SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24

Apr/11/24 4:35:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that they should not listen to Conservative facts because they are most often misleading. Following that, I would remind the member and others that if they want to talk about job numbers, it took 10 years for Stephen Harper to create just about a million jobs. In eight years, the Liberals have created over two million jobs. At the end of the day, we have taken budgetary and legislative measures that would ensure there is a higher sense of fairness for Canadians, whether they are generation Z, the middle class as a whole or those who are aspiring to become a part of the middle class. We understand the needs of generation Z and generation X, and we are going to be there with—

134 words

Harper
Jobs

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:36:16 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Emergency Preparedness.

57 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Apr/11/24 4:36:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to stand in this place and participate in debates, it has become commonplace that we have to deal with bills put forward by the Liberal government that are typically ideologically driven, deeply flawed and divisive in nature. Yesterday evening the government changed today's agenda and advised the House that we would be debating Bill C-50, dubbed “the Canadian sustainable jobs act”, at report stage today. For those watching, this means that the bill was tabled in the House and then debated at second reading, where it passed and was referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to be studied and amended, if necessary. It was necessary. More than 200 amendments were put forward. First, the Liberals understood that their just transition bill needed to be rebranded so they renamed it, a rose by any other name. This so-called sustainable jobs plan is just a renamed version of the Liberals' just transition plan, a plan mandated by the government to shut down the most productive sector of Canada's economy and a plan that Canadians opposed. It is just the latest attack, in a long line of attacks, on Canada's energy sector. For years, the government and its anti-energy policies and agenda have been driving investment away from Canada in both traditional and alternative energy. Let us look at some facts. Canada's largest export sector is oil and gas extraction: 18.3%, or $116.8 billion, in 2021. The energy sector provides 10% of Canada’s GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. In 2021 alone, the energy sector generated $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. Of all private sector investment in clean technology, 75% comes from the oil and gas sector. Of Canadian-owned energy companies, 92.9% have fewer than 100 employees, and nearly two-thirds of those have fewer than five. As well, 2.7 million jobs across the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors, for an estimated average of $219 billion in average annual salaries, will face “significant labour market disruptions.” If the bill passes, it would have a devastating effect on energy sector workers. It is beyond the pale that the government continues to introduce legislation that is divisive and disproportionally impacts certain regions. In my province of Saskatchewan alone, the bill would directly impact over 10,000 jobs and indirectly impact over 130,000 jobs. At a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables, the government is threatening their livelihoods. The cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas industry should not be overlooked, and the impact on Canadian workers will be devastating. Staggering job losses were outlined in a memo for the Minister of Natural Resources on their just transition plan: 292,000 jobs in agriculture; 202,000 jobs in the energy sector; 193,000 jobs in manufacturing; 1,400,000 jobs in building; and 642,000 jobs in transportation. This is a grand total of 2,729,000 Canadian jobs, or 13.5% of Canada’s employment. After eight years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so difficult for Canadians. His inflationary spending and ideologically driven taxes have created a broken economy, where businesses cannot survive and Canadians cannot find jobs. In its recently published labour force survey, Statistics Canada reported that Canada lost 2,200 jobs in March, as Canada's unemployment rate grew to 6.1% and as more Canadians competed for fewer jobs. At a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, there is no relief from this NDP-Liberal coalition for struggling Canadians, and this is proof of that. There are just more ideologically driven, half-baked ideas to make Canadians poorer. Instead of capitalizing on Canada’s greatest strength, our natural resources, the government seems intent to smother the oil and gas industry, ensuring it dies a slow death. The destruction of the oil and gas sector will cause significant damage to the economy. Despite the damage caused by the government over the last eight years, the oil and gas sector remains the largest private sector investor in Canada. This will lead to energy poverty for Canadians. As we will continue to need oil and gas for many years to come, we will need to import oil and gas from dictatorships around the world to meet the demands in Canada, driving up prices for Canadians. We have watched as other countries have attempted to switch to solar or wind-based energy economies prematurely and have had to go back to importing oil, gas and coal because they shut down their other sources of energy when making the switch. The top-down plans of shutting down one of the largest, if not the largest, sectors of the Canadian economy will be a disaster for Canadians and will drive up the cost of everything, compounding the difficulties Canadians already face. This bill, much like the carbon tax, is misguided. The government’s stated goal is to reduce emissions in Canada, which it asserts will reduce the number of extreme weather events. However, much like the bubble the government lives in here in Ottawa, ignorant of the struggles that Canadians across the country are facing due to its disastrous policies, it also believes that Canada operates in a bubble. It thinks that all we must do is reduce our emissions and the wildfires would disappear; there would be no more floods or any other adverse weather events. This kind of small thinking is why the government continues to put forward short-sighted and ham-fisted legislation that does more damage than good. Canada can play a primary role on the world stage helping other countries to lower emissions, whether it be through providing new technology or Canadian oil and gas that is produced with fewer emissions and more ethically. Instead of trying to tax Canadians into submission, the government should be capitalizing on our unique circumstances, with our plentiful natural resources and state-of-the-art technology. While the bill is foolhardy, it is not surprising that it is coming out of the most anti-energy government Canada has ever had. The Liberals are intent on suppressing the natural resources of Canada, one of our greatest strengths, and forcing Canadians out of the energy sector. The government would rather funnel billions of dollars to dictators to fund their authoritarian regimes than employ Canadians in a major sector of our economy with good-paying jobs that will boost the prosperity of our country and help all Canadians. It should be utilizing the brilliance of Canadians and their ingenuity. Canadians deserve a government that understands the value of the natural resources that Canada has been blessed with and how to utilize them to increase the prosperity of our country and benefit all Canadians. Conservatives know that environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. We believe in transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives will bring home affordable, accessible traditional and alternative energy, accelerate approvals and put Canadian resources, innovation and workers first to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency. I, together with my colleagues, cannot support a bill that will put hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work in the midst of a cost of living crisis the government has created. Canadians can be assured that the next Conservative government will support our energy sector and its workers, who do so much for the Canadian economy.

1281 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 4:46:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am going to bring it back to the points made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I really feel that there is a significant overreaction. We heard previously, for example, from the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that 2.7 million jobs would be lost. We heard from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot that it would be 10,000 in his specific riding. We heard from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. Which is it? In addition, where is it in this legislation? I see an introduction of guiding principles, creating a sustainable jobs partnership council, publishing action plans, creating a secretariat and then designating responsible and specific ministers. Where exactly are the job losses going to come from?

138 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/11/24 4:47:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly my hon. colleague understands math. When we say there will be 10,000 jobs lost in a riding or 100,000 jobs lost in a province, that can translate to almost two million or more across the country.

41 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Apr/11/24 4:47:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I take significant offence to the idea that I do not understand math. I take that as a comment on my intelligence, which you previously ruled on.

34 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:06 p.m.
Watch

Members are not to make comments such as that. I cannot comment on answers given to questions, but they should not comment on people's abilities.

26 words

Mr. Jeremy Patzer

Apr/11/24 4:48:20 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I have the government's own internal briefing document that outlines—

20 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:28 p.m.
Watch

We are not going to debate the issue. It is done. It is taken care of. An hon. member: I am asking for unanimous consent to table the document. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Is there consent? Some hon. members: No.

45 words

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Apr/11/24 4:48:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my colleague whether she is—

12 words

Ask

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:48:55 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member was rising on a point of order; I have to allow the Bloc Québécois to ask a question. The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

37 words

Bloc
Baie

Ms. Sylvie Bérubé (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, BQ)

Apr/11/24 4:49:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, does my Conservative colleague really believe in the transformation of the oil industry to reduce greenhouse gases? Is she prepared to set explicit policy objectives based on Canada's international climate commitments, responsibilities toward indigenous peoples and just transition obligations?

42 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/11/24 4:49:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, under the previous government, the natural resources committee did a study called “The Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry”. We understood that this is not an either-or situation; it is both-and. Of course, Conservatives support investments in green technology. We continue to support the oil and gas industry. It is going to be around, as my colleague said, for decades to come.

71 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Apr/11/24 4:50:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this bill would create an independent body with members from indigenous organizations, industry and labour, who would advise the government on moving toward the clean net-zero economy. That is sustainable. In her speech, the hon. member referenced the number of jobs; that would keep these jobs, support these families, engage with all the organizations on this advisory board and move forward in a responsible way. The International Energy Agency has talked about the fact that, within the next decade, there will be a surging demand for electric vehicles and clean energy technologies. If Canada does not get on board with that, we will be left behind. I do not understand how the member could possibly believe that the Canadian economy should be left behind.

127 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Apr/11/24 4:51:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will address the first point about this body that would be creating a framework or making decisions. Ninety-three per cent of Canadian oil and gas jobs are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. I mentioned that in my comments. Bill C-50 does not include or contemplate those businesses at all. I would ask the member to reconsider that. The other thing I would point out to her about being left behind is that the NDP-Liberal coalition does not have an environmental plan. It has a tax plan. It continues to miss every target for reducing emissions, and that has been reported on by the environment commissioner. Under the government, which New Democrats support, Canada ranked 58th out of 63 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the member is really concerned about being left behind, she will stop supporting the current Liberal government.

152 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/11/24 4:52:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford respecting the government response to Order Paper Question No. 2340. I wanted to acknowledge that, in this matter, the government has reviewed the response and the process used to produce the response in question. What was discovered is that there was an administrative error in the tasking of the response; this led to inaccurate information being provided to the member and to the House. I unreservedly apologize for that error. The response was tasked to the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development when it should have been tasked across all departments and agencies. In addition, it has come to light that this error extends to include Order Paper Question No. 2142. The government will produce supplemental responses to these OPQs by tasking all government departments and agencies on an urgent basis to ensure that this question is responded to in a timely and accurate manner. In the course of our review, should it be determined that this could involve other OPQs, the government will include those as well. Again, this is an unfortunate administrative error, but I can assure the member and the House that it was not the government's intention to provide inaccurate information with respect to this matter. A compilation of supplemental responses to these questions will be produced on a priority basis.

239 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:54:08 p.m.
Watch

I believe the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on the same point of order.

18 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Apr/11/24 4:54:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not on the same point of order, but I am glad the government is making amends. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford submitted those questions in good faith, and I am glad we will be getting the information Canadians require. I thank the parliamentary secretary for doing the right thing, making amends and apologizing for the lack of information around subsidies going to Loblaws and some of the other grocery chains that have been guilty of food price gouging. I am actually rising on another point of order, and that is the matter of privilege brought forward by the member for La Prairie concerning the convention of budgetary secrecy. The principle of budgetary secrecy is an important one, as leaks and premature disclosure sometimes have unintended and, in some cases, market-moving impacts. Despite this, we know that governments of all stripes, both Conservative and Liberal, have been known to use selected and targeted pre-budget leaks to their advantage as a way to control the narrative leading up to the budget. They love to point fingers at each other, but they both do this. There is no doubt that this is done for their political advantage; otherwise, they would not do it. While a number of Speaker's rulings have found no breach and, to date, no Speaker has wanted to put an end to this practice, the fact that it has been raised as a matter continuously for many years means that it merits review on the Speaker's behalf. Let us not forget the time former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty decided to give a fiscal update not to the House of Commons but to a private audience of financial professionals. The House of Commons is the purview of elected members, who have been chosen by Canadians to represent them; however, he did not present the update here. The Speaker of the House at the time was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who found in favour of the government. In his ruling, he cited as precedent a decision by Speaker Milliken, which was also made as a consequence of the Conservative finance minister's actions. The example at that time was the government's decision to release a report on the economic action plan at a media event in Saint John rather than here in Parliament. The Speaker's ruling of October 5, 2009, included the following: It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event]. Speaker Milliken was also asked to judge an incident where specific information about the main estimates was published in a newspaper article, as well as a blog and Twitter. On March 22, 2011, he ruled: The member argued that the Speaker had ruled on a number of occasions that the House had an absolute right to expect the government to provide information, whether on a bill or on the estimates, to the House before it was disclosed elsewhere. For him, it was a matter of being able to respond, as a member of Parliament, to enquiries in a meaningful and intelligent way. In his response, the President of the Treasury Board admitted that the untimely release of the material in question was improper and not in keeping with past procedures and practices of this House. Furthermore, he committed to taking steps to prevent it from happening again. The minister went on to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 894, thus quite rightly pointing out that, in the past, similar matters, namely of budget secrecy, have been treated more as matters of parliamentary convention rather than matters of privilege. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is certainly not misguided in his expectation that members of the House, individually and collectively, must receive from the government particular types of information required for the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties before it is shared elsewhere. However, in such instances when there is a transgression of this well-established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties. Simply put, I agree with the member for La Prairie. These practices that we saw under the Conservatives and are now seeing under the Liberals have to change. This practice of disclosing all the budget information must change. We should align these budget practices more and more with House of Commons procedure and privilege. I hope that my intervention will help the Chair make a ruling on the intervention of the member for La Prairie.

795 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Apr/11/24 4:59:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby for his intervention. It will obviously be taken under advisement. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

28 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Apr/11/24 4:59:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been looking for my moment to also comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for La Prairie. I think the Bloc Québécois member's argument was very strong. When he presented his question of privilege, I thought it was solid and clear. I thought it was a violation of privilege to start seeing budgetary information shared in advance. In the last while, in digging into my own research, I have come to the view that it is less clear than that. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has also pointed this out, and we have heard this from a number of other presenters in this place, including the hon. Liberal House leader. I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that it is troubling to see that there is not a clear set of rules around protecting budgetary information from early leak. It appears to me now that, as much as I was convinced by the argument from the hon. member for La Prairie, we probably do not have a convincing argument for a point of privilege here. We do have a clear need for more work to be done, perhaps at PROC or elsewhere. We have a very clear tradition. Over the years, people have faced criminal sanction for leaking budgetary information. However, now it appears we can differentiate between the kind of information that could be used in the sense of insider trading, to create a financial benefit for someone who leaked the information, and public policy, which the government can of course discuss in advance. We have seen, more than one time, information released in an attempt to create some razzle-dazzle effect in advance of the budget. We are seeing more public relations material than we are seeing a budget. In the Harper years, I started calling it the “big, thick spring brochure” as opposed to a budget, because it very rarely actually had a budget in it. We could not compare this year's spending to last year's spending. We could not work through the work tables at the back of the budget department by department and compare what was happening. That tradition of big fat brochures has been continuing without access to an actual budget. Canadians need to know that, and they need clarity around how much of this is now promotional materials, with governments explaining what they want to do. There is less and less rigour around whether the money has been spent, whether it can be tracked, whether it can be compared to previous years, and whether we are comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges. In other words, my advice to the Speaker, for what it is worth, would be that this is not a point of privilege. However, there is an issue here of substance for which greater clarity would be helpful and to which I would urge the Minister of Finance to actually bring some rigour to the budgetary process and make sure that Canadians who pick up the budget can actually find, in the big fat spring brochure, an actual budget.

534 words