House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
44th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 235
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 19, 2023
House of Commons Debates
Volume 151
No. 235
1st SESSION
44th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Thursday, October 19, 2023
Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayer
[English]
Privilege
Alleged Misleading Response to Order Paper Question and Matter of Recusal—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now ready to rule on the questions of privilege raised on October 5 and October 16, 2023, by the member for Calgary Nose Hill concerning the government's responses to Order Paper questions and the Speaker's decision to recuse himself from this matter. While there were two different matters raised, I intend to address both of them in the ruling.
[Translation]
As members know, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest, the Speaker recused himself from this affair. The Deputy Speaker is vested with the powers granted to the Speaker when he is not in a position to exercise them. I would therefore like to inform the House that neither the Speaker nor his office have had any involvement in the preparation, discussion, and decision-making for this ruling. The findings are entirely my own, based on my own assessment of the arguments and facts, as well as the precedents that have been brought forward.
[English]
I will begin by summarizing the arguments raised chronologically. Then I will address the recusal matter before turning to the first question of privilege.
In her interventions on October 5 and October 6, the member for Calgary Nose Hill argued that the government misled the House by withholding information in its responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 1417 and 1582. Citing a media story, the member asserted that the financial costs for the Prime Minister's personal travel were in fact greater than what was indicated in the responses. The member emphasized that information appeared to have been hidden on purpose. According to the member, the incomplete nature of the information provided in the responses was misleading and therefore made it impossible for her to discharge her duties in holding the government to account.
She indicated that because the now Speaker was one of the members who signed off on the government response to Question No. 1417 in his previous capacity as a parliamentary secretary, this amounted to a conflict of interest. As a result, she suggested that the Speaker recuse himself from this matter, that she be allowed to move a motion based on her question of privilege and that the House be allowed to determine the outcome. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle also intervened to indicate his support for the assertions put forward as well as for the proposed manner of proceeding.
[Translation]
On October 16, 2023, the member for Calgary Nose Hill raised another question of privilege, this time regarding the way the Speaker communicated his recusal from this matter to the House. The member asserted that, under the usual convention, such a decision should have been formally communicated to the House first, not disclosed by email or through the media. She concluded that these actions were an affront to the dignity and authority of Parliament and that, in the circumstances, the Chair should once again refer the matter to the House for a decision.
The member for New Westminster—Burnaby agreed that the Speaker should recuse himself from any involvement in this question of privilege. However, he did take issue with how the recusal was made public.
[English]
When addressing the first question of privilege, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the government had no intention to mislead the House in providing the responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 1417 and 1582. He maintained that the government answered the questions in a straightforward and truthful manner based on its own understanding of the information sought. He argued that this amounted to a dispute as to the facts and, as such, is not a question of privilege.
[Translation]
On October 17, comparing the two aforementioned questions to a previous one, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable indicated that the government had included different categories of information in response to nearly identical written questions and that the parliamentary secretary had therefore misled the House.
[English]
I will first address the matter of the Speaker’s recusal from the question of privilege and the manner in which he made known his intention to recuse himself.
The member for Calgary Nose Hill argued that, in a circumstance in which the Speaker was unable to rule on a question of privilege due to a conflict of interest, he should instead let the House come to a decision on the matter. The Chair has some difficulty with the contention that the matter should be treated as if it were a prima facie question of privilege, regardless of its merits, only because of this conflict of interest.
In fact, the House has provided, in its rules and in law, for someone else to act on the Speaker’s behalf when he or she is unable to do so. The Deputy Speaker is elected by the House to fulfill this role and may exercise all powers of the Speaker, including, I would posit, delivering rulings on questions of privilege. In this case, as the Speaker has decided to recuse himself, it falls to me to examine the matter.
[Translation]
As the member for Calgary Nose Hill pointed out, the premature disclosure of information can give rise to prima facie questions of privilege. In this regard, the premature release of a committee report or bill has previously been judged sufficiently serious to take precedence over all House business. However, in other cases, the Chair has ruled that sharing certain information about a bill before it is introduced, without revealing confidential details, does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege. Additionally, the Chair has found that some House practices are not matters of parliamentary privilege but are instead political conventions. Furthermore, decisions must be rendered in the House, as I am doing right now.
The recusal of a Speaker from a matter and the announcement of that decision to the House are rare, if not unprecedented, events. At this time, no formal process seems to exist. Yes, the Speaker’s recusal was initially disclosed outside the House, and it would certainly have been preferable for all members to have been advised first. If this situation arises again, I believe it would be appropriate for an announcement to be made in the House first, if it is sitting. If a recusal is necessary during a period of adjournment, the Chair should formally and promptly notify the Clerk in writing, who would then share this information with members.
No details about the potential findings of the decision on the substance of the matter were shared with the media or with the member herself. What was communicated outside of the House was the process for rendering the decision. Therefore, I am not of the view that announcing a recusal impeded members in carrying out their duties. Nor can I find that this action disregarded or attacked the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its members. Accordingly, I cannot find in this case that a breach of parliamentary privilege occurred.
[English]
I will now address the complaint relating to the government's responses to the written questions.
I have carefully examined the arguments raised by members. I have also been guided by precedents from past Speakers who faced concerns or complaints as to the completeness of responses to Order Paper questions.
In a ruling on an analogous matter, Speaker Milliken stated on February 8, 2005, on pages 3233 and 3234 of Debates the following: “Any dispute regarding the accuracy or appropriateness of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.”
[Translation]
Furthermore, to reinforce this principle, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 529 and 530 state: “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege in the House regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate, nor to ‘assess the likelihood of an Hon. Member knowing whether the facts contained in a document are correct'.”
[English]
On the contention that the government was attempting to mislead the House by withholding information, I would refer to a ruling from February 27, 2020, found at page 1649 of the Debates:
...in the case before us...we do not have a situation where the same individual has presented two different sets of facts to the House, nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was an attempt to deliberately mislead the House. For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.
In keeping with this well-established practice, the current complaint does not lead me to believe that I have a basis to depart from past Speakers' decisions. Judging the accuracy of a response is not something that previous Speakers have attempted to do, nor is it something I will do today.
Accordingly, I cannot make a finding of a prima facie question of privilege.
With that said, it is not the first time the member for Calgary Nose Hill and others have recently complained to the Chair that the government's responses to Order Paper questions were incomplete or inaccurate, or at the very least unsatisfactory.
I believe solutions to better serve members' needs for information should and can be found. For example, it might be valuable for the government to indicate in its responses what is or is not included when tabulating information in order to avoid these sorts of misunderstandings. A standardized method of addressing and answering similar questions would also be useful.
That being said, the Chair's powers to address members' grievances in relation to the content of responses to Order Paper questions are limited. I therefore encourage a constructive dialogue between the government and members to find a way to seek and provide useful information through Order Paper questions. If members wish to change this process or to give further powers to the Chair on these matters, I would invite them to bring forward their proposals, perhaps to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I thank members for their attention on this matter.
Auditor General of Canada
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to bring this petition to the House's attention today.
The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the following. They state that whereas freedom of choice in health care is becoming increasingly curtailed and further threatened by legislation and statutory regulations of the Government of Canada, it is a fundamental right for individuals to choose how to prevent illness or how to address illness or injury in their own bodies. Canadians want the freedom to decide how they will prevent illness or how they will address illness or injury in their own bodies, and Canadians are competent and able to make their own health decisions without state interference.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to guarantee the right of every Canadian to health freedom by enacting the charter of health freedom drafted by the Natural Health Products Protection Association on September 4, 2008.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Speaker's ruling encouraging the government to provide more thorough answers on order paper questions. I encourage the government to do the same in relation to providing adequate responses to petitions, as I present one today that is a matter of life and death.
This is about persons with disabilities who are living in poverty, who are suffering more than ever and need financial assistance. Due to an expected 18-month delay to receiving the Canada disability benefit due to regulatory process and a risk to life due to insufficient supports on current disability programs, federally and provincially, Canadians living with disabilities on provincial and federal disability benefits are struggling immensely with benefits significantly below the poverty line.
Over half of those who are unhoused have one or more disabilities. There have been instances of people turning to MAID out of economic desperation and there have been those in the community who have also been lost to suicide. People are desperately awaiting the Canada disability benefit.
The undersigned members of the community of disabled Canadians call upon the House of Commons to, one, consider the implementation of a temporary top-up benefit, a disability emergency response benefit, or DERB, to be immediately provided to help all those currently eligible for any disabled benefit until the Canada disability benefit is being distributed, and, two, consider the disability emergency response benefit to fill the gap and make a difference in the many lives desperately needing support now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 14th time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. I was just in Swan River, where I listened to more pleas for help to tackle the out-of-control crime wave. I was shown where a repeat offender, armed with an axe, cut through a roof of a local liquor store. While it is October and this may sound like somewhat of a horror film, I can assure us that this has become a grim reality of so many business owners in Swan River.
We need jail, not bail. Petitioners are calling on this Liberal government to end their catch-and-release policies before the damage to this community is beyond repair.
The people of Swan River demand that this Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their communities.
I support the good people of Swan River.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise virtually this morning to present a petition from constituents who are very concerned about the galloping climate crisis.
The particular approach of these petitioners, physicians, is to cite the health impacts of the climate crisis and to draw the attention of the House to the scientific consensus as represented in the Paris Agreement, that global emissions must be rapidly reduced for it to hold to a less-than-1.5°C global average temperature increase and to make the cuts that are necessary before the year 2030.
Petitioners direct the House to the finding of the World Health Organization, that the climate crisis represents the single largest threat to human health of the 21st century.
They call on the government to act rapidly to reduce the health threats that they list and that I will only summarize, the impacts from wildfire smoke, the impacts on lungs, the increase in insect-borne diseases such as Lyme disease, the threats created by heat domes and heat-related illnesses and death.
They call on this House to act rapidly to complete the end of the dependence of our economy on fossil fuels and take necessary steps to move rapidly to not just net zero but a zero-carbon green energy future.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of southwestern Saskatchewan. The petition that I have today is in regard to the government's decision to unilaterally ban the use of strychnine. We have an outbreak of uncontrolled Richardson's ground squirrels, otherwise known as gophers, that are decimating farmland. They are decimating ranch land and they are causing a lot of stress to farmers and to animals, as well as a lot of damage to machinery used to plant and harvest our crops.
The residents are asking the government to reverse its ban, to allow farmers the ability to use strychnine to control the population of the Richardson's ground squirrel once again.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table this petition on behalf of constituents of my from Ucluelet and Tofino.
Emergencies at Long Beach in Pacific Rim National Park are attended by Parks Canada, in collaboration with the Canadian Coast Guard, West Coast Inland Search and Rescue, B.C.'s emergency response group and the RCMP. However, rescues initially fall into the hands of surfers and beachgoers. The petition cites many people who have died over the last few years, including someone who died this year.
According to Parks Canada, over a million people visit Pacific Rim National Park Reserve, making it the third most visited national park in Canada. Lifeguards watched over the beach as part of the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve surf guard program for 40 years until the federal Conservative government cut the program in 2012. We will not find a beach in this country with more people in the water and no lifeguards.
Petitioners are calling on the government and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change to reinstate the surf guard tower and surf guard services, and extend the duration of the surf guard program to accommodate the growing number of emergencies, as well as visitors at Long Beach in the Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. This would save lives.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition signed by people from across the country who are concerned about comments that Louis Roy of Quebec's College of Physicians made at committee around babies from birth to one year of age being eligible for euthanasia.
The citizens who signed this petition, residents of Canada, call on the Government of Canada to block any attempt to allow the killing of children by euthanasia.
Mr. Speaker, I am also presenting a petition this morning from petitioners from across the country who are concerned about the deteriorating human rights protections in India. They are calling on the Government of Canada to protect human rights. They note that Christians, Muslims, and members of Dalit and Sikh groups are being subjected to assault and sexual violence, and their places of worship are being vandalized and threatened.
The petitioners are asking that the Government of Canada ensure that all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.
Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling two petitions today.
After eight years, it is clear that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost and his priorities are not aligned with those of Canadians according to these petitioners.
The petitioners raise concerns about the government prioritizing spending on bureaucracy, consultants and waste over a vital area of need for Canadians, which is supporting women's shelters. Petitioners identify the fact that women's shelters are sadly seeing an increased demand. The high cost of living and the housing crisis have made it harder for women and children fleeing violent homes to find a safe place to live.
Petitioners note that at a time when the Liberal government is dramatically increasing spending on bureaucracy and consultants, it is, in fact, cutting $145 million of funding for women's shelters. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to restore funding for women's shelters.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am tabling deals with instances where the Prime Minister, in particular, has tried to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction that relate to the rights of parents to make decisions and be involved in conversations about important aspects of their children's lives. In particular, we have seen this attempted interference in the case of New Brunswick where the leader of the opposition, the Conservative leader, called on the Prime Minister to butt out of decisions that should properly be made by provinces and parents.
Petitioners note that in the vast majority of cases, parents care about the well-being of their children and love them much more than any state-run institution. The role of government is to support families and respect parents, not to dictate how they make decisions for their children.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to butt out and let parents raise their own children.
Questions on the Order Paper
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act
Bill C-50—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their place or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, the government has, in the eight years I have been here, gone on about court decisions, yet we have seen in the last week how it has been completely slapped down by the Supreme Court for showing a flagrant disregard for provincial jurisdiction. It has no regard for how our Constitution is supposed to work as it relates to natural resources and provincial responsibility, yet it is bringing in time allocation to rush through aspects of its extreme anti-energy agenda, even at a time when the Supreme Court has clearly said it has overstepped.
Why will the government not take a pause and listen to not only parliamentarians, but also the Supreme Court instead of ramming through its unconstitutional anti-energy agenda?
Mr. Speaker, the pearl-clutching.
If the members on the other side had not moved concurrence, maybe we could have been debating this last night. However, they used procedural games to avoid debate, and here we are happy to take questions on a very important matter.
I would also take issue with the fact that the Supreme Court, in its opinion, did a slam dunk or that a fulsome 100% judgment was rendered from the other side. It did not. It actually gave a very thoughtful opinion on where the federal government and the provincial governments should work together on matters of jurisdiction.
I can say that we took it, as we should, very seriously and will be looking at amendments we can making in order to make sure it complies with the rendering that came from the Supreme Court last week.
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in this House, there seems to be two block parties in the House of Commons: the Bloc Québécois and the block everything party. That party is the Conservatives, who block every piece of legislation and refuse to move them forward. They blocked dental care. They blocked everything that provides supports for Canadians.
In this case, of course, I guess there is some weird logic, because they hate clean energy. We have certainly seen that in Alberta where Danielle Smith has ripped up the clean energy sector, costing thousands of jobs. Therefore, legislation that actually helps to support that clean energy sector, creates new jobs for workers and also ensures that workers have a seat at the table is anathema to the Conservatives. Of course, they love bankers and CEOs, but they seem to hate workers, seniors and anybody who really benefits.
Through you to my colleague, is that really why the Conservatives, yet again, have blocked this type of legislation that actually benefits workers and Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into the psychology of the Conservative Party. Therefore, I thank the hon. member for the question, but I will refuse the attempt.
Let me just say this. I would like to comment on his last point, if I could, as that is really what is at the heart of what we are proposing to do here.
Energy workers, oil and gas workers, should not just have a seat at the table, but should be leading that table. The problem is that for far too long concurrent governments, and I would argue ours, have left them out of the debate. They need to not just be a part of that debate, but to lead it.
I have skin in the game. My constituents are oil and gas workers. We have built a very proud offshore industry off the coast of Newfoundland. When they hear talk about change, tumult, and things that are exaggerated on social media like there is some master plan that is being made up in some star chamber, they get nervous necessarily. What we are saying with this legislation is that we are putting them at the table as decisions are made to best prepare them for a future that is happening now.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was supposed to rise today to debate Bill C‑50, an important bill that, in fact, was originally to have been named the “just transition act”. For reasons unknown to me, the government seems to be afraid of using this expression, even though it is recognized internationally. It was created by the unions and approved by the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and even the European Union. Everyone in the transition, biodiversity protection and other fields uses the expression.
We have questions. The Bloc Québécois has had only one opportunity to speak, and here we are on day two of the debate. Why is the government unwilling to let us debate Bill C‑50?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the hon. member's mentioning of the phrase “just transition.” There is a very simple reason why I do not like using “just transition” and it is because workers hate the phrase “just transition”.
I do recognize that the International Labour Organization created it. I understand that it did come from the labour movement. However, it does not speak to the people who I represent, and it does not speak to the people who work in the oil and gas industry or the energy industry as a whole. It does not speak to them.
We need these workers onside. We need them to lower emissions in the oil and gas industry because they are the only ones who know how to do it. We need them to build the renewables because they are the only ones who know how to do it. There may be certain phrases that get in the way of them doing that work or continuing to work in that industry, and building those things and doing those things is way more important to me than complying with the conjecture or the phraseology of Geneva.
Mr. Speaker, this is such important legislation for sustainable jobs. It is about building our economic future as a country.
I was wondering if the Minister of Labour could talk to us a little about the importance of making sure that workers are at the centre of the work that we are doing, and how we have made sure, through this bill and the work that we have been doing generally with labour, that workers' voices are being heard, listened to and included.
Mr. Speaker, this is very much a process, and process can be incredibly important.
I do not want to presuppose what workers are going to say about how they want to get this done. I have talked to a lot of oil and gas workers, both in my constituency and in my time as natural resources minister. Even through COVID, I still spent a lot of time talking to oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, even if it was by Zoom. They all said the same thing. There was a great nervousness about plans being made and them not being at the table.
I made it very clear that, with this legislation, the whole point of the bill is to make sure that they are at the table, to make sure that they can lead the table, and that we are working with them to make sure that the training opportunities are there for them to avail themselves of all sorts of things. There is carbon capture sequestration, for instance, within the oil and gas industry, even on pipelines themselves. It is so important that we know where and when to tighten the nuts and bolts on a pipeline to make sure the methane does not leak. These are all very important things.
These are the only people who know how to do this work. Consecutive governments have spent too much time putting them in the margins of this debate, putting them in the margins of the hard work that needs to be done when they have to be at the centre of it because they are the only ones who know how to do it.
Mr. Speaker, one thing that is abundantly clear after eight years is that the Liberal government loves to build bureaucracy but not actually build jobs and options for workers.
When we look at this bill, we have a stable jobs partnership council, a sustainable jobs secretariat and a sustainable jobs action plan. We lost a couple of years because of COVID. The government did nothing with that. We see in the bill that all the government would do is create another process where it could reward more of their friends with positions on councils and secretariats with fancy titles. It is not going to be the people working in Coronach, Rockglen or Kindersley, Saskatchewan, in Alberta or in the places that actually matter, those who are actually going to be impacted and affected by this.
What assurance is the government going to give people that it will get it right, and make sure it is only people in the sector, and not people from the Laurentian elite or the downtown Toronto core, who are going to be sitting on the secretariat?
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the other side, I am looking at the kings of red tape when it comes to energy production. One of the first things I was so happy to do was with respect to exploratory well environmental assessments on our offshore, off Newfoundland. The assessments were at 300 days per exploratory well until the Conservatives got in power and somehow magically found a way to triple that time to 900 days to make an exploratory well, which is a simple drill that goes into the sea bed to see if there is oil there. They put it in the same category as Hibernia and as Hebron, both full platforms. The Conservatives did not even get time to amend it. Maybe they did not care.
We did not want mistakes like that. One of the best parts of the much-maligned Environmental Assessment Agency is that it is able to do regional assessments. We were able to do one for the Newfoundland offshore, and we were able to reduce that time, as a result of looking at the entire basin, from the Conservatives' 900 days to our 90 days, as it should be.
That is because we paid attention to what people are doing on the ground, and it is one of those few occasions where, in 90 days instead of 900 days, we increased environmental oversight because we were looking at the entire basin and not just one item after another after another, consecutive duplicative red tape that the Conservatives managed to put in the way of our offshore.
Mr. Speaker, on October 5, 2023, for the second reading of Bill S-12, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act, I voted on the voting app. The voting app sent me a confirmation whereas the picture had not gone through. Therefore, I ask the House to give unanimous consent to vote yea.
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed
Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I heard from the minister's mouth. He told my colleague earlier that workers did not want to use the term “just transition”.
However, this is coming specifically from the unions. I have had so many meetings with unions to talk about the just transition, and the folks representing workers do want to talk about a just transition. The minister says that workers do not like that term. I think it is the government that does not like that term.
No one in the western world uses the term “sustainable jobs” except in Canada. Someone will have to explain that to us at some point. I think it comes down to fear. The government is afraid of how Albertans and people in the oil and gas industry will react to the just transition, so it prefers to use a wishy-washy term like “sustainable jobs”. If the government cannot even call it what it is, we cannot expect it to take courageous action to lead the energy transition.
There will always be people who do not want the energy transition. Should the term “energy transition” be changed to “power alteration” or whatever? It is nonsense.
I wonder if the minister could explain to me why the terminology changed from “just transition” to “sustainable jobs”?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member, “Believe it.” I am a lot less interested in using phraseology that appeals to Geneva or others, and there has been some consistency in phrases that the member likes or perhaps some union leadership likes. I am interested in the membership of the those unions. I am interested in talking to the people who do that work.
If the member talks to the people who represent them, they will acknowledge that, when we talk among ourselves, we say “just transition” just so we know what we are talking about. What are we talking about? We are talking about training workers for opportunities in the future. That is really all it is. It is a nice way to say it.
They can call it whatever they like. At the end of the day, what we are saying here is that we are listening to the workers themselves. We are using words that they would prefer to use, and we actually prefer using fewer words and doing more things. That is what this is about: making people feel included, and not just any people but the people who will actually do the work of lowering emissions.
The point is not the phraseology. I do not care about that. What matters is that workers are given the dignity for the work that they do, for what they have done, for what they have built, what they are building and what they are about to build for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, where I come from, in my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, we see it as a duty and responsibility to build a diverse economy and build resilience in our communities. I think about the Port Alberni Port Authority wanting a floating dry dock. There are the Coulson Group, which is a global leader in firefighting aviation, wanting to expand and do more work here, and there is Nova Harvest in Barkley Sound wanting to expand. I also think of Tla-o-qui-aht, which is building run-of-the-river and clean energy projects. We see it as a duty. We would see it as irresponsible to not be fighting for the creation of more jobs when it comes to clean energy.
Does the minister not see that it is a duty of all members of the House to build resiliency, a cleaner future and a more sustainable future, especially for workers, who have been advocating for this very bill to be seen through?
Mr. Speaker, Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that this would be a big win for workers and that workers have raised their voices and helped to make the sustainable jobs act a reality. We did not just come up with writing this off at committees. These are things we developed after a great deal of consultation with workers themselves, so these are the mechanisms that would give them a voice. They would be legislated through this place and have the authority of this place. The legislation would carry the weight of not just what is in here, but of the House saying to workers, firmly, that they are in charge of this and we are going to figure this out together.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. Minister of Labour's speech would have been well informed if there had been some reference to already broken promises to workers in the fossil fuels sector.
We talk about how workers do not like to hear this language. I was in Paris with the member's friend, the minister of the environment at the time, Catherine McKenna, was working with Canadian labour unions, and working hard, to get the language of exactly “just transition” into the Paris Agreement. At that point she came back to Canada and put in place a task force on coal sector workers.
The task force went into every coal sector worker community in Alberta and Saskatchewan, co-chaired by the head of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and co-chaired by the then head of the Canadian Labour Congress, who is now a senator. They went into every community, listened to coal sector workers and came up with 10 key principles that should be followed. They are gathering dust, these principles, under the title “A Just and Fair Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”.
This morning, this debate is not about the bill itself. It is about everybody's right to speak to it. Here I am as Leader of the Green Party of Canada, and my first chance to speak to the bill is on the question of shutting down debate before we even talk about the work that is important to do and about using language. It is not phraseology or minimizing it and ridiculing it. It was hard work to get it into a legally binding agreement, to which Canada agreed to, signed and ratified, that uses the language “just transition”.
The emphasis there is not only on the transition, but also on the justice of it for the workers and the communities, who gave their time in full faith that their report would go somewhere and not just gather dust on a shelf.
I see the Speaker wants me to hurry up, but I have had it with being hurried up, shut up and kept off the floor because the bill is important, and now we are going to have time allocation. I do not know that I will get to speak to it.
I ask my dear friend, the Minister of Labour, to please not use time allocation on every single bill. It is insulting to democracy and it makes a mockery of the work to review important legislation in this place.
I am just trying to keep people to the topic at hand and to make sure everybody gets to participate.
The hon. Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence here. The Inflation Reduction Act has passed in the United States. It is perhaps the single greatest industrial policy, and probably the single greatest piece of legislation, that has been passed in any democracy in the world on the issue of energy transition. We have to move, and the way in which we move will determine whether how we move is sustainable and competitive in drawing investment, and we want to do it right. We want to do it with workers on side.
On the issue of time allocations, members can please tell me what in the bill is so bad about including workers in decisions. Members can tell me if there are larger issues that are unresolved, as there are in the House on issues of energy transition, but on the issue of whether workers should have a role here, let us get to work.
Mr. Speaker, this flawed bill is a bill to basically create a committee to create a committee, and there would be no assurances within this committee that the 15 positions, other than bureaucracies, would actually represent those workers. They would not represent the worker who is on the dragline in Westmoreland Coal in Estevan or in Bienfait, Saskatchewan. The committee would not have that person there. It would have a bureaucrat or union person who is focused on that aspect, as opposed to knowing exactly what that job is. On top of that, you talked about wanting to listen to the workers. I quote you on that; you want to hear from them directly. Where in the legislation does it say we would have that worker there?
Furthermore, there is no mention in there about communities. You talked about the new sustainable jobs plan. It does not make any mention of sustainable communities or mitigating negative economic impacts. These are important things that would affect each and every one of those workers in Bienfait, in Coronach and around this country who would lose their jobs because of this.
Mr. Speaker, Bea Bruske, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said that workers have raised their voices and have helped make the sustainable jobs act a reality, and that Canada's unions are proud to work with the government to develop legislation that focuses on workers. The International Union of Operating Engineers said that the act “puts the interests of energy workers at the forefront of a low-carbon economy.” The international vice president of the IBEW said that this act shows the government's “commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” Canada's Building Trades Unions welcomes the bill, saying that the consultation built into this process would “ensure workers are front and centre during this transition.”
If there are issues with the people they elect, then you can take it up with them. However, to say that somehow these people who are there, whom these workers elect, are elites is to put us into question. What are we? Are we elites?
I want to remind folks to speak through the Chair. The word “you” has been used a lot. I would ask members to try to mitigate what is happening by talking through the Speaker.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
Mr. Speaker, I was here yesterday when everybody would have known that we were going to be debating this bill. I saw something quite remarkable once again from the Conservatives, which was their using a concurrence motion on a report that the government has acknowledged it fully supports, as a way to slow down and prevent this legislation from coming forward.
I cannot help but think that, at the end of day, what is really going on here is that it is just the Conservatives' position about, in particular, sustainable jobs and the clean-tech industry. I know that the minister is from Atlantic Canada and that the Conservative Party is also, to the bewilderment of probably the majority of Canadians, against the Atlantic accord, which would set up Atlantic Canada to really drive forward the technology and the economy of the future. Even when all the premiers are supportive of it, the Conservative Party of Canada, for some reason, is against that, too.
Would the minister not agree with me that this has more to do with the Conservatives' continually trying to filibuster and prevent any legislation from going forward that supports the economy of the future and, in particular, the green and renewable economy?
Mr. Speaker, I remember when the Atlantic accord came about. It came about because of the good work of prime ministers like Brian Mulroney, excellent politicians like Pat Carney and, of course, the indomitable John Crosbie. One of the things that the Atlantic accord fundamentally does is acknowledge the jurisdictions of the provinces and the federal government. It clearly lays out a stable regime to attract investment, and it worked.
We created, in the past 25 or 30 years, an offshore industry in my province that is now responsible for the majority of its revenue. This is so important. The Atlantic accord is held up with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a document of prosperity where I come from. Now, we want to move the same regime that respects the jurisdictions of the provinces and of the federal government, rightly, and we want to apply it to an industry that is already attracting billions of dollars for offshore wind and hydrogen.
The same workers who work proudly in our oil and gas industry in the Newfoundland offshore are moving to these jobs as well. It is an extraordinary opportunity. Why would one be against it?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, once is not a habit, but failing to consider existing laws in Quebec has certainly become a habit for the federal government. The paternalistic attitude of the federal level remains unchanged.
I would ask my colleague if he has truly taken into consideration Quebec's existing laws. Again, it is as though we do not even exist.
I will refresh my colleague's memory. In 1995, the National Assembly of Quebec introduced and passed legislation promoting the development of labour training. Then, there was the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Since 1997, we have also had an agreement with the federal government, the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle.
Bill C-50 makes no mention of that. If the minister wants to have Quebec's co‑operation, did he take into consideration the existing laws in Quebec? If not, are the Liberals going to do what they usually do and meddle in our affairs, criticize what Quebec does, show up with their ideas and claim they can override everything?
I invite the minister to give us an honest answer. Did he take this reality into consideration in his bill or, if not, will he correct this and reach an agreement with Quebec by respecting the existing laws of the National Assembly of Quebec that are already in place and work very well?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I do not find anything particularly paternalistic about this government's or any government's talking directly to workers, and I do not need anybody to tell me that I cannot do that. I also do not find it necessarily duplicative because some other government had spoken to them as well. We need to speak to them. More importantly, we need to listen to them, I think.
I think that the important thing about this is that it also builds on an important policy coming out of NRCan about regional tables, because this country is big. It is different. Our politics and our economies are different. We come together in this place to find commonalities, but at the end of the day, we have to embrace those differences. My province and its use of energy, its development and production of energy, are very different from Quebec's and, in some ways, they are very similar on issues of hydroelectricity. However, on issues of oil and gas, and right now at least on issues of hydrogen and issues of offshore, my province is very different. We have to take into account particular views of each part of the country in order for each part not only to be acknowledged but also to prosper.
Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that we are moving forward on the bill before us. The NDP worked very hard to ensure that workers were in fact at the table for the conversation and played a part in this legislation.
The Biden administration has moved on an all-of-government approach and is looking to make really progressive changes on clean energy. I think that it is really important that our government keep pace with one of our largest partners in terms of the economy, etc. This legislation is essential for moving beyond the promises of just investments and tax credits, and I would like to hear about how this legislation could put us on that world stage, as we need to move forward with it. We need to do that very quickly.
Mr. Speaker, it is a huge competitive advantage to make sure not only that workers are at the table but also that they are helping us lead these decisions. That in itself is a competitive advantage. It is a competitive advantage when we put in place the mechanisms to make sure that they do have that voice, that it is heeded and that they lead. We do not have all the answers in this place. The heads of the companies do not have all the answers, by any means. I would argue, and they have told me this, that not all the heads of the union leadership have the skills necessary to do what we are talking about. We are talking about the workers on the ground. It is a competitive advantage as we look at some of the phenomenal things that are happening in the United States and particularly with this president and the Inflation Reduction Act, but I think this, at the heart of it, is our competitive advantage in this country: putting workers at the centre.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the member could provide an explanation of how important it is that the government be able to pass legislation. It would appear, based on yesterday's filibuster, that the Conservatives do not want the legislation passed. Without time allocation, we will not be able to get it passed. Could the member give his perspective as to why it is so important that we get this passed?
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity, with this legislation, to make sure workers are at the centre of the most important decisions in the biggest challenges facing this country today.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on the motion.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 427)
YEAS
Members
AldagAlghabra
Ali
Anand
Anandasangaree
Angus
Arseneault
Arya
Ashton
Atwin
Bachrach
Badawey
Bains
Baker
Barron
Battiste
Beech
Bendayan
Bennett
Bibeau
Blaikie
Blair
Blaney
Blois
Boissonnault
Boulerice
Bradford
Brière
Cannings
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Chahal
Champagne
Chatel
Chen
Chiang
Collins (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek)
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Damoff
Davies
Desjarlais
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Dong
Drouin
Dubourg
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Fillmore
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Gaheer
Gainey
Garrison
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gould
Green
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Hardie
Hepfner
Holland
Housefather
Hughes
Hussen
Hutchings
Iacono
Idlout
Ien
Jaczek
Johns
Joly
Jones
Jowhari
Julian
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Khera
Koutrakis
Kusmierczyk
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lametti
Lamoureux
Lapointe
Lattanzio
Lauzon
LeBlanc
Lebouthillier
Lightbound
Long
Longfield
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
MacAulay (Cardigan)
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacGregor
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Maloney
Martinez Ferrada
Masse
Mathyssen
May (Cambridge)
McDonald (Avalon)
McGuinty
McKay
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McLeod
McPherson
Mendès
Mendicino
Miao
Miller
Morrissey
Murray
Naqvi
Ng
Noormohamed
O'Connell
Oliphant
O'Regan
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Qualtrough
Robillard
Rodriguez
Rogers
Romanado
Rota
Sahota
Sajjan
Saks
Samson
Sarai
Scarpaleggia
Schiefke
Serré
Sgro
Shanahan
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Singh
Sousa
St-Onge
Tassi
Taylor Roy
Thompson
Trudeau
Turnbull
Valdez
Van Bynen
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Virani
Weiler
Yip
Zahid
Zarrillo
Zuberi
Total: -- 175
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Arnold
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Berthold
Bérubé
Bezan
Blanchette-Joncas
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Caputo
Carrie
Chabot
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
Desbiens
Desilets
Doherty
Dowdall
Dreeshen
Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry)
Ellis
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster)
Falk (Provencher)
Fast
Ferreri
Findlay
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill
Gladu
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Gray
Hallan
Hoback
Jeneroux
Kelly
Khanna
Kitchen
Kmiec
Kram
Kurek
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lehoux
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Liepert
Lloyd
Lobb
Maguire
Majumdar
Martel
May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
Mazier
McCauley (Edmonton West)
McLean
Melillo
Michaud
Moore
Morantz
Morrice
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Pauzé
Perkins
Perron
Poilievre
Rayes
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shields
Shipley
Simard
Sinclair-Desgagné
Small
Soroka
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stewart
Strahl
Stubbs
Thériault
Therrien
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Trudel
Uppal
Van Popta
Vecchio
Vidal
Vien
Viersen
Vignola
Villemure
Vis
Vuong
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Webber
Williams
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 146
PAIRED
Nil[English]
The House resumed from September 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-50.
Jobs are so critically important. Canadians from coast to coast to coast want to know what the Canadian and provincial governments are putting into place so that we have good middle-class jobs well into the future.
As someone said to me, the word that comes to mind when we think of the Conservative Party nowadays, especially if one reflects on its behaviour and the types of things it does to prevent legislation like this from passing, is “reckless”.
The Conservative Party of Canada does not know where it is going. Canadians would be taking a chance, very much a risk, with the Conservative Party today, because it is so reckless in the policies and decisions it makes. We seem to see that more often. The longer the Conservative leader, with the Conservative caucus, focuses on making these policy decisions, people should be concerned. They should be concerned about those middle-class jobs and where the Conservative Party wants to take the country.
Another issue is the environment. This legislation deals specifically with the environment and the need for us to be in a position to build a healthy, strong, net-zero economy, something with which most parties in the chamber are in sync. They understand that this is also a priority of Canadians. Canadians are concerned about the global environment and what is taking place in Canada today.
The number of forest fires, storms and floods have a direct correlation to our environment. Canadians are aware of that. The government brought forward legislation a few years back on targets to get us to net zero. I believe Canadians can get behind this type of legislation and support it.
Today, Bill C-50 not only talks about that net-zero economy of the future; it also talks about the issue of jobs and transition, ensuring that we have strong healthy middle-class jobs well into the future. Clean energy is being looked at in a very serious way around the world today.
Where is the Conservative Party? I made reference to the word “reckless” and we should maybe emphasize that fact. At the end of the day, we saw where the Conservative Party was when it voted against the Atlantic accord.
An hon. member: Because it is unconstitutional.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they do not know what they are talking about. Liberal Atlantic caucus members stood up one after—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order, please. Someday I will get back to my Nova Scotia riding in West Nova.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot make this stuff up. When I say that they are reckless, I am serious.
Many of my Atlantic colleagues in the Liberal caucus talked about Bill C-49 and how important it was for Atlantic Canada. A Progressive Conservative premier and Liberal premiers, from Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia, talked about the importance of this legislation. We heard very clearly from Liberal members from Atlantic Canada. They stepped up and ensured that legislation would pass, because it was all about the future, energy transition and so forth. It was all about coastal waters and future billions of dollars of investment.
Provinces were waiting to bring in mirror legislation, but needed Bill C-49 to pass. What did the Conservatives do? They were prepared to indefinitely filibuster that bill as well. They were prepared to say no to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what they have against Atlantic Canada. It did not matter whether the premier was a Progressive Conservative. After all, those members are the right of the right in the Conservative Party. If we had not brought in time allocation for Bill C-49, it would not have gone to committee. We had to bring in time allocation because the Conservatives made it very clear that they would debate it and debate it and never let it pass at second reading.
Fast forward to today, and again we are talking about jobs and the environment. The title of Bill C-50 is the Canadian sustainable jobs act. The bill's focus is a on building net-zero economy and looking at jobs for the middle class well into the future. How are the Conservatives reacting to the legislation? I understand that there has been one day of debate. We were supposed to debate it yesterday. I was supposed to give my speech on this yesterday and I looked forward it. However, in the wisdom of the reckless Conservative Party of 2023, the Conservatives decided they did not want to debate it. Now we know why: This is yet another piece of legislation that the Conservatives do not want to see get out of second reading.
We recognize that in the last election, Canadians made a decision for a minority government. Fortunately, we have other opposition parties that understand the value of passing legislation. That is the only reason we were able to generate the support that will ultimately see Bill C-50 pass, much to the demise and the disappointment of the Conservative Party of Canada. It is unfortunate.
Thinking Bill C-50 and what it would do, I would be interested to know what is in the bill that is so offensive that the Conservative Party members do not want to see it pass.
Marilyn Gladu: Wait for my speech.
Kevin Lamoureux: The member says “Wait for my speech”, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to hearing what the member has to say.
Let me highlight a few aspects of the bill and maybe the member can provide her thoughts on what I believe are three very positive things. Let us remember that through the legislation, we would establish a sustainable jobs partnership council. It is a committee of sorts. It could be up to, I believe, 15 members. The individuals who would be on that council, which would provide advice to the government, are as follows: business community leaders; labour representatives; representatives of regional interests, like the Atlantic community, and the impact of billions of dollars of potential development, which the Conservatives voted against; indigenous communities; and others who could potentially contribute to a healthy, educated and well-thought-out process.
Why would the Conservative Party of Canada not support that? What do they have against having good ideas being brought forward to the government so it can be in a position to develop a report or take action? We will wait until the next Conservative speaker, who might say something positive about the council, but I will not hold my breath.
Another thing the legislation would do is put in place a sustainable jobs action plan. I talked about the council and how every five years there would an action plan presented to the government, a five-year forecast with respect to what we could look at in the up and coming years ahead. The first report will come out in 2025, and that as a positive thing.
The government is saying that it wants to share with Canadians a plan that can build confidence for industries, whether one is an investor or a young person who wants a sense of what direction to go in with respect to a career. What is wrong with having a five-year plan? Again, it as a positive thing.
Another issue is the sustainable jobs secretariat. The government is bent on having a secretariat, which would make a significant difference. We would have an advisory council that generates ideas, a reporting mechanism and a secretariat to ensure there is some coordination and action taking place. That is also incorporated into the legislation. Again, that is a good thing.
When I look at the legislation, the three things I just finished highlighting are the real basics of the framework that will make a positive difference. It will have a positive outcome for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Back in the late winter of 2015, we said that this government's focus would be on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. When we stand and talk about future jobs, those jobs will support Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. We are looking to build supports.
Let us take a look at what happened yesterday when we brought forward the legislation for debate, which I believe would have been the second day of debate on it. That is when members opposite, including the member who said that she has something to say after me, would have had her opportunity to speak to this legislation. As she knows, that did not happen. Why did that not happen? Instead of talking about jobs, as I referred to yesterday, what members of the Conservative Party want to do is continue their personal attacks, something I have referenced as character assassinations. They believe that as long as they focus on character assassinations, while staying away from the issues, that is all Canadians will focus on. That is what they push.
All one needs to do is look at what they actually did yesterday. Instead of talking about jobs, they brought forward a motion for a concurrence report. When someone brings in such a motion, what they typically want to see is the House pass a report by having a vote, so that we will, in essence, agree to it. That is usually the desire. However, then they moved an amendment to have the standing committee deal with it.
Colleagues can see the relevance of this very quickly, because the motion to defer it to a committee could have been done in a standing committee. Members could have raised the amendment and tried to put that on the agenda of a standing committee, but they chose not to do that. Why did they choose not to do that? It was because Bill C-50 and those points that I just finished highlighting were not debated. Instead, we talked about the concurrence report amendment. As a result, we never had the debate on this.
We can fast-forward to today. The government now brings in time allocation and says that there is a limit to the amount of debate on this bill. I am sure we are going to hear comments from the other side during the debate in terms of how the government is trying to limit debate. In reality, those individuals who are following the debate, looking at the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour on legislation in general, will find that, when the Conservative Party opposes legislation, it has no intention to pass the legislation.
It does not take much. I could take a dozen grade 12 students from Sisler or Maples high school in my community, R. B. Russell or Children of the Earth, and I could prevent legislation from passing if they were members of Parliament. We would just have to put them up to speak. We all know there is a limit to the amount of time for speech, so all someone has to do is put up one speaker after another and then maybe move an amendment. They can repeat that and it will never get voted on, unless of course a closure motion or time allocation is brought in.
The Conservatives were very clear yesterday. Prior to that I honestly did not know how they were going to be voting on Bill C-50. Now I have come to believe they are going to be voting against it. That is one of the motivating reasons that they did not want the debate to occur yesterday.
The government only has so many hours of debate in any given week. We can take a look at the number of times that the Conservatives have tried to kill that time, as much as they can. We can look at the times when opposition members have stood up to move that so and so be heard, and then they cause the bells to ring, to prevent debate on government bills.
We can look at the times they have tried to adjourn the House, again in an attempt to prevent debate. We can look at the times they denied the House sitting until midnight when the government wanted to provide more time for debate—
I am sure the hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.
Madam Speaker, the member always has a lot to say.
When we look at this particular bill, many communities would lose their main source of employment by or before 2030 because of government mandates. We lost two years because of COVID. The government did absolutely nothing on this issue during COVID, even though it says it is of so much importance.
Now we have a bill, and all it would do is increase bureaucracy. It is a building-bureaucracy bill, and after eight years, that is all the Liberals seem to do when it comes to issues like this: They build more bureaucracy and create more reports; that is it. There is no concrete action that would create jobs in Rockglen, Willow Bunch or Coronach.
What does the member have to say about that?
Madam Speaker, first of all, the member is wrong when he says that we did nothing with regard to jobs during the pandemic. We could talk about the wage subsidy program, the loans to small businesses and the rental supports, not to mention CERB—
The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has more questions or comments, he should wait until the appropriate time.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada spent billions of dollars having the backs of Canadians and protecting against the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs during the pandemic, so the member is wrong on that point.
The member is also wrong in his assessment of the legislation. There are many things within it to ensure that we have a good transition. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, at the end of the day, there will be a transition period. They might have to be dragged screaming and kicking into the new world. We, as a government, believe there is a role for the government to ensure that this transition takes place in such a way that middle-class jobs, which are important for the future in Canada, are going to be there.
Uqaqtittiji, yet again the NDP had to use its power to even get this bill in the House. Different regions have different needs, and I hope the member understands that.
I have spoken to the importance of the need for the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project to be supported, which would help Nunavut in the switch to the use of sustainable energy. Currently, Nunavut relies on diesel. All of Nunavut's communities are using diesel power, and the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project would help transition to sustainable energy.
Does the member agree, and will the Liberal Party be sure to help Nunavut in the switch to sustainable energy by helping to support the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link project?
Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the member's comments at the beginning of her question. Yes, the government is only able to do what it is doing today with respect to this bill because we were able to get support from the New Democratic Party in getting the bill to committee. Canadians will benefit as a direct result.
The Prime Minister, along with other ministers, such as my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the Minister of Northern Affairs, travel up north a great deal. The council membership would take into consideration things such as indigenous communities and different regions of the country. The member is right: There are so many opportunities across Canada in terms of the energy transition and good-quality jobs for all regions of the country.
Madam Speaker, as climate-fuelled wildfires ravage the country, this bill is barely better than a blank piece of paper. The so-called action plan the member speaks about is not even due to be written for more than two years. Who knows who might be on the partnership council that is being spoken about?
Will the parliamentary secretary commit to making sure the biggest oil and gas companies in the country are not sitting on this so-called council?
Madam Speaker, I am not the one who actually gets to appoint the members to the council, but I believe that having the first report presented to Canadians in 2025 is the responsible thing to do. We have to create the council, and I think it would be premature to present a report before providing the council the opportunity to work with the different regions, to have the different stakeholders sit around the table and have those healthy discussions that are going to be important. This is the type of council that is going to play a critical role, in terms of the type of direction we are going to be going in, as a government, to continue to support some fantastic initiatives, whether they are tide waters in Atlantic Canada, electric batteries in the province of Ontario, hydro in Manitoba or the potential in the north and on the Pacific coast.
Madam Speaker, our government was elected in 2015 to reduce poverty. In Canada, 2.3 million people were lifted out of poverty from 2015 to 2021. We have seen our unemployment rate go to historic lows. We still have a very tight labour market. We have seen strategic investments by our government, such as in UTIP, for the training of apprentices across the country. We have seen strategic investments to build a strong economy, whether they are in the electrical vehicle sector or in the supply chain for the agri-food sector. Bill C-50 is just another layer of the foundation to continue to build a strong, robust and growing economy.
How does the member see Bill C-50 benefiting workers in his home province of Manitoba?
Madam Speaker, the member raises a good point. I would like to emphasize one aspect, which is that if we take a look over the last number of years, prepandemic, what was created by the government working with the different stakeholders, Canadians, small and big businesses alike, was somewhere in the neighbourhood of just over a million jobs generated. That would be from 2016 to prepandemic. Then, because of the support programs and working with a team Canada approach, we were among the fastest countries in terms of restore the jobs that were lost during the pandemic.
The government has been very much focused on job creation. This legislation would even go further than that. It would recognize that, as we get closer to that net-zero economy, we need to focus a lot more attention on the types of jobs of the future. That is why we are creating the council and having the secretariat. That is why there is a need for the strategic plan, and this is a government that is going to get the job done.
Madam Speaker, the member opposite would have us believe that Bill C-50 is about creating sustainable jobs, when in actual fact it is not even a plan; it is a plan to get a plan. It is the typical Liberal tactic of saying, “Let us get a bunch of well-paid Liberal insiders to be on a council to advise the government on what the plan might be. Then let us pay another high-paid Liberal insider to be the secretariat, so that two years from now, when they figure out what the plan is, it will happen.” However, nothing says that they do not have a plan like a bill that says it is a plan to get a plan.
Would the member admit they do not have a plan for sustainable jobs?
Madam Speaker, it is a bit much, hearing from the Conservatives about our not having a plan when we are still waiting for Conservative policy on the environment. I remember the plan Conservatives had on the price on pollution, which they call the carbon tax. I have highlighted it before. That was their plan, and they advertised it to every Canadian. It was their election platform, where they said that they supported a price on pollution. Do members remember that plan? What has happened to it? Today, the Conservative Party, en masse, has had a conversion. They now say that they do not support a price on pollution.
The only consistency is that the Conservative Party continues in a reckless fashion, and people need to be aware. People are taking a risk when they talk to the Conservatives. If they want to focus on growing Canada's middle class, they can take a look at what Bill C-50 would do: It would create opportunities for good solid middle-class jobs well into the future.
Madam Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my good friend and colleague, the great member for Foothills, who is from the great province of Alberta.
Before I get started, let me give another shout-out to another fellow Albertan, another colleague in this House who has done incredible work on this unjust legislation, the member for Lakeland. She has been an absolute advocate not only for our province but also for our world-class and world-leading energy sector.
The world needs more clean, responsible low-carbon energy. Not only does the world need Canada's world-class energy, but Canadians need it too. They need it not only to heat their homes, keep the lights on and fuel their vehicles, but for the economic benefit it brings.
After eight years of the incompetent Liberal-NDP government, it is just not worth the cost for Canadians or our resource sector. Canada is last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth. Canadians are suffering with the worst GDP per capita growth rate since the Great Depression, or since the 1930s. GDP per person in Canada today is just under what it was halfway through 2018. That means Canada has had five years' worth of economic productivity wiped out.
According to the OECD, Canada will remain last among developed countries for GDP per capita growth through 2060. The government has been doing one thing really well, which is chasing investment out of our country. As our leader once said, all of our exes are running away to Texas.
The costly Liberal-NDP coalition has not just been chasing investment out of our country, but chasing out jobs, people and talent as well. People do not want to move to this country because they do not see a future here anymore. When my family came here as immigrants, there was a hope in Canada that if one put in hard work, one would be able to see the fruits of that labour. However, after years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, all that hope has been wiped away by bad economic policy that has told the world that Canada is not open for business anymore.
This unjust legislation would further hurt Canada's economy and reputation on the world stage, as if the Prime Minister's reputation has not already damaged Canada enough.
The Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada was formed just a few years ago to advocate against the government's anti-competitive and antiworker policies. Now half of its manufacturer members have already moved or are moving their operations out of Canada.
The green industry in Canada will not even make a dent in the kind of economic development and growth needed for recovery. In 2007, the clean-tech sector was 3% of Canada's GDP. Today, even after billions and billions of tax dollars and government subsidies and billions more in private sector investment, it is still only 3%, and 1.6% of employment.
Despite the anti-energy agenda by the Liberal-NDP government, the unconstitutional “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, the tanker ban bill, Bill C-48, cancelling Energy East, cancelling Keystone XL and not building any of the 18 LNG projects proposed when the Prime Minister took office, Canada's energy sector still represents 10% of our GDP and, with the related manufacturing that comes with it, contributes over $120 billion to our economy. Canada needs its energy sector to be strong to attract businesses, investments and jobs in order to get our economic growth and productivity back on track.
The Liberal-NDP government loves nothing more than to vilify profit or the success of large Canadian industries. When it comes to Canada's energy sector, it is like a sport for the left to see who can hate it the most. There is a big cost to these failed Liberal-NDP policies, these anti-energy and anti-Canada policies. These attacks will throw at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, many of them in my home province of Alberta and many in my riding of Calgary Forest Lawn. They will displace another 450,000 workers and risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in all provinces and sectors, regardless of whether they are working class or middle class.
We know that people would lose jobs with the unjust transition the left is proposing. We already saw it in Ontario under Kathleen Wynne with the green energy program, which killed off nearly 100,000 jobs directly. The 50,000 green jobs those Liberals promised to create never materialized. In Alberta, the Rachel Notley NDP, in 2015, implemented a just transition, and in small mining towns like Hanna, just north of Calgary, workers were promised new green jobs once their coal mining jobs were wiped out. Just as in Ontario, over 1,000 workers left town because the jobs that had been promised were not there. This was in a town of just under 3,000 people, and 1,000 were driven out of work and out of town.
The sheer number of job losses we are talking about on a national scale is devastating, especially at a time when Canadians face a cost of living crisis. Sixty per cent of Canadians are choosing cheaper, less nutritious food because they cannot afford healthy options. Millions of Canadians are visiting food banks as families choose between keeping a roof over their head and keeping food on the table. Nearly a third of mortgage holders are concerned they will not be able to afford their mortgage, as interest rates could increase monthly payments by 40% or higher.
It is not just the jobs, livelihoods and communities that suffer when the Liberal-NDP government attacks our energy industry. It is also hurting Canadian pensions. The Canadian pension plan and Ontario pension plan invest billions in Canada's oil and gas sector because they know it is a good return on investment. In fact, seven of the largest pension funds in Canada remain invested in Canadian oil and gas. By firing energy workers and attacking our world-class energy sector, the Liberal-NDP coalition is attacking the retirement security of Canadian seniors and workers.
There is a huge impact of this unjust transition on communities and Canadians. There is nothing fair, equitable or remotely just in this blatant anti-energy attack. The Liberal-NDP government, with its war on Canadian jobs and paycheques, is not worth the cost. Canadian energy companies provide good-paying jobs, even good union jobs, for Canadians.
As an example, the Keystone XL pipeline project was to employ 1,400 direct and 5,400 indirect jobs in Alberta alone. The province and TC Energy partnered with Natural Law Energy, an indigenous-led and indigenous-run company. Many of the Canadians who worked on the project were indigenous. The economic benefit for Albertans in surrounding rural communities kept people employed and businesses running.
Canadian energy companies are also leaders in the investment and development of clean technology. Seventy-five per cent of private sector investment in clean technology comes from the oil and gas sector.
Canada's energy sector contributes $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. These continuous attacks on our energy sector drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating. We do not need to go very far to ask a Canadian about that. We have talked to Canadians all across this country who just last winter were hit with the failed policies of the Liberal-NDP government when we saw the cost of heating homes double and saw gas prices at record levels. All of these things are contributing to the cost of living crisis we see today with the failed carbon tax scam that the Liberal-NDP government continues to introduce.
It was not like this before the Liberal-NDP government and it will not be like that after the Liberal-NDP government, because when the member for Carleton becomes prime minister of this country, we are going to bring it home. Conservatives will bring home energy production to Canada to produce energy here and create jobs to get Canadians good paycheques instead of giving dollars to dictators. We will green-light green projects like tidal water, hydro, hydrogen and LNG. We are going to make sure that we support our seniors by axing the failed carbon tax to bring down the cost of gas, groceries and home heating and bring home lower prices. We are going to bring it home for Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I feel very confident in knowing that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament understands and has complete faith in the CPP, the Canada pension plan.
I have a question for the member opposite, who is the finance critic. What is the Conservative Party of Canada's position in regard to what the Premier of Alberta is talking about in terms of getting Alberta out of the CPP? The member made reference to the CPP. Will the Conservatives be straightforward and transparent with what their position is in regard to the CPP and Alberta?
Madam Speaker, the member highlights a very important point. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, Canada and its Confederation are broken. Never have we seen a more divisive Prime Minister. He has pitted region versus region, province versus province, sector versus sector, Canadian versus Canadian and even newcomers against each other because of his failed ideology.
This country was not in this horrific state when we moved here. It was not like that until these last eight years. It is because the Prime Minister wants people to be divided and wants to make sure that he is the guy seen as the giver. He wants to turn this country into a place where newcomers cannot exist or survive.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, earlier I had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Labour and Seniors why he chose to call his bill the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act” instead of simply talking about a just transition, which is an internationally recognized term. In fact, it was coined by the unions and subsequently endorsed by the International Labour Organization, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the European Union, to name just a few. It is the term used here in Canada.
When I was at COP26 in Glasgow, I met representatives from unions like the FTQ. These people attend this type of international meeting to ensure that Canada is taking part in the just transition. Now, however, the government is using phrases like “sustainable jobs” and telling us that workers do not like the phrase “just transition”, even though unions are made up of workers. What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would inform the member that there is nothing just about this legislation. When the Liberals are throwing at least 170,000 people out of work across the country, displacing 450,000 workers, risking the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians and damaging the industry that is literally holding the country up, there is nothing just about that.
I wish the Bloc would understand how much this industry can contribute to bringing down world emissions, taking dictators' dollars away and making strong, powerful Canadian paycheques instead.
Madam Speaker, historically, the voices of women in the economy have not been discussed in this House. We know the majority of energy workers are men, and we know that the impact of families not having employment is dire. It is dire for women. I have spoken to many women over the decades since I have been in the economy who have experienced domestic violence, marriage breakups, children living in poverty and children going to school with no food. Those are the impacts of not having work.
The fuel and oil industry is the economy of the past. The American clean-tech economy is on fire, exceeding all expectation. However, in Canada, Conservatives continue to block clean energy projects. Why do the Conservatives want Canadian families to suffer and not get involved in the future?
Madam Speaker, as the member wants to talk about how disproportionately affected women are, I note that we just heard at the finance committee from a witness who said that single moms are the most disproportionately affected in the worst ways by the failed carbon tax scam. The carbon tax compounds things for the farmer who is making the food, the shipper who is shipping the food and even the manufacturers. That cost is passed on to the person who buys the food at the end of the day.
Whether someone is a single mom or from a vulnerable community, they are disproportionately affected the most. It is too bad NDP members are propping the Liberal government up. The costly coalition is increasing the carbon tax, which means they are hurting the single moms in this country the most.
I want to talk about the implications of the bill and how dangerous this proposed mandated threat is to the hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs that are entailed in this just transition legislation. I want to be clear to members of the House that this careless Liberal-NDP government and its bill before us would shatter the prosperity, stability and economics of Canada and the provinces, as well as our energy and agriculture sectors. Indeed, rather than being proud of the sustainability, innovation and skill sets we have developed here in Canada, the Liberal-NDP government is proud of the number of jobs it would be eliminating through this legislation.
I want to be very clear because these are the stats, right from the government's own memos, that come with the just transition legislation. According to the government's internal briefings, this legislation would kill 170,000 direct jobs, displace 450,000 direct and indirect jobs and cause large-scale disruptions to the manufacturing, agriculture, transportation, energy and construction sectors, impacting 2.7 million jobs. The Liberals and the NDP talk about jobs, but the jobs they are talking about are the jobs they would be eliminating through this legislation.
This legislation is also targeted and divisive. There is no question that it would disproportionately harm the economies of and the jobs in primarily B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador. There is no doubt that it is no coincidence that the energy sector is a large contributor to the GDP and the economics of these provinces. For Alberta's GDP, it is about 27.3%, and in Newfoundland and Labrador it is 36%. This would affect 187,000 jobs in Alberta and more than 13,000 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development stated, “the government is not prepared to provide appropriate support to more than 50 communities and 170,000 workers” who would be impacted by this legislation. The government can talk about this being a just transition to new jobs, but the new jobs are not there. As my colleague said, about 1% of the employment provided in Canada is from renewables. The bill would impact 450,000 direct and indirect jobs, and maybe 2.7 million jobs across the other sectors, but the new jobs do not exist, so to say that this is a transition to future employment is simply being misleading.
Where have we seen something like this before? Where have we seen the Liberals plowing ahead with legislation based on ideology and activism without listening to the concerns of other parties, or of the provinces and territories? It was Bill C-69, and we have just had the Supreme Court rap the knuckles, or maybe a bit more than rap the knuckles, of the Liberal government for plowing ahead with divisive, vindictive, ideological legislation just for the sake of hammering the provinces that have industries it does not agree with. Bill C-69 was an attack on provincial jurisdiction. It was legislation that all provinces and all territories either opposed or demanded massive changes to, but the Liberals ignored every single one of those concerns.
However, the damage has already been done from Bill C-69. It chased billions of dollars of investment out of this country and cost our economy thousands of jobs. Do not get me wrong, as a result of Bill C-69, members can bet that projects were built and jobs were created, just not in Canada. They were built and created in other jurisdictions around the world. Canada lost billions of dollars in investment, and we also lost our best and brightest, who had to go to other jurisdictions to get that employment and to have their research and innovations accepted.
Just as the provinces and territories are trying to stop the bleeding as a result of the Supreme Court decision on the no pipelines bill, here the Liberals go again with more ideological, vindictive and divisive legislation, which would eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it is aimed at only a few provinces. Not only that, but the legislation would increase the likelihood of energy poverty and food insecurity not only here in Canada but also perhaps around the world.
On a global scale, the Liberals would jeopardize Canada's ability to provide clean and sustainable energy and agriculture for customers around the world, certainly in those countries that need it the most. Bill C-50 plans to phase out the oil and gas sector, and it would have harsh and real consequences that should not be taken lightly. I cannot be more clear: This unjust transition legislation would leave Canada in economic shambles.
Today, I want to highlight something specific that has not been given enough attention. This half-baked legislation from the NDP-Liberal government would not only certainly increase the cost of living for Canadians and ignore our world-class energy and agriculture industries, but it would also cost us almost 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector.
Most of the speeches today have been about fossil fuels and energy. However, in the government's own memos, the bill would also target 300,000 jobs in the agriculture sector. There are about 65,000 vacancies in agriculture already, so I am not exactly sure where these 300,000 jobs are going to come from, and one in nine jobs in Canada are directly linked to agriculture and agrifood. The minister's own memo brags about cutting 300,000 jobs from agriculture and the agri-food sectors.
Globally, food security and affordability is one of the top priorities. Therefore, rather than trying to find ways to address that by reducing taxes, reducing red tape and ensuring we have reliable supply chains to get our products to market, the Liberals have found another way to add on additional red tape, additional regulations and additional burdens on one of our most important industries. Food inflation is already up 7% over last year, and the government has made these ideological promises. The industry minister said yesterday in question period that they have done what no other government has done before and called the five grocery CEOs here to Parliament to give them a little what for. He made it sound like they landed a man on Mars.
We actually had the five grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee eight months ago, so way to be on top of it. The minister sent a letter to the agriculture committee to study this issue two days after the government tabled its reply to the study that we did eight months ago. It just shows how out of touch the government is with what is actually happening on the ground.
What it also ignores is the incredible results we have had here in Canada, without government intervention and without government taxes. Canadian energy could be exported around the world, as should have happened with Japan and Germany, who came to Canada to access our LNG. The Liberals said no, so instead they went and signed an agreement with Qatar for natural gas. Do members think Qatar has the same environmental standards as Canada, or the same human rights or labour standards as Canada? If the government was trying to reduce emissions, it did the exact opposite by turning those countries away and making them go to Qatar.
If we were allowed to get our energy to market, we would actually reduce global emissions by 23%. That would be a success. Canada's oil and gas sector is about 0.3% of global emissions, and our record in agriculture is even more impressive. Canada is about 2.6% of global emissions, and agriculture is about 8% of that 2.6%. Compared to emissions globally, the global average for each other country is about 26%. That shows the incredible success that Canadian agriculture has had. However, instead of rewarding that impeccable record for Canadian agriculture, Canadian energy, and the workers, scientists and researchers who work in those industries, the Liberal-NDP government wants to punish them and eliminate these industries, which are so critical to Canada's economy. The revenue from these two industries builds schools, hospitals and roads and pays for the social programs that we rely on, but the Liberals ignore that.
In conclusion, Conservatives are the only party that will find common sense solutions to the problems facing Canadians, and we will be proud of our resource sectors and the men and women who make their living in those industries.
Madam Speaker, talk about manipulating numbers to try to make something look like what it is not.
The member talked about, for example, LNG. It is one of the single largest investments, possibly in the top four or five, where we saw the federal government working with a provincial government, the NDP in B.C. It was us, the provincial NDP and the private sector working on an LNG project worth billions of dollars, yet the member just said we had nothing to do with LNG.
The member talked about hundreds of thousands of jobs. Our government has created far more jobs than Stephen Harper ever did, and we have been in government for eight years compared to nine years. We do not need to be lectured about jobs.
Why does the Conservative Party not recognize the value of the transition to ensure that we have good, healthy net-zero workforce jobs into the future for Canada's middle class? What does the member have against Canada's middle-class jobs?
Madam Speaker, what I have a problem with is that this legislation is a transition for Canadians to the unemployment line and the food bank line. We have millions of Canadians already relying on food banks in record numbers.
The member talks about LNG. There were 18 LNG projects on the books ready for construction that have been cancelled. The Liberals cannot be proud about one. We also had four pipelines ready to go in Canada. Do members know how many have been built? Zero have been built. Therefore, they cannot talk out of both sides of their mouths to say that they support these industries when in fact they do everything they can to suppress and kill them, which is exactly what this legislation would do.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, what I am hearing from my Conservative friends is scary.
The fight against climate change is probably one of the biggest challenges of our time. Canada is already one of the world's worst performers on this issue according to pretty much any available indicator. We really are one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to climate change.
The Liberals are useless. They are not doing anything. For years, we have been fighting to get them to take action and stop investing in the oil industry. Now I am hearing from my Conservative friends that they want to do even less so we can be even worse than we already are. There were floods this summer and fires all over the place. This is an emergency. The planet is burning right now. My Conservative friends want to do even less.
Where I come from, we have groups like Mothers Step In and Ciel et Terre, which I talked to two weeks ago. We cleaned up the St. Lawrence shoreline. They all came to see me. They said they had seen the polls and were worried about the Conservatives taking power. They wanted me to tell them that will not happen. I could not tell them anything.
These people are worried. What do the Conservatives have to say to them?
[English]
Madam Speaker, we are not saying to do less. Rather, we want to see things that bring results. The carbon tax, which the Bloc wants to radically increase, has done nothing. The Liberals have not met a single emissions target they have set. Flooding and forest fires are still happening.
Taxes are not the answer, but research, innovation and new technology are, and industry has been doing this for years. We will get there, and we want to get there, but we also have to be realistic about how we get there. To say that we are going to end all fossil fuels tomorrow when 3% of our energy comes from renewables is not realistic. Where would the other 97% come from? That is what we are saying.
We need to support these industries, which are world class and world leading, with the highest standards on the planet. That is how we will get there, not by being ideological and shutting down these critical industries.
Madam Speaker, I would ask the member across the way if he could point to where in the bill it states that we would immediately end all fossil fuels tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, I love that the New Democrats are trying to obfuscate their end result or end game. Everything they have been saying is that their goal is to end fossil fuels. This is interesting considering they have completely lost touch with the roots of their party, which are about the working-class folks in Canada, such as pipefitters, welders, carpenters and longshoremen, the people who want to work. Everything the NDP is professing to do would assure that these people would not have jobs, which is very well highlighted in the just transition legislation, where 450,000 indirect and direct jobs, up to 2.5 million jobs, would be lost.
I wonder how many of those folks who used to be NDP supporters will now be supporting the Conservative Party of Canada.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the honourable and esteemed member for Whitby.
This is the first time this week I have had an opportunity to rise in the House, as I was travelling earlier this week. I want to make a comment before I speak about Bill C-50, a bill that is a positive step forward in the future for Canadian workers from coast to coast to coast.
With respect to the events of October 7, when over 1,400 Israeli citizens were killed by a terrorist organization, I wish, obviously, to condemn that to the highest possible degree. I offer my prayers and condolences to the Israeli people. As I have stated over social media channels, I stand with Israel and the Israeli people. Obviously, my prayers are for the Palestinian people as well, that a humanitarian corridor be established and that they have peace in that region of the world as soon as possible. Hamas is a terrorist organization. As someone who has lived, worked and experienced the events of September 11, 2001, I know full well some of the feelings that folks are going through these days. My thoughts and prayers are with that region.
With respect to Bill C-50, I am a member of the natural resources committee, and we will have an opportunity to bring the bill to committee to study it, to work through it and, potentially, if the members of the opposition have amendments or anything else is proposed, to try to make the bill better. That is what we are brought here to Ottawa to do. That is what our voters send us here to do: strengthen legislation and make legislation that moves our economy forward, moves our country forward and creates a better future for our children and future generations. I think all parties and all members would agree that this is the goal of everyone's being here, independent of which side of the House they sit on.
Since day one, in 2015, the government has been laser-focused on Canadians: helping Canadians, strengthening our middle class, and ensuring that those Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class have the opportunity to do so. Earlier today, I was looking over some of the statistics that we like to talk about and that I, as an economist, like to refer to. I believe that 2.3 million Canadians were lifted out of poverty from 2015 to 2021, including over 653,000 children and about 500,000 individuals who identify as being disabled Canadians. We have cut the poverty reduction rate from about 14.5% down to about 7%.
I do acknowledge the pressures that all Canadian families are facing right now with global inflation. I heard about global inflation recently, during a trip to Europe for the Council of Europe as the chair of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association. Taxi drivers were commenting about just how much prices have gone up over there, what butter and milk cost, what the average family is seeing in Europe, and what the average family is seeing in Canada.
