting the implementation of the legislation, all of that already exists in Quebec. The federal government has never understood the labour landscape in Quebec.
They developed Bill C‑50 by ignoring the reality in Quebec, and this is not the first time. They developed it by ignoring our laws, our policies, our democratic choices and especially by ignoring agreements between Quebec and Ottawa related to workforce training.
Quebec has been voicing its demands on labour issues for decades now. During the 1990s, discussions between Quebec and Canada on this subject related primarily to repatriating the federal funding for vocational and technical training. It was about righting a certain wrong, specifically the federal government's financial disengagement, which had to be compensated for.
On June 22, 1995, the Quebec National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. With this legislation, Quebec demonstrated its leadership in workplace training. The Quebec reform laid the foundations for a new model based on partnerships that would make a major contribution to Quebec's economic development. This legislation led to the creation, in 1998, of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, or CPMT, which is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. The CPMT was created in the wake of the repatriation of active employment measures from the federal government to the Quebec government. This is not new. We are talking about 1997 and 1998.
In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle and the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement Implementation. The Commission des partenaires du marché du travail was created a few months later.
What is the CPMT? It is a consensus-building body that helps develop the Quebec government's labour and employment policies and measures. To find innovative solutions and build consensus, the CPMT coordinates Quebec-wide consultation forums in order to resolve specific employment-related issues. The CPMT brings together employer and labour representatives from the education community, community organizations and economic and social departments.
In addition to the CPMT, which covers all of Quebec, there are regional councils of labour market partners. In fact, I sat on the Conseil régional des partenaires du marché du travail de la Montérégie. In addition, there are a number of sectoral committees, which bring together employers and unions in the various industries. It is important to understand that the CPMT and all its organizations are the only ones of their kind in Canada. That is a source of pride in Quebec. The creation of the CPMT and Emploi-Québec is a gesture of national affirmation for us. It is not just a blip on the radar.
It is somewhat disappointing that no one in the federal government thought of this. In the opinion of the officials who presented Bill C‑50 to us, at no point in the process of drafting the bill did the government consider Quebec's specific situation, yet again. This unfortunately speaks volumes about the general mindset of this government, which has so little regard for the sovereignty of the Canadian provinces or for Quebec's distinctiveness that it forgets the agreements it has itself entered into as part of its government action.
That said, the government always has the opportunity to rectify this situation. We need to develop legislation that takes into account the agreements the federal government has signed with the provinces, especially Quebec, which has its own model of partnership and co-operation. The government must introduce an element of asymmetry into the bill to make it compatible with the Canada-Quebec agreements on workforce development. To do so, it must reach an agreement with the Quebec government. In addition, if money is earmarked to support the sustainable jobs action plan that the minister must produce by 2025 and every five years thereafter, Quebec must receive its fair share of that money and it must go through the Quebec government. That is how it is done in other areas.
If the government wants the Bloc Québécois's support in developing legislation that promotes the just transition, then it has to do its homework. In fact, I think that the government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that actually takes into account Quebec's laws and the existing agreements between the governments of Quebec and Canada. Some may be thinking, “Good luck with that”, but we have every hope that the minister will understand our concern.
I will give an example of a time when, for once in its history, the government understood. In the case of child care, the government understood that Quebec was a pioneer, and it even praised Quebec. The government understood that it must not take any action that would undermine Quebec's network of early child care centres. The government even publicly acknowledged that it was using Quebec's system as a model. I think that the government should do exactly the same thing when it comes to labour. We simply do not understand why the government does not realize that the same logic should apply when it comes to workforce training. That situation definitely needs to be rectified.
While it is going back to the drawing board, the government should also listen to environmental groups and unions, who have specific demands and who were expecting, as we were, a comprehensive just transition law that would be aligned with Canada's climate commitments, not just a law creating committees to talk about workforce training.
Finally, the Bloc Québécois has no choice but to criticize the Liberal government's calculated decision to abandon the concept of a “just transition”, even though the term did not originate here. I think we first started talking about it in the 1980s. The term is enshrined internationally in the Paris Agreement and the COP26 Just Transition Declaration, which Canada is part of. Why is the government afraid of those words?
We believe that the government's decision to use the term “sustainable jobs” and no longer refer to the just transition is in keeping with its approach to energy. If the energy transition does not take place, which is what is happening now, since the government is currently developing oil expansion, then there is no point in talking about a just transition. Jobs in the oil sands may be sustainable in the eyes of the federal government, given that it has basically ensured that they are here to stay by expanding oil projects. That move has even won the approval of the official opposition. Why are the Liberals and NDP afraid of the term “just transition”?
What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the Conservatives playing word games with the Prime Minister's name? Are they afraid of the Premier of Alberta, who said she would fight the idea of a just transition with all the tools available to the Alberta government? Is that what they are afraid of?
We believe that if the federal government wants to take action to support the provinces in planning the energy transition, it must engage in frank and respectful dialogue with all the provinces and propose legislation that reflects the quality of that dialogue.
2074 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. After yesterday, when we heard all the Conservatives stand up and say they were against fighting climate change, would she not agree that it is important to continue the fight on the federal side?
That is exactly what my bill aims to do, specifically take action on the federal side. Is it not important to think about workers and ensure sustainable jobs for the net-zero economy of the future?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech this morning and I asked her a question. She spoke about jobs in green technology, clean technology and renewable energy. The principles of a just transition must apply to all of these new jobs, and those principles include sustainable development, respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and the social safety net. We need to respect the principles of this transition.
However, another thing that is important is providing assistance in retraining workers in polluting industries, which should be in decline. This is mostly about them. At all of the conferences of the parties that I participated in and in all of the discussions that I have had with environmental organizations and unions, that was the big issue. Participants said that workers in fossil fuel industries should not have to bear all of the weight of the transition, but there needs to be a transition for that to be an issue.
160 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I know that the member and I often debate from our opposing world views on the role and necessity of oil and natural gas for Canada and the globe long into the future, but I certainly appreciate her comments on respecting provincial jurisdiction. I know that we share that principle, but the NDP-Liberals think nothing of running roughshod over provincial governments with whom they disagree.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, and the truth is that the oil and gas sector and mining are the biggest private sector employers of indigenous Canadians, with wages that are double the national average. There is a concern about setting realistic timelines and allowing those jobs to continue while the private sector continues to be the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative renewable energies. Does she share that concern?
In addition, could the member tell us how the more than $7 million in GDP and the 438 businesses in oil and gas in Quebec will be replaced?
177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development just finished a study proposed by the Conservatives on clean technologies. During this study, witnesses told us that it is primarily SMEs that create jobs in clean technologies. It is not really the oil companies.
The oil companies use smoke and mirrors when they talk about their carbon capture and storage technology, which is fake news, a fake technique that is not even effective. Maybe it will be effective 10 or 12 years from now. The oil companies are billionaires. I maintain that the Conservatives are primarily pawns of these oil companies, which have billions of dollars but just want to offload the fight against climate change onto the consumer.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we need a just transition that brings workers along. Something I have offered to put forward is a guaranteed livable basic income, which could certainly be paid for if we stopped funding big oil and instead put that money into funding people. I am wondering if the hon. member agrees that we need to start supporting people.
I have said very often that I do not think people love oil and gas, but I think they love feeding their families and paying for their houses, and they like to eat. We need a just transition that brings workers along. I know that climate activists are calling for a guaranteed livable basic income as one way to assist workers in transitioning. Does she agree with that proposal?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, fossil fuel workers should not have to carry all the weight of the energy transition themselves. Yes, we are thinking about the workers.
UN Secretary-General Guterres said that the energy transition will not be possible if we do not think about the workers, if they are not on board with us. Even in Alberta, there is an organization called Beyond Oil and Gas, which represents workers from that sector who want an energy transition.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Repentigny, for the quality of her substantive speech, as well as for the quality of her answers. When the Conservative member did not like my colleague's answer, she heckled her throughout. However, my colleague maintained her focus and answered frankly. I take my hat off to her.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Gabriel Ste‑Marie: Madam Speaker, there she goes again.
The part of my colleague's speech that really stood out to me was when she said how little Ottawa understands the ecosystem of Quebec's labour market and workforce and how they operate. Can she share some more examples of that?
123 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
