SoVote

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:20:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments on this bill and why we are at the stage we are at today. We are here because the Conservatives on the committee are trying to make sure the government understands there is a whole bunch at play here. Number one is jobs. Number two is we are wasting our time here again and again. That time is being wasted because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this twice now in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act where it sets the guidelines, but most recently in the Impact Assessment Act where it says very clearly what is provincial jurisdiction and what is federal jurisdiction. Will he admit that he has to go back and get an actual judgment ahead of time, a pre-ruling, on whether this transcends federal jurisdiction to step into exclusively provincial jurisdiction at this point in time?

152 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:21:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who I had the chance to serve with on the natural resources committee with at one point. Again, on the idea of court rulings, we have heard many times about the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the Supreme Court challenge on Bill C-69 that it is not throwing out the entire thing as unconstitutional. I think our minister has spoken very clearly about how there are some precise measures that can be taken to deal with that. I think our government is very aware of what is constitutional and I think the courts will find that it is good legislation. It has a leadership role for the federal government, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this realm.

127 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Dec/4/23 7:22:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was pausing a little and reflecting on what question I wanted to ask because I have so many. I am sure people can empathize that it can be very frustrating sitting in the House of Commons when we are in a climate crisis. We are experiencing the impacts all around us. There are so many who are worried, and instead, we are witnessing so many political games being played. In particular, we are watching the Conservatives filibustering and blocking in order to ensure that their rich CEO friends' pockets are lined in big oil and gas. It is evident that this, again, is what is at hand here with climate denialism and inaction. To my colleague in the Liberal government, what does he feel is the number one thing that we need to do as parliamentarians to show future generations that we hear them and that we are truly taking action to address the climate crisis we are facing today?

163 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:23:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very thoughtful question, which I expect from a fellow British Columbian who cares a lot about not only the environment, but workers. One of the things we can do is show workers that they have a place in the economy right now. That is why Bill C-50 is so important. It is creating a place and a very clear future for Canadians to make sure that we have good-paying jobs going forward. We know that the world is in a transition. We know the world is a changing place. The economy is changing and we want to make sure that no workers are left behind. It is by having conversations with business and labour that we can actually make sure that there is that bright future, and make sure that we balance economic and environmental interests. I think that both can be done in such a way that we create a winning situation for workers, for the economy and for the environment.

172 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:24:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why it is a jurisdictional issue. I mean, we are talking about workers and transitions, and the potential loss of jobs, yet EI is run by the federal government. Also, in the past, I believe the federal government worked with stakeholders to create human resource councils in different industry sectors. Can the member clarify why some think this is a jurisdictional issue that has to be fought tooth and nail?

77 words

Mr. John Aldag

Dec/4/23 7:25:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think we have seen that the federal government can work very well with provinces and territories in a wide realm of areas to make a better country and a better economy, while also dealing with environmental challenges. As my colleague said, there are many examples from employment insurance to jobs and skills training, to immigration and many other areas where we work very closely, and collaborate with the provinces and territories. This is yet another example of that. It is about working together to create a better Canada, the kind of Canada that I want to work in and want my kids to live in.

108 words

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:25:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my honour tonight to rise and speak to this filibuster that these people are claiming it is at this point in time. We have a number of motions that we have to address through committee processes—

41 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:26:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you could ask the member to clarify what is meant by “these people” and what it means—

30 words

People
Means

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/4/23 7:26:23 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

19 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:26:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am speaking about the bill in front of us at this point in time. I apologize if my colleague does not know that. I have been speaking about this since it arose over a year ago—

40 words

Speaking
Us

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo

Dec/4/23 7:26:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. Could I get a summary of what we are debating, if the member feels that I do not know what it is? Could the member clarify what it is?

36 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Dec/4/23 7:26:53 p.m.
Watch

This is a point of debate. I just want to remind members to please be mindful of the language that they use and how they use it, so it does not disrupt the House. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

40 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:27:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start over, if I may. We are here tonight to debate exactly what we are trying to ram through the House of Commons, which is a bill the Liberals put on the table over a year ago. I have spoken to many groups in Calgary about what this legislation represents, and I have been speaking to it since it came because there are all kinds of problems with this legislation, many of which have been exacerbated by events that have transpired since it was put on the table over a year ago. Effectively, what we are talking about is the federal government's engagement and accountability framework to guide the government's efforts over time. However, it is based on false narratives. Before I move forward any further, I will let members know that I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Portage—Lisgar. There are a lot of expert opinions being invented to move the bill forward. We can seek expert opinion, pay for it and make sure it says what we want it to say, and this government is very good at that. We found lots of ways it is spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars making sure it gets the right opinions in the right place and puts the money in the right pockets. This is a brazen attempt to unilaterally move into the traditionally provincial jurisdiction of labour, the labour that is being produced in the provinces of Canada. We can think about how provinces actually fund the post-secondary institutions to make sure that jobs in demand are there four, five or six years hence. This is the provinces' job. The bill before us would be another muddying of the water of who is responsible for the outcome of delivering labour in Canada for the jobs we need going forward. We have enough of this muddling in Canada right now, and more of it is not going to accomplish anything. It is going to lead to more stalemates in every province. I am dead surprised at the Bloc Québécois not opposing the bill openly because it is a gross movement into provincial jurisdiction. It is its raison d'être here in the House of Commons to make sure that the federal government does not move into provincial jurisdiction, but I guess the Bloc's hatred for the oil and gas sector, which funds most of what happens in this country, makes its members overrule their raison d'être, which is making sure that provinces have their responsibilities and that the federal government stays in its lane. The bill would advance funding for skill development towards sustainable jobs, but at this point, the federal government, through transfers, already gives $1.8 billion to the provinces to make sure that they develop those jobs. That is partially funded by the federal government, through Canadian taxpayers, who fund the federal government, and part of that comes back to the province of Alberta. For industry, it means a double effort because it is already working with provincial authorities to make sure that we have the labour going forward. Now we have to make sure that we have the federal government onside as well as the provincial government. Well, it is double the effort, double the work. We have to make sure that we make things streamlined and stop creating uncertainty for every business in Canada, for every industry in Canada, primarily our natural resource industries. One of the key actions I really like in the bill, and we can read it in the preamble, of course, is that one of the jobs for the federal government is to identify what data is currently tracked across the federal government and other accessible sources. This is actually what the government is going to spend money doing: finding out what data it already has. Now, this is a ridiculous use of legislation. The government wants to motivate investors with a thing called “sustainable finance”. Members know that I have a background in finance, and “sustainable finance” is an anachronism. There is only finance. There are only numbers. We cannot monkey around with numbers and make the equation different. It is fabrication of the highest order. We need to get past it and realize that, at the end, the math has to work for everybody. The government maintains it would allow us to collaborate and lead on the world stage, which is a joke. The federal government does not collaborate with any of the provinces. At this point, it is doling out cheques to its favourite friends, but it does not lead on the world stage. As a matter of fact, many people in the world are looking at Canada's diminishing role in the world and wondering what has happened. What has happened to Canada after eight years of this government is detestable on the world stage. We have got to get better outcomes and better recognition in the world about how we can contribute to the solutions that the world needs at this point. There is an issue of accountability as well; we know the government is not good with accountability. We have to find a way to become more accountable, and that means staying in our lane. Where are we having an impact, and what do we have to do to make sure we get results for the country going forward? The legislation says it would guide a cohesive approach to climate energy security. I do not think the government even knows what it is talking about with regard to energy security. I think it has been making it up as far as its solutions for the climate, because it continues to fail with every goal it ever sets. I am going to get into this whole notion of the definition of a “sustainable job”. Let us say that a sustainable job in this legislation would remain evergreen in order to evolve over time through consultation with key partners and the public. Liberals do not even know what they are aiming for. It is the most aimless legislation available, and yet they want to continue to move into provincial jurisdiction to basically muddy the waters in getting results. The input on this is that federal efforts must respect provincial jurisdiction, and none of this does so. I beseech my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to recognize that, because they are about to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Industry talks about access to safe, reliable and affordable energy as the most important thing for Canada. Countries without safe, reliable and secure energy are effectively going down the rabbit hole of non-existence in the world. They are looking for solutions, and Canada provides them. We have to get ahead of this and make sure we understand where the world is and where Canada is. Frankly, when one talks to the Canadian public about this bill, people ask what a sustainable job and a just transition are. Is a just transition like what happened in the coal industry in Alberta? Let us go over those numbers, because they are illustrative. They indicate that the government spent $185 million, accomplishing almost nothing. It set up its own commission and its own just transition for Canadian coal workers in communities in 2018. An 11-person panel of experts got $185 million in funding through to 2025. So far, $52 million has been spent, $27 million of that in my province of Alberta, but that included $18 million to build a road far from any of the coal plants. It was just a slush fund, and the government seems pretty good at building slush funds. A case in point is Hanna, Alberta, where there was a coal plant. Hanna's unemployment rate went from 4% in 2011 to 10% in 2021, for the highest unemployment in Alberta. It is worse when we think about the workers there. What happens to them when everyone in the whole town loses their job? The houses become worth much less. The average house price in 2016 was about $177,000 in a rural town in Alberta. In 2022, the same house was worth $65,000. What is the number one type of savings a family has? It is their home. When their home value goes down by over $100,000, almost two-thirds, they recognize that is value they will take a long time to get back. It also means there is no tax loss selling there, because it does not get any tax relief in that respect. It is something we have to make sure we have our eyes on. We should not replicate the same disaster the government had with the coal industry. Is there any indication that the federal government has competence in this realm? No, there is not. It does not know this at all. It is trying to invent it by saying it wants a certain jurisdiction now, because it wants its thumb on the scale about where it gets to see jobs in Canada going forward. It is not enough to continue to spill money out of their jeans in certain sectors that it thinks are going to be more important. It is really the government putting its thumb on the scale to try to determine where the jobs should be in Canada. Those jobs are not anywhere without private sector investment. We are a disaster, as far as the world goes, because we have to continue to spend government money. Private sector investment not happening in this country, because of the uncertainty created by the government, and this bill would add to that uncertainty.

1639 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Dec/4/23 7:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to constituents about Parliament, they often focus on question period. They say that it is so chaotic that they lose faith in the system. I reassure them by saying that the real work in this place often gets done in committee; that is where amendments are proposed, and so on. However, I substituted for one meeting at committee, and it was an absolute circus. I would have expected to see even those who oppose the legislation propose amendments that could then be debated, but I did not see that. Could the hon. member tell us why the opposition was not doing its job, in terms of submitting substantive amendments to try to get its point across?

121 words

Debated

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:38:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member across the way. I was a member of his committee once. He was a really good Chair of that committee, one of the best Chairs on the Liberal side of the House that I have had to work with. Let me say that when there are rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada in the midst of legislation that more or less says that, no matter what, the legislation moving forward is going to face a Supreme Court challenge, it is time to revisit the legislation, bring it back and rewrite it so it is actually pertinent and might go somewhere. At this point in time, we are going to spin our wheels in the House of Commons, going through legislation which is likely going to be overturned. That is the point we are trying to make here: get back to work where we are actually accomplishing something for Canadians.

156 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/4/23 7:38:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, whom I very much appreciate, used the good old Conservative technique of misinformation, because this bill does encroach on Quebec jurisdictions. That is why we voted against it twice. We are calling on the federal government to recognize the Commission des partenaires des marchés du travail, the sectoral tables, and we are also calling on the federal government to uphold the workforce training agreements between Quebec and Ottawa. We could not be more opposed to interference in Quebec jurisdictions. We voted against it twice. Since my colleague did not seem to know this, I wonder if he and his party are prepared today to solemnly commit to supporting the Bloc Québécois from now on, every time we continue defending Quebec jurisdictions?

132 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:39:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I made a mistake, I apologize. I listened to his colleague's speech, which seemed to suggest that he was in favour of the bill. I was sure that he was in favour of the bill, because I know him well. I know that he does not like the oil and gas sector, especially in Alberta, but I do not know exactly why, because we have discussed some facts pertaining to the oil sector. If I made a mistake and my colleague was against the bill, I am very sorry. I must have heard his colleague's speech wrong.

102 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Dec/4/23 7:40:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that workers are asking to be part of the process of a necessary transition. We are in a climate crisis and a transition is required. What they are asking for is to be part of the discussion. Jobs are being lost. There are 45,000 jobs in the energy sector that have already been lost, with at least 1,500 more being lost this year. We know that many more jobs are expected to be lost, while the oil and gas industry racks up record profits. What I am trying to understand is whether the member agrees that workers deserve to have a voice in this process. If so, why are we seeing the Conservatives blocking important legislation and the committee where the voices could come forward so we could see a path moving forward that would involve the workers who are impacted?

147 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Dec/4/23 7:41:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the loss of jobs in Canadian energy since 2015 is a result of government policy. It is government policy that has caused the bulk of Canadian workers in the natural resource sector to leave their jobs, and not of their own accord. They wanted the jobs. They are some of the most productive and most value-added jobs in Canada, yet they have been thrown under the bus by policies of the Liberal government. We can look at the Canadian dollar. It is no longer moving up with the price of oil around the world, because money is not flowing into Canada. It goes somewhere else. Eight years ago, there was no oil being produced in Guyana. Now, Guyana is at almost a million barrels a day. That money is not coming into Canada, and our dollar, as a result, stays low. We have to make sure not only that workers are being encouraged to work in productive sectors but also that they are paid appropriately and in money that actually means something around the world, as opposed to in a devaluing currency, as we have had under the Liberal government.

193 words

Mr. Branden Leslie (Portage—Lisgar, CPC)

Dec/4/23 7:43:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this House and speak on behalf of the folks I represent back home in Portage—Lisgar. However, today, I cannot help but feel that the Liberals are doing a disservice to the constituents I represent and to all Canadians by moving forward with this motion. What the Liberals are doing here is trying to avoid the democratic process by dictating how members will scrutinize Bill C-50, the so-called Canadian sustainable jobs act. Specifically, this motion would limit study of this bill in four ways. First, the national resources committee would have less than two hours to debate this bill. Second, the committee would hear from no witnesses and none of the affected workers during its study of it. Third, the House would only have one day to review the bill at report stage and, last, one day of debate would be allowed during third—

158 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 261