The government understands that. We have reacted. We have put in place measures: the grocery rebate during the summertime, the Canada workers benefit and the indexation of a number of benefits that we have had here in Canada for a number of years and that we are continuing. The Canada workers benefit, which I love, goes out to hard-working Canadians wishing to join the middle class and working hard everyday for themselves and their families. It is something I admire, because those are the same values my parents instilled in their three sons. Those are the same values of hope and hard work, as I would call it today, that brought my parents here to Canada and allowed them to improve their standard of living when they immigrated here. In their simple terms, it is about “just working your butt off”, if I can use that term in the most honourable House.
The world is transitioning to a low-carbon economy, but we are still using fossil fuels. We will still be using fossil fuels for many decades to come. We have a duty to support the 800,000 or so Canadians who work in the energy industry. We have a duty to support them today and to support them tomorrow as we continue this path toward a low-carbon economy while ensuring we have the energy sources to fuel our economy today.
I think Bill C-50 is much like the work our government has done over the last eight years, working with labour, with industry and with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to bring forth legislation that moves our economy forward, that moves Canadians forward and provides a better future for us all. That is exactly what Bill C-50 is about. It is about consultation and about working together. I see the feedback from a number of stakeholders, whether they are the International Union of Operating Engineers, the president of the Business Council of Alberta, or the hon. members who have been elected from the province of Alberta. The President of the Business Council of Alberta has said that the act is a good step forward in helping equip Canadians with the skills for the jobs of our future economy. That is something very profound, and I do not use that word lightly. It is about equipping Canadians with the skill set to succeed today and also to succeed tomorrow.
As an economist, I am fully aware of what we call, according to an individual from Austria or Germany, Joseph Schumpeter, “creative destruction”: the process of innovation and technological change that leads to the destruction of existing economy structures, such as industries, firms and jobs. That has been happening for decades, if not hundreds of years, but we also know that when that happens, Canadian individuals need to ensure that they have the skill set to go to a new job, to go to a new profession or to move up the value chain in the profession they have chosen or in the sector they are in. It happens naturally, and we must ensure that Canadians have the skills to do that.
I do want to give a shout-out to Canada's Building Trades Unions. I do work with it closely. I work with a number of its member organizations, including LiUNA. As the CBTU says, it “welcomes Bill C-50, aimed at addressing Canada’s transition to a net-zero economy, which brings forth key aspects including the creation of a Sustainable Jobs Partnership Council to provide meaningful consultation during [this period].”
We need energy today. We will need energy tomorrow. However, we also know that the world and the private sector, and I love the private sector, are creating the wealth and investing in renewable energy sources around the world. We have seen it through the United States and the Inflation Reduction Act, and we are seeing it here in Canada with the ITC, the investment tax credit that we announced in our budget, very fiscally prudent and strategic measures to grow our economy and help those Canadians wanting to get good jobs and wanting to join the middle class. That is what we are about: providing good futures, providing an environment that fosters wealth creation through investment and, obviously, creating jobs with investment from the private sector.
When I think about Bill C-50, I think about what we are doing here in Canada for the electric vehicle sector. I think about the investments we have made, with a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, for Stellantis. There are thousands and thousands of jobs being created in the Windsor-Essex region with Stellantis at its electric vehicle battery plant. Then, I think about what we have done with Volkswagen. I know that one of the members opposite, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, was there that day when we announced the Volkswagen investment. The most hon. member was so happy, and her mayor, who I believe is a former Conservative Party member of Parliament and sat in the most honourable House, was so happy.
That $7-billion investment with Volkswagen positions our electric vehicle sector and the whole supply chain for growth; for wealth creation, and I love wealth creation; and for jobs. It will create good-paying middle-class job with good benefits. We just saw it in the province of Quebec with Northvolt, with that investment where the Province of Quebec and the federal government are working in partnership with labour and business. We saw it in Kingston, where the member for Kingston and the Islands, along with the federal government, announced another strategic investment.
We need to support Canadians. We need to support Canadian workers. Bill C-50 is part of that support. We will be there for Canadians to ensure we invest in their skills. They can get better jobs, higher pay, better benefits, better futures today and better futures for tomorrow. I look forward to questions and comments.
Madam Speaker, it may surprise members that I, too, am looking forward to a just transition. I am looking forward to the Liberal Party's just transition to up by the interpreters after the next election.
Here is the problem: Right now, Qatar, the U.S. and other nations are filling in the void of the natural gas requirements of Europe, the Netherlands and France. We have heard that deals have been struck recently with Qatar, with fewer environmental standards, fewer labour standards and fewer human rights standards. Qatar is a known supporter of the terrorist group Hamas. Meanwhile, in Canada, we are strangleholding our natural resource sector and our ability to supply natural gas, clean Canadian energy, to the rest of the world. The impact that is going to have on families and our economy is unconscionable.
How can the member justify Qatar's supplying natural gas when Canada cannot?
Madam Speaker, I have considered the hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil a dear, close friend in the years I have known him.
We here in Canada need to supply the world with the energy that we have. The energy workers here in Canada are second to none, those Canadians who get up every morning and work in the energy sector, whether it is in the province of the British Columbia and the western sedimentary basin or in Alberta, where we know we have a feedstock advantage and the petrochemical industry. The petrochemical industry association is investing literally billions and billions of dollars, whether in Newfoundland or whether in Sarnia and those parts of Ontario where Canadians get up every morning to work in the energy sector. We know that we need to supply North America and other parts of the world with Canadian energy, including natural gas or oil, for the foreseeable future, as we continue to move toward a net-zero economy by 2050.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite a question.
I was listening to his speech just now and I noticed its consistency with his party's language. For years now, whenever we talk with union representatives and with workers, they constantly bring up the idea of a just transition. A just transition means ensuring a transition to net zero that allows workers to evolve, so that we can place them in new jobs and equip them with new skills.
However, the government has changed its vocabulary, probably under pressure from the oil companies, but also in keeping with the fact that it hands out billions of dollars to the oil industry every year. Now it is talking about sustainable jobs. Does my colleague opposite consider a job in the oil sector to be a sustainable job?
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères that a job is a job. We want as many Canadians working as possible. We want as many Canadians as possible ensuring that they have bright futures. If somebody is getting up to go to work in the energy sector in Alberta or British Columbia or Newfoundland, that is a good job, paying them and their families. It ensures that they can put food on the table and that they have good futures for themselves and their kids.
We know that the renewable industry in Canada is growing. Investments in the renewable industry, whether it is solar, wind, hydrogen, along the spectrum or nuclear, which is a big energy source here in the province of Ontario, are making those key strategic investments as we continue to grow our energy sources. However, we all foresee that, for the years to come, we will continue to utilize other forms of energy.
Uqaqtittiji, I am going to ask the hon. member a similar question that I asked another Liberal MP previously. Nunavut continues to be excluded from so many investments. The Liberal government has an opportunity to support sustainable development in Nunavut.
As I mentioned earlier, Nunavut relies on diesel in all 25 of its communities. There has been great work to make sure we can help transition to clean energy through the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project. I wonder whether the member can commit, with the government, to working toward supporting the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link so Nunavummiut can get off of diesel.
Madam Speaker, I am not exactly familiar with that project per se, but I do wish to say that any investments we can make for areas such as those in Nunavut, if I can use that term to understand the geography, because it is very unique, we need to make, especially getting communities off diesel as soon as possible.
Madam Speaker, thank you for this opportunity today to speak to an incredibly important piece of legislation, Bill C-50, Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act.
For many reasons, the people of Canada are going through challenging times. I think we can all agree on that. Many of them are unprecedented. Canadian workers and jobs, and the global economy, were heavily affected by the global pandemic. On top of that, we experienced unprecedented wildfire levels over the summer. It has been reported that there were 6,118 wildfires that burned 15 million hectares and 200,000 people were placed under evacuation orders. Experts say these were influenced by climate change.
Like the rest of the world, Canada must adjust if we want to give ourselves a fighting chance against climate change. Many Canadians have already had climate change impact their work, including workers in the agricultural, fishing, emergency services and tourism industries. There was the interruption of supply chains. Many elements of mining and mining infrastructure have also been significantly affected by climate change. I could go on, but suffice to say few sectors and few hard-working Canadians will be able to carry on as normal at their jobs or in their lives as long as the planet continues to heat up.
That has been, as noted, one of the hottest seasonal temperatures on record with warm ocean temperatures, category 5 hurricanes and many extreme weather events. We have seen them play out in the media over the last year. All of us are rightfully concerned, and should be doubling down and tripling down our efforts on fighting climate change.
With Bill C-50, our government is determined to help Canadian workers stay ahead of the curve in today's rapidly changing job market. If parliamentarians are committed to supporting Canadian workers through the transition to a low-carbon economy, we must come together across party lines and work together.
Certainly, we do not need more signs from Mother Nature that we need to do this right now. I think Mother Nature has given us plenty signs for decades now, and it is time to get on with this. I think this bill makes a significant contribution to our climate action efforts.
The need to move fast does not mean we need to do this piecemeal, or thoughtlessly or carelessly. Canadian workers, their families and their communities, whether in our largest cities or in the farthest reaches of our territories, need substantive and clear legislation that commits Canada's government to action that supports them.
This act was written after extensive consultation with the people it is intended to help, which is a primary principle of all good consultation work. It has to include the people who are most impacted. Their words assisted us in defining its purpose to help the government facilitate the creation of sustainable jobs for Canada's workers, while seizing opportunities for economic growth.
We want to provide support for workers and their communities in the shift to a low-carbon economy, and ensure transparency, accountability and ongoing engagement with Canadians across every region of the country on issues like training, workers' rights, the job market, economic growth, and, of course, reducing emissions.
This framework and all federal action on sustainable jobs would be guided by the principles enshrined in this legislation. They are principles that would strengthen our collective efforts, ensuring that all of Canada's national policies and programs, and the federal entities that carry out this work, are grounded in the fundamental values that underpin this work. This would be along with international best practices, and would be delivered equitably, fairly and inclusively.
This means that this act supports the creation of decent, high-quality work opportunities for Canadians by establishing a framework for effective action. Through this framework, we would be better positioned to address the barriers that have made it difficult for some to join the workforce. This legislation has four guiding principles developed in consultation with Canadians, built on guidelines adopted by the International Labour Organization, and tailored to fit with what Canadians value.
The first principle reflects the need for adequate, informed and ongoing social dialogue between government, workers and industry. Social dialogue is a term used by the International Labour Organization to describe all types of communications that help build understanding of and consensus about issues impacting the workforce. The government believes that this is a must if we want to shift to a low-carbon economy, to succeed for Canada's workers, their families and their communities.
The second guiding principle of this legislation is that the policies and programs that are put in place should support the creation of decent work, meaning good-paying, high-quality jobs, including union jobs. It is work that is productive and delivers a fair income. It is work that gives workers a voice in decisions that affect them.
Labour policies and programs influenced by this legislation should consider job security and social protections to reduce and prevent poverty and vulnerability among Canada's workers, as well as promote ongoing social dialogue. We also need the policies and programs associated with sustainable jobs to recognize local and industry-specific needs.
During our extensive consultations, Canadians told us openly and directly that they want Canada's government to acknowledge, with real action, that regions dominated by fossil fuel jobs have unique needs and opportunities. They told us that our policies need to reflect the fact that workers in high-emitting industries need pathways to low-carbon industries as the world shifts to different sources of energy. I can assure the members of this House that we hear those concerns.
Closely related to that is the need for our policies and programs to reflect workers' cultural values, strengths and potential while we create an environment where workers, businesses, investors and consumers can create sustainable, inclusive economies and societies.
The third guiding principle in this act recognizes that shifting to a low-carbon economy presents an important opportunity to improve the diversity of Canada's workforce and address barriers to the participation of marginalized and under-represented groups in the labour force.
Let me use the mining industry as an example. The industry's need to hire more workers is an opportunity to diversify its workforce. Women and people who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada are vastly under-represented in mining, making up only 15% and about 7% of its workforce, respectively.
While mining is the second-largest employer of indigenous peoples in Canada, accounting for 12% of the upstream mining workforce, the data shows us that indigenous people overwhelmingly hold entry-level manual jobs. We can and must unlock the potential of Canada's under-represented population groups if we are to have enough workers to fill all of the jobs that expect to be created over the next two decades. It is a significant number of jobs. RBC has reported that by the end of 2030, this could create as many as 400,000 jobs in Canada.
Because the need to fight climate change and expand sustainable employment is a global issue, the last guiding principle in the sustainable jobs act is international co-operation. Canada already works routinely and extensively with other countries, and we are proud that international co-operation is widely considered to be one of our strengths.
Canada is playing a leadership role on the international stage to promote an inclusive and people-centred approach, and I highlight, underline and emphasize “people-centred approach”, to the clean energy shift or transition, leading on a range of initiatives to advance sustainable jobs while promoting diversity and inclusion of marginalized groups in the clean energy sector.
Notably, Canada is leading the Equal by 30 campaign, which encourages voluntary commitments from both public and private sector organizations to work toward equal pay, equal leadership and equal opportunities for women and other marginalized groups in the energy sector by 2030. Canada co-leads the clean energy ministerial empowering people initiative with the United States and the European Commission, which brings together like-minded partners to advance people-centred transitions. There is more collaboration I could mention, but I will stop there.
In our extensive consultations with Canadians, we were told to bring our people-centred approach to our international work, and we agree wholeheartedly. People-centred legislation makes it easier for our policies to remain coherent at every level of government, but, more importantly, it is critical to ensuring that Canadians have equal access to a variety of social supports or job training and job opportunities.
Madam Speaker, what would this member tell the thousands of my constituents who will lose their jobs because of this so-called just transition, which certainly has no justice in it?
There are many opportunities, and my constituency is seeing some of those opportunities through wind, solar and other clean investment.
Before he talks about opportunities, what would he tell the people of Hanna, who faced the consequences of a coal transition, where the government promised to be there but failed every step of the way? We saw absolute devastation in one of the communities in my constituency.
Liberals talk big about this, but when it comes to results, how does he defend my constituents who will bear the brunt of this? How do they defend themselves on a record so poor that it will literally leave people on the street?
Madam Speaker, obviously my colleague across the way does not truly understand the gravity of the situation of the global climate crisis we are in. The transition of workers from one industry to another, from high-emitting to low-emitting industries, is going to require a significant transition of workforce. That is exactly what this legislation aims to do, to make that transition as equitably, fairly and inclusively as humanly possible and ensure all partners across Canada are involved, especially labour organizations, as well as industry partners and indigenous groups, in making those decisions.
Madam Speaker, we have been hearing from clean-tech businesses that the investment tax credits that were announced in the spring still are not accessible. Here we are in October, and there have been huge delays. This uncertainty for businesses is a big problem, especially those that are looking to make investments in the clean-tech economy.
When is the government going to roll out these programs? Also, we have seen the delays in applications even for people who personally want to work with the Canada greener homes grant. There have been delays and failures to get back to people and get a response to them. It is just unbelievable the amount of time it is taking. This is a disincentive for the people we want to get in place to make decisions to help kick-start the Canadian clean-tech economy.
Madam Speaker, RBC has said that over 400,000 jobs are at stake by the end of 2030, so over the next seven years. What this legislation is looking to do is ensure we create more jobs in Canada.
The member opposite rightly points to the fact the investment tax credits our government has introduced and is working on rolling out are going to play a key role in incentivizing the sustainable investments we are going to need across Canada to see growing industries in renewables and other facets of the energy transition that are going to create those jobs for people to transition to. I welcome that work, and I am sure we will be able to keep the member updated as that work gets to a point of conclusion.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would simply say to my colleague that if we want to create jobs in the renewable energy sector, then we need to take bold action, in other words, get out of fossil fuels and stop investing the majority of our resources in oil and gas.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the Liberal government has the courage to be bold because, even when it comes to calling it what it is, in other words a “just transition”, the Liberal government has decided to backtrack and instead talk about “sustainable jobs”.
Canada is the only western country that is using the term “sustainable jobs” instead of talking about a “just transition”, because it is afraid of how Alberta may react.
Does that not jeopardize the bold action that we should be taking? Is our lack of courage not our biggest problem?
I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I know the language shifter, the lingo and the way we are talking about this has evolved. That evolution in language in talking about sustainable jobs is part and parcel of working with labour leaders across the country. I believe it actually reflects the language and framing they would like us to use. The evidence shows there is a lot at stake here. There is a lot of investment and potential economic growth. There are a lot of jobs at stake, and those jobs are truly sustainable jobs. They will be with us for generations to come as we make this green energy transition.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Sarnia—Lambton.
Before I get into the substance of Bill C-50, I will state unequivocally how important it is to acknowledge the conflict that is taking place in Israel and Gaza. As Canadians, we stand with Israel and the right for it to defend itself and to look out for the many victims of this conflict.
I would note that when I asked a question a few minutes ago of the member from the Liberal Party who preceded me, he said that I did not understand what the bill was about, and they are clapping about that. However, what they are clapping for is seeing Canadians descending into poverty, because the government is forcing them in that direction. They are going to see that Canada is pushed to the back of the line when it comes to our ability to displace dictator crude and gas.
It is unbelievable the ignorance from those Liberal members who would suggest this to those of us who actually understand the energy sector, not just traditional oil and gas, although that is a big part of the opportunity that Canada offers, and the full extent of what Canada's energy future can be. Those Liberals are dragging behind and dragging us down. They should truly be ashamed of themselves. I dare that member to come to my constituency, look my constituents in the eye and tell them why they do not deserve well-paying jobs. Those members are accusing my constituents of somehow not caring about the environment. It is disgraceful, shameful and shows that they have lost the moral authority to govern on these issues, especially when we look at the results.
Let us look at the facts. When it comes to Canada's energy future, the reality is clear. Canada can be a world leader if not held back by these Liberals, whether it is the so-called just transition, and there is nothing just about it, or when it comes to the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, which we just saw thumped down by the Supreme Court and called unconstitutional because of the government's meddling in provincial affairs. The government is holding back Canada's potential to be a world leader.
Shortly after the Prime Minister was elected, he said that Canada was back. After eight years, the evidence is so very clear that he has been holding Canada back every step of the way, and the world is less safe because of it. The world has a less clean environment because of it. That is the record of the Prime Minister and the Liberals' coalition partner in the NDP. They should rightfully be ashamed of themselves.
When it comes to what we are debating today, I would encourage us to keep looking at the facts. Let us go to the conversation around net zero. Here is the reality. Canada could flip a switch today and we would reduce global emissions by 1.6%, or we could be world leaders and encourage investment in our energy sector, in our traditional oil and gas, and in clean tech, which I support.
The result of Canada reducing emissions by 1.6% would be by throwing our people into poverty, shutting down our factories, making it so nobody can afford to live in the country. The only people who would have any ability to resemble something of prosperity would be those who are connected to a Liberal government where they pick winners and losers. To achieve the reduction in emissions by 1.6% globally, we could flip the switch tomorrow. However, and this is the contrast between what Conservatives are offering and what Liberals are offering, we could empower Canadians, empower Canadian industry and use the natural resources that are so abundant in our country and reduce emissions globally by multiple factors of that 1.6% by getting our clean, green LNG to markets that currently burn coal.
The environment minister went to China, to a Communist-controlled so-called environmental forum, of which he is one of the vice-chairs, and encouraged and promoted Chinese—
I am going to stop the hon. member. There seems to be either some chit-chat or some heckling going on. I want to ensure that members recognize there is debate happening in the House. If members want to have conversations, they should take it outside, or they should be thinking to themselves and waiting for questions and comments. That includes parliamentary secretaries as well.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Madam Speaker, the environment minister went to China and promoted all the great work the Communist dictatorship in Beijing was doing on the environment, yet that country is building coal-fired generation stations as we speak.
We could be displacing that coal with clean, green Canadian LNG. We could be exporting nuclear technology around the world to ensure we are displacing more emissions-intensive forms of energy. We could be displacing the Russian crude that is holding the European continent hostage. We could be ensuring that Canadian expertise and energy is solving the world's problems. However, under the Liberals, with their lack of an understanding of what is just in this world, we are being held back.
I would like to clarify one thing. The Liberals seem to think that somehow Conservatives do not support clean energy. That could not be further from the truth. I can say that definitively because I am a massive proponent of energy investment of all kinds. Whether that be new clean tech or traditional forums, we should be a world leader in all forums.
The difference is that the Liberal philosophy is to hold people down, hold them and drown out anything they do not agree with. That is what they believe. The Conservatives offer a clear alterative. We want to empower people to do what is best for them. We want to ensure that it is not the government that picks winners and losers, but that industry, innovators and, ultimately, Canadians to do what is best for themselves and for our country. When we are doing what is best for Canada, we are doing what is best for the world, and the entire planet would benefit from Canadian leadership.
Let us look at some of the facts. Bill C-50 could lead to as many as 170,000 jobs lost, including many of which would be in my consistency. I dare those Liberals to look my constituents in the eye and tell them why their jobs do not matter. We could see up to close to half a million indirect jobs lost. That is the whole spectrum. I am not sure if the Liberals realize this, but a lot of the clean tech jobs depend on affiliated industries that also do work in our traditional energy sector.
We also need to look at realistic outcomes to ensure that when we pass public policy in this place it will actually accomplish the objective. Nothing in this bill would benefit Canadians. Nothing in the bill would be just. Nothing in the bill would lower emissions. Nothing in the bill would lead to a prosperous future for Canadians. However, we see the government pushing forward, using manicured talking points that are somehow supposed to take the place of realistic and concrete solutions.
The facts speak for themselves. The only evidence that the Liberals could point to for even having an iota of success with emissions reductions is twofold. One is Alberta's leadership in reducing emissions, including in the energy sector. Two is the government pointing to COVID and the lockdowns associated with it as a reason why emissions went down.
It is truly shameful and a disgrace. The fact that if it were any other part of the country, we would not see Liberal members pursuing this sort of agenda. That leads me to my final point.
It should be the job of any prime minister, first and foremost, to ensure that there is national unity in our country, yet the Liberal Prime Minister and those corrupt Liberals are dividing our country. I hope it can be repaired. I believe it can be, but there are so many who are losing faith in the very foundations of our institutions, the very foundations of our country, because of an ideological agenda that is not only ineffective but is truly tearing the country apart.
The bill and the ideology need to be defeated. The members who support it need to be shown the door. When it comes to the future of our country, in every metric, this is the wrong direction. It is time for a government that can bring home a future for Canada that works.
Madam Speaker, in one word, wow. At the end of the day, it is becoming very clear that the Conservative Party does not give a darn about green jobs. The Conservatives do not recognize that there is value to green jobs. The Conservatives are prepared to write off Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it when it comes to good-quality green jobs.
This bill is all about ensuring there is a council that can provide that five-year report on how we can transition and generate additional jobs. Let us think about the battery jobs from Volkswagen and other types of jobs. This is about tomorrow.
Why do the Conservatives want to close their eyes or bury their heads in the sand like an ostrich? It does not make any sense. What do you have against good, clean middle-class jobs?
I want to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary to address questions and comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to address the member's question, because here is the reality. The only party in the country that supports clean, green sustainable jobs is the Conservative Party of Canada. We believe in an economy that allows for the prosperity of all industries. Whether that is mining in northern Ontario; or oil and gas in Alberta and across the Prairies; or tidal energy, which the Liberals have ensured is not affordable in the Maritimes; there is one party in our country that truly wants to see prosperity for all, lower emissions and a future that works for Canadians, and it is the Conservative Party.
Therefore, when that member spouts off the same tired talking points that have been tearing our country apart, he can be held accountable, as the Liberals not only fail on the environment but they fail on the economy, and Canadians are getting sick and tired of it.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I commend the intensity of my colleague's speech, but I have concerns for his health. He should not get so worked up. It is not good for him. I want him to take care of himself.
I understand that he is passionate about oil. I have no problem with that. I would just like to point out to him that if, in the future, we want to join the global trend of reducing our carbon footprint, then we will have to make painful choices.
The government has promised a generous $83 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas sector until 2034-35. That should give it some incentive to meet the government halfway. I do not agree with this, but that is how it is. I am trying to get them on the same page. I want my colleague to sleep well tonight. I want him to breathe deeply and feel good.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's concern for my health, but I can assure him that I, and so many Canadians, will sleep better when that Prime Minister and his coalition partners are drummed out of office. Then we will see a Canada that actually prospers again, whether that is in Quebec and the many industries that benefit from investment, all types of energy.
Why does the member not go and speak to the manufacturers? Some of their largest customers in probably his riding come from my province. The disconnect that exists from the ideology that is purported and supported by every other political party in the House and the reality that exists on the ground in Canada is so unbelievable.
The future is built on a clean economy, absolutely. How do we ensure that? We allow investment, prosperity and the ingenuity of Canadians to ensure that happens. The Conservatives are the only party that offers that.
Madam Speaker, my colleague is speaking like there is this big bad solar-powered windmill-shaped bogeyman that is going to land in Alberta and wipe out all these really important jobs. That is actually not the case.
In fact, a study by Calgary Economic Development estimates that Alberta could see $61 billion pumped into its economy through clean tech investments. Studies also show that Alberta gains almost 100,000 clean tech jobs.
Why do the Conservatives continue to be unrelenting in their defence of oil and gas, and their clear disdain for anything that would mitigate the effects of climate change and that it would steal these economic opportunities away from Alberta workers and their families?
Madam Speaker, the only thing being stolen from our country is the prosperity that should be given to Canadians. It is that member's disconnect with reality that is on full display here.
I can see windmills from my house. I drive by solar farms on a regular basis. For that member to somehow think that we have to pick one or the other shows an absolute disconnect with the reality of how we solve what is a developing global energy crisis.
Let us build in our country. Let us ensure there is clean tech. Let us ensure that when it comes to traditional energy, we continue to move toward that lower emissions path. Let us ensure that it is Canadians who lead the way as opposed to being held back like they are under that coalition.
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to express my serious concerns about Bill C-50. This bill is called the sustainable jobs act, which is typical of what Liberals do. They pick a name that sounds good. Who does not like sustainable jobs? I like sustainable jobs. I think all Canadians want sustainable jobs. It sounds really good, but the problem is that in this bill there is no plan to create sustainable jobs. This is a plan to get a plan.
The bill outlines how the Liberals are going to put together a council. Based on past behaviour, I suggest that it would be highly paid Liberal insiders who will get these jobs and advise on what the plan ought to be. As to the timeline of when they are going to come up with what the plan ought to be, it be should by 2025, coincidentally just after the next election.
The Liberals do not have a plan. Nothing says there is no plan like a bill that is introduced to get a plan. That is the first thing.
The second thing is the Liberals have another role, a secretariat, that is going to do some coordination, with another highly paid Liberal insider when they get the plan. The problem is that is it; that is all. It is a plan to get a plan, with some principles that are motherhood and apple pie and that we would all agree on, such as well-paying jobs, caring about the environment and the need to respect labour, all of these good things. They are all motherhood and apple pie, but the bill does not have a specific action that is going to help.
On the other hand, it is going to hurt. The analysts of the government have said that Bill C-50 would kill 170,000 direct Canadian jobs, would displace 450,000 workers directly and indirectly working in the energy sector and would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians across all provinces. The bill would destroy as many as 2.7 million jobs when there is not a single action in it to create any sustainable jobs at all. That is a problem.
The other thing is that it is going to cost a lot of money. Right now the energy sector provides 10% of Canada's GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. Last year, $48 billion in royalties and taxes were contributed by the energy sector. This bill purports to get rid of that by eliminating the sector.
We can look at other places in the world that have come up with a sustainable jobs plan and are starting to implement it, Scotland being one example. If we took the cost per person of its plan and did the equivalent thing here, it would cost $37.2 billion. The Liberals are taking away as much as $48 billion and adding a cost of another $37 billion. If we do the math, they are increasing by greater than $70 billion the loss to the Canadian economy.
I do not know why the Liberal government cannot learn the lesson when countless people can, like former Liberal John Manley, who said that when it runs these huge deficits, it is putting a foot on the inflationary gas pedal, which is causing the Bank of Canada to put its foot on the brake with higher interest rates. This raises the cost of mortgages. Canadians are suffering from coast to coast, so definitely not only is the bill not going to create jobs, but it will come with a huge cost.
It is not like this is the first time there has been an attack on oil and gas and the energy sector. This has been a continual theme from the time I got elected in 2015. Let us start with the tanker ban, Bill C-48, to keep Canadian oil from getting out there when everybody else's ships are out there full of oil. Then we had Bill C-55, which created marine protected areas so we could do no oil and gas development there. Then there was Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, which was just called unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. All of these things were intended to be a war against creating oil and gas projects.
There is evidence. When the Liberals took power, there were 18 LNG projects on the books and there were four pipelines. Zero pipelines have been built and all the LNG projects but one are cancelled. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, our friends in Germany were going to give us $59 billion to replace their Russian oil and coal with our green LNG. The Prime Minister said there was no business case, so Australia took that deal.
Then Japan came up with a similar deal and again we would not take the deal, so Saudi Arabia took it. Then came France and the Netherlands. There were all these opportunities for Canada to be a leader, supplanting higher-carbon fuels with our green LNG, the most responsibly produced product in the world with the best human rights record, but again the Liberal government refused. Instead, it is focused on its own ideology and things that it wants to do that continue to destroy the economy.
We can talk about the electric vehicle mandates. That was another great idea. Let us give away $31 billion to create 3,000 jobs. For those who can do the math, if we just gave each of those 3,000 people $10 million, they would never have to work again and there would not be any footprint. There is a total misunderstanding of how to create a growing economy.
Then there is the clean electricity standard, another hugely divisive bill that was introduced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, clearly not understanding that where the Liberals want to go with all the electric vehicles, electricity and the grid would require building the equivalent of 19 nuclear facilities, like the one from Bruce Power. They cannot build anything, so I do not know where they get the idea that they are going to be successful in achieving that.
At the same time, they are ignoring the fact that only 7% of the public even wants an electric vehicle because the technology is not there. No one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30°C because the batteries do not work. They catch fire. In addition to that, they do not have a very long range. Instead, the government decided to pick a winner and loser with the battery plants that are being built.
Now Toyota has come out with a solid-state battery, with a 1,275-kilometre range, that works at -20°C and does not catch fire. That will make our technology obsolete, with $31 billion after the fact. Maybe the Liberal government needs a few more engineers so that it can actually make science-, fact- and data-based decisions, but that is not what is happening today.
The Liberals continue to move ahead with the carbon tax and the second carbon tax, putting punishment on the backs of Canadians and achieving nothing. Emissions have gone up under the government. At the 2005 level, we were at 732 megatonnes. We needed to get to 519 and now we are at 819. They are not achieving their targets and keep putting bills like this in place, talking about sustainability, the environment and creating jobs. They are not actually achieving that.
Sarnia—Lambton has a huge oil and gas sector, but it knows how to do a transition and is doing a transition. It is creating good-paying, sustainable jobs like the ones at Origin Materials, a net-zero plastics plant in my riding. My riding has one of the largest solar facilities in North America. There is a whole bio-innovation centre that is growing different kinds of bio-facilities that are all either carbon sinks or carbon-neutral. These are the kinds of actual solutions and actions we need. That is not what is in Bill C-50. It is a plan to get a plan with nothing else. For that reason, I will not be supporting Bill C-50.
Madam Speaker, talk about reckless. Let me give a good example. The member is criticizing investments we have made in electric vehicles, and she is happy to do so. The Government of Canada entered into an agreement with Volkswagen, creating thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly. Industries will grow as a direct result. VW is investing billions of dollars, and the member is saying that VW does not know what it is doing, apparently, and the jobs that are being created in St. Thomas and the surrounding areas are just not worth it because the reckless Conservative Party believes that electric vehicles are not a thing of the future. How ridiculous is that?
Can the member tell the people of St. Thomas whether the Conservative Party supports the VW plant, which is going to be the largest plant in Canada? Some 200 football fields could fit into it.
Madam Speaker, that is a great question. I think what the people of St. Thomas would appreciate, instead of giving $31 billion between two plants for 3,000 jobs, is if the Liberals just gave each person $10 million so they never had to work again. They would probably be pretty happy about that, but that is not really the way to grow the Canadian economy.
Conservatives have plans to actually unleash the innovation, technology and natural resources of Canada to grow the economy. Think about those 18 LNG plants and the number of jobs we could have had there. Think about the nuclear facilities we could be building and transporting around the world. That is where the jobs are.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are still accusing the government of inflationary spending, so I have a quick question for my colleague. According to the IMF, Canada invested $50 billion in the oil industry in 2022. I would note that the oil industry made $200 billion in profit in 2022.
Does my colleague think that that expenditure counts as inflationary spending?
[English]
Madam Speaker, the reality is that when we invest in a business and the business generates more royalty and tax revenue for the government to support all of the social programs we want, that is an investment; it is not inflationary spending. When we spend money and it does not create a result, that is inflationary spending.
Madam Speaker, I always get a great kick out of listening to Conservatives talking about the environment and the economy. It is like looking in a distorted funhouse mirror: We are not even sure if they know what side of the world is up. However, the member says that her numbers are from Danielle Smith, so that pretty much sums it up.
There are nine million direct jobs in the United States in clean tech right now. Speaking of Danielle Smith, last December, Alberta was the gold rush capital of the world for clean energy tech. Just this past July, some were talking about how Alberta was out in front, and then Danielle Smith killed it. If we talk to any international investor about money in Canada, we hear that not a dime will go to Alberta now because of Albertan and Conservative ideology against clean tech.
As for LNG, the member has not a clue what she is talking about. We met with the German Chancellor. He said they are not interested in LNG. They wanted to know if we could provide hydrogen, but hydrogen is something that Conservatives are against, just as they are against the battery plant investments and just as they are against clean tech. They claim they are going to somehow find “technology”, but this technology will help them run their oil and gas industry into the ground.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to enlighten the member opposite, because clearly he is unaware that in Sarnia—Lambton, a green hydrogen hub is being created. We are supportive of that.
I wonder why he is not standing up for the residents in the north, who are not getting mining jobs because of project approvals and things that his party supported, and why he is trying to shut down jobs in Canada. He is supposed to be in a party of the working people, but the NDP has abandoned the working people in this country. The Conservatives have their backs and will ensure that their jobs are protected as we transition to a cleaner future.
There seem to be some discussions going on in the House while others are trying to participate in the debate. I would just ask individuals to take those outside. I would also ask members to be mindful of the words they use within the House as well, to make sure they are respectful.
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors.
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Labrador.
I am delighted to be standing here today to discuss Bill C-50, a bill that would help ensure Canada's workers are equipped with the skills and training they need to help our country seize the economic opportunities ahead of it. The fact is that as the world advances toward a net-zero future, we need to skate where the puck is going. I will give members a good example from my riding.
The Government of Canada invested to help Algoma Steel, the second-largest steel producer in Canada, bring its operations into the next era by phasing out its thermal coal furnaces and putting electric arc furnaces in their place. This means more clean air in my community. It is the equivalent of taking nearly one million gas-powered cars off the road. It is amazing. It means a healthier workplace for our steelworkers as well.
Like the sustainable jobs act, this investment was about creating new, well-paying jobs that benefit our economy. People in the community have started calling this investment “generational”. I have talked to steelworkers, and they know that if their grandkids choose to work in the steel industry in Sault Ste. Marie in the district of Algoma, because of this investment, they can do so.
There are industrial facilities like Algoma Steel in many parts of our country, from material to energy to manufacturing. Investors want to power their plants with clean energy, while minimizing emissions and maximizing their high-quality material production.
Members should not just take it from me: The president of the Business Council of Alberta said, “The Sustainable Jobs Act represents an important opportunity for Canada: to shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs—including energy, food, and minerals.” Clearly, it is imperative that we advance technology and skills to get good projects built, while fighting climate change.
On the investment and research side, we are working hard to make sure that Canada is at the front of this global race for clean technologies. The Government of Canada is approaching this thoughtfully, through measures such as our hydrogen strategy, a clean electricity vision paper and our recently released carbon management strategy, which will help us secure sustainable jobs in such sectors as cement and steelmaking.
As we work to become leaders in the clean technology sector, we also need to make sure that our people are equipped to lead. Within the Canadian sustainable jobs act, the government would create a future where the Canadian workforce can thrive as it meets the world's growing demand for low-carbon energy, resources and solutions. It is a future where the challenge would not be finding good, well-paying jobs. Instead, the challenge would be keeping up with the demand for skills development and training programs to help Canadians fill them.
Bill C-50 provides an important opportunity to create a legal framework for action that fosters the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic prosperity across Canada. This legislation already reflects the feedback we have received from workers, labour organizations, experts, indigenous peoples, provinces and territories, and many other stakeholders.
This legislation would help us do two things. These things are not negotiable if we want workers to succeed in a low-carbon economy.
The first thing it would do is put Canada's workers first. To put it simply, as the government invests in the growth of our energy sector and other low-carbon industries, this legislation obliges the government to bring Canada's accomplished and motivated workers along with us. We are starting this dream together in a good place.
Workers in the conventional energy sector are already well-positioned to succeed in growing clean technology industries such as hydrogen. This is based on a recent state-of-the-industry report from Enserva, which found the following:
...people involved in energy development will be at a huge advantage in terms of jobs and skills as the underlying technical skills required to extract, develop, produce, process and export oil and gas are transferable to different forms of energy, such as wind, solar, biomass and LNG.
While this gives Canadian energy workers a reason to be optimistic, we still need the legislation to ensure that the government has a plan to provide them, their families and their communities with the related supports they need.
The second thing this legislation would allow us to do is to assure existing and potential investors that our workforce is fully up to supporting emerging low-carbon projects and priorities. We must continue to motivate investors to back the businesses that will grow tomorrow's low-carbon economy, while investing public funds into a wide array of sectors and projects.
The latest federal budget alone included $86 billion in new incentives to accelerate the growth of our clean energy sector, with new or enhanced investments and tax credits toward generating clean electricity and hydrogen, manufacturing and adopting clean technologies and advancing the viability of carbon management. This investment stands to help workers in very real ways, since the highest investment tax credits are reserved for the companies that offer the most competitive compensation packages. It is a win for investors, for Canadian workers and for communities.
The legislation has been informed by many things. In 2021 the government released a discussion paper on sustainable jobs, and we invited all Canadians to have their say on it. This led to 18 months of public consultations, highlighted by 17 round tables with a range of stakeholders and partners, including workers themselves. We also received tens of thousands—
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Diwali
Madam Speaker, it is important we recognize that Canada's diversity is one of our greatest strengths. I reflect back to June, when we celebrated many different events of Canada's Filipino Canadian heritage.
Now we fast-forward to November. On November 12, we are going to be celebrating Diwali. Diwali is celebrated from coast to coast to coast, as Canada's Indo-Canadian community will lead the way. Diwali is a celebration of good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. This is a part of Canadian heritage. We should all be very proud of Canada's diversity. For those who are going to be celebrating Diwali on November 12, I wish each and every one of them a very happy Diwali.
Jim Lee
Madam Speaker, on October 10, Prince Edward Island, and indeed all of Canada, lost a distinguished citizen and public servant: the Hon. Jim Lee, who served as premier in Prince Edward Island from 1981 to 1986.
He accomplished many things during his time, including playing an instrumental role in the establishment of the veterinary school at the University of Prince Edward Island. He was also instrumental in the construction of the Prince Edward Island Convention Centre, the amalgamation of the Charlottetown and P.E.I. hospitals and the construction of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
During his time as premier, he was the P.E.I. signatory on both the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was said by his son that his father “never put a lot of energy into taking credit for the things he helped P.E.I. achieve.” He was an Islander who fought for the lovely island he called home and the people he represented.
On behalf of Canada's Conservatives and His Majesty's loyal opposition, I would like to extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends. I thank Premier Lee for making both Prince Edward Island and Canada a better place.
Public Safety
Madam Speaker, over the past few months, as I knocked on doors in my riding of Brampton East, I have had many conversations about public safety. All levels of government have a role to play in keeping our communities safe, and here in Parliament, we are working together to further strengthen our Criminal Code.
After consultations with all 13 premiers and police chiefs across Canada, our government has brought forward a bail reform bill, Bill C-48, which would help keep repeat violent offenders behind bars.
I have had numerous discussions with the police chief, the mayor and colleagues across all levels of government, and I am happy to see this bill being supported by colleagues in this very chamber.
That is not all. We have helped combat guns and gangs, providing $120 million to the Province of Ontario; strengthened border security, with over $500 million to CBSA, which will help prevent contraband coming into this country; and instituted a national freeze on handguns, which means that handguns can no longer be transferred, purchased or imported into Canada.
I remain focused on working with all levels of government to ensure families can live and prosper in a safe environment.
[Translation]
275th Anniversary of Saint‑Hyacinthe
Madam Speaker, the wonderful city of Saint‑Hyacinthe is blowing out 275 candles this year. This afternoon, I welcomed the mayor, André Beauregard, to my office and presented him with a commemorative plaque to mark this very happy anniversary.
What is now a city was once a seigneury. Its first mayor was Louis-Antoine Dessaulles, Louis-Joseph Papineau's nephew. In the 19th century, it was home base for one of the most active wings of the Parti patriote. In the early 20th century, it was an important and dynamic industrial hub. Saint‑Hyacinthe is now an agri-food technopole, with its farms, processing plants and research centres making an unparalleled contribution to Quebec's foodscape.
Saint‑Hyacinthe is also home to North America's only French-language school of veterinary medicine, as well as to the Institut de technologie agroalimentaire du Québec. There is always something going on there in sports, culture and journalism. The city has seen many important figures in Quebec's history rise to prominence. One thing is for sure: Saint‑Hyacinthe will continue to be an important part of our story.
I wish my city, our city, Saint‑Hyacinthe, a happy 275th anniversary.
Menopause
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a topic that I am very familiar with, and that is menopause. It is an important but often overlooked topic that affects many women in our society.
Menopause is a normal occurrence in the life of a woman, but it can have a major impact on her mental and physical health. During menopause, women go through changes that can cause many symptoms, including hot flashes, night sweats, insomnia, joint pain and genitourinary conditions. These symptoms can interfere with women's daily activities and cause problems with their work, relationships and overall well-being. It is essential to offer women support and raise public awareness by improving knowledge and encouraging an open and honest dialogue on menopause.
Women work behind the scenes. We need to support them when they begin this new chapter in their life and ensure that they continue to prosper in our society.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after eight long years, many Canadians have reached their breaking point. Seniors struggle to buy healthy food and to heat their homes. Middle-class families are using credit cards just to make ends meet. Our youth have given up on the dream of ever owning their own home.
The inflationary tax and spending policies of the NDP-Liberal government have destroyed small businesses in my community. They have gutted peoples' lives, yet the government still does not have a plan to balance the budget. In fact, Liberals will say things have never been better, but Canadians know that the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Fortunately, hope is on the way. Conservatives have a common-sense plan to axe the carbon tax, lower costs, balance the budget and give people hope once again. It is time to get Canada back on track.
Canadian Islamic History Month
Mr. Speaker, since its first recorded presence in the 1860s, the Muslim community in Canada has grown to 1.8 million people. October is celebrated as the Canadian Islamic History Month, in recognition of the significant contributions that Muslims have made in the arts, sports, academics, literature, sciences and in their communities.
Canadian Islamic History Month is a time to learn about the history of Islam in Canada, and about the past and ongoing challenges and barriers that Muslim Canadians face.
This month Canadians should explore the Muslim faith, culture and traditions with mosque tours, delicious food and refreshments, while learning about Islam by attending open houses throughout October. This month is a time to continue working towards a compassionate, inclusive and safer Canada for everyone.
I wish everyone a happy Canadian Islamic History Month.
ParticipACTION
Mr. Speaker, I often wear running shoes around the Hill and today is no different. Today, I'm sporting my kicks with ParticipACTION for their “sneak it in” campaign. Everyone knows that being physically active is important for our physical, mental and social well-being, but for some people it can be more challenging to access some of those opportunities. I am thrilled that our government is supporting organizations like ParticipACTION that strive to motivate all Canadians to find ways to be physically active and encourage us to make physical activity a part of our day, and a Canadian cultural trademark.
Our government's funding through the community sport for all initiative has allowed ParticipACTION, the Canadian Parks and Recreation Association, KidSport, JumpStart and many other committed Canadian physical activity stakeholders to provide grants to community groups and teams that deliver organized sports to Canadians who might need a little support in trying out some new activities or adopting a more active lifestyle.
Whether it is through our support for ParticipACTION's ParticiPARKS initiative or their national community challenge, JumpStart's champions of community or champions of play initiative, KidSport's mission to ensure that all kids can play or the CPRA's community sport intervention of reaching each and every one, our government is proud to accept the challenge to help Canadians be more physically active.
I will do a jumping jack because I have one more second left.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the Prime Minister people are struggling. Tyler bought a home a couple of years ago. Since then his mortgage has shot up from $1,600 to $4,000 a month. He said that he can no longer afford it, and is going to have sell it and downgrade to make his life livable.
Then there is Candis who has also seen her payments double. She can no longer afford new clothes for her kids and has to take her kids out of sports in order to make ends meet.
Shaffy is a welder at Seaspan Shipyards. His mortgage is $7,528. He told me that he has no freedom because he is forced to work seven days a week, 10-hour shifts. He cannot give his body a rest because he will lose his home.
The Liberal-NDP government's out of-control spending has led to spiralling interest rates. Tyler, Candis and Shaffy are the ones suffering from their incompetency. Canadians cannot afford the Prime Minister.
Breast Cancer Awareness Month
Mr. Speaker, October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, an opportunity to raise awareness about the impact of breast cancer, celebrate the progress made against the disease and support those who are impacted by it. Every year nearly 28,000 Canadians are diagnosed with breast cancer and thousands more are living with the disease. Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Canadian women.
I am so fortunate to be a two-time survivor of breast cancer. First diagnosed at the age of 42, I know the importance for Canadian women to have the opportunity to be tested at the age of 40 and not have to wait until 50. I have advocated for the age reduction in Canada many times over the years. I am so pleased that this past June, the Government of Canada announced up to $500,000 in additional funding for the Canadian task force to help update the breast cancer screening guidelines in Canada.
I encourage all women to get regular mammography testing. It can save their lives.
Carbon Tax
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the tired Liberal-NDP government, ideology matters more than helping Canadians with the crippling cost of living. Thankfully, some Liberals are beginning to break ranks with the government over its punitive carbon taxes that will see Canadians pay an extra 61¢ for every litre of gas. The member for Avalon has warned his party that it cannot make life more expensive for people than they can handle, but all of his colleagues do not care. The member for Cloverdale—Langley City was quick to dismiss the concerns of struggling Canadians and double down on the carbon tax as a tool to force change in consumer behaviours. These Liberals just do not get it.
The people of Newfoundland and of Saskatchewan cannot turn their lives around on a dime. Farmers and producers do more than their fair share to control carbon emissions in a way that the current government just does not comprehend. They know that this Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Only a common-sense Conservative government would axe the tax and bring home lower prices for all Canadians.
Liberal Party of Canada
Mr. Speaker, over the last eight years, the current government has borrowed, borrowed and borrowed some more. When questioned about its borrowing and the future impact it would have on Canadians, its answer was not to worry; interest rates were low.
The chickens have come home to roost. The current NDP-Liberal government has leveraged the future of Canadians with deficits and inflation that are most certainly not in control. The impact this is having on Canadians is unreal. By continuing to borrow like this, the NDP-Liberal government is mandating unaffordability. People cannot afford their grocery bills, rent or mortgage payments. Walking into a grocery store should not be the cause of stress and anxiety.
The reality is that the current Liberal-NDP government does not understand budgeting. When will the government realize that this Prime Minister is out of touch with Canadians and not worth the cost?
Jean Belanger
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour the passing of a resident of Orléans, Jean Belanger, who dedicated his life to championing sustainability and responsible practices in Canada's chemistry sector, earning the prestigious Order of Canada for his pivotal role in founding Responsible Care.
Locally, Jean was also a community builder, serving as a board member on the Shepherds of Good Hope. Internationally, he was recognized on the Global 500 Roll of Honour for environmental achievement, at the UN.
A highlight of his legacy is the development of Responsible Care, a made-in-Canada initiative that has evolved into a global standard for environmental, social and governance practices within the chemistry sector. Thanks to the visionary leadership of Jean Belanger and the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, this year we mark four decades of Responsible Care. Let us reaffirm our dedication to safe and responsible industrial practices for a cleaner and more prosperous Canada.
George Farkouh
Mr. Speaker, recently, the city of Elliot Lake lost a giant of a man who helped steer the city through some of its hardest challenges. George Farkouh was a legendary community leader. Born in Palestine and having spent his early years in Beirut and Lebanon, he and his family moved to Canada in 1959, settling in Elliot Lake.
While George and his wife Louise started their careers in Toronto, they eventually returned to Elliot Lake, where George became a pillar of the business community as owner of Algoma Chrysler.
George was elected mayor of Elliot Lake in 1988 and led the city for a remarkable 17 years. His days as mayor were not easy. The closing of the uranium mines in the early 1990s had a major impact on the local economy, but George saw a path to pivot the city from mining to retirement community. He created an economic model transition that allowed it not only to survive but to thrive. It is a model that other cities going through a major economic shift can look to for guidance.
I, along with all Elliot Lakers, owe George a debt of gratitude. May he rest in peace.
[Translation]
Pensions
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, a majority of members in the House voted to support Bill C‑319 in principle. The bill endeavours to end the two-tiered approach to old age security benefits. All seniors who are 65 years of age or more require more help from the federal government to cope with runaway inflation and their drastically reduced purchasing power.
The outstanding contributions that seniors have made to developing Quebec and Canada cannot be overstated. At a time when they need the federal government's support, they are separated into two classes: the one that we help and the other that we turn our backs on. The lack of acknowledgement and compassion this shows is appalling.
The battle for Bill C‑319 is not over, but a first step has been taken. If the government pays attention to the work ahead, it will hear what seniors have to say, their complaints and their calls for help, and it may finally see reason. We hope so. We are heading in the right direction. The only thing missing is support from the Liberals.
[English]
Liberal Party of Canda
Mr. Speaker, this NDP-Liberal government favours insiders and friends rather than transparency. The current international trade minister helped her friend receive government contracts with no oversight. The current public safety minister granted a licence worth $24 million to a company linked to his wife's cousin. The former finance minister and this Prime Minister pushed through an untendered contract worth more than $540 million with their good friends at the WE Charity. The list goes on and on, and now there is the $54-million ArriveCAN App, which is under police investigation for criminal activity in the highest offices of this government.
After eight years of this Prime Minister, corruption has reached outrageous levels. What is his response? Covering up the mess by hiding documents and making it impossible for the RCMP to properly investigate. He is not worth the cost, he is not above the law and he must co-operate with the RCMP.
Polish Canadians
Mr. Speaker, today I had the honour of hosting a Polish youth summit on Parliament Hill. Over 30 young leaders from across Canada gathered to talk about issues important to Polish Canadians and to discuss strategies for getting more young people engaged in politics.
There are one million Polish Canadians in Canada working hard to build communities that are vibrant, generous and prosperous. For our Polonia, the torch is being passed to a new generation, and I am excited for what the future holds.
Let us remember that it was young people who peacefully drove the solidarity movement that brought democratic change to Europe. This week, 70% of Poland's young people turned out and voted in the national election. Young people have the power to change the world.
I want to thank the Canadian Polish Congress, the Polish Canadian Business and Professional Association of Windsor, and the Embassy of Poland for working together to organize the summit and to empower Canada's young eagles.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Prime Minister, he is not worth the cost.
The cost of housing has doubled since he came to power. The situation is out of control. A middle-class couple in Ontario was able to sell their 2,000-square-foot home to buy a 6,000-square-foot chateau in France on 37 acres. Now the couple is saying that they could not sell their chateau to buy a house in Ontario.
Why does it cost more to be a member of Canada's middle class than to be an aristocrat in France?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.
There is one thing the Leader of the Opposition can do. There are not many, but there is one thing he can do to help Canadians. He can vote to support our bill on affordability. Why? First, because we want to reform competition, and second, because we want to reduce the GST on new housing construction.
Will the opposition finally vote in favour of Canadians for once, yes or no?
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that after eight years, this Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Another bill will not change that.
For example, yesterday, the Conservatives asked a question of the Minister of Environment's director general. It was a simple yes or no question. We asked whether the department had warned the government that the so-called clean fuels regulations would raise prices and disproportionately impact low- and middle-income Canadians. The answer was yes, and yet the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase this regulation, which is a tax.
Will the government finally eliminate this tax so Canadians can buy food and afford housing?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Leader of the Opposition that, in its platform for the 2021 election campaign, his party proposed implementing a clean fuels standard.
The difference between the Conservative Party and us is that they just talk about these issues while we act. Thanks to this standard, billions of dollars are being invested in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland to help Canadians reduce their ecological footprint when they use their cars.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, we know that after eight years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost of housing, which has doubled since he took office. It has gotten so crazy for the cost of a house in Ontario that one couple sold their 2,000 square-foot home in that province and was able to buy a 6,000 square-foot castle on 37 acres of land in France. They have now said that they could never sell the castle and afford to move back to Canada.
Why does it cost more to be a member of the middle class in Canada than it does to be an aristocrat in France?
Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives, and Canadians will take no lessons from the Conservatives. There is one thing, and there are not many, I agree, but there is one thing the Leader of the Opposition can do for the Canadians watching at home, and it is to vote for the affordability bill, which would empower more competition in this country and reduce GST in new housing.
Once and for all, will they vote for Canadians, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, none of the bills are affordable after eight years of the government. I asked why it is that one can buy a castle in France for a lower cost than a middle-class home in Ontario, and his response was basically “let them eat cake”. The fact is that people cannot even afford bread after eight years of inflationary policies.
Will the Liberals reverse their inflationary deficits and their tax hikes so Canadians can eat, heat and house themselves?
Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition refuses to explain to Canadians why he will not support legislation that would make housing more affordable, build more rental units for Canadians and make groceries more affordable. It has been clear that, over the past eight years they have been opposition, the Conservatives have not done anything to support Canadians. We do know they have constantly voted against measures that support Canadians, such as child care, the Canada child benefit and this legislation. They have an opportunity to do the right thing and vote for Canadians.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been promising for eight years that their bills would lower the cost, but since that time housing costs have doubled. They promised their carbon tax would make people better off, and then they brought in a second carbon tax.
We asked the government's own officials at committee yesterday if their analysis showed that the cost would rise for energy and if these costs would be borne disproportionately by the poor and middle class, and a government official confirmed they would.
Why is the government taxing the people who can least afford it? Will the Liberals admit that after eight years, they are simply not worth the cost?
Mr. Speaker, according to a study that came out two days, in Canada, 60% of small and medium-sized businesses across the country have been affected by extreme weather events this year alone, and 44% of them say that it has had a direct hit on their revenue.
What is the response from the Conservative Party? They want to make pollution free again, have more climate change, more air pollution and more water pollution. Canadians cannot take any of the propositions that the Conservative Party has for them.
[Translation]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, on day 13 of the war between Israel and Hamas, humanitarian needs are more urgent than ever. The United States announced $100 million in humanitarian aid, while Canada announced too little. Even more important than money is assurance that the aid will reach the civilians who so desperately need it.
As we speak, only 20 trucks have been permitted to enter Gaza. According to the UN, 100 trucks a day is the minimum required. The current number does not even come close. Has the Prime Minister spoken with Israel and with Egypt to urge better access for the delivery of humanitarian assistance?
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Prime Minister has spoken with the President of Israel and the President of Egypt. At every opportunity, we have called for humanitarian access to Gaza. Right now, Gaza is one of the worst places to live on Earth, which makes it all the more important for humanitarian aid to reach it. We will continue to engage with different countries in the region to make that happen.
Mr. Speaker, there is one thing that Canada can do on the world stage: show some humanitarian leadership. I know that it is a lot to ask Egypt to open its border even more to a territory occupied by Hamas and I know that it is a lot to ask Israel when Hamas is holding 203 hostages, but humanity can only come from them. It cannot come from the monsters of Hamas.
Humanitarian aid needs to be directed to the civilians. What is the Prime Minister doing to ensure that this is done quickly?
Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the current humanitarian situation because civilians are the primary victims of this tragedy. Canada's commitment to provide vital humanitarian aid remains unwavering. The protection of civilians is essential. We are calling on all parties to protect the civilians and meet their obligations under international humanitarian law at all times.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, Toronto's housing crisis is out of control, worsened by the loss of thousands of affordable homes by both Conservative and Liberal governments.
Asylum seekers were left homeless this summer, while the City of Toronto had to carry the weight of housing them. The federal government promised $97 million in assistance, but Toronto has not yet received it.
Why are all the Toronto Liberal MPs so ineffective and unable to convince their own Prime Minister to deliver the help Toronto needs?
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to speak to Mayor Chow to address the interim needs, obviously, with winter coming, to make sure people have roofs over their heads.
It is work we need to do with the Ontario government, the City of Toronto and with the GTA generally because we know that asylum seekers have spread out into all of those areas. They need to have a roof over their head for winter.
Clearly, what we need to see from the City of Toronto are the receipts. We have asked Mayor Chow for the receipts. We are glad to pay those receipts, once we receive them.
Mr. Speaker, the minister should try that answer on someone who has to live on the streets.
[Translation]
The story of 76-year-old Jeannette Chiasson, who was evicted from her home and forced to move into a smaller, less suitable and more expensive apartment, is unacceptable. The Conservatives and Liberals let more than one million affordable housing units slip through the cracks, and this is the result.
Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on Jeannette Chiasson and thousands like her?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
There is one thing he can do to help Canadians, and that is vote in favour of the affordability bill. Why is that? It is because our legislation will overhaul competition in this country and also reduce the GST on new housing construction.
I implore the opposition and all members of the House to cast a vote that will benefit Canadians. They desperately need help.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, after eight long years of the Liberal-NDP government doubling the national debt, mortgages and rental costs, Canadians can also see a 40% increase in their monthly mortgage costs. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Of variable rate mortgage holders, 85% believe they are worse off. Liberal inflation fuelled by Liberal deficits has made the most rapid interest rate hikes ever. Now Canada is most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis.
When will the Prime Minister rein in his inflationary spending so that interest rates can come down and Canadians can keep a roof over their heads?
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Canada has the lowest deficit among all G7 countries. Canada has been reaffirmed its AAA credit rating because our fiscal frame is responsible.
We continue to support Canadians, and the Conservatives continue to call for cuts. Canadian families are relying on the supports we provide. They are relying on the Canada child benefit. They are relying on their pensions. The Conservatives' plan is to cut all of those supports for the Canadians who need them.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister cannot even drive responsibly, and the Liberals want us to believe that she is fiscally responsible.
Many Canadians are uncomfortably close to broke according to an MNP survey, with more than 50% being $200 away from insolvency. After eight years of failed Liberal policies, the Liberals are just not worth the cost. There are young Canadians and fixed-income seniors living in their cars and under bridges in tents. That is the state of Canada after eight years of their failed policies.
Will the Prime Minister balance the budget and get inflation and interest rates down so more Canadians do not have to live out on the streets?
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament since 2015. From day one, that side has pursued an austerity agenda. The Conservatives want to cut the Canada child benefit. With respect to supports for seniors, they have never been there. With respect to supports for businesses during the pandemic and since, they have never been there. We brought down taxes for small businesses not once but twice. They opposed it every single time. We are helping cities with public transit and other infrastructure, and they are not there. They are not worth the risk.
Mr. Speaker, a survey released this morning by the financial firm Edward Jones Canada states that Canadians are stuck in a “chaotic whirlwind of personal finance stress”. It also states, “The poll clearly shows that Canadians are so preoccupied with just getting through the day, that the idea of paying debt feels like a distant dream.” It found that 88% of Canadians are saying that their personal financial situation is affecting their well-being.
The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. When will he stop his inflationary spending so people can take back control of their lives?
Mr. Speaker, I invite the member opposite to listen to some of the testimony from experts at this morning's finance committee who refuted those statements.
However, I would like to get back to the legislation that is before this chamber because the Conservatives have an opportunity to help stabilize grocery prices across the country. That is legislation they can vote on right now to support Canadians. It also includes a measure to help stimulate the construction of more homes across this country, another way the Conservatives can actually help Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it has been eight years. What the Liberal member opposite is saying does not match the facts. The Liberal deficit spending has increased inflation, which has increased interest rates.
A resident from my community said that food prices had risen so quickly that she had been left to pray that her garden would be enough to supplement her household of four teenagers.
I used to hear from residents saying that they were hoping they could save for a home one day. Now I am hearing from residents saying that they are praying for a bountiful harvest to feed their family.
The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost. When will the NDP-Liberal government end its inflationary spending so people can feed their families?
Mr. Speaker, we all feel for what she has said. Instead of having words, why do we not talk about action? There is one thing the opposition can do, not many, I agree, but one thing. It can vote for the affordability bill.
If she really cares about the lady she refers to, why does she not convince her caucus to vote for the affordability bill, so they can do something for once for Canadians?
[Translation]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of Liberal inflationary deficits, the cost of living is going up everywhere, but it is worse in Quebec. At nearly 5%, Quebec's inflation rate is the highest in the country. Everything costs more. Interest rates are rising. Young people are giving up on the dream of owning a home.
The Bloc Québécois has a great idea for helping Quebeckers. It wants to drastically increase the carbon tax. A vote for the Bloc Québécois is costly.
Will the Liberal Bloc admit that it is time to stop piling more taxes on Canadians and Quebeckers?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. colleague that Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to implement its own carbon pricing system, which it did over a decade ago, well before the federal government and all the other provinces introduced theirs.
If my colleague is having a hard time understanding that system, I would be happy to explain to him what makes Quebec's system unique in Canada and one of the first of its kind in North America.
Mr. Speaker, when Quebeckers go to the grocery store and pay 23% more for their food than they did three years ago, they can see that the carbon tax has affected the transportation and production of that food. They get it.
When they pay their grocery bill, they see the effects of the Liberal-Bloc Québécois tax, which the Bloc Québécois wants to drastically increase. A growing number of Quebeckers are lining up at food banks. They are middle-class Quebeckers.
Do the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois agree? Do they feel ashamed about it, or are they just going to keep taxing them more?
Mr. Speaker, for all the people from Mégantic—L'Érable watching us today, there is something their MP can do: convince all Conservative members to vote for the affordability bill. Why? We are going to overhaul competition. We are going to give the Competition Bureau more authority and put a stop to dangerous practices or practices that hurt consumers.
Will he do his job and convince his colleagues to vote for Canadians for once?
Finance
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government voted against a simple request: a plan for an eventual return to a balanced budget. A plan is not too much to ask. We are not asking the government to cut services to balance the budget. We are just asking for a plan.
Everyone knows the first part of the quote from Émile de Girardin: “Governing means planning ahead”. However, he then adds, “and he who does not plan ahead is doomed”. The Liberals just might be doomed. All we want is a plan. Is that really too much to ask?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, for his very important work at that committee.
I would like him to know that our deficit is the lowest among all the G7 countries, but it is also 0.7% of our gross domestic product. That is extremely low. I would also invite him to wait for our fall economic update. The Minister of Finance will provide all Canadians with information on our revenues at that time.
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, not only do the Liberals not have a plan for the country's finances, but the ministers do not even have a work plan.
The new ministers announced in July have still not received their mandate letters. Two and a half months after the cabinet shuffle, they still do not know what their priorities are. I am not making this up. The new President of the Treasury Board, who is supposed to control the purse strings, still does not have a mandate. That could go terribly wrong. The ministers of public services, defence, transport, justice, official languages, and several other departments are in the same boat.
When will the Prime Minister give these ministers a mandate?
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, there is a human cost to governing on autopilot.
The Auditor General has confirmed that more than half of all applications for permanent residence from immigrants are still being processed late. For refugees, the wait is almost three years, and it can take up to four years for spousal sponsorships. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to recklessly increase its immigration thresholds, even though it is clearly incapable of serving the people it is already taking in. These are human beings.
When will the federal government stop treating immigrants like numbers?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.
I would like to emphasize the fact that the Auditor General also pointed out that a lot of progress has been made. Still, it is not enough. We expect excellence from our public service. That is what I expect. Some progress has been made between the report's release and today, but I do expect better.
With respect to refugees, it is clear that we need to do better, particularly in relation to digitization and the digital transition. Some announcements should be made in November.
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are literally in housing hell. If a Canadian couple with a 6,300-square-foot mansion on 37 acres in France sold it, the couple could not afford to move back to Fergus, Ontario.
The NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost, and yet every day members stand, puff up their chests and tell Canadians what a great job they have done.
Why do the Liberals not stop gaslighting Canadians and admit they have broken housing in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to tackle the housing crisis, we have to work together and pursue agendas that are serious.
This government has put forward a number of measures, for example, lifting GST on purpose-built rentals, period. That side is proposing a tax on the building of rentals for middle-class individuals and families. That construction would be taxed by that side. The Conservatives also do not want to work with municipalities.
We put $4 billion on the table for that, and those members want to cut all of that. We need to build more. We will build more on this side, but not with that approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' answer to the housing crisis is that we should support more of their failed policies. That is their answer. It is a special kind of incompetence. If people do not have a house, they cannot afford it. If they have a house, they cannot afford to keep it because interest rates are so high from the Liberals' inflationary deficits, yet they keep spending and spending, interest rates go up and up, and Canadians are at risk of losing their homes.
Will the Liberals get these inflationary deficits under control so Canadians actually do not lose their homes?
Mr. Speaker, the member needs reminders, which is no problem.
When the Conservatives were in office and the opposition leader was the so-called minister of housing—
I would ask the member for Dufferin—Caledon, who just asked a question, to please let the parliamentary secretary respond to his question.
The hon. parliamentary secretary, from the top, please.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Conservatives need reminders. The Harper government put $300 million toward housing. How many homes were built? There were less than 100.
At a time when it is clear that the lack of supply has created a vast increase in the cost of rent, this government is moving forward to build more and help the private sector to do exactly that.
Members on that side, as I just said, want to tax the construction of rentals for the middle class. On top of that, they do not want to work with municipalities to get the results we need. It is not a serious agenda; it is a reckless agenda on the other side.
Seniors
Mr. Speaker, after eight years, the Liberal-NDP government blew $1.5 billion on bureaucracy and the homeless crisis has never been worse.
A quarter of the homeless are seniors and this is only an estimate. The real number is much higher. With ballooning interest rates, rising food costs and the housing crisis, the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.
When will the Prime Minister start caring about monetary policy so that the seniors who built our country are not left out on the streets?
Mr. Speaker, we have made significant progress to help seniors since 2015 and these efforts have reduced poverty for seniors over 65. The facts are that the GIS increase helped lift 45,000 seniors out of poverty. Restoring the age of retirement back to 65 prevented 100,000 seniors from falling into severe poverty, against the wishes of the other side, I should say. These benefits are automatically adjusted to keep up with the cost of living and they will never go down.
Housing
Uqaqtittiji, first nations, for decades, have screamed about the deplorable conditions they live in. Statistics Canada now confirms that the Liberal government failed to make any progress since 2016.
Under the Liberals, indigenous peoples have no choice but to live in unsafe, overcrowded and mould-infested homes. The $4 billion over seven years toward urban, rural and northern housing is not enough.
When will the Liberals act so that indigenous peoples have safe homes to live in?
Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have worked with first nations partners to address the shocking and appalling housing gap that exists on first nations. Indeed, over 33,000 units of housing have been built or renovated since that time. We continue to invest in affordable housing, not just for first nations people but for indigenous people in urban, rural and northern communities.
Let us compare that to the record of the Leader of the Opposition. For $350 million, 99 houses were built. We can do better as a country and that is what we are doing.
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, Suncor is raking in billions of dollars in profits, yet its corporate rap sheet is a long list of disturbing allegations: environmental damage, workers killed on the job and price fixing at the pump. However, the blockbuster lawsuit in the state of Colorado is new. The Colorado indictment is clear. It states that Suncor knowingly and substantially contributed to the climate crisis through “intentional, reckless and negligent conduct.” This is the big tobacco moment for Suncor.
What will the minister do to hold this company to account and make sure it reduces emissions to protect our children's futures?
Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of my hon. colleague. The leader of an important company like Suncor should be working with us to help fight climate change in a time where we are seeing record heat and record flooding all around the world, including in our country. We have record forest fires and hurricanes.
We need everyone to step up to the plate. We know it will not be the Conservative Party, but we are counting on all the leaders in our country, except the Conservative Party, to work with us to ensure that Canada does its fair share when it comes to fighting climate change.
Financial Institutions
Mr. Speaker, northern communities already face higher costs of goods, like food and fuel, than Canadians in the south, and with high inflation, these costs are building even more.
Our government is taking action to support the middle class and those working hard to join it. This week, our government announced new measures to reduce costly banking fees for Canadians.
Could the President of the Treasury Board tell the House how these new measures will help make life more affordable for northerners and Canadians alike?
Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, we are taking a responsible and balanced approach to fiscal management. Just this week, we announced new measures to ensure Canadians are treated fairly by their banks. These measures include protecting Canadians from rising mortgage payments, enhancing low-cost banking options, lowering non-sufficient funds fees and ensuring that Canadians have an impartial advocate when they have complaints against their banks.
Today and every day is a great day to fight for Canadians, and that is exactly what we are going to do.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, it is this simple: Higher taxes on farmers, on truckers and on processors mean higher food costs for Canadians. Canadian farmers will pay close to a billion dollars in carbon taxes alone by 2030. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.
Conservatives are bringing forward common sense solutions, like legislation that would exempt the carbon tax from on-farm fuels like natural gas and propane, but the Liberals are trying to kill this bill at the Senate despite all-party support here in the House and in the Senate.
Why is the Prime Minister fighting so hard to make sure that food and farming remain unaffordable?
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague fully understands that farmers fully depend on what happens with the climate. In Prince Edward Island, we had hurricane Fiona. It blew warehouses down. It blew dairy barns down and killed cattle. In western Canada, where my hon. colleague is from, straw is worth $300 a bale. The Prairies burned and had floods. Quite simply, if we do not deal with the climate, we will not ever do anything about the price of food or be able to help farmers.
We will continue to address the climate issue in this country.
Mr. Speaker, ironically, the Liberals set aside $300 million for ACOA, for farmers to deal with Fiona, but not a single dime has gone out the door. All parties of the House supported this legislation. Even the Greens understand how important farming is.
After eight years of higher interest rates and inflationary costs, and now not one but two carbon taxes, the Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost. The Prime Minister is fanning the flames of inflation with yet another carbon tax on Canadian farmers.
Why will the Prime Minister not respect the will of the House and axe his farm-killing carbon tax?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is correct that Fiona did incredible damage, and I am proud, as the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, that we did receive $300 million. One hundred million of that has gone to small craft harbours, and $40 million has gone to Parks Canada. We now have a program on the table that is offering funding to build climate centres. I think there is $9 million left in the fund. I would be glad to give the hon. member details. I will get back to him on that.
Mr. Speaker, after eights years, the Prime Minister is not worth the cost. Canadians cannot afford to drive their cars or heat their homes, but that does not matter to the NDP-Liberal government. After forcing Canadians to pay a costly carbon tax, it is plowing ahead with a second carbon tax. Earlier this week, the minister's department told the environment committee that the Liberals knew their clean fuel regulations would cost Canadians more.
Will the government finally admit that its second carbon tax is not worth the cost?
Mr. Speaker, Jill lives in the riding of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. She recently shared that she gets more money back than she pays out and that it helps her at the grocery store. She does not want the carbon pricing rebate to go away. Why would the Conservative Party of Canada cut this program from Jill?
Mr. Speaker, the government's own impact assessment on its clean fuel regulations says that the regulations are estimated to increase the price of gasoline and diesel, that “low-income households may be disproportionately affected by...[r]egulations”, and that rural Canadians “may have limited opportunity to reduce their fuel consumption in response to higher [fuel] prices.”
Why did the government ignore its own advice and plow ahead with the second carbon tax?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives have a problem with my accent in English, then I will answer them in French. Maybe it will be easier for them. Bob, a teacher, also wrote to us. He just received his carbon pricing rebate. This year, he and his partner will receive $720. That is more than $13 a week. Bob told us that he is making more money with the carbon pricing rebate than if there were no rebate. Bob is asking us and the Conservative Party to keep the carbon pricing rebate.
Sport
Mr. Speaker, Canada is finally making a name for itself internationally. It has just received the Ignoble Purpose Award from Professor Declan Hill of the University of New Haven in Connecticut for its refusal to hold a public inquiry into sexual misconduct in sports.
The federal government has been promising this inquiry for over a year. The Liberals had enough time to change ministers of sport, but not to launch the inquiry to ensure the safety of athletes, especially female athletes. That alone is a disgrace. Winning an ignoble award is an international disgrace. When will the government launch an independent public inquiry?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question and his work on this very important subject. Systemic reform and a change of culture in sport are absolutely essential. Our sports system does not do enough to protect our children or to hold the leaders of sports organizations to account. It is important to realize that, right now, there is a lot of work to be done.
Mr. Speaker, it is always the same with the Liberals. They make announcements when they feel the pressure, and then they drop the ball. A year ago, the former minister of sport promised a public inquiry into sexual misconduct in sport. A year went by, and nothing was done. Did the Prime Minister reprimand her? No, he promoted her.
Canada could have been a world leader in fighting misconduct in sport, just as it was a leader in the anti-doping movement. Instead, it earned itself an ignoble prize, following in Qatar's footsteps. Victims are waiting. When will the government get to work for them?
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my colleague for his question. We have started working on a safe sport framework for Canada. It will include implementing safe sport requirements such as the Office of the Sport Integrity Commissioner and the Universal Code of Conduct to Prevent and Address Maltreatment in Sport.
Canada is a leader in fighting for a safer sport system in Canada.
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of a Liberal government, everything is more expensive in Canada. These Liberals, with the support, assistance and enthusiasm of the Bloc, are implementing and creating a new tax, the second Liberal carbon tax. That is why it is costly to vote for the Bloc Québécois.
The department acknowledges that it has not assessed the regional impact of the second carbon tax. News flash: the public transit that is available in Plateau Mont‑Royal is not available in Cabano.
Could the Bloc Québécois explain why it agrees with the second Liberal tax?
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to explain to my hon. colleague how Quebec does not use a pricing system, but a greenhouse gas emissions cap and trade system, and that the clean fuel regulations that we brought in was one of the Conservative Party's commitments in the 2021 election campaign. The difference between us and them is that they only talk about these issues while we on this side of the House take action.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to explain to the minister how the first Liberal carbon tax is impacting Quebec. The things we buy from outside Quebec, from the rest of Canada, have been impacted by the Liberal carbon tax. I would also like to point out to him that public transit is not as widely available in La Tuque as it is in downtown Montreal. The reality is that the people of La Tuque, and people across Quebec, are going to have to pay the second Liberal carbon tax without getting any real public transit benefit in return.
How is this government going to explain the higher cost to people?
Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent and for everyone from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent watching us today, because I know they are watching. I can tell my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent that the people of La Tuque expect one thing. They know that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent is a man of influence, a man of reason and a man who speaks for his caucus.
I hope he can persuade his colleagues to vote for our affordability bill to help Canadians. It is the best way to stabilize prices and help Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal government, the government is introducing a second carbon tax without even assessing its impact on the regions. It is doing this with help from the Bloc Québécois, which wants to radically increase this carbon tax by voting with the government twice. The Bloc has no regard for Quebeckers who are struggling to make ends meet.
Voting for the Bloc means that it will cost Quebeckers more to put food on the table. Voting for the Bloc means that it will cost Quebeckers more to gas up their cars. Voting for the Bloc means that it will cost Quebeckers more for housing.
This government is tired and worn out. Why do the Bloc members support the costly carbon tax that is hurting Quebeckers?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but the ones who are really suffering now are the interpreters. Another thing that hurts even more is that Canadians are watching us, including the people of Saint-Nicolas in Lévis, in my colleague's riding. People are watching and wondering whether, for once in their lives, the Conservatives will vote in favour of Canadians to help them with affordability. On this side of the House, it is clear.
Will the Conservatives vote for Canadians for once, yes or no?
Housing
Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Our government is on the front lines fighting this crisis. We introduced Bill C‑56, which will eliminate the GST on the construction of housing and speed up residential construction across Canada. However, as we speak, the bill is still being debated in the House, which is causing delays in getting help to Canadians.
Can the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development remind the House how this bill will help Canadians who have been hard hit by the housing crisis?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Louis for his question.
The bill in question will accelerate the construction of housing across Canada, thus creating quality jobs. Investing in housing helps build strong communities.
Once again, the Conservatives are filibustering and refusing to vote in favour of this bill for Canadians. They are against social development, against the construction of housing. They are so caught up in their political games that they are not going to support Canadians.
Will they support Canadians, yes or no?
[English]
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canada's closest intelligence allies have already clarified the record. The government has not, so I am going to give the government an opportunity to correct and clarify the record. Will the government clearly state that the Israel Defence Forces and the State of Israel were not responsible for the explosion at the hospital in Gaza on Tuesday?
Mr. Speaker, what happened in Gaza is absolutely devastating. Palestinian civilians and Israeli civilians are equal and must be protected. We heard the Prime Minister earlier today. Canada and its allies are working to determine exactly what happened, and Canadians deserve answers.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada has lost its reputation as a world leader in energy production. After we told Germany, Japan and France that there is no business case for LNG, Qatar is now the supplier of choice for our G7 allies. This is the same Qatar that is housing the leadership of Hamas, the terrorist organization that is murdering innocent Israelis and Palestinians.
Will the Prime Minister admit that there is not only a business case for LNG but a moral one as well?
Mr. Speaker, it is just shameful to be drawing out that type of conspiracy theory when we are talking about such sensitive issues.
Let us talk about how we are supporting our allies, because the facts are important. We are working with all of our allies in providing green hydrogen and providing nuclear technologies. We are there to support our allies when they come looking to us for support, and I would ask the member opposite this: If he cares so much about clean energy, why did he vote against supporting the creation of offshore wind in our Atlantic provinces? It would create good-paying jobs and clean energy.
Innovation, Science and Industry
Mr. Speaker, at least $38 million of a $1-billion green slush fund is under investigation for conflicts of interest and gross mismanagement. It is another example of corruption and scandal, and Canadians want to know who got rich. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, we have whistle-blowers seeking career and legal protection for bringing Canadians' attention to this latest example of government waste and abuse.
The Prime Minister is simply not worth the cost, so Canadians want to know which BFF, family member, former staffer or Liberal lobbyist got rich.
Mr. Speaker, again, we need to rectify the facts. I think there will be a number of small and medium-sized businesses in the country in the energy space and in the environmental space that will be shocked by this comment.
We did the responsible thing. The moment there was an allegation of wrongdoing, we hired an independent third party expert to investigate. Once we got the results of that investigation, we took action. We demanded that agency, as we do of all agencies of the Government of Canada, to have the highest standard of governance. That is what Canadians expected and that is what we did.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, this week is Small Business Week. Small businesses employ about 10 million Canadians and contribute about 40% of GDP. From indigenous people to new Canadians, we have dynamic entrepreneurs in my riding of Nepean with small businesses in sectors from technology to tourism. I am glad our government has supported these local businesses.
This week is an opportunity to celebrate them. Could the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario tell the House how we are supporting our hard-working small business owners and entrepreneurs across Canada?
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the heart of Canadian communities, and our government is delighted to support small businesses like Mādahòkì Farm, which I had the pleasure of visiting with the member for Nepean. It offers a unique indigenous experience and a marketplace for local indigenous entrepreneurs.
Our government is going to continue to support entrepreneurs and small business owners so they can reach their potential and develop new possibilities for Canadians. I thank all small businesses across Canada for their commitment and for their dedication and hard work.
Happy Small Business Week.
Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, several water main breaks saw torrents of water pouring down the streets of Prince Rupert and flooding people's homes. Now there is a city-wide boil water advisory. This is not the first time. Last December, the city had to declare a state of emergency due to its failing water infrastructure.
This is a port city that is critical to Canada's supply chain and our economy. Will the minister stand and speak directly to the people of Prince Rupert and assure them that timely federal help is on its way?
Mr. Speaker, we know the people of Prince Rupert are facing serious water challenges and we are closely monitoring the situation.
Through the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, we are helping communities protect their critical infrastructure while reducing long-term costs associated with replacing infrastructure following natural disasters. The minister has been working with Mayor Pond and the province on Prince Rupert's application to the fund to address its water challenges.
We will always have the backs of the people of Prince Rupert, and we will share more on this as soon as we can.
Small Business
Mr. Speaker, through the heights of the pandemic, small businesses in my community, from Big Bliss yoga to Full Circle Foods, did all we asked of them. Now, during Small Business Week, they need more than a selfie. They need more time, before what they thought at first was a grant turns into another loan they will have to repay. The 18 days previously announced is not good enough.
If the government has $30 billion for a pipeline that is only going to accelerate our own extinction, will it not step up for small businesses when they need it the most?
Mr. Speaker, we understand the struggles that many small business owners had during the pandemic and that many continue to face. That is why we have offered additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. They include a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both a balanced and fiscally responsible approach.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the House recognize that, according to the 2021 census data, the proportion of Quebec residents whose mother tongue is French dropped from 77.1% in 2016 to 74.8% in 2021; the proportion of Quebec residents who primarily speak French at home dropped from 79% in 2016 to 77.5% in 2021; the proportion of francophones in Quebec, according the first official language spoken criterion, dropped from 83.7% in 2016 to 82.2% in 2021; the proportion of francophones in Canada, according to the first official language spoken indicator, dropped from 22.2% in 2016 to 21.4% in 2021; the proportion of Quebec residents who use French most often in the workplace went from 81.9% in 2011 to 79.7% in 2021. The decline of French in Quebec and Canada is real.
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the Liberal who said no was concerned about the accuracy of the statistics, but it sounds to me like those are accurate statistics. I wonder if the member could try again now that we are confident that they are.
[Translation]
I thank the hon. member for raising this point, but there was a unanimous consent request and a member clearly said no.
This reminds me of how important it is for all House leaders and whips to coordinate when a request for unanimous consent is made, to ensure that there is in fact unanimous consent. A number of Speakers have already ruled on the matter and offered members some sound advice, namely that when they say there is unanimous consent, they should make sure there really is unanimous consent, because it is important not to waste the House's time.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent motions are circulated among the political parties. However, the parties often neglect to say exactly what they intend to do with them. Naturally, we are entitled to present them in the hope that all the parties will proceed in good faith.
I concur with the sentiment behind that idea. It is very important for all of the parties to work together, behind the scenes, if possible, on unanimous consent requests.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for the Thursday question. This being my first Thursday question as Speaker, I must say that I am eager to hear it.
Business of the House
[Business of the House]
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit you are putting a little pressure on me to produce a Thursday question that lives up to this House's reputation.
During Oral Questions, there were a lot of questions about Bill C‑56 and comments by government ministers about the Conservative Party's decision to support or oppose it. They urged us to support it. I would note that the government has not put Bill C‑56 on the House's agenda since October 5. I actually have an excellent speech ready about my position on Bill C‑56.
I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government if a discussion of Bill C‑56 is planned for next week's House business so that I can finally deliver my speech.
I congratulate the member for Mégantic—L'Érable on meeting my expectations for my first Thursday question.
The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.
I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.
[English]
Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.
Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At times the issue of decorum inside the chamber is raised, but I have also found that there has been quite a bit of noise outside of the chamber.
For example, as the government House leader was providing a response, clapping was taking place. There seems to be, at times, a constant level of noise. I just want to reinforce the importance of trying to keep it quiet outside of the chamber too.
Points of Order
Alleged Duplication of Private Member's Bill—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56.
Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading.
[Translation]
In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders.
[English]
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House.
[Translation]
Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger.
[English]
Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act.
It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time.
[Translation]
There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter.
I thank all members for their patience and attention.
[English]
Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356
The Chair would also like to make a statement on the management of Private Members' Business. The consideration of legislative measures involves certain procedural issues of a constitutional nature that impose constraints that the Speaker and the members must address.
[Translation]
As a consequence, every time the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the bills added to draw the House's attention to those that appear, at first glance, to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. This enables members to rise in a timely manner to present their views on whether these bills require a royal recommendation.
[English]
Accordingly, following the addition of 15 new items to the order of precedence on Wednesday, September 20, two items concern the Chair.
First, Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Thornhill.
[Translation]
In the Chair's view, these bills may require a royal recommendation. Members who wish to make arguments regarding the need for bills C‑353 and C‑356 to be accompanied by a royal recommendation should do so as early as possible.
I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-50, An Act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, before, I talked about the consultations that informed us, and part of the consultations helped us determine that we would come up with the interim sustainable jobs plan, which was released in February. It reflects what we heard from Canadians and includes 10 key initiatives within areas of federal responsibility.
One of those initiatives, which is also in this legislation, is setting up a sustainable jobs secretariat. Creating a secretariat like this is a proven international best practice that was repeatedly recommended to the government. Canada's secretariat would promote policy and program coherence across all the five-year sustainable job action plans that are mentioned in this act and in work related to issues such as skills development, the labour market, workplace rights, developing our economy and reducing emissions. It would ensure that the opinions of workers, industry, provinces and territories, indigenous and historically under-represented groups and others are considered in all work on sustainable jobs across different policies, programs and departments.
The secretariat would also help in preparing and tracking the progress on the action plans, coordinating federal-provincial work related to the plans and providing policy and administrative support to the sustainable jobs partnership council, another initiative from the interim plan.
This legislation commits to establishing the sustainable jobs partnership council, which would provide advice to the government on the best measures to include in the action plans. The partnership council would be made up of sustainable jobs experts and would engage directly with Canadian workers, including those from rural and remote communities. This would ensure that they have a voice in the process. They would also engage with labour groups, indigenous groups, industries, trade associations, employers and different levels of government.
The council members would draw from their personal experience and expertise and give input to us, so we could engage in a process to formulate advice about the concrete measures government could take to support workers, their communities and the low-carbon economy. The partnership council would publish annual reports that include advice for the government, which would also help inform the five-year plans. The interim sustainable jobs plan that was released earlier this year is very important. It is a model for these five-year plans, and I can assure everyone that we are taking great action.
There is a lot to discuss, and I look forward to debate about supporting workers through investments and the union training and innovation program, UTIP, which focuses on sustainable jobs and supports up to 20,000 new apprentices and journeypersons.
We are investing in workers, people and communities across this great country. We are going to get the job done.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this flawed bill once again.
The member spoke a fair bit about possible jobs, but nowhere in this bill does it talk about that. He talked about some of the issues and, in particular, one was transitioning. Transitioning from our current energy system is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, which is what the member and this legislation seem to indicate. We cannot just flip a switch to make this happen. We need to make certain that steps are taken.
The people who are doing that hard work and doing those hard jobs today, whether they are coal miners, pipefitters or involved in sequestration, are creating those jobs. These people would not be sitting at the table of this 15-member committee that the government would be forming.
Could the member comment on how we can assure these people are there, not somebody who was signed up to represent them?
Mr. Speaker, this whole sustainable jobs action plan is about workers, as is the legislation before us. It is about engaging labour. It is having workers at the table with us, along with industry, indigenous groups and communities at all different levels.
I had an opportunity to travel across this great country last year and speak with a number of people. I spoke with Russ Shewchuk, vice-president of the IBEW in Saskatchewan. He stated, “Through this legislation, the Government is showing their commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” That is just one example of many different labour groups that are supporting this legislation.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for giving me another opportunity to speak to Bill C‑50, which I gave a speech about a few days ago.
I would like to ask my Liberal colleague a question. How is it that this bill was drafted without taking into account the existing job training agreements between Ottawa and Quebec?
These agreements have been around for 25 years. How can the government come up with a bill without taking into account Quebec's reality?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there were 18 months of consultations with a variety of levels of government, workers, industry representatives and indigenous groups. It was really critical, and it formed the legislation we have put forward here today.
I used to work for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in Sault Ste. Marie, which is a provincial group. We were funded by the federal government through labour market agreements, which Quebec is funded through as well. I know they are critically important for the skills and training that are needed today.
This legislation is going to go further than that. It would provide a plethora of training and opportunities for the workers of today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we just saw Danielle Smith chase $33 billion of clean energy investment out of Alberta for ideology. We have seen the Conservatives get up day after day to ridicule investments in the battery plants on Highway 401.
The member represents steelworkers. I represent miners. I do not know anybody who would chase investment away or ridicule a plan that would make sure the workers are at the table. I also do not know anybody who would think that, with what is happening in the United States with the Biden administration and the complete transformation of its economy, we could sit by the side of the road defending a 20th century industry for ideological reasons.
Why does the hon. member think the Conservatives are so dead set against getting our economy into a 21st century mode?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can answer the member for Timmins—James Bay's question on behalf of the Conservatives.
I recognize exactly what he is saying because, yes, I do represent steelworkers in a steel town, and that is part of the supply chain. We are going from coal to electric cars, which is like taking a million cars off the road, but that goes hand-in-glove with the investments we are making in electric batteries. The market is starting to dictate this, as well as the government.
We are working to get ahead of the curve, and this is going to make sure that we have good-paying jobs today and tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's contribution with respect to Bill C-50 was really informative and interesting.
First of all, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I am speaking today on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.
Bill C-50 has been circulating within this country for the last 18 months or longer. It has been a topic of conversation for industry, experts, unions, workers, provinces, territories, committees, think tanks and task forces. This is not something that the government all of a sudden brought to the House of Commons. A tremendous amount of energy, support and careful thought have been invested into developing Bill C-50.
We know that Canadians and the rest of the world are investing toward a low-carbon economy. We are taking our lead from climate experts, from businesses and financial leaders, and from employment and labour specialists. These are people who work in the net-zero economy, who work in the energy sector today and are looking to where they would be working in the energy sector in the future. They want to grow with these opportunities and be a part of launching Canada into being a leader in a net-zero economy. They do not want to be on the sidelines and they do not want to be left behind. They want to be front and centre, and they want to be a part of this movement.
They all agree that the global transition to net zero has the potential to help drive Canada's continued prosperity toward well-paying, high-quality jobs for many generations to come. This is not just for this year, next year or the next five years, but future decades in Canada for which this would have an impact.
We are also taking our cue from the tens of thousands of Canadians who participated in these public consultations. They made sure their voices were heard. They gave us very critical and needed insight and perspectives into where those skills and trades are today, where they see them going in the future, and most important, how they would be included and play a role. That includes representatives from rural and remote communities, as well as from unions, indigenous groups, industry, provinces and territories. All of the stakeholders have participated in bringing forward the legislation before the House today, and that, in itself, speaks volumes as to where Canadians are today in a net-zero economy and the energy transition.
One of the most important conclusions drawn from these engagements was that, for an energy powerhouse such as Canada, there will be an overall increase in jobs for Canadians. As we continue to diversify our energy mix to include more clean and non-emitting energy resources, many of the experts and pundits are even predicting that we will have more new jobs than we will have workers to fill them.
That is a familiar story for Canadians today. The government's sustainable jobs plan is specifically intended to help address these challenges by working to grow the size of our labour force to include more youth, new Canadians, under-represented groups and others who want to participate in this economy in Canada.
We have already made historic investments. This is not new for us as a government. We have been making investments to build a stronger and more inclusive diverse labour force, including, for example, the work that we are doing for a sectoral workforce solutions program. This is nearly $1 billion in investments to help keep economic and low-carbon sectors current and ensure that their workforce is emerging, that it is a workforce that is needed and that we are meeting the demands.
We have put $55 million into the community workforce development program. This was to help communities connect with employers, with workers and with future jobseekers to determine where these skilled trades are going to be and how they prepare for them. For someone who is coming out of school today, where are those clean tech, net-zero economy jobs going to be in 24 months, four years or six years?
We are way ahead of the game on what needs to be done for workers in Canada to make this transition. Of course, we have many other programs, some that are supporting indigenous organizations, industry employers and a number of them supporting the Canadian labour market.
I come from an energy producing province, a province that has found its wealth in the oil and gas sector. Now we are seeing new opportunities on the horizon for hydrogen development, wind development, solar power development and tidal power development. We are seeing an opportunity before us today that a decade ago we did not even think was possible. We know it is the future for our economy. As a province, we know we need to move where the trends and new jobs are going to be, those new revenues. If we are to have a sustainable economy in Canada, we need to be prepared to make this transition.
We are not only an oil and gas producing province; Newfoundland and Labrador is a major generator of clean energy. Did we lose jobs because we went from diesel generation to the largest hydro development projects in the country? Absolutely not. We imported jobs by the thousands to do those developments, to build those projects. Now we are sustaining hundreds of more jobs in those sectors. This is not something new. Just like when we made transitions 30 years ago, we are making transitions today.
What I do not understand is why the Conservatives are not supporting the transition to a net-zero economy, knowing it is going to bring sustainable economic development and good jobs for Canadians who want to work in all regions of Canada and for those who want to be able to stay at home and have a well-paying job.
In fact, I was amazed when I looked at some of the reports and studies that were done. One was by Clean Energy Canada, a think-tank based out of Simon Fraser University. It talked about the number of new jobs that would be created in the clean energy sector alone, about 3.4% every year over the next decade. We are talking about increasing jobs by 46% in sectors like hydrogen and clean electricity. These are not small numbers. These are hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Canadians who will be graduates of high schools and college programs. Not only that, it is coming at a time when we are seeing a lot of skilled workers in the energy sector retiring and leaving the industry.
It is a great time to be proactive in Canada, and that is what our government is doing. Bill C-50 is the benchmark for those things to happen. I can guarantee, from a province which is now excited about hydrogen and offshore wind, as well as from other regions of Atlantic Canada that are moving forward with projects like this as well, that we are not only seeing the thousands of jobs that come with it, but seeing a sustainable, tremendous future for Atlantic Canada, for Newfoundland and Labrador in sectors like this. It gives us hope and optimism that we have not had for a long time.
We are getting a clean environment, a net-zero economy, great jobs and are giving Canadians an opportunity to stay and work at home. I do not see any reason anyone would vote against that in the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague basically the same kinds of questions I asked her colleague earlier. In the opinion of the officials who presented Bill C‑50 to us, Quebec's specific situation was not considered at any point in the process of drafting this bill.
We can do something about that, however. We can do better. We suggest that the government introduce an element of asymmetry into Bill C‑50 that would make it compatible with the Canada-Quebec agreements.
I do not expect my colleague to say yes and agree with me. However, I would like to know whether she can commit to defending this idea within her caucus.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is important for all Canadians to feel that their voices are heard.
Through this process, we not only had consultations with all provinces and territories, but we also had consultations with indigenous groups, labour unions and industry, representing thousands of Quebeckers in that process. Their voices were very strong in terms of the input they had into the legislation and how they see Bill C-50 rolling out. Most importantly, their voices were strong in how they see themselves in what would happen in the clean economy and in the transition to new energy developments across Canada and to a net-zero economy.
Quebec has a major role to play in that, as my colleague would agree. We are looking forward to having their support and the support of the people of their province to ensure that they, too, would have the opportunities afforded through a clean economy and clean energy economy into the future.
Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I, too, want to recognize how much natural resources have contributed to Canada's wealth.
Canada's oil and gas companies, right now, are making out like bandits. They have never seen profits so high, but what are they doing with that wealth? They are doing stock buybacks and dividend payouts. We are literally seeing the wealth of Canada flow through our fingers. It is certainly not going to workers.
We have to be like Wayne Gretzky. We have to be going to where the puck is going. There a narrative shift going on. We have to transition to a 21st-century economy.
I am very appreciative of the fact that the member for Timmins—James Bay was able to strengthen this legislation so workers and the unions that represent them would be a big part of this conversation. Could my hon. colleague across the way comment on just how important it is that the voice of labour be central to the conversation and to the legislation going forward?
Mr. Speaker, the member referenced his colleague from Timmins—James Bay. I sat on a committee with him, and we studied this issue. I know that he is passionate about this, in terms of the role that workers would play in Canada in transitioning to a clean economy.
I certainly hope they will support Bill C-50, knowing what it means for Canadians generally, not just in how we reach that net-zero economy but also in how we strengthen it going forward in resource development and how we strengthen jobs for so many Canadians who need those good-paying skilled jobs that they could have right in their own communities and regions.
I am excited about what Bill C-50 would allow us to do in Canada. It would allow us to lead the way to a clean economy that we have rarely seen in any generation. We are a part of making this happen, and my guess is that, if they are passionate about this, they should get on board and make it happen, not sit on the sidelines and just be critical of it. It is going to happen with or without them. If we take an active role, we can make this work, stronger and better, for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the member also comes from an oil and gas area, like I do. It is very interesting. I also have five coal-fired power plants in my area. The workers are extremely worried about the transition that is supposedly happening. There is no aspect of looking at older people who are near the end of their career and how they would transition out, not to mention those who are trying to get involved.
The member talked about wind and solar. I wonder how she actually responds to her constituents when they find out that the wind turbines are all being built somewhere else. They are not being built in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are not being built in her neighbourhood. The solar panels are not being built there. They are all being imported. The jobs are not being created. I am wondering how the member responds to her constituents on that aspect.
Mr. Speaker, I have a riding that has large hydro power development, but it also has a lot of diesel generation. My communities want to get off diesel. They want to be on clean energy. They want to see new opportunities. Creating small power projects that are clean energy would allow them to do that. What I say to my constituents is that we should get on with the job and make this work so we can have new opportunities in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-50, which, as a part of this government's agenda of the unjust transition, threatens to do irreparable harm to the people in my communities and across this country.
I will be splitting my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
The so-called sustainable jobs act, which is part of the unjust transition, represents a clear and present danger to the livelihoods and prosperity of hard-working people in my community and in communities across this country. No amount of flowery language crafted by high-priced, Ottawa-based consultants can change the fact and mitigate the very real message being sent to people in my region and across the country, which is that their jobs and their livelihoods are simply not a priority for the NDP-Liberal government.
The legislation before us is a new iteration of the same failed policies that seek to create a taxpayer-funded secretariat of government-appointed elites in Ottawa to decide for the people of my region and of regions across Canada what is best for them and what policies would be imposed on them to meet the Liberal government's arbitrary targets. This is fundamentally unjust. It would lead to significant losses in incomes, to losses in jobs and to losses in livelihoods in my region and across the country. It is clear that the NDP-Liberal government simply is not worth the cost.
I have clear evidence that this is the case, because this is exactly what happened in my region just a few short years ago. The NDP-Liberal government has not learned any lessons from the previous failures of the unjust transition. That failure led to taxpayer-financed corporate bailouts that cost my region thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in annual tax revenue for my local municipalities. The counties of Parkland and Leduc are just two among many across this country that lost a considerable amount of revenue. This is revenue that has not been replaced, leading to higher taxes on people who have lost their jobs. Some people worked for 20 years in the coal-fired power plants, and then the government shut them down. Members of the government did not even listen to the recommendations of its own previous secretariat and its report on the coal transition. It did not listen to it, and the consequences for my region were very real, as I said.
The accelerated phase-out of coal mandated by the Liberal government and its NDP allies cost my community dearly. However, it did not even result in a drop in coal consumption around the world. In fact, coal consumption has gone up around the world. The only achievement of the phase-out is that workers in communities in my region and across the country lost out so that the rest of the world could keep burning coal and keep emitting more greenhouse emissions while my area was left out and suffered so much.
In the wake of the decision of the Liberals and the NDP to accelerate the phase-out of these plants, I met with union representatives and with workers' representatives. They told me that it did not live up to expectations, because the government promised it was going to have retraining and jobs for these people whose jobs it transitioned out of existence. These were people who were earning high five-figure and low six-figure jobs, many of them unionized jobs. Do members know what kind of jobs this government paid to retrain them for? They were jobs that paid $30,000 or maybe $40,000 a year. They were not unionized jobs. These were jobs that are not sustainable to support families, jobs that did not enable people to pay their mortgages or car payments. Since so many people in our region were affected by it, when they were trying to sell their home so they could move to an area where they could get a better-paying job, they could not even sell it, or had to sell at a loss. That is the consequence, and this is a government that has not learned from it.
Let us be clear on what the sustainable jobs plan is. In no uncertain terms, it is an attempt by the government to shut down Canada's oil and gas sector. As always in the case of a government with an ideological agenda, the ends justify the means. However, what are the means when it comes to this legislation and the government's agenda?
The unjust transition would help destroy around 170,000 direct jobs and displace 450,000 workers who are currently directly and indirectly employed in our traditional energy sector. In fact, across all sectors of the economy, the unjust transition would risk the livelihoods of 2.7 million Canadians in every province, across many sectors, including energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture. For a government that claims to be evidence-based, these are facts that it either completely ignores or, at worst, feel are justified in order to implement its warped anti-energy ideology. The term “sustainable jobs” could simply be replaced with what it really means, which is jobs that do not exist in our oil and gas sector.
This is extremely short-sighted, because our crude oil and natural gas, and the millions of products that are created from these resources, are entirely sustainable and will be for decades to come. They are not only sustainable, but they also create the highest-paying jobs in the country and provide the greatest economic return of any sector in Canada. In fact, our oil and gas sector is so important that it is the bedrock of our country's economy. Twenty-five per cent of our exports are related to the oil and gas sector. Without it, our trade deficits would be massive. Our dollar would collapse if we did not have it. This would increase the cost of importing goods like food, fuel and pretty much everything else.
Our inflation rate, which is already at record-high levels, would rise even further as our purchasing power collapses. Imagine the catastrophic increase in fuel, groceries and all imported goods if we did not have oil and gas exports propping up our dollar and supporting our economy. The consequences would be catastrophic. It would impoverish not only western Canadians but also Canadians who rely on the purchasing power of our energy-backed Canadian dollar. Inflation would skyrocket, and then the Bank of Canada, in order to get that inflation under control, would have to raise interest rates even further, interest rates that are currently not sustainable for most families in our country. This would lead to more Canadians losing their homes at a time when Canadians are already losing their homes. It would also lead to many families going bankrupt, small businesses collapsing and ultimately, an unacceptable drop in economic growth in our country.
Ironically, this accelerated phase-out of our oil and gas sector, and its resulting impacts, would undermine our efforts to actually make our country have a stronger, greener economy. The commodities we need in order to support wind power, solar power and other clean energy projects are made out of steel, copper and lithium, and these things are priced in American dollars. It would cost Canadian tech manufacturers far more money to produce the manufactured goods here in Canada, and we would not be able to benefit from that. If we have a stronger Canadian dollar with a strong, sustainable energy sector in this country, then we can support the investments needed to make our country greener.
Any serious attempt to grow the renewable energy sector in this country must be led by private industry. In fact, the oil and gas sector is already leading the charge in innovation, and environmental and social responsibility. It is the single biggest investor in clean energy technology in this country. It accounts for about 75% of total investment in this country.
According to Chief Dale Swampy of the National Coalition of Chiefs, “We are the leaders in environmental protection. If you meet with the Canadians who run the oil and gas sector, you'll see that they are just like you. They are concerned about the environment, about safety, about integrity. They'll do whatever they can to protect our country.” Chief Swampy is right. According to another analysis, conducted by the Bank of Montreal, Canada is already ranked as having the top environmental, social and governance profile among the world's top 10 oil and gas producers.
Not only would this bill and the government's agenda do irreparable damage to our own economy, but it would also have consequences that would be felt internationally. Russia's illegal invasion on Ukraine last year underscored the dangers of relying on dictatorships to fulfill our world's energy needs. When our allies have come asking for Canadian energy, the Prime Minister and the Liberal-NDP government have continually turned them away. Just today, I read that the United States is lifting sanctions on the despotic Venezuelan regime, which has repeatedly fixed elections and violently quelled dissent. America and the world are desperate for oil and gas. They are desperate for oil and gas from Canada, and we are the only country turning down the invitation to be part of the global energy solution.
Let us use Germany as an example. It is one of our closest G7 partners. The chancellor came to Ottawa, pleading for Canadian natural gas in order to cut his country off from dirty Russian energy. Germany is a country that, I read recently, has had to restart its coal-fired power plants just to make up for its shortfall in energy. We could be providing low-cost, clean Canadian natural gas. What did the Prime Minister say to the German chancellor? He told him that there was no business case for liquefied natural gas. Likewise, when the Japanese prime minister came to Canada earlier this year, the Prime Minister dismissed his request to help bring Canadian energy to Japan, and he offered just his signature platitudes.
Our allies do not want platitudes. They want Canadian energy. The conclusion is clear: On this side of the House, we believe that as long as the world needs traditional sources of energy, Canada should continue to develop and export its energy sources. Let us let the world's energy market be dominated by a democratic country for a change, one with the highest environmental standards and human rights standards. Let it be Canadian energy for a change.
Mr. Speaker, I come from a family of coal miners, and when the coal transition went down in Alberta, I went out and met with representatives of coal communities. We invited them to Parliament to testify so we could learn lessons, but unfortunately they did not get asked any questions because the Conservatives, as they are doing on everything, were playing procedural games. They were not interested in what those coal miners had to say, so I find it a little rich that my colleague is now defending them today.
In the same way, when we met with energy workers in Alberta, who were talking about the clean energy transition and how they were ready and more than willing to make it happen, Danielle Smith shut that down and shut down $33 billion in clean energy investments in Alberta.
What kind of region chases jobs out of its area? What kind of region tells the world that it is not open for business because it is ideological? It is a region represented by Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, I go door knocking in my riding quite a bit and run into former co-workers, retired co-workers and people who used to work in the industry all the time. I can say that not a single one of them is proud of what happened under the NDP-Liberal government. Not a single one of them is satisfied with how it went down. They are not satisfied with the jobs and retraining. Frankly, even though the government pledged that it would spend $100 million to support these communities, the government has never reached that target. It betrayed our communities.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, touting oil is not okay.
Since the first COP I attended, the 2015 event in Paris, I have heard people everywhere talking about just transition. That is the term that is being used internationally.
Does my colleague understand why the legislation does not use that term? Is it because someone is afraid of possible puns involving the Prime Minister's first name?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that ever since oil was discovered in Alberta back in 1949, we have had central governments in this country try to control it. No other region in this country has had a federal government seek to control its destiny more than western Canada given its oil resources.
Quebeckers stand up for their resources, and I applaud them for that. We should all stand up for our resources. I will not apologize for standing up for our strong oil and gas sector, a sector that is investing in clean energy, renewable energy and carbon capture. I see it in my riding, which is working to sequester CO2 emissions today and is doing a great job. It is a sustainable industry. Let us support it.
Mr. Speaker, the Competition Bureau found today that after eight years, the power of corporate oligopolistic giants is growing at the expense of Canadians. It is in a report, which said:
Concentration rose in the most concentrated industries, and the number of highly concentrated industries increased;
The largest firms in industries are being less and less challenged by their smaller [firms];
Fewer firms have entered industries overall, suggesting many industries have become less dynamic....
This has—
Mr. Speaker, this is all fascinating, and the member can ask about it tomorrow, but we are debating Bill C-50 and there is absolutely nothing about it in the question.
Mr. Speaker, this is for the member who intervened, who does not live in his own riding and has forgotten about the people in Timmins.
Finally, the report states that the consequence of this is that profits and markups are up while Canadian competition is down.
These are the findings of the Competition Bureau's report today. They are part of the reason we have smaller paycheques and higher prices.
Why is the government siding with big, powerful, protected corporate oligarchs rather than with Canadian consumers and workers?
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberal government has always sided with big businesses. It has always sided with the oligopolies, whether it is the grocery chains, the big banks or the big railway companies, which are hurting western farmers who are just trying to get their grain to market. The Liberal power structure that has existed in this country has always been backed by big business. It is going to take a Conservative government, under a strong Conservative leader, to break the monopolies, bring true competition to Canada and open up this country for real economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments recently as he talked about the transition to renewable and clean jobs. Are we to believe that the reason the Premier of Alberta put a moratorium on renewable energy projects is that they were so wildly unpopular in Alberta? Is that what we are to believe?
Would it not be the case that there were so many projects that the premier became afraid that they were—
Hon. Pierre Poilievre: The same policies doubled energy prices.
Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask a question. The Leader of the Opposition is providing his own MP with the answer. I cannot even hear myself, as he is saying it so loud.
Would it be possible to repeat that, or—
I will ask the hon. member to answer the question because we are a little over time.
The hon. member for Sturgeon River—Parkland.
Mr. Speaker, the member was part of a government in the province of Ontario that oversaw a doubling of power prices because of its flawed policies. He was a part of that government and —
Mr. Speaker, I have never been elected to a provincial legislature. I do not know what the member is talking about. He is wildly incorrect, but he can please tell us more.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that the member was a very strong supporter of the previous Ontario government, which did double power prices in the province of Ontario.
The government likes to talk about the environment, but we need to ensure that projects do not harm our landscapes and do not harm our waterways. I think we need to look strongly at these things, ensure we take a holistic look at the environment and support keeping the integrity of our environment strong.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to take part in this debate since it is an essential debate for the future of Canada and, let us be honest, for the future of the planet. We are talking here about the vision, the perspective we have when it comes to Canada's natural resources given the challenges we are facing with climate change, which is real.
First, let us begin by defining what is at stake. Climate change is real. Humans are contributing to it. Humans therefore need to contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, reducing pollution. Over the eight years that this government has been here, what is Canada's record?
Using a mathematical and scientific process, the United Nations, or UN, which is not just any old organization, analyzed 63 countries around the world to see which nations were most effective at countering the effects of climate change. After eight years of this Liberal government, Canada ranks 58 out of 63 countries. That is not our statistic. It did not come from overly conservative observers. It did not come from climate deniers. No, it came from people in the UN. They handed out their report card: After eight years of the Liberal government, Canada is ranked 58 out of 63 when it comes to effectively fighting climate change.
Will people be surprised by this disappointing result given that the government had pumped itself up and bragged about their ambitious targets?
[English]
“Canada is back.” That is exactly what the Prime Minister said eight years ago in Paris. People all around the world applauded that Canada was back. However, after eight years, Canada is way back, at number 58 out of 63. That is the result of policies based on ideology, not on pragmatism and practice.
[Translation]
That is why, sadly, Bill C‑50 follows once again in the same Liberal tradition that this government is imposing on Canadians. In other words, the Liberals think that they are the only ones who know what to do, that they will tax everyone and that is going to reduce emissions.
After eight years, that is not what happened. This government has never met its targets. The rare times when there were reductions was, unfortunately, during the pandemic. If the Liberals' game plan is to bring Canada back there and shut down the economy for a few months, that is not exactly the best thing to do. We can all agree.
It is obvious that introducing carbon taxes is not working. That is the reality. Why is that not working? Because we would need all 195 countries in the world to have carbon pricing systems that were equivalent everywhere, with the same requirements everywhere and the same challenges everywhere The problem, however, is that the big polluters, the big emitters, starting with our biggest neighbour, do not subscribe to this system. This is a prime example of how important geography can be. The United States of America is our main neighbour, our main economic partner and our main competitor. Here in Canada, we are always quick and proud to lecture those around us. We tax people. We tax businesses. We tax wealth creators. We tax job creators. As a result, people go elsewhere instead of investing here. We are shooting ourselves in the foot. It is better to go elsewhere. That is the problem with this dogmatic approach.
Our approach is much more concrete, pragmatic and effective. It will deliver tangible results. On September 2, 2,500 Conservative supporters from across Canada gathered in Quebec City for our national convention. We had not had this type of event in five years. We were all under the same roof. The event took place on the evening of September 2 in Quebec City. I am from Quebec City. I am very proud to say that.
[English]
On September 2, there was a milestone speech by the future prime minister of Canada, the hon. member for Carleton. He is the leader of the official opposition today, but he will be the next prime minister. It was a milestone speech, the Quebec speech. It framed where we want to go with the next Conservative government, and when he talked about climate change, the leader was crystal clear that the real impact of climate change has to be addressed. That is what he said. This is why we recognize it, but we want to address it with pragmatism, not ideology.
[Translation]
The speech given in Quebec City is a big part of the history of Canadian politics and it will make its mark like many other important speeches in our history. That is why it will be remembered as the vision that the party had when Canadians gave us the honour of putting their trust in us to form the next government.
What was said in that speech?
The first pillar is that climate change is having a real impact and that it must be addressed. We need pragmatic measures to deal with climate change. Rather than imposing taxes, we are going to encourage people, through tax incentives, to invest in new technologies, research and development and measures that can be immediately implemented to reduce pollution. That is the objective. It is all well and good to brag about lofty principles and say that we are going to reduce emissions by 2.3% compared to what happened in 1991 because it was different in 1996, and so on. That is all theoretical. The reality is that there is pollution and we want to reduce pollution.
[English]
When we talk about reducing pollution, it is a never-ending story. We hear that we need to reduce, reduce and reduce. If we can reduce by 20% this year, then great and congratulations. What will be done on January 1 to continue to reduce pollution and emissions? Our plan is based on incentives in research and development to help reduce pollution. This is the first pillar.
[Translation]
The second pillar is to give the green light to green energy. People have projects ready to go right now. They want to invest in green energies and they want to do research and development, but there is too much red tape. We need to act efficiently. I would like to provide a very specific example. Quebec is currently engaged in a lively debate about the future of hydroelectricity. Should we relive the great 1950s, when we gave the green light to so many hydroelectric projects in Quebec, or should we do things differently? This is an ongoing debate. Does everyone know that, through Bill C‑69, the federal government has given itself the right to veto hydroelectric projects in Quebec? This is slowing thing down.
We want to do the opposite and speed up the process of giving people greater access to green energy. When I say “green energy”, I am talking about hydroelectricity, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy, as well as nuclear energy. These are all avenues that we need to explore further with new technology to make them more efficient and more accessible to Canadians. That is where it can happen.
The third pillar is that we must be proud to be Canadian, proud of our know-how, our energy and our natural resources. Yes, Canada is rich in intelligence. Yes, Canada is rich when it comes to researchers, natural resources and energy. Yes, as Canadians, we must prioritize these Canadian assets and export this know-how. We have extraordinary know-how in hydroelectricity; we are the best in the world. We should be exporting that know-how.
The same thing can be said of natural resources. There is a lot of talk about the electrification of transport. I, for one, am a supporter and I believe in the future of electric cars to combat the greenhouse effect. However, this requires lithium. We have lithium in Canada. Why is it taking years to get shovels in the ground? We need to speed things up.
That is why we should be proud of who we are. That is why we need to green-light green energy. That is why we need tax incentives to accelerate research and development. Concrete, realistic, responsible, pragmatic measures will enable us to fight the harmful impacts of climate change. For the past eight years, the Liberals have opted for their carbon tax and the second tax that, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, will cost over 20 cents a litre, or 16 cents plus tax. We know the Bloc Québécois had two opportunities to say no to the first carbon tax and the second one. Twice, the Bloc Québécois lent its full support and voted with the Liberal government to keep both taxes.
That is not the approach we recommend. We believe that Canadian know-how, smarts and natural resources are the best way to face the challenge of climate change.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the hon. member's speech, he talked about pragmatic solutions. Maybe there was a loss in translation with the word “pragmatic”. “Pragmatic” means dealing with something realistically. All that he is promising is that they will develop things in the future. They do not have anything right now. They will renounce the things that work, renounce the things that are accepted by the global community as working, that make us a leader on this file. What he is offering is magic beans, that, maybe, in the future, someday, we will have something, maybe, possibly, maybe.
That is not pragmatic by any definition.
I was wondering if the hon. member could get up and just recognize that they do not have anything at all to offer except denial of climate change.
Mr. Speaker, hopefully, in the 30s, when Canadians created penicillin, this member was not there to say that it is does not exist and that it will never exist.
I believe in Canadian knowledge. I believe in Canadian research. I believe in Canadian scientific people.
He talked about the global observation. May I remind him that the global observation from the United Nations concluded that after eight years of this government, Canada is number 58 out of 63.
Shame on them.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am starting to wonder if I am in the right debate. I thought we were supposed to be talking about Bill C‑50.
I will bring my colleague back to Bill C‑50. Since he is a member from Quebec, he knows full well that there exists in that province the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, which is a Quebec-Ottawa agreement on skills training. There is no mention of it in Bill C‑50. No one even thought of the fact that this agreement exists.
I also want to come back to the Conservatives under Harper. In 2013, the federal budget introduced the Canada job grant. It was the centrepiece of the budget. Quebec was against it. At the time, Ms. Maltais called the Conservatives to make them understand that Quebec already had something like that.
I would like my colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent to tell me how the two major parties in this country do not even know what is happening in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who is celebrating her eight anniversary as a member of Parliament here in the House of Commons today. I wish her a happy anniversary and to the rest of us too.
In answer to the specific question that my colleague asked, I would answer that I only spoke about the environment and that I am very proud of that. I am a bit surprised to hear my colleague from Repentigny say that I did not speak about Bill C‑50, when, on the contrary, I made the focus of my speech the environment, a subject that is very dear to her heart.
What the Conservatives want is to help Quebec in its development. We understand Quebec, and that is why we are strongly opposed to the law stemming from Bill C‑69, which gives the federal government veto power over hydroelectric projects. I will not hide the fact that we are in favour of these developments and that we want them to move forward as quickly as possible.
We need to regain the momentum that we had in the 1950s when we tripled the infrastructure at the Beauharnois power plant, built the Bersimis-1 and Bersimis-2 power stations and gave the green light to the fantastic Manicouagan-Outardes hydroelectric project and the Carillon generating station. In the 1950s, Quebec was really big on creating hydroelectric dams. Let us hope that we can see that again one day in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about job creators. I am wondering what his thoughts are on Alberta's premier's decision to impose a moratorium on investment in renewable energy projects that would have created 22,000 jobs.
At a time when we need real, timely solutions, as he spoke about, around the climate crisis for today and for future generations, why are the Conservatives so quick to protect big oil companies at the expense of workers and the future of our planet?
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recall for everybody in the House that the first province to have a department of environmental affairs was Alberta. The first province to have a review process for big projects based on the environmental scoop was Alberta.
Where is the province where we find the biggest plant for solar energy? Alberta.
In which province do we find the greatest wind farm project? Alberta.
Let me remind us that since 1947, on February 13, we had the Leduc No. 1 treasure, which blew up and gave the big boom in Alberta, which profited everybody in this country.
There is no shame in Alberta, not at all.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise with respect to this legislation and the urgency of moving forward. We have come across the worst climate catastrophe in our nation's history with the hottest summer on record. Normally, September is when fire season is over. Just this past September, in one weekend, more carbon was pumped into the atmosphere from burning Canadian forests than is normally pumped in an entire year of Canada's boreal forest fires. That is one part of the urgency.
The other part of the urgency is that just this past month, the International Energy Agency announced that the beginning of the end of the oil and gas industry is now foreseeable on the horizon. The agency is warning governments that they have to make a plan because they are going to be stuck with stranded assets if they continue to invest in an industry that can no longer compete with what is happening internationally with the rise of—
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that it is actually government policy that is making it impossible for companies in Canada to compete internationally—
Mr. Speaker, I know that facts really tend to frighten the Conservatives. If they are feeling uncomfortable about facts, maybe they can get a little safe room where they can live in disinformation. I was talking about the International Energy Agency.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in light of the declaration by the Speaker yesterday, I believe that this member is not subscribing to the decorum of the House that the Speaker requested, by accusing an opposition party of disinformation.
Mr. Speaker, I will not be intimidated by a group of climate change deniers. I will continue to speak facts. They can interrupt me all night long—
Mr. Speaker, I have been clear. I have stood in this House. I have talked about plans for climate change reduction. It is offensive that the member opposite is saying that we are climate change deniers.
Before we continue on debate, I suggest all members look at their phones. There is an email that would have gone out from the Speaker's office about decorum in this House of Commons to make sure that we follow those rules, try to get along better and try not to accuse people of things.
The hon. deputy House leader.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am just seeking clarification on your ruling. Are you saying that the term “climate change denier” is unparliamentary?
There were lots of words in here. I just want to say that people can take time to actually review it and maybe the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay can finish up with his speech.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, once again.
On that same point of order, though, Mr. Speaker, it was the Speaker, from the Liberal Party, who said that the issue was to try to get people to not use inflammatory language, which we are hearing from the member for Timmins—James Bay—
That is a part of the inflammatory language that is outlined in that document.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, the issue raised was an attempt to intimidate and stop members from speaking. I will not be intimidated.
I will continue to speak even if it takes all night. I will speak out about climate change denial, even if I am interrupted relentlessly. These are the facts of this bill. I will continue to speak on behalf of the work that is being done, particularly the work we have done with energy workers.
I was speaking about the urgency. I spoke about the urgency of the climate crisis, and that certainly triggered the Conservatives. I spoke of the urgency of what the International Energy Agency is reporting, warning governments against continuing to invest in the fossil fuel industry because they are going to be stranded assets. The urgency is at the point that we are now reaching peak oil by 2025-30. We have this falsehood that if we continue to build infrastructure, we could ignore science, the economy and reality, which is something the Conservatives have done for so long.
I would like to speak to one other element of urgency in getting this legislation passed, which is the fact that the United States, under the IRA, in a single year, has created what is being called economic shock waves for their investments in clean tech. This is a game-changer of unprecedented proportions.
Again, I do not know any jurisdiction on the planet that chases away investment, but I know how upset the Conservatives are whenever we talk about what is happening in the United States. Offshore wind, under Joe Biden, in a single year, is moving to 40 gigawatts of power. The Vineyard Wind project would run 400,000 homes on cheap, clean energy. The Conservatives do not want Canadians to know that because they want to continue to promote coal and oil. There is 146 billion dollars worth of investment in the United States in offshore wind. This is something the Conservatives would shut down in a second.
We are seeing right now, within one year, 86,000 new permanent jobs, and 50,000 in EV. What we have seen is the Conservatives, again and again, ridiculing investments in battery technology and EV technology. We had the member who lives in Stornoway, which I do not believe is in his riding, show up in Timmins—James Bay to ridicule the critical mineral strategy, in a mining town. For God's sake, the guy has had a paper route. However, here is a man who comes into a mining region and makes fun of EV technology, when our communities and our workers are going to be ones building this new technology, and we are investing in it. We will push the government to continue to invest.
The legislation was very problematic for New Democrats. There was not a lot there. We pushed hard by working with labour and union workers who are on the front lines. One of the key places we went to was Alberta. We hear Conservatives talk about workers in Alberta, but they do not talk to them. They misrepresent them. We met with the electrical workers. We met with the construction workers. We met with the boiler workers.
We asked them what they wanted, and they said that they know the world is changing around them. Forty-five thousand jobs have been lost in oil and gas at a time of record profits, and the workers know those jobs are not coming back. Suncor fired 1,500 workers this year. Richie Rich Kruger, its CEO, bragged to his investors about the urgency, at a time of climate crisis, to make as much money as possible. He said he would target workers, that he would make every one of those workers in Suncor prove their worth if they were going to keep their jobs. It is taking record profits, over $200 billion, to big oil. It is putting it into stock buybacks and automation.
The workers knew there was no future. They told us they wanted a seat at the table. That is something New Democrats fought for in this legislation. Is it enough? No. We want to make sure that we have labour represented in the regional round tables that are moving forward. The idea of the Liberal government meeting with Danielle Smith without labour is a ridiculous proposition.
Here is the thing, there is no place on the planet that was more ready for the clean tech revolution than Alberta. In fact, just last Christmas, they were talking about the solar gold rush in Alberta. Just this past July, they were talking about how Alberta was set to become the clean energy capital of the world. Then Danielle Smith stepped up and shut it down. That was $33 billion. Here we go again—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe we are talking about federal legislation and Bill C-50. The member keeps going off track, referring to provincial legislation in a province he does not live in, a province his party does not care about.
That is falling into debate.
I would remind members to come back to the bill we are debating.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I will give you my notes afterward because, obviously, this is what we are talking about. I see there is very thin skin in Conservative country when one talks about their attempts to chase out investment.
Here is the thing with Danielle Smith. There were 33 billion dollars' worth of investments in clean tech killed in Alberta. If we were to talk to anybody in the clean tech industry internationally, they will recognize we are from Canada and ask where our project is. If we say Alberta, it is done. Why is that? It is because nobody is going to invest in a jurisdiction with a premier who is out to kill jobs. That is why this legislation is important. We have to have workers at the table, and we have to protect the potential for new investments.
Yes, we were meeting with workers in Alberta because we understood that these were serious issues, while Danielle Smith and the Conservatives over there, under the member for Stornoway, were talking about killing those jobs. What were they doing? Who were they meeting with?
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did take the liberty of pulling out the declaration on order and decorum in the House by the Speaker yesterday. In there, it says:
...the growing tendency to make pointed criticisms in a way that is unnecessarily personal and designed to denigrate, bully, elicit an emotional reaction or attack the integrity of the person introduces a toxicity into our proceedings that hampers our ability to get things done. This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them....
The hon. member just said “the member for Stornoway”, so I seek your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker, because this was your declaration, and I am asking you to enforce it.
I thank the member for that. He does make a very good point when it comes to the decorum of the House and things that the Speaker wants us to think about when making speeches. Making up names occurs on all sides of the House. Maybe we should stop doing it, period.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I hope none of my time has been cut off by the panic attacks of the Conservatives.
As far as making up names, I am talking about Danielle Smith and the Conservative Party and the fact that the member who lives in Stornoway was up for cutting off all these jobs. These are facts. Conservatives might not like facts, but—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I again refer to the fake title. If the member is referring to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, then he should refer to him as that, or as the member for Carleton. He should not refer to him as the member for Stornoway.
Again I refer to your document, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Trust me, I do not get up to defend the member for Timmins—James Bay often, but he explicitly said, “the member who lives in Stornoway”. There is nothing untrue about that. It is not name-calling.
I have to refer to all members in the House by their riding names, and I think maybe we should all start using our riding names when referring to one another in the House. We should be referring to the member for Carleton or the Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Catharines, the member for Barrie—Innisfil or the member for West Nova when he is not sitting in this chair.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking a lot about proper decorum in the House, and I thought the rule was that, every time you rise to speak, members are supposed to take their seats. I see that is not being done.
Am I wrong in that? Should people be sitting once you stand to speak?
The Speaker did say yesterday that we want people to stay seated until it is time for them to stand to get the eye of the Speaker.
I would like to assure the hon. member that we have been stopping the clock the whole time. He will have all the time he needs.
The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I would have sat down, but at my tender age, I have a problem with my back.
The fact is that the Conservatives get panic-stricken every time I start talking about how much they are against technology and that they are climate deniers. What riding is the member from? He is the member for Carleton, who lives in a 19-room mansion with his own personal chef, paid for by the taxpayers. That is a fact. I know they get triggered—
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 Yorkton—Melville, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Foreign Affairs; and the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that was not a point of order on this really important issue, but I will try to continue, because this is important.
We actually saw at our committee that the issue of sustainable jobs is a top-of-mind issue for Canadian workers, yet the Conservatives have done everything to slow it down and attack it. This is a big issue, because there are problems with this legislation, and our job is to fix it, not to obstruct something that is badly needed.
I want to get to the point of what we are up against in terms of Mr. Biden. In the first week of the Biden administration, he signed an executive order creating an inter-agency working group on energy transition. He set up a transition group to make sure that energy-dependent regions were not left behind. Biden came out of the gate in his first week. He also went to COP26 and said that America would create a new clean energy economy based on good-paying union jobs, because he knew that he had to send a signal that he was going to fight for the middle class, unlike what we see with the Conservatives, who are out to shut down job investments in Alberta and to attack investments in the battery plants.
This leaves us with, my God, the Liberals, who had never talked about these issues before. They were dragged kicking and screaming by the New Democrats. We said that we have to have some key investments. We need commitments and clarity, such as on prevailing wages. We need to say that if someone is going to get tax credits to do energy investment in Canada, there have to be good-paying union jobs. We also need to make sure that apprenticeships are part of the mix.
However, the promised $85 billion in clean energy tax credits, which sounds great, is not here yet. We are going up against a government that, within its first year, had set up its energy transition, a government in the United States that is now saying that there will be nine million direct jobs from the IRA. We have to compete with the U.S.
I have heard constant drivel of misinformation from the Conservatives about what the Chancellor of Germany asked for from Canada. I met the Chancellor of Germany, and he said that Germany was not interested in LNG but that it was interested in the long term and in hydrogen—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would point out that Germany did then, in the 194 days, build an LNG terminal, so I think that it was interested in LNG—
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. It is no wonder the German Chancellor did not bother to meet with the Conservatives, because he would have heard stuff like that. However, he met with us, and I met with him personally. He said that LNG was not where Germany was going and that it was moving so far ahead on green energy that either Canada was going to provide hydrogen or Canada was going to be out of the mix. That was the message we got.
Meanwhile, we get continuous misinformation, but where do we get that from? When the Conservatives go to Europe, whom do they meet with? There is Dan McTeague. Talk about a bonkers climate change denier, who somehow paid for four Conservatives to fly to the U.K. and put them up in big hotels. He is my cousin, by the way, so I am not saying anything out of family. Dan McTeague and his group apparently paid for three bottles of wine that came to $1,800 Canadian. Who drinks booze like that? Again, this is a party that goes on about affordability and about the price of potatoes, but, man, it can certainly afford it when it is being given a bottle of wine that costs $818 Canadian. Do members think the Conservatives would even know what an—
Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to speak about the NDP leader's $30,000 trip to Las Vegas, but I would like to know the relevance of this discussion in relation to the bill. I think it is valid point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate that. It allows me to go back. I was responding to the previous intervention and attack on me by a Conservative, who said that she contested what was said by the Chancellor of Germany to me in a meeting. I was saying that we were meeting with the Germans about energy. The Conservatives went over. We do not know who they met with, but it is worth noting an $818 bottle of wine. There was then a second bottle of wine for $265. That still is probably pretty good. That is not sparkling Baby Duck—
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not speak to the NPD leader's ethical violation as it relates to a gift he received. I want to know what the relevance is to the bill we are debating.
I urge people to have a look at the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. Again, page 8 reads, “This includes coming up with fake titles for members in order to mock them or making comments that question their courage, honesty or commitment to their country.”
There is a lot of that in debates lately, so let us try to bring that debate further up. I know the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is really wanting to talk to the bill at hand.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am getting so much interference because I am getting to the punchline. Then, I will move on, but I think it would be unfair to intimidate me and have my ability to speak circumscribed, because it is about what our priorities are. Our priority, as New Democrats, has been workers, and particularly people from the natural resources industry, like where I come from. I live in a mining town that is looking for the clean energy future, and nobody in my town would be given a $719 bottle of wine. What was in that wine?
I am coming to the conclusion. At the end of this night with these four Conservatives, paid for apparently by my cousin Dan McTeague over in the U.K., meeting somebody we do not know, they had a bottle of champagne for $1,791 Canadian. That is obviously not sparkling Baby Duck. I do not know who bought that for them.
I ask that, because what we are talking about is the insecurity of workers at a time of transition. Do we wish there was a transition? No, we do not. We are used to living the way we have lived. I have lived through transitions, and it is not pretty. Cobalt is where we lost every single silver mining job in one summer. When our iron ore mines shut down, there was no future there. We know the word “transition”, and we know it is not pretty. This was something we heard from workers in Alberta and other regions. They asked what is “just” about a transition and how we could make it so they have some place to go. This was the New Democratic plan from the beginning, which we negotiated with the Liberals.
The Liberals initially said that they were going to put a jobs centre as their solution. We said that a jobs centre sends a message that we are turning out the lights and leaving. Where are we going to put those jobs centres? Are we going to put them in Fort McMurray or Saint John's? We needed something broader and something bigger, so we pushed for the sustainable jobs legislation that would serve as the framework. This is the important thing: We need a framework around how these tax credits would be implemented. We know that if we do not have a plan, it will be just a gong show of friends, pals and lobbyists who are going to be sucking up this money, as unfortunately happens all too often in Canada.
We need to compete the way the United States has. They brought an all-of-government approach to make sure they were making a truly transformative revolution.
I will say another thing they talked to us about when we were in Germany. The Germans were very concerned about the IRA, because of the competitiveness. Over in Europe, 3,000 or 4,000 kilometres away, they were concerned about how they were going to compete against Joe Biden and the massive amount of investment that is moving out of Europe and moving to the United States. We are right on the American border, so when $33 billion gets sucked out of Alberta, it goes stateside.
In my region, talking to miners and mining companies, the first thing they said to me was, “Did you see the tax credits Joe Biden put in? They are really interesting to us.” We have to be able to say that we are here too, we will compete and we will make sure that the investment stays here.
Again, I am dealing with the Liberal government. We are trying to make this work. We are saying, for example, that there are a lot of things missing in this plan. What is the sustainable jobs secretariat? Is that just going to be some desk in some minister's office, or is it going to have a true mandate? What is the partnership council? Are we actually looking at something credible here?
What we are going to be insisting on, while the Conservatives try to filibuster that committee and that legislation, is checks and balances to make sure that regional representation is there. We want to make sure that labour is there with enough voices representing enough regions of the country, because they are the ones who are going to be dealing with the implementation of that, not us. We want to make sure that indigenous rights are fully respected and implemented, and part of that is in the tax credit incentives. They are going to be different in different areas, and they are certainly going to be different in the opportunities for indigenous people. We need to make sure they are front and centre.
The other thing we really want to know is that we have a youth voice on the stewardship council, because we want to make sure that those who are being most affected by the climate disaster that is unfolding have their future interests at stake. We need to make sure that the tax credits work, we need to make sure that they are being implemented and we need to have better data collection. What the Liberals are offering us on data collection is insufficient. There would not be a job left in Canada by the time they report back.
There need to be mechanisms that come back to Parliament to tell us if this is working. If it does not work, it is going to affect our environment, number one, but it is going to affect working-class families from one end of the country to the other.
What we were really surprised by, again, with the all-of-government approach taken by the Biden administration, is that we have seen, in one year, a staggering turnaround in terms of projects getting off the ground, in terms of jobs, in terms of commitments.
That is where we are at as New Democrats. We believe that we have a huge opportunity right now. Is this bill perfect? It is far from perfect. What we can do in a minority Parliament is come in with good plans and good amendments to make it happen, unlike our Conservative colleagues, who want to go back to the 19th century.
It is not going to happen. I am sorry. That world is gone. What we need to do is to say that we have an opportunity and if we do not compete, we are going to be at the side of the road because the United States is moving ahead.
I will just conclude on this. Let us consider Texas. Texas, politically, is about as out there and as right wing as the Conservative backbench and yet 890,000 clean-tech jobs are in Texas right now. There is no other jurisdiction in the world right now that has invested as much in clean tech as Texas. Texas came through the most brutal heat wave, killer heat wave, able to turn on all of their air conditioners.
Meanwhile, Danielle Smith was going around saying, oh my God, if we have clean power, we are going to have to turn the power off. She was paying for these trucks to drive up and down Ottawa saying, my God, if one invests in Canada, we are going to run out of energy. What kind of premier goes around advertising, in an energy-rich province, that the lights are going to be turned off?
The reality is that if we get these clean energy projects off the ground, it is going to dramatically decrease costs for families. It is going to give the working class and middle class steady jobs and it is going to save our planet. We will go to these hearings and we will push for strong amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member from Timmins—James Bay today. There was that one exchange between him and the member for Sarnia—Lambton. She started to claim that she was not a climate denier, which I found very fascinating, because, only moments before that, when she was giving a speech in this House, she made some pretty wild claims, stuff that one sees from Russian bot memes on Facebook.
She said that only 7% of the population wants to have an electric car, yet in 2022, one out of every 10 vehicles was a plug-in vehicle in Canada.
She also said that no one wants to be trapped in a snowstorm at -30° because the batteries do not work. This is completely untrue. I have been driving electric vehicles here since I was elected in 2015. They work in the winter.
She also said, and this is the best one, because this is the meme that one always sees, “They catch fire”, as though we should be afraid of an electric car because the battery is going to catch fire.
The outrage and the misinformation that is being distributed by Conservatives is what gives them the reputation that they are climate deniers.
Would the member for Timmins—James Bay agree with that?
Mr. Speaker, it is my deep tradition in Parliament to not cast aspersions on any but to only speak to facts, so I will only speak to facts.
The member for Sarnia—Lambton lives on Highway 401 and Highway 401 is the heart of Canada's auto belt. Canada's auto belt has gone all in on EV technology. Here is the simple thing. Those jobs could go to Ohio or they could stay in Canada.
We see the Conservatives do misinformation after misinformation about EV, about critical minerals, about battery technology, as if our workers cannot make proper cars.
I am sorry. Canadians can make the best cars on the planet. The Conservatives and the Conservative leader attack EV technology and the battery technology, but my region is dependent on those jobs. We are going to get the critical minerals out of the ground. We are going to work with the companies on Highway 401. We are going to make the cars in Canada and make them sustainably.
The Conservatives do not have to drive them. They want to go back to the days of the horse and buggy, so let them.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the hon. member spent a lot of time on sponsored travel, so I would like to ask him a question. In 2022, he took a trip to Berlin, Germany that cost $10,500. The trip was paid for by the FES, partnered with politicized NGOs, to attack Israel, SHAML, a radical anti-Israel NGO, and Mossawa, which is one of the main Israeli Arab NGOs involved in the political demonization of Israel.
He held a joint press conference with Hezbollah in 2004 and HDIP, which promotes international political attacks on Israel.
How could he justify that?
Mr. Speaker, as we saw earlier today, the Conservatives attempted to use the horrific kidnappings by Hamas to promote the oil and gas agenda. I do not say these things are lies. I do not need to. I do not even need to respond to that kind of gutter talk.
The fact that the Conservatives would say that going to meet the German Chancellor and German parliamentarians about energy was somehow tied to the terror attacks in Israel shows how marginal they are and how deplorable the actions are of a party that will say anything, do anything and misrepresent anything at a time of such horror, tragedy and killings. I would tell the member shame on him.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like unanimous consent to table the member's sponsored travel.
Some hon. members: No.
I am already hearing a number of noes.
We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
Mr. Speaker, I am more than willing to put out our sponsored travel. Are they willing? The member for Cumberland—Colchester had the $1,800 bottle of wine. Would they put the documents on the table and tell us who bought that wine?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question. Why are we talking about sustainable jobs and not a just transition?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear myself.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People can have conversations in our lovely lobbies. In fact, there are even cubicles just outside where people can have conversations without bothering everyone. They are very comfortable, so I invite members who are not interested in this debate to go there.
My question is very simple. I would like to know why the Liberals and the NDP are afraid of the words, “just transition”. Why are they talking about sustainable jobs instead?
That seems like a very “Canadian” choice of words to me, a well-rehearsed talking point. Why not talk about a just transition?
Why is that not the bill's title?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, words do matter, and when we met with workers about what they wanted, they wanted to know there was a future. That was why the words “sustainable jobs” meant something. We heard that from workers.
In terms of international obligations, we need to ensure in the legislation that this is not just an island by itself. It must meet the international commitments we have made on issues like the just transition.
It is very important, when I am in Edmonton meeting with electrical workers who want to know what their future looks like, to say this is about jobs. This is about tomorrow. Once we have established trust with the working class, we will move further ahead because there is no energy transition without workers at the table. That is why the language matters.
Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of Parliament for eight years. I have listened to a lot of speeches in this place. Rarely have I seen as many points of order during one speech as what I just witnessed. I think that demonstrates just how thin-skinned the Conservatives are on this issue.
What I was really interested in—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Alistair MacGregor: Mr. Speaker, they are heckling right now. They continue to show how thin-skinned they are.
My honourable friend was talking about oil and gas profits. He made a point about all the wealth companies are generating and asked what they are doing with it. They are not investing in workers. They are firing workers. They are doing stock buybacks. They are doing dividend payouts.
Can my hon. colleague talk about that? It seems to me that rather than standing on the side of workers, we are hearing Conservatives parrot what the CEOs of the oil and gas industry say. I am wondering if he could expand on that.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very important question because we saw big oil racking up $200 billion in profits in the most catastrophic climate year on record.
Rich Kruger, Suncor's CEO, said there was a “sense of urgency” to make as much money as possible. I think of the 200,000 people who were displaced. I think of the buildings that were lost. I think of the terrifying situations we had and the obligation the CEOs have to deal with this.
The Conservatives live in a bubble of pretending that the world does not exist. Meanwhile, there are over 100 major lawsuits right now against Exxon and Suncor in jurisdictions like California and Colorado because they knew back in the 1960s and 1980s that they were burning the future of the planet. Shell, in 1988, warned that by the time issues became clear in the 2000s, it might be too late, but it took the time to raise its oil platforms six feet on the offshore rigs so that when the ice caps melted, it could still make money.
That is their responsibility and we will call that out.
Mr. Speaker, I think of Bill C-49 and Bill C-50. Bill C-49 had phenomenal support, not only from the House of Commons but also from the premiers in Atlantic Canada. It was all about renewable energy and future clean, green jobs. There are literally hundreds of thousands of potential jobs from there to Bill C-50, and we recognize the future. There is a need to develop, promote and encourage those green jobs. However, the Conservatives, as they voted against Bill C-49, are now going to be voting against Bill C-50.
The member often makes reference to climate change deniers. Why does he feel the Conservatives are challenging these good, futuristic middle-class jobs that are going to be there today and tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. My grandfather was a coal miner and had to leave the coal mines because there was no future there. That is when he went to work in the gold mines and broke his back underground. My mother is a miner's daughter. This is what we grew up with.
When the jobs went out, I never heard the Conservatives say they cared. We lost jobs and the pensions of the workers at Kerr-Addison, Pamour miners were ripped off and Elliot Lake went down. We are in a situation of transition, and I think of the people in Atlantic Canada who have had to travel too often to find jobs.
Right now, we are competing with the United States offshore in the Atlantic, and it is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in offshore wind. We can either get in the game and provide sustainable jobs for the communities out there or sit on the sidelines and let the Americans take them. I am not willing to let the Americans take our opportunities.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I see that I received applause from a Conservative. Apart from you, Mr. Speaker, he is the only one who still claps for me. We will see how long that lasts.
The Bloc Québécois's position is clear. It is imperative that we change our energy trajectory so that Canada, which still includes Quebec, for now, contributes to the effort to prevent average temperatures from rising by 1.5°C. That is essential. We are talking about the future of humanity, the health of our people, the safety of our communities and the future of generations to come. We have to make the effort. That means we have to stop ratcheting up our fossil fuel production. That is point number one. The International Energy Agency says we must not start any new oil and gas production projects. By 2030, we need to gradually reduce oil production, which is part of the problem.
It is completely wrong to think that some kind of capture technology is going to let us increase oil production while reducing our absolute emissions. I am not talking about emissions per barrel, but absolute emissions. These are basic scientific facts. By reducing our oil production, we will gain access to large sums of public money, which is currently being disproportionately invested in fossil fuels. This money could be directed elsewhere so that Canada can transition to a 21st-century economy, focused on the long term, on the future of coming generations and on renewable energy.
We stand in solidarity with the workers who will have to participate in this process. When the Trans Mountain project began, we did not just say that the government should not invest money in that project and that there would be cost overruns. We know that the project is costing over $30 billion. What we said was that we should take that money that was in the Canadian public purse and use it for the transition, for good-paying jobs in the high-tech sector that produce technologies that can be exported, namely, energy storage technologies. By so doing, we would not impoverish communities in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, who are the primary victims of the lack of transition, who will be among those who will pay the most, and who will be even more disproportionately affected when finally do make the transition when it is too late and it is even more urgent.
The government has done enough greenwashing. We need to take action. Obviously, when we talk about greenwashing, I cannot help but think about this bill, which basically contains nothing of what I just talked about. There is nothing about any of that in this bill. The Liberals are saying that they want to train workers in the clean energy sector, but they are investing billions of dollars in dirty energy. Clean energy workers do not need this bill. They need an employment insurance system that works.
We learned from the member for Thérèse-De Blainville that half of all workers are not covered by employment insurance. When I look at the federal government's investment strategies, and when I look at the Conservatives' plans, I am not sure I would want to apply to set up a wind turbine project. It has been so devalued.
What would it take? First, we need commitments and principles. This bill turns the process upside down and says that workers are going to be trained. It does not begin with what needs to come first. There is no commitment and there are no principles and no targets. It proposes solutions to a problem that has not been defined. Kafka himself could not have come up with this.
Next, we need a collaborative approach. They forget sometimes, but we are in a federation. There are provinces and municipalities. There are ecosystems in the labour market. There are communities, regions, workers, unions, employers, chambers of commerce and investors. There needs to be consultation. The democratic and civic process in the communities needs to be respected, but that is not covered in the bill. The bill provides that committees will submit reports, and it is not quite clear what will be done with those reports. We know that endless reports are issued here, and we know where they end up. They end up in a place where no one reads them. That is what will happen.
Once we have done all that, then we need measures to achieve the objectives. We need to think of the workers, the communities and the first nations communities. That is not happening at all. The provincial jurisdictions will need to be respected. There will need to be requirements for the planning and production of sectoral reports that cannot solely be the federal government's responsibility.
Labour law is under provincial jurisdiction. The workforce in Quebec has been under Quebec's jurisdiction since the 1990s. Everyone knows that. There are agreements, there is funding. It has not always been easy, but we have those things today. That is not reflected in the bill.
My take on this bill is that I do not doubt the intentions behind it, although given that the title completely eliminates the concept of the just transition, one can doubt the government's intentions. However, the whole thing feels improvised to me. The bill does not define a problem, yet it tries to find solutions. It is funny how the Liberals think a report is the solution to everything.
Since being elected, I have been bewildered to learn that committees work to submit reports to the government, and we vote on motions, but the government never reads them. Why, then, would it read the reports that are going to be produced under this bill? That is not plausible. That is where things stand.
The worst part is that the bill speaks to the government's utter ignorance, whether deliberate or not—if it is deliberate, then that is even worse—of Quebec's regional realities and Quebec's labour market. It is a bit like what happened with the early childhood centres. We are way ahead when it comes to skills training and collaboration on skills training. It seems like the federal government always waits 30, 40, 20 or 15 years. It dilly-dallies before eventually saying that Quebec is right and that it will try to push the other provinces to follow Quebec's example. That is precisely what is going on here. There will need to be asymmetry.
In the 1990s, Quebec voiced its demands on workplace skills training. In the 1990s, there were discussions about professional training, which led to federal transfers to Quebec for workplace skills training. This bill is on skills training, but Quebec does that, and it is good at it. If results matter, then the government should be consulting Quebec.
On June 22, 1995, the National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. Since then, Quebec has been in charge of workplace training. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, this reform is based on partnerships. In 1997, Quebec created the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail. This labour market partners commission repatriated active employment measures from the federal government to Quebec, and are working together to find innovative solutions, not just in green energy, but in all sectors, because every region of Quebec is different. Who are these people? The group brings together employers, employees, labourers, the education sector, universities, vocational training schools, community organizations and economic and social ministries that are familiar with Quebec's realities. It is working. Ottawa needs to stop ignoring that.
When we have immigration files in our ridings, we wait months for labour market surveys for each immigration file when those labour market studies have already been done in each region and in each sector. They are meant to determine what the needs are, what the needs will be in the future, how to plan and how to do things better. By deliberately ignoring Quebec with this bill, the government is saying that it does not want to do better. If Quebeckers want things to be better, they can vote for the Bloc Québécois, because we always defend Quebec's jurisdictions.
What should we do with this bill? We are thinking about it. It is not easy, but maybe something can be done with it. We are thinking it over. For starters, the government needs to listen to these concerns. It needs to consult Quebec. When we asked officials in committee if they consulted Quebec, they said it did not occur to them to do so. They turned red as ripe tomatoes, much like the tomatoes grown in my riding, which are redder than those grown elsewhere. When money is being allocated to implementing the strategies in the bill, Quebec will have to get its fair share. Negotiating labour agreements has never been easy.
Moreover, the government has to honour the Paris Agreement. It also has to honour the COP26 just transition declaration. The generally accepted term in the international community is “just transition”, which emphasizes the importance of making the energy transition and doing so in a way that serves everyone now, in all provinces and all communities, as well as future generations. As for the bill's title, my mouth dried out by the time I finished saying it. That is because someone is trying to hide something.
I think there is a lot of work to be done, and I invite all parties to take the blinders off and really consider Quebec's reality and its institutions. If objectives and achieving those objectives is so important, the government should take a step back and consult the Quebec government.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member has read the legislation, which has within it the creation of a council. That council, I believe, would be around 15 members. Within that council there would be appointments of different forms of stakeholders, everything from leading industrial personnel to labour representatives and other types of stakeholders who could really contribute to the development of that strategy. This would ultimately lead to a report on a five-year basis, the first one appearing in 2025.
Does that not fit many of the things the member was talking about in terms of having a strategy and looking to get the expertise coming forward? That, in essence, is what the legislation would do. It would ensure that Canada continues to generate good-quality middle-class jobs well into the future, dealing with green energy jobs.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call “Winnipeg-Northsplaining”.
When the Liberals introduced legislation for child care transfers, they asked us if we had read the bill. They told us there was money to fund child care so women could enter the labour market. They asked us if we had read it. They told us they had targets and funding. We told them it had already been done in Quebec. In fact, they were the ones who had not read Quebec's legislation.
Basically, the parliamentary secretary is telling us that he knows it is worthwhile because it already exists in Quebec and it works. The federal government still has this obsession with duplicating everything. Apparently, this government is allergic to efficiency.
When these councils were created in Quebec, I was not yet old enough to vote. Now, I am starting to think about retirement, and the parliamentary secretary has yet to read the Quebec legislation. I invite him to read it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one thing we heard at committee recently was that workers in the traditional energy sector have jobs that pay really well. Compare that to the jobs that will be and currently are created by green tech companies, whether in wind, solar or otherwise. On average, they pay about 36% less than what a traditional oil and gas worker earns. If this is a just transition would transfer people from job to job, does the member see anything in the bill that would ensure that the worker who is making money in oil and gas is going to be making the same amount when they are transitioned to a different job?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague has hit on something. He is asking whether we saw anything in the bill that will create jobs. There is nothing there. There is talk about reports by officials, people appointed from the “Liberalist” who will submit reports, and about things that have already been done. There is nothing there.
I know that this is difficult for people from Alberta and western Canada. They have a resource-based economy. They have good-paying jobs. I understand them. I sympathize with that. The Bloc Québécois is always asking the Conservatives to show some openness, to think about the long term, to discuss this issue. We are debating. We get along. We are able to disagree.
However, when the Liberals come here and say that they want to train people, set up boards and produce reports, they should perhaps put themselves in the shoes of an Albertan who is waiting for the just transition and who is waiting to be convinced. It does not help the environment to have a bill like this one in which the government is unable to define objectives and methods, in which the government is asking people to simply trust it. It is always a big risk to believe a Liberal who tells us to trust them.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we heard from representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which represents many energy workers across the country. The Conservatives did not ask them questions; they used their time to do a political stunt. When we talk to these workers, they are very concerned about their seat at the table because they know change is coming.
It is really important that we actually have legislation that is strong enough, because this is about the tax credits that would be going out. If the tax credits are done by these functionaries, who knows where this is going to be and how it is going to happen? Will the Bloc be willing to come forward with amendments?
We are looking for the New Democrats to have regional voices and working-class people represented, as well as having public NGOs and youth at the table. We do not want just industry, so that it would not just be a carve-out of pals but would actually ensure that the jobs being created are good, sustainable, long-term jobs, and that they represent our regions.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I agree. The point of my speech was to defend the very idea that the member for Timmins—James Bay raised. The trouble is that the NDP often talks about the importance of regional voices, but only until Quebec's jurisdictions come into play. In this case, regional voices and respecting regional voices means respecting Quebec, the agreements and the labour market partners commission, and integrating asymmetry.
If the other provinces decide that the framework presented in the bill suits them, and that reports might help them advance because these institutions bring together community stakeholders, the unions my colleague was talking about, if that does not exist in those provinces, then let them take the first step. However, this must never be done at the expense of recognizing what Quebec has already done. Why should we make an effort, advance, innovate and set an example if, every time the federal government is 20 years behind us, it decides not to recognize Quebec for its efforts?
I think that the NDP also needs to keep that in mind when we study this bill and make amendments to it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about what this legislation talks about, which is basically report after report. Ultimately, the first report would not be until 2025, which is over a year and a half away. That is when the report would come in to decide what the government may do down the road.
I am sure the member recognizes in Quebec how he wants to efficiently get Quebeckers to work doing the jobs, but that ultimately, just like with any project, they are being delayed just in coming up with the idea. After that, it is another six years to create the jobs that need to be created. That pushes things down the road continually.
I wonder whether the member would comment on how he sees that affecting Quebec workers and making sure that Quebec keeps its people employed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I am surprised we are having a Conservative opposition day where the Conservatives are asking the government to come up with a plan to balance the budget in eight days. They are saying that five years is too long. One has to be reasonable. It depends on the project. I can tell my colleague that most of what is in the bill already exists in Quebec. We do not need additional resources or bureaucracy, but we will need the money to implement whatever is decided.
Sometimes reports and consultation are needed. The right people need to be appointed in the right places. Unions, employers and educational institutions all need to be included. We have to do it right. We must also not rush to produce as many reports as possible as quickly as possible, only for them to be shelved. There has to be a balance between the amount of bureaucracy and the usefulness of it all. The usefulness of what is in the bill is greatly reduced in Quebec, if not non-existent, because we have already thought of all this. We are simply waiting for the resources to be able to do more.
Obviously, those resources are in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the tomatoes are the only red things in my colleague's riding.
Who does he think stands to gain from this? Why are we here? Why choose such an ambiguous title? Why put such gobbledygook in something that should be very sensible and straightforward?
Mr. Speaker, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.
I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to talk about this alleged just transition legislation brought forward by the Liberal government. Before we talk about this legislation, we should talk about the success of the Liberals with just transitions in the past, because they promised a just transition for coal workers. They said they were laser-focused on it and that anyone in the coal industry who was going to be displaced by their policies was going to get a just transition. They kept saying this, repeating it over and over again, making these false promises to coal workers.
Can we guess what? Those fake and false promises were actually discovered in the commissioner of the environment's independent auditor's report called “Just Transition to a Low-Carbon Economy”. The Auditor General looked at the just transition Liberals gave to coal workers, and let me summarize that it was garbage. They did absolutely nothing for coal workers.
Let us look at a couple of the excerpts in this report. One reads, “Overall, we found that Natural Resources Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada were not prepared to support a just transition to a low-carbon economy for workers and communities.”
This is what Liberals do. They try to beat up on energy-producing provinces with punishing policies, but then they say not to worry, that they are going to be there for them and that they are going to make sure it is a just transition. Those are false promises, much like Liberal promises on housing. They say that they are going to solve housing and that they have a housing accelerator, which is going to accelerate something. However, it accelerates nothing. Liberals come up with other programs where they just line Liberal insiders' pockets with gold, all at the expense of taxpayers, because they actually do not give a darn about the workers' jobs they are going to displace.
The Auditor General was really clear about this. Liberals had years to deliver a just transition for coal workers and did absolutely nothing. The Auditor General's report also states that the analysis is there was “No federal implementation plan”. Liberals said they had a plan. No, they misled Canadians. The Auditor General said there was no federal implementation plan.
The report also said that there was “No formal governance structure”. When one does not have a plan, there is actually not going to be any formal governance structure. They should have just said they have no plan, much the same as they have no plan on housing, the economy or combatting the opioid crisis. This should actually be called the “no plan transition”, because there is zero plan. The terrible thing is that there is also almost zero accountability from the government.
The final thing the Auditor General report stated was that there was “No measuring and monitoring system” put in place. Again, when one does not actually have a plan, when one just says to coal workers that it is too bad, that they are out of a job and that we do not give a damn, of course one does not put in a formal governance structure. One has no system to measure and monitor.
Then the Liberals have the audacity to come back to this place and say to Canadians that they have new legislation, because they care about workers and are going to give them a just transition. The only transition they gave to coal workers was to be out in the cold without a job. That is their plan as they once again beat up on Alberta and Saskatchewan and say that they are going to transition their workers out of jobs, but they are going to have some grand transition plan to take care of them. They did not take care of a single darn thing with coal workers.
Let us look briefly at something the Liberals say about this grand transition plan to take care of workers. They say that they are going to set up a council, to be known as the sustainable jobs partnership council. Its mandate is going to be providing the minister and specified ministers with independent advice through a process of social dialogue. That and $1.50 will buy a double-double at Tim Hortons, which is effectively what workers are going to get with this piece of legislation. The Liberals are going to set up a council. Wow, that is really ambitious.
I do not have a lot of faith in the government, because with anything it touches, it has the opposite of the Midas touch. Do members remember the Midas touch? It turns everything to gold. Everything those guys touch turns into garbage. They say they are going to set this up. I say, “Yeah, right.” They say they are going to do it in a couple of years. I say, “Yeah, right.” I can go back to how they treated coal workers. They treated them as I would not treat my worst enemy. They were indifferent. They set up no program, all the while saying that they were setting up a program and that they were going to take care of the workers.
That is called “gaslighting”, and the Liberals gaslight Canadians constantly. They actually do it on housing, too. We talk about housing, and the minister pops up, puffs up his chest and says that no one has done more for housing, that they have a housing accelerator and that they have this program and that program. However, housing prices have doubled. Rents have doubled, so when the Liberals say they are going to do something, we should actually believe that what they are going to do is cause harm. The policies they have brought in across this country are harmful, including the revolving door of the justice system. It does not really matter what crime someone commits, they are going to be out, because the Liberals reformed the bail system.
People who shot up the street one day are out a couple days later, because the Liberals changed bail. They said they were going to reform it to make things better. Now they want us to believe they are going to have a just transition that is going to make things better for oil and gas workers. No one should believe them, and that is not just because of their absolute failure on other things such as housing, criminal justice, the opioid crisis or the mental health crisis.
I remember when my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo had a bill to implement a three-digit suicide prevention number. The Liberals said they were going to help. It took two years to come up with a three-digit number. I know it is hard; it is three digits. They could not do it in two years, but now somehow they are going to plan a just transition with this unbelievable plan, the sustainable jobs partnership council. It is going to have some meetings, and it will be filled with Liberal list donors, just as they stack all the courts in this country with Liberal list donors. We can bet there is not going to be one person on this council who gives two craps about the oil and gas industry.
It is going to be packed full with their radical left-wing environmentalists. They will probably get the radical environment minister to put a bunch of his cronies on it, who will say they can heat their homes with hot air, like the hot air that comes from the government. They will not need oil and gas. We certainly will not have the electricity, because they do not have a plan to expand electricity generation or electricity distribution as they wipe out the oil and gas industry.
There will be no just transition for a single worker in this country under the current government. When the common-sense Conservative Party has a government, oil and gas workers will not have to be worried about being left out in the cold by a tyrannical, uncaring government. I can assure everyone of that.
Let us go back and look at some of the results from the Auditor General on the “Just Transition for Canadian Coal Power Workers and Communities”, because it is a page-turner of absolute incompetence. The government is incompetent in almost everything, but its members really took it to a new level. They worked hard to be extra incompetent for coal workers, and I should give them credit, because that level of incompetence is hard to get to.
Let us look at a couple of things. The Auditor General went through the federal commitments and programs the Liberals said they were going to do. There are 10 of them. Does anyone want to guess how many they actually came through on? It was four out of 10, and they are not even the ones that would actually do anything for workers; they are the easy ones such as having an interdepartmental meeting to talk about something.
As I just said, the Liberals then have the audacity to tell Canadians they are going to plan this transition for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where they basically have no seats. They do not care about the people there. They say they are going to plan the transition for them out of oil and gas, even though they left coal workers out in the cold, but they say not to worry because they are going to take care of it this time.
The finding under recommendation one was, “Natural Resources Canada had not led on the reporting on just-transition activities for coal workers and communities.” The Liberals did not report on the just transition activities for a single community. That is the first thing they did not do. Oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan should get ready.
Ronald Reagan said the scariest words that anyone can hear are, “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” If Ronald Reagan were alive today, living in Canada, and heard the words of the Liberal government, he would be bloody terrified. When Liberals say they are coming to help, people should run in the other direction. Oil and gas workers know not only that the Liberals do not have their backs, but also that they are going to push them over the cliff.
The finding under task force recommendation two said, “Natural Resources Canada had not yet developed the just-transition legislation.” Liberals were supposed to do it in 2019. Now they have done this great thing in 2023, four years later, the sustainable jobs partnership council, which they get two years to set up. They are four years behind, and they are going to set up a council that is going to take two years because that is really hard. Setting up a council is hard work. We know how hard these guys work. It is going to take two years to get that set up. It is unbelievable.
We also know that no one on that council is going to care about oil and gas workers. No one on that council is going to care about the effects on the economy for Alberta or the effects on the economy for Saskatchewan. The council is going to be packed with Liberal donors.
With judicial appointments, there is really one qualification to be a judge in Canada right now with the Liberal government, and that is whether the person donated to the Liberal Party. The Liberals check the list and, if a person donated, that is great, he or she is in. On something like this, hard-core Liberals, anti-oil, anti-Alberta and anti-Saskatchewan people are what this sustainable jobs partnership council would be stacked with. The Liberals were supposed to get it done four years ago, but it is going to take another two years, so we would be at six years.
Recommendation three was, “Establish a targeted, long-term research fund for studying the impact of the coal phase-out and the transition to a low-carbon economy.” The Liberals did not do it. I know everyone was holding their breath thinking maybe they did something, but they did not do it. Will they actually do anything in this legislation? This is the question we have to ask ourselves.
Human nature is that we look at the past record to determine what the future performance will be. As the Liberals did absolutely nothing for coal workers, we can anticipate that they will do absolutely nothing for oil and gas workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Why would they? Why do they care? They have absolutely no representation there. Well, they have one MP who seems pretty anti-Alberta from some of the statements he makes, so he might want to try to get a seat in Toronto Centre—Rosedale or something like that in the next election.
Recommendation five of what they were supposed to do was to “Create a pension bridging program for workers who will retire earlier than planned due to the coal phase out.” Did the Liberals do it? No, they did not. Coal workers get phased out, their pension is now going to be less, much like many of the Liberals' pensions are going to be less when they lose in the next election, but has anyone in the Liberal Party on that side apologized to coal workers, saying they promised they would bridge coal workers' pensions when they phased them out and they did not? Did they ever apologize? No, they did not. Why? They do not care because they are energy workers.
Now when Liberals tell energy workers in Alberta and Saskatchewan that they are going to phase them out, but not to worry because they will be there for them, I say that is a load of hooey. There is no way Liberals are going to be there for anyone.
Imagine the devastation for a worker in the energy sector who is phased out and then their pension is not bridged. That is bad enough, but guess what, when we look at a detailed, publicly available inventory with labour market information pertaining to coal workers such as skill profiles, demographics, locations and current and potential employers, since the Liberals ripped them off on pensions, they say that they are going to put together this database so that they can transition workers into new employment. That is okay, because maybe they'll get to punch in somewhere else. However, did they actually do that? No they did not. They stand here in this chamber, Liberal member after Liberal member, parroting that this is great. They bring in time allocation on debate on this after they literally screwed coal workers, and I tell members that they are going to do it again.
I would like to remind the member for Dufferin—Caledon as well as all members to be judicious in their use of language and remember that we should use language that is fitting to this chamber. I am certain the member could find other ways to describe what is going on.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. However, I think about what the Liberals did to those coal workers, that they did not get them jobs, that they did not bridge their pensions. These are people with families, they have children, they have mortgages and they have to buy food. The Liberals did all of that to them. I could say that they did it intentionally, because they did not run the programs, they never apologized and have not set up a single program since. So, I think that word actually applies. I will not say it again, but they should be ashamed of themselves. I can tell members that we will do everything—
[Translation]
It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[English]
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Monday, October 23, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, if you were to canvass the House I suspect you would find unanimous consent to call it six o'clock so that we can begin Private Members' Business.
[Translation]
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act
The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑280, An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (deemed trust – perishable fruits and vegetables), be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what I did to deserve such applause and support from my Conservative colleagues, but I appreciate it. Sometimes it is possible to be transpartisan when one has good ideas. I tip my hat to my dear friends.
It is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C‑280, which is extremely important for our farmers, particularly our fruit and vegetable growers. Bill C‑280 seeks to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act to put vendors of perishable products, such as fruits and vegetables, at the top of the list by holding the production value in trust. Perishable goods are a special case when a company goes bankrupt because the supplier cannot simply take back its goods and resell them. This measure is necessary and our farmers deserve it. The Bloc Québécois strongly supports Bill C‑280.
As a representative of Quebec's agri-food capital, I am obviously very concerned about the agricultural industry and its artisans. I often say that they hold the only occupation that we need three times a day. That is why I want to thank the hon. member for York—Simcoe, who is sponsoring this bill in the House, and my esteemed colleague and friend, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is co-sponsoring it.
I know how important it is for our two colleagues and all my Bloc Québécois colleagues to pass this bill quickly. The protective measure it will bring in is desperately needed across Quebec. We look forward to seeing it implemented. I share their eagerness to finally see our fruit and vegetable suppliers protected, so they can avoid seeing their crops go to the compost pile without being able to do anything about it. Not everyone in the House is quite as keen, despite the unanimous support this bill has received. We asked for unanimous consent to send Bill C-280 directly to the Senate, but unfortunately, some members would not give their consent.
This is a long-standing demand. The Liberals promised back in September 2014 to address this issue with the Canadian Produce Marketing Association if they were elected in 2015. They reiterated their commitment in 2016. The NDP and the Conservatives also made similar promises in their election platforms. It was also in their platforms in 2021, so I have to wonder why this has taken so long and why Bill C-280 could not be fast-tracked to the Senate.
We are now in 2023. The first promise was made in 2014 and we are in 2023. Better sooner than later, but better late than never. I am pleased to see that we are near our goal, especially given that the implementation of our protection will also help remove an irritant in our relationship with our American neighbours.
The sector's request of such a bill has been so strong since 2014 because on October 1 of that year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture revoked preferential access from its legislation for perishable agricultural products from producers here at home. Up until that point, Canadian and Quebec farmers were protected by this legislation in cases where American purchasers declared bankruptcy. Since Canada, for its part, did not have a trust mechanism for cases of buyer bankruptcy that could have protected American farmers, the U.S. decided to remove that security from Canadian suppliers. In short, they did that in response to a gap in our legislation.
Although an alternative process has been developed between the two countries, it is extraordinarily cumbersome, especially for smaller companies, which have to undertake the tedious process of filing a lawsuit. If they decide to take on this bureaucratic ordeal, they must post a bond worth double the amount claimed in the lawsuit, according to the Canadian Produce Marketing Association. Then they are in a pickle, if I may say so. I am not just using that expression because we are talking about produce. In short, they are in a pickle and the major buyers know it. As a result, companies are forced to negotiate downward with the buyer, because they would still rather receive a fraction of the value of the fruits of their labour than nothing at all.
The U.S. is demanding that Canada provide protection similar to that offered by the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act before it will again give Canadian producers access to its program. Passing the bill we have before us today will provide protection not only for our producers doing business domestically, but also, with a little good faith on the part of the U.S. administration, for those doing business with American buyers.
I just want to point out here that the U.S. Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act was adopted in the 1930s, so it is high time we adopted a similar mechanism.
I hope you will agree with me, Mr. Speaker, especially since you are my MP during House sitting weeks. I live in your riding while we are working here in Parliament. I hope you will hear my plea.
Over the course of many Parliaments, many committees have recommended implementing just such a measure. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which studied the bill, sent it back to the House without amendment. The committee approved it, with support from all the parties. Action on this is long overdue.
Before concluding, I want to make an aside and draw the House's attention to another issue related to food products and the difficulties that certain players in the supply chain may experience when a buyer goes bankrupt.
In my riding, there is a storage company that found itself in a difficult situation a few months ago. This company provides refrigeration and freezer services and serves as an intermediary in the transportation of perishable goods. After one of its clients went bankrupt, a bakery, the company ended up stuck with about 800 pallets of pies that did not belong to it. Since the bakery in question was under the authority of a trustee in bankruptcy at the time, the storage company could not dispose of the pies in any way. The situation went on for several weeks, causing major financial losses for the storage company since it could not get any income from the merchandise in question and it could not take on other contracts because the cargo was taking up half of its warehouse. The bakery finally hired a company to transport the stored merchandise, but that company was never paid for services rendered. The transportation company then turned to the intermediary, the storage company, for compensation for its losses, which put the storage company's financial viability at great risk.
At that point, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transport and his parliamentary secretary. That was before the cabinet shuffle. The letter was cosigned by the Bloc Québécois transport critic, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. We felt that the intermediary was also a victim of the situation, and we asked the minister to consider including a provision in the Bills of Lading Act that would protect intermediaries responsible for goods in specific cases involving bankruptcy of the original business. Such situations become even trickier when perishable goods are involved, and I would like to take this opportunity to get everyone thinking about this issue.
In closing, to get back to the subject of my speech, let us pass this bill without delay, as its co-sponsor entreated us.
Before we resume debate, I want to let the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot know that I am proud to be his MP.
The hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats support this bill and want to see it advance.
This bill has already been the subject of many committee studies. My colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford said recently that he has almost lost count of how many times, at different committees in different Parliaments, the bill has been considered. He went on to say that we have seen a recommendation for this type of measure to be enacted by the House of Commons.
The time is now. My NDP colleagues and I would like to see this bill pass through third reading to get to the Senate and start getting the traction it needs.
The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, and the thousands of people they represent want that too. They are waiting for action. I reiterate the news from the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, as well as the NDP caucus, that we look forward to the bill's speedy passage to the other place. We hope that it finds its way to the Governor General's desk to receive the royal assent quickly, because climate change is not waiting for government process.
Climate change is affecting growing seasons, shipping times and supply chains. It is contributing to Canada's ongoing infrastructure deficit. During the drastic flooding in B.C. due to an atmospheric river, B.C. got a first-hand view of how fragile Canadian supply chains are, because they rely on open roads, railways and ports. Let us add the black swan event of the global pandemic to supply chain challenges. Such black swan events are coming more often.
Since the start of the pandemic, it has been more difficult to transport goods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables, which have short lifespans and need just-in-time logistics. With small profit margins, alongside big impacts on food security, any wasting of food directly affects the bottom line of farmers and producers, and it limits how we get food on tables.
Many farmers in Canada are feeling the stresses of trying to make ends meet in this volatile business. They feel the pressure of feeding not only Canadians but also the world. Right now, the government does not have their backs when something out of their control affects their bottom line.
In Canada, we depend on farmers and producers to feed our communities. Food sovereignty is a life-or-death business, and we cannot leave farmers and producers without a safety net if we are serious about protecting food sovereignty in this country.
The fresh fruit and vegetable industry has been calling for support to prevent farms from going bankrupt because of the lack of protection. In the supply chain specifically, it would be very beneficial. Supply chains are becoming more and more unreliable because of climate change.
Food loss because of supply chain limitations cannot happen fully on the backs of those who grow and produce our food. We need farmers and producers to thrive so that people can eat healthy, affordable food. Food spoilage is not only incredibly expensive, but it is also harmful to the environment. It contributes to climate change. Farmers and producers need protection from that. The Liberal government needs to get serious about helping farmers reduce wasted food and recover from any losses that are out of their control.
Food waste alone increases carbon dioxide and biomethane emissions, contributing to a warming planet. With more droughts, fires and floods, farmers and producers become more susceptible to these events. It is more challenging to get food from farm to table. Producers, suppliers and retailers must all be supported and encouraged to help get food to tables. However, let us get back to the bill.
Farmers and producers of fresh fruit and vegetables are taking incredible risks and hits to their viability, with an increased risk of filing for bankruptcy. For example, Canadian producers and growers selling to markets in the United States once had equal access to payment protection under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. Since 2014, however, they have not been allowed to file a formal claim under PACA until after they post a bond of double the value of their original shipment. This is an expensive, risky ask when product shipments can be delayed and affected by many different points of the supply chain.
In addition, let us talk about the risks of natural water resources in Canada becoming scarcer. The amount of water and the number of water restrictions are putting a strain on farmers and producers, adding costs and risks to their businesses. They need government support as they deal with these mounting risks.
New Democrats have supported and will continue to support farmers and producers. In 2015, the New Democrats' federal election platform promised to “introduce a payment protection program for produce growers”, and we mean it, among other measures to keep farms in their stewards' hands and to allow those businesses to make the money they deserve. Protection for our farmers is critical.
Canadian farmers are essential workers. During the pandemic, they continued to work to keep our stores supplied. As large grocery store chains continued to make record profits, they downloaded costs and risks to their suppliers. Farmers and producers suffered, with no legislated support. That lack of a safety net needs to be corrected.
I will close by saying this bill is imperative to reduce the risk for farmers and producers and to assist them in remaining viable. As climate change continues to negatively impact food security and food sovereignty, we need our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, before I get started in speaking to this great bill, I really want to pass on that today is a very special day for our family. Today is my 38th anniversary. Hello to Leigh, wherever she is watching me.
I rise to speak to Bill C-280, the financial protection for fresh fruit and vegetable farmers act. I want to thank my colleague from York—Simcoe for introducing this piece of legislation in Parliament. I know that the member for York—Simcoe represents Holland Marsh, which is known as the soup and salad bowl of Canada. The reality is that Bill C-280 would not only be support for fruit and vegetable growers and producers in this region but also all across Canada. That is why I am so excited to support this bill today.
As a former farmer myself, I know that farming is not just a business, but it is a way of life for many Canadian families from coast to coast. This way of life is not an easy one. There are significant risks and uncertainties that farm families take on every year to grow food that feeds the world. Producers face many uncertainties every year, including unpredictable commodity prices, Mother Nature and the ability to obtain revenue for their product. Producers are forced to work within a very limited growing cycle and one bad year could put the family farm business at risk.
One of the most significant things that can impact a producer is when a purchaser of their product declares bankruptcy. When a buyer declares bankruptcy, the impacts to the producer can be devastating. Many of the farmers I represent are grain, pulse and cattle farmers. While this bill would not directly impact them, they understand the importance of protecting producers from the insolvency of businesses that purchase their product.
When I was a young farmer, a few years ago, I was in a situation where our local grain buyer became insolvent. The situation was made worse for our farm and others in the area because the insolvent party was not only buying our product but was also selling us inputs for the next year's crop. Preventable moments like this put undue stress on family farm businesses. Because of the seasonal nature of farming, farmers plan months and years in advance to keep their businesses operating.
Therefore, when a buyer who is the main purchaser in an area suddenly goes insolvent, this puts undue stress on the entire area. By the way, we are talking about an area the size of P.E.I. That is how big the purchaser of our product was and it did take down the whole region. I am sure members can imagine the uncertainty for this entire area and the undue stress it would have put on farm families. Pricing everything else accordingly while simultaneously tracking inputs so that a farmer can maintain a cost coverage to keep profitable is enough of a challenge. Adding bankruptcy, an entirely separate issue, to the equation can create a whole range of complications, crippling farmers without warning.
The way the value chain is designed, it requires the farmer to have a buyer and contracts in place before they even step into the field. That means they need to enter negotiations on how much they will sell their pound of product for, without any guarantee that they will grow a crop. That means the Canadian farmer is forced to be all in. They can do everything right. They can get the product to the buyer's doors and then not get paid for the product. It is a devastating blow for anyone when they do not get paid for the hard work they do every day. While the current mechanisms within the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act may be suitable for the wider agriculture industry and other sectors, the current approach does not work when fresh produce buyers become insolvent.
Fruits and vegetables are perishable. The shelf life of these products is not long. This is why the risk of the buyer becoming insolvent is so much more devastating to fruit and vegetable producers. Their products can rarely be recovered because they will have already spoiled. Without the ability to recover the product or access current mechanisms in the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, fruit and vegetable producers can face a significant loss that could very easily put them out of business. Imagine the effect this would have on a producer's insurance, their farm and their family. There are only so many hits one can take before the ship starts to sink.
The uncertainty of producers not being paid for their products is very real, but it is also avoidable if we pass this bill into law. Members do not need to just take my word for why this legislation is needed. They can listen to the Canadian fruit and vegetable producers who have rallied behind Bill C-280 in support.
Jan VanderHout, the president of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, stated that this will have a very positive impact on our national food supply, lowering cost to consumers.
The chair of the Canadian Produce Marketing Association stated that, for too long, Canadian produce growers and sellers have shouldered the financial risk when selling their products. The challenges of the pandemic and the massive increases in costs they have experienced over the past few years have put many in an even more vulnerable position. He hopes that all members of Parliament will vote in favour of this important piece of legislation to support the long-term viability of their sector and send a message to their growers and sellers that we have their backs.
While I said there are reasonable protections for producers, there is a lack of protection for them within the banking industry itself. I believe that too often business people, with no understanding of how the agriculture industry operates, undertake uncalculated risks that could undermine the survival of the farms they do business with. That is why I am so grateful to my colleague for bringing this bill forward in the House of Commons and why I am so proudly supporting it.
As a lifelong farmer, I know that many farmers have faced challenges where they wished there was a mechanism in place to protect from the devastation of an insolvent buyer. It would allow producers to have more protection from the buyers who hold their very livelihoods in their hands. Bill C-280 would build that certainty into the financial landscape. This increased certainty would allow for reduced produce costs that could be passed on to the grocery cart of Canadians. With food inflation limiting how many fresh fruits and vegetables Canadians can afford, reduced costs are needed now more than ever.
This bill is a practical solution to a very serious problem. Farmers should not have to fear being shortchanged when their buyer goes insolvent. It is a common sense approach for the common people who feed our country and the world. The bottom line is that our agriculture producers need to get paid for what they grow. Anytime that system breaks down, the stabilization of the entire food supply is at risk. If we do not pass this bill, we are continuing to set up our fruit and vegetable producers for failure.
Now, more than ever, it is critically important that we send this very clear signal to our agriculture producers across the country. The NDP-Liberal government has neglected farmers for far too long. By passing Bill C-280, it has a chance to stand with Canadian producers for once.
In closing, I want to mention that one of Canada's newest vegetable producers, Vermillion Growers, earlier this year opened a state-of-the-art tomato greenhouse in Dauphin, Manitoba. The folks at Vermillion Growers are working tirelessly to become a leader in growing fresh, local produce that will feed Canadians across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to talk about Bill C-280, which was first introduced by the member representing the soup and salad bowl of Canada. I know you said not to come up with new riding names, but I think the hon. member appreciates it in this particular case. I would like to thank the member for getting the process started and for the important steps that have already been taken on the way to getting the bill through the parliamentary process.
The aim of the bill is to help our fruit and vegetable growers by reducing the financial risks they face. Growers and farmers work hard, take risks and provide Canadians with healthy produce. Furthermore, growers do not get paid in many cases until their produce goes through numerous steps of a long supply chain to get to the consumer. This is risky from a financial perspective, as the bankruptcy or insolvency of any of the players along the supply chain may result in the grower not getting paid.
The government has taken important steps to make things better for growers and farmers. One example is the passing of the safe food for Canadians regulations in 2018. However, the risk is not completely gone and we can still do more. We heard a lot from witnesses during the bill's study at the agriculture committee that our growers and farmers still face the problem of non-payment if a link in the supply chain becomes bankrupt or insolvent, which is a real risk already, given the tight profit margins. In short, this is why we are supporting Bill C-280.
We in the House agree that this bill is a good idea, but as we heard during the study of it at committee, it is not perfect and there are issues that the government and this House should continue to monitor to ensure that we maximize the bill's potential to assist growers. I note two issues in particular: first, the impact of the bill on access to affordable credit for growers and sellers and the fresh produce supply chain, and second, the potential for the bill to restore Canada's preferential access to the formal dispute resolution process under the United States' Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the PACA, which regulates the fresh produce sector and provides financial protection for sellers.
In committee, members heard from a witness who was concerned that the changes made by the bill might make banks less willing to give loans, or they might charge more when lending to fresh produce sellers. This is because the bill would change the creditor priority in insolvency, and such changes could cause lenders to react with high credit costs or lower availability to compensate for higher risks of non-payment.
This witness had extensive experience in the fresh produce industry in both Canada and the United States, and his concerns stemmed from the impact that the PACA had south of the border. He explained to the committee that in his experience, U.S. lenders reduced crucial operating credit lines for produce sellers or required additional security, because the PACA deemed trust is paid ahead of all other loans and lines of credit in a bankruptcy or other payment default. It is important to note that the Canadian Bankers Association also raised this when the Department of Industry consulted on this issue several years ago. However, this was a minority view at committee, and most fresh produce industry representatives downplayed these credit risks. The committee gave appropriate weight to their assessment, given their knowledge and experience.
I am noting the concern here to invite the government to monitor the situation in the months following the entry into force of the legislation so that corrective measures can be taken in a timely manner if Canadian lenders decide to take the same approach as U.S. lenders. Industry witnesses before the committee emphasized the importance of trade credit to the fresh produce supply chain and, as such, I believe we will want to make sure the bill achieves its intended objectives.
A second issue to consider is getting back Canada's preferential access under the PACA. Before 2014, Canadians, like Americans, could use the PACA for free. Unfortunately, in 2014, the U.S. rescinded Canada's preferential access.
At this stage, we do not know for sure if passing Bill C-280 will result in PACA access being restored, and as far as I know, parliamentarians were not provided with any direct confirmation from the United States. While the committee heard from industry representatives that they believed restoration was likely in that case, this is another area where attention should be paid at the implementation stage. I trust that the government will do all it can to ensure that Bill C-280 leads to the restoration of preferential PACA access should the bill become law and will monitor the situation closely and on an ongoing basis.
Finally, I would like to reiterate the point made by my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants. Seemingly small legislative adjustments such as Bill C-280 can have significant positive impacts on our agricultural community. We should look for other opportunities to help our farmers and growers through regulatory and legislative tweaks, which could have positive impacts without adding more to the budget. The member from Kings—Hants mentioned streamlining regulatory approvals for agricultural products as one example. I look forward to hearing more about this and other ideas from the members of our agricultural community, including the parliamentary secretary, who is very enthusiastic about all things agricultural.
In summary, Bill C-280 is a good step toward supporting our hard-working fresh fruit and vegetable growers and making sure Canadians continue to have healthy food on the table. Let us also keep watching to make sure the bill reaches its potential.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this evening to speak to Bill C-280, which was introduced by the member for York—Simcoe. He sits next to me here in the House, and he is certainly not afraid to make his voice heard when it comes time to defend our produce growers. The Bloc Québécois is pleased to join him in his efforts.
Many members of the Bloc Québécois would have liked to sponsor this bill. I am thinking, for example, of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé or the member for Salaberry—Suroît. I, too, could have introduced this bill, because there are a lot of produce growers in my riding of Mirabel. The bill could have also been introduced by the member for Joliette or the member for Repentigny. In short, we all care a lot about this issue.
I therefore want to thank my colleague. There are some nice moments in Parliament when we can say that we are working together to do important things. Perhaps this should have been done sooner. This also reminds us of the importance of private members' bills, because they are inspired by what we see on the ground, by the people and businesses in our ridings. It reminds us of the fundamental work that members must do on the ground. I truly commend my colleague and, obviously, he is invited to come visit the maple capital of the world, Mirabel, any time he likes.
Produce growers, meaning fruit and vegetable producers, are still facing major challenges that continue to grow. We have talked about production costs, the cost of fertilizers and raw materials, and the declining demand for certain niche products as people struggle to afford things that can sometimes be perceived as luxuries at the grocery store.
We have talked about the Conservatives running deficit after deficit when they were in government. Things went from bad to worse under the Liberals. They are the kings of deficits. We have talked about bargaining power. Sometimes, small producers have to negotiate with resellers.
Bad weather is also a factor. I met some produce growers this summer as part of the Canada summer jobs program. I visited some businesses. I met Léanne and Vincent from the Entre Ciel et Terre farm in Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Plaines, Stéphanie from the Complètement légume farm in Saint‑Augustin, and Cinthya from Tierra Viva Gardens in Saint‑Augustin.
As we walked around the plots, they told us that they had lost 100%, 50% or 75% of this or that crop because of the rains. These people do not make a lot of money. They are true artisans. This serves as a reminder, and we cannot stress this enough, of the need for compensation programs here in Ottawa. However, that file is not moving forward quickly.
We can talk about the difficulties associated with climate change, bad weather, labour shortages, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and the issue of temporary foreign workers, which creates challenges for our businesses. Then, there is foreign competition, obviously.
It is important to protect these companies when they sell their produce to resellers. How does the current system work? The member for York—Simcoe helped me gain a better understanding of how it works when someone is a fruit and vegetable grower.
Say that an American grows apples and sells them to a grocery store, to a reseller. If the grocery store goes bankrupt, this American has protection. He is registered as a supplier and, if the grocery store goes bankrupt, the government recognizes the fact that, since the supplier has not been paid, these fruits and vegetables belong to him and he is immediately reimbursed. That is the American system. Until 2014, Canadian and Quebec producers benefited from this system because they could sell their produce in the United States. If they sold to a grocery store in the U.S. and the grocery store or chain went bankrupt, they could get reimbursed the same way. This meant that we were relying on the Americans to protect our own producers.
In 2014, the Americans looked at what Canada was doing and found that Canada was in bad shape, that it had a terrible approach. They realized that their producers would not be protected if they sold their produce in Canada. If a Canadian grocery store or reseller went bankrupt, the producers would not get paid unless they went through an extremely costly process, which no small producer would go through if they could avoid it. Logically speaking, our own farmers were not protected either. The Americans told us to wake up, smarten up and protect our farmers and theirs so that there could be some sort of reciprocity.
In 2014, when the Americans tried to clue us in and told us that they were sick of protecting our farmers for us, they thought this would make the Canadian government sit up. They thought they were alerting Canada to take action. What has happened since? Cue the crickets, because nothing happened. The federal government did nothing. Now our farmers are no longer protected either in the United States or here at home. That is tough.
In 2016, we had a new Prime Minister who said, “Canada is back”. That was two years later. He went to the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada and promised to get Canadian farmers back into this U.S. program, which would require Canada to adopt certain measures. Then the same old thing happened that always happens with the federal government when things are urgent: it waited and waited and waited.
Today, a courageous MP decided he would table these changes in the government's place. All of us members who have farmers in our riding are proud of that. We are proud to support him. We think this bill should have been fast-tracked directly to the Senate. We think there should not have been any nonsense. We think that there has been enough nonsense since 2014, and this process should have gone faster.
Right now, if our farmers want help, there are mechanisms. For example, in the United States, they have to file suit. There is a mechanism requiring them to pay a deposit worth twice the amount of the claim. They do not have the means to do that. The idea is to deter them so they never get paid for their fruits and vegetables and the products they sold to a reseller. It is disrespectful to the farmers who feed us and feed our cities. I want to stress that part for those who do not represent agricultural ridings. We are all connected to those farmers in some way.
Not only is it disrespectful, but it is also completely out of touch with the reality of being a farmer. Farmers have plenty to do without having to go to court, hire lawyers and waste their time on administrative procedures. Farmers are on the ground, dealing with all the problems I listed. They are in the fields, the orchards and the greenhouses. They take care of their businesses and their workers. They deal with temporary foreign worker applications while Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada takes its sweet time and the federal government does nothing to make the system better. That is what they do.
This bill will make their lives easier. It is going to restore justice. It is going to reduce the risks they bear in one of the riskiest sectors on the market. As we can see, it is getting harder and harder to attract new farmers, because it is not easy work. I want to thank the bill's sponsor for making all this easier for our farmers.
The bill will make the buyer of these products liable for the value of the shipment. The shipment will not belong to the buyer until the invoice has been paid. There will be a kind of priority list so that, if the person who has ordered agricultural products but has not paid their invoice goes bankrupt, the producer will be assured of getting paid without much trouble.
Right now, the system says that farmers have the right to get paid. Fifteen days after the bankruptcy, they have the right to recover the goods that were sold 30 days before. Do members see how little sense that makes for the agricultural industry? If any member of the House is opposed to this bill, I would challenge them to eat a 45-day-old salad or some withered old strawberries or blueberries. They can do it in the lobby and I will film it.
Under the current system, what we are telling farmers is to take back their rotten produce. That is how we are treating them. The current system is rotten. It needs to be changed. We need to move forward on this. This bill needs to move forward. The Senate needs to pay close attention to this so that this bill is passed quickly.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable growers should be paid for the fruit and vegetables they grow, full stop. Bill C-280 will ensure that fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers are not unduly disadvantaged by the bankruptcy of a produce buyer.
The deemed trust established by this bill will also support the highly integrated produce trade between Canada and the United States. Farmers and other suppliers in Canada have been pushing for these measures for almost 20 years. The absence of a deemed trust has cost produce suppliers their farms and livelihoods and has jeopardized our domestic food security. With Bill C-280, we can finally change that.
This is a common-sense Conservative bill that has been supported by all parties in this House. I want to thank all members for that, especially the Conservative shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, the member for Foothills; the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Kings—Hants; the member for Berthier-Maskinongé; and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for their support. It goes to show the cross-country support this bill has.
Bill C-280 will provide financial protection measures for those growing fruits and vegetables from coast to coast to coast. This includes asparagus in Quebec, sweet potatoes in Nova Scotia, and carrots in the soup and salad bowl of Canada, home to the Holland Marsh in my riding of York—Simcoe. Of course, this week we saw the leader of the official opposition clearly loved the Ambrosia apples in the great province of British Columbia. How about those apples?
I am also grateful to Ron Lemaire and Shannon Sommerauer from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Quinton Woods from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Fred Webber from the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, Jody Mott from the Holland Marsh Growers' Association, and of course, my number one staff in Ottawa, Patrick Speck, who worked tirelessly on this bill with me, as well as my staff in the riding: Jennifer, Michael and Carol.
My thanks to Suzanne, my wife. I told her that it would all be worth it, all the long days and nights here in Ottawa, which I know all members can appreciate.
It is time we get this over the line. I urge members to support Bill C-280 when this is voted upon next week. I trust that legislators in that other place with the red carpet, who can be a little slow sometimes, will deal with it promptly, given the multi-party support for these measures. Like we say in York—Simcoe, “Be ready, Senators”.
Too often Canadians, especially rural Canadians, think we cannot work together in this place. They think we cannot get anything done and they believe that whatever is accomplished does not have any relevance to or impact on their lives. In rural communities, people band together every day. They are the foundation of what it means to be Canadian. They want to see this place work for them, they want to see the way it works for one another. I firmly believe that Bill C-280 sends a message to every produce farmer and supplier that we understand the issues they face and that we are committed to addressing them.
The hard work of passing this bill is nothing compared to the boots in the muck in the Holland Marsh, which all farmers face right across Canada, but I can tell colleagues this. We are going to get behind them with this bill. We are going to get it done. Let us get Bill C-280 passed for the farmers right across Canada.
The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to follow up on a question I raised in the House on September 29. As we all do in this place, I value the time that I get to spend on the ground with my constituents.
It is only outside of the Ottawa bubble and with the workers of this country that parliamentarians can truly appreciate the challenges Canadians are facing and the sacrifices they are making, especially at this time, to keep our economy afloat. I saw this on full display this summer and fall as I travelled in my riding of Yorkton—Melville.
At harvest time, farmers and producers are at work from well before the sunrise to well into the night. They do what it takes to get the job done. They form the backbone of our economy. Their success is Canada’s success.
In turn, setbacks that they face create a ripple effect across our country and, indeed, across the globe. We live in Canada. I come from Saskatchewan. As all my constituents know, especially the farmers and ranchers that I represent, winter comes upon us quickly and lasts a long time.
Farmers and producers, therefore, meticulously plan out their year to account for the unpredictability of weather, supply chains and yields. However, there are often matters outside of their control.
Right now, they are facing a critical shortage of feed for their breeding herds after a year of drought. Precipitation remained well below normal throughout this summer, particularly in western Saskatchewan. As a result, moisture deficits have taken a critical toll on pastures and forage ranges. Livestock producers face tough choices.
Some may even have to sell a portion of their herds to sustain the remainder through the winter. However, this is not an option for all producers. If they do not have the means or the source to feed their animals in the short term, herds will suffer, and Canadians will face food shortages and higher prices. Ranching families could face business failures.
For months now, the Saskatchewan Cattlemen’s Association has been just one group sounding the alarm, asking the federal and provincial governments to step up with their share of the AgriRecovery relief, to help livestock producers navigate the extraordinary burden they take on when natural disasters occur.
The Government of Saskatchewan can be praised for its concern and fast action to protect Canada’s food security and the livelihoods of our ranching communities. Two months ago, it committed $70 million, or $80 per head, to sustain breeding stocks. However, the silence from the federal government has been deafening.
It has yet to commit its share of AgriRecovery funding. My constituents are rightly raising some difficult questions. Is Ottawa ignoring them? Does the government want them to fail? Has it forgotten about them or, by some calculation, determined that there is no need for assistance?
As their voice in this place, let me be very clear: There is an urgent need here and time is running out. I am asking again today for the Government of Canada to immediately make available its share of AgriRecovery funding, $120 per head, which will sustain precious breeding herds into the winter. The government must do its part to ensure that families from coast to coast have continued access to the high-quality food Saskatchewan’s livestock producers provide.
I understand that the federal government and the Province of Saskatchewan have been in consultation and were working on a review to determine how AgriRecovery could best assist the livestock industry. I must say, respectfully, that Saskatchewan has stepped up.
The time for consultation is long over. The government has pointed farmers and ranchers to the support available through this program as the answer in the past, and yet, it has not acted now.
My constituents go above and beyond to feed our country. They deserve the courtesy of a straight answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since this is my first chance to take part in a discussion with you in the chair, I want to congratulate you on your new role. I want you to know that you have my full respect and confidence, as is my duty as an MP.
[English]
I want to thank my colleague from Yorkton—Melville for this opportunity to talk about our support for producers in Saskatchewan who are impacted by severe drought conditions.
Our hearts go out to producers during these extremely challenging times. With winter coming, cattle producers are facing difficult decisions about their herds, and many producers have suffered lower grain yields because of drought. We are talking about the cumulative damage of multiple years of drought on pastures and forage production, leading to low feed supply for livestock producers.
To address the member's question, the federal government is working as quickly as possible with the Saskatchewan government on AgriRecovery, and we will have more to say on this very soon.
AgriRecovery allows federal, provincial and territorial governments to work together when natural disasters like this occur. Just so the producers understand, this is not a federal- or provincial-only decision. Both the province and the federal assessors get together and make an assessment based on the AgriRecovery framework they have both signed on to, with a five-year agreement, to say yes, this is a natural disaster or drought that has impacted our producers, and they work within that framework. We have a lot of experience, unfortunately, with the B.C. floods and with hurricane Fiona. In fact, this is something that both provincial assessors and federal assessors have too much experience with because of climate change disasters.
Producers can help write down this income by claiming the cost of buying new breeding animals for the following year. This will reduce the tax burden from the original sale. Again, the goal is to help producers who are facing difficult herd management decisions.
Saskatchewan producers also have access to all of our business risk management programs. Business risk management programs are the first line of defence for producers facing disasters like this one. Our government has already supported Saskatchewan's request for an increase to the interim payment rate of AgriStability from 50% to 75%. We have increased the compensation rate for AgriStability from 70% to 80%, starting with the 2023 program year. That means more support in times of need. We have also partnered with the province on a one-year adjustment to the AgriInsurance program to make more drought-damaged crops available for feed. The vast majority of Saskatchewan producers enrolled in forage insurance have received payments, and 60% of their premiums are covered by the federal government.
My message is that our government is here for Saskatchewan farmers. They deserve and have our unwavering support.
I have been to Saskatchewan. The minister has been to Saskatchewan. We will always have the backs of our farmers and cattle producers. We know they are going through a rough time. I know the member is advocating for her constituents, and I respect that. We will have good news to share with members very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the kind words, but they are not enough. Producers are desperate right now. The Province of Saskatchewan has come forward, so there must be some kind of an agreement in place. This money is cash flow they need to move forward. We are in October. We are talking about a desperate need for food for breeding cattle.
The time for federal assistance has long passed. I am tired of hearing “It's coming soon”. It is not coming soon. Saskatchewan's cattlemen and livestock producers need a federal government that is there for them during these hard times. This is one of those hard times. They are not new to drought, but this is very desperate.
I know the minister is an experienced member of cabinet. He has served in this role before. I know he is aware of the essential role that cattle and all livestock play in the health of our grasslands, the health of our environment, our food security and Canada's trade with the world. Producer families rely on providing excellent food to the world, and our economy relies on their success.
The cost of food has already crippled the ability of countless families to make ends meet. We need the government to step up now.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's comments. Obviously with AgriRecovery, it is not a provincial or federal decision. It is a decision made by the federal and provincial governments, as we have done with B.C., as we have done with P.E.I. and as we have done with Nova Scotia. The timeline will be the same. We will respect both timelines.
I know when folks are facing a crisis, it can never be quick enough. However, I assure my hon. colleague that the minister and our government have the hearts of cattlemen and livestock producers in Saskatchewan in mind. We will have a timely response in due time.
Mr. Speaker, on October 5, when speaking to the issue of foreign interference in Canada, I asked the government to enlighten the House about whether there has been any credible or clear evidence for the government to stand up for Canadians and combat foreign interference by the Chinese Communist Party, or has it decided to embark on a diversionary conflict with another country?
Today, we have seen real and actual evidence come forward outlining foreign interference in Canada by Chinese and Iranian operatives. There are Canadian citizens who have come to Canada from these two communities and who have been subjected to intimidation, to stalking and to being threatened.
After months of delaying and refusing to acknowledge the existence or the extent of the activities of foreign operatives, the government botched the creation of a selective public inquiry led by a former governor general. After that debacle, we saw the establishment of the Hogue inquiry, which appears to operate more in secret than do foreign operatives. Meanwhile, Canadians continue to be left in the dark.
Furthermore, Canadians are wondering why there has been such a prolonged reluctance by the government to own up to the existence of foreign interference. It is not an entirely new phenomenon. Is the governing party somehow in on it? Is there some kind of benefit to turning a blind eye? The setting up of Chinese police stations really should have been a good clue on foreign interference. Additionally, media reports about Iranian Canadians being stalked and threatened would have been another dead giveaway.
While the government continues to drag its feet with respect to getting to the bottom of foreign interference in Canada, it has moved to muddy the waters even more by launching an attack on another democracy over the murder of a Canadian Sikh leader in British Columbia. Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the New Democratic Party have indicated that they have either credible or clear evidence allegedly pointing to another democracy. However, Canadians have a great deal of support for the rule of law and for due process. One would think that rather than spout unsubstantiated claims of what they allegedly possess on the case, these two political leaders would also have such belief in Canadian law. In fact, if they possess any evidence, they have a duty to provide it to the appropriate authorities who are investigating this horrible crime. They do not have the authority to utter questionable statements. They do have a responsibility to present the evidence, and a Canadian court will decide on its value.
Canadian political leaders cannot supplement our justice system and become judge, jury and executioner. Nor can they bring Canada's foreign reputation into question. Such irresponsible action has caused real economic, trade and transit problems for Canadians, as well as a diplomatic war of expulsions that soured our relations within another country. Conversely, given the speed of the unfounded accusations and lack of real evidence, Canadians would have loved to have seen such zeal for combatting Iran, China and the foreign interference from them.
Perhaps, in the political rush by both the Liberal Party and the NDP to garner Sikh votes in British Columbia, all rational, legal and diplomatic thought went out the window. Besides, as they say, never let the facts interfere with a possible election victory.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government of Canada takes any allegation of foreign interference extremely seriously. The minister has personally engaged with Chinese counterparts on this issue, as the hon. member well knows, and we will never tolerate any form of foreign interference in Canada.
As my hon. colleague is aware, in May of this year, after careful consideration, we declared persona non grata Mr. Zhao Wei, who held the position of consul at the consulate-general of the People's Republic of China in Toronto. In August, our government publicized information about a disinformation campaign on WeChat that targeted the member of Parliament from Wellington—Halton Hills. This campaign centred on spreading false narratives about his identity, including commentary and claims about his background, political stances and family heritage.
We assessed that it was highly probable that China played a role in this campaign, and we raised strong objections about this activity with China's ambassador to Canada.
Over the past year we have also raised strong objections with China's ambassador regarding the overseas police stations in Canada and demanded their closure. The RCMP has reported that these stations are no longer operational, and the RCMP is the right authority to act on that, not politicians.
Foreign interference emanating from China and other countries is a significant danger to Canada's sovereignty, prosperity and social fabric. We will continue to do everything that is necessary to protect Canadians from this threat. Canada will continue to uphold global laws that have ensured global stability since the end of the Second World War, and we will continue to work with our allies on this.
Canada remains firm in our resolve that defending Canada's democracy is of the utmost importance. We have stated time and time again that foreign interference activities in Canada are in violation of Canada's sovereignty and are unacceptable. The government, our government, will continue to choose the most effective tools from the wide range of options at our disposal to properly combat foreign interference.
As the hon. member knows, there is an ongoing public inquiry on foreign interference with a focus on examining and assessing interference by China, Russia and other actors, in our last two federal elections. Our government has also established a national counter-foreign interference coordinator and office within Public Safety Canada, which includes oversight for economic security. As he knows, budget 2023 allocated $13.5 million for this purpose. The same budget allocated $48.9 million to the RCMP over three years to help protect Canadians against harassment and intimidation from authoritarian regimes.
We will continue to work with allies. The fact that there is foreign interference, whether it is in Canada, the U.S. or other allied countries, is not new. We must continue working with our allies. We will continue to work with our proper authorities, like the RCMP, whether they are CSIS, CSE or our other security agencies across Canada, to ensure that foreign interference is not present in Canada, but we must continue working with our allies across the world.
Mr. Speaker, I have to applaud my Liberal colleague for his willingness to engage in revisionist history.
When it came to declaring the diplomat persona non grata, the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the right thing. We had to hear from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who first revealed the fact that he was targeted, before there was enough outrage and uproar for the government to finally get around to doing something, and when the Liberals did it, their statement was almost apologetic to the Chinese Communist Party. It is as if the Trudeau government thinks Canadians do not know—
I know the member is relatively new to politics, but he is still an experienced member. I hope he could rephrase his question.
Mr. Speaker, it is as if the Liberal government thinks Canadians do not know any better and that, if its members repeat something enough times, Canadians will just believe it.
The reality is that there are Canadians, whether of Iranian heritage, of Chinese heritage or of a number of diaspora communities, who are at risk, have been intimidated or are being threatened. They have raised those concerns, and all they have been met with is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of good talk and no action.
Mr. Speaker, obviously the Government of Canada will always defend Canadian citizens. This is not partisan. This is its job.
Foreign interference is an issue. It is not unique to Canada but happening in a superpower such as the U.S., in France and in the U.K. We must always work with our allies to ensure that foreign influence, whether from China, Russia or Iran, is combatted among and with our allies. That is the only way we will be successful in making sure that foreign interference is gone from Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I rose on September 20 on behalf of farmers in northwest British Columbia in an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to come to their aid immediately after a disastrous summer that had affected many family farms.
This goes back to the spring. Farmers knew very early on that there was a problem, because their crops of hay were not growing. By July, they knew how bad this problem was. In fact, after months of a class-five drought, farmers were in a situation where they were getting as little as 10% of their normal hay harvests. We have seen this across all the western provinces.
I wrote to the former minister of agriculture back in July, appealed to her, raised this issue and asked for immediate help for farmers who were in a crisis. We were losing family farms. We were seeing farmers have to sell off their herds. We did not hear back from the minister.
Then I met with the current Minister of Agriculture on September 19, told him about the situation and asked where the help was. He said that he had not even heard about the crisis and was not aware of any application from British Columbia. Of course, that application had been sitting on his desk for months.
I do not want to hear that help will be coming soon or that the government is working on it. My question for my hon. colleague across the way is this: On what day will farmers in northwest British Columbia finally get the support from the federal government that they deserve?
Mr. Speