44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 4, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I will not be sharing my time, and I am happy about that. Next, I want to give an overview of the situation.
How did we get here? How did we get into this situation today, where it has become impossible for the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to study Bill C-50?
First of all, I would say that it is not unrelated to what we saw last week with Bill C‑234. Last week, with Bill C‑234, we talked at length in the House about what I like to call the “Carleton method”, the method employed by the new leader of the official opposition. It is based primarily on intimidation and misinformation.
Last week, I said that the first people to warn us about the Carleton method were actually the Conservative MPs from Quebec. They did not support the member for Carleton in the leadership race because they knew full well that he often used questionable methods. I will simply give the example of what one of the former Conservative Party members went through. This method, which relies on intimidation and misinformation, has become a common practice at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
On October 30, we began discussing a motion that would have allowed us to study Bill C‑50. As ridiculous as it may seem, what the Standing Committee on Natural Resources spent the next month doing was trying to determine who had the floor. The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan joined the committee meeting. As we know, a committee has a certain number of members, including one member from the Bloc Québécois who has the right to vote. There are four Conservative members who have the right to vote and speak at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. However, the Conservatives decided that five or six of them would attend and that they would all ask to speak.
Not knowing what to do, the chair said that we would have to determine who the voting members are in order to know who has the right to speak. The Conservatives then objected, stating that the chair would be violating their parliamentary rights and privileges if he did not allow to them to speak. My colleagues may or may not believe it, but we spent a month listening to points of order about whose turn it was to speak. Is that serious? I highly doubt it. It is not childishness, it is not filibustering. I do not know what to call this waste of time, but I would say that it is nonsense. Nonsense, pure and simple.
First we spent a month trying to figure out whose turn it was to talk. Then we spent time on some things that, in my opinion, were even less edifying. The member for Red Deer—Mountain View told us that oil could be used to create peace in the world. His goal is to bring peace to the world through Canadian oil. According to my colleague on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, if Canadian oil were used more, then there would be no more war in Ukraine. Perhaps peace in the Middle East could be achieved with the help of Canadian oil.
That is not all. I was introduced to an entirely new concept. I used to teach political science, but my colleague from Red Deer—Mountain View talked to me about eco-colonialism. Apparently, we are engaging in eco-colonialism if we do not allow indigenous peoples to freely develop oil. When it comes to colonialism, I am familiar with Edward Said's Orientalism. Like everyone, I am familiar with Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, but I have never heard of eco-colonialism. I spent almost 15 years talking about political science in universities, but this was a whole new concept for me. I was informed that we could bring peace to the world with oil and that eco-colonialism is something that is done to indigenous communities. There is not much difference between saying this and saying that we are using certain indigenous communities to advance the interests of big oil.
I learned something else rather interesting from the member for Provencher. The member for Provencher came and told the committee that he was a big fan of muscle cars. He recalled the late 1970s and early 1980s when people were free to drive big, fast gas guzzlers.
In a fit of nostalgia, he lamented that this was what we were losing. The member for Provencher also recalled that he used to be able to drink his milkshake with a plastic straw. The member for Provencher hates drinking his milkshake with a paper straw because it leaves a bitter taste in his mouth. I found that out at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Why could we not return to this wonderful world where we could have world peace and everyone could be happy thanks to gasoline, muscle cars and plastic straws?
That is what I learned from my Conservative colleagues while we should have been considering Bill C‑50. This has been going on for over a month. That is why I say that some kind of rot seems to be taking hold of my Conservative Party colleagues. This rot is a kind of populism that might seem practically irrelevant, looking on from the outside, but that appears to be spreading within our committees, based on what I have seen in the past month. Since October 30, members have been telling us that we must not study Bill C‑50 for a variety of flimsy reasons.
After that, we were supposed to consider subamendments. The main subamendments that I saw proposed at committee applied to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I do like that member, although I would not say that I am his biggest fan. Still, I have nothing against him. I could not understand why the Conservatives insisted that the purpose of the subamendment was to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay. They did this for my colleague from Timmins—James Bay and for my colleague from Sudbury.
Why did they want to hear from the people of Timmins—James Bay and Sudbury specifically? Once again, it was a flimsy pretext for getting my colleague from Timmins—James Bay to vote against the amendment so that they could then tell his constituents that their MP was not interested in hearing from them, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Bill C-50. Once again, as I was saying earlier, this is intimidation and disinformation. It has been going on for over a month at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
This is symptomatic of something I have been seeing since 2019, something I would call the Conservatives' all-consuming passion for the oil and gas industry. The Conservative members are as passionate about the oil industry as the Bloc Québécois members are about defending Quebec, Quebec's language and Quebec's culture.
I gave the example of my arrival in the House of Commons in 2019. I could hear people shouting “build the pipeline”. That is really something. Even though we are proud of Hydro-Québec, I have never heard a Bloc member shout “build the hydro towers". We have not gotten to that point. I have never heard that. The climax was when a motion was moved here saying that oil is irreplaceable. According to the Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable, the same way water or air or our relationship with our family is irreplaceable. To some Conservative members, oil is irreplaceable.
We are faced with a startling fact: The Leader of the Opposition wants to stay in the 20th century. He does not want to put an end to our dependence on oil. The oil and gas industry is his stock-in-trade. Unfortunately, I often get the impression that my Conservative Party colleagues are acting more like lobbyists for one economic sector than like representatives of their ridings.
Why do I say that? It is rather simple. Last week, some members from Quebec forgot all about the interests of Quebec farmers. They rose to ask why the Senate was not examining Bill C-234 and why we were seeing partisanship from some senators. I would remind the House that Bill C‑234 seeks to temporarily include the propane used to run grain dryers in the exemption for qualifying farming fuel. The much-talked-about carbon tax does not apply in Quebec, but there are members from Quebec who are asking questions in the House about why the senators are not passing that bill and who are talking about how terrible it is that they are not doing so. Meanwhile, the supply management bill is also languishing in the Senate. Who is holding that up? Let me give the answer. The Conservative senators are the ones who do not want to move forward on the supply management bill.
Imagine an MP from Quebec who has the president of the dairy farmers' association in their riding. Imagine that MP standing up in the House, saying that this is disgusting and asking why Canadian farmers are still paying for propane. However, this MP does not even mention supply management. Whose interests are they defending when they do things like that? Are they standing up for the interests of their constituents in the House of Commons, or are they standing up for the interests of the Conservative Party in their riding? I will let those members answer for themselves.
Personally, I think this clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to the oil and gas sector. We have seen this over and over during the past month with Bill C‑50. I would say the Liberal Party is much the same. Why do I say that? When we pore over Bill C‑50 together later on, it will become clear that the Liberal Party also spared no effort trying to take a bill that was supposed to be about a just transition and make it acceptable to the main players in the oil and gas sector.
Just to come back to that and sum up what I just said, Bill C‑50 was initially supposed to focus on a concept accepted by all western nations, that of the just transition. It was supposed to be about that. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources did a study on the just transition. However, toward the end of that study, the conversation somehow stopped being about the just transition and started being about sustainable jobs. Why did that happen?
I wondered about that. Many unions came to see me to talk about the just transition. During the study, “just transition” was used in the wording. However, toward the end, that term stopped being used. Why? It is because people in the Liberal party were approached by certain people, people who may be close to the Premier of Alberta, and they told the Liberals that they do not like talking about transitions and that the Liberals should instead change directions and find another strategy. On the one hand, there is that. Some people told me, but I do not want to belabour the point because they may have had malicious intentions, that a play on words could be made between the Prime Minister's name and “just transition”, just as a rather spurious play on words was made between the Prime Minister's name and the issue of inflation. If they did that, if they changed the intent of a bill just because of a play on words, I would say that they are spineless.
Basically, they changed directions to please the Premier of Alberta and to appease the backbone of Canada's industrial sector, namely the oil and gas sector. Earlier, I asked my colleague from Lakeland if she believed in climate change, if she believed that the oil and gas industry was one of the main contributors to climate change, and if she believed that we should get out of the oil and gas industry. The reason I was asking my colleague these questions is that, in actual fact, Bill C‑50 is trying to reflect on the necessary transition. We will have to get out of oil and gas. Whether we like it or not, we will have to do it. The other advanced western nations are putting a lot of public funds into doing that. That is what the U.S. is doing. It is spending a huge amount of public funds to get out of oil and gas. However, Canada is trapped in this particular context where the economy largely relies on the oil and gas sector, and there is no political will to change that.
Earlier, I summarized the Conservatives' speeches. The Conservatives' political thinking over the past six months could be summed up in just two words: “carbon tax”. They want to eliminate the carbon tax. They blame the carbon tax for everything. I will say it again because I have to say it every time: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. The leader of the Conservative Party has said that the carbon tax will be the ballot box question. That means that in the next election, the ballot box question will be over something that does not apply in Quebec. That is rather surprising. Still, the Conservatives are all over it. The Conservative Party has been obsessed with the carbon tax for the past year. This demonstrates one simple fact: They do not believe in climate change. It seems to me that the last person in the Conservative Party who believed in climate change was Erin O'Toole.
I love this great quote from Erin O'Toole: “We recognize that the most efficient way to reduce our emissions is to use pricing mechanisms.”
2385 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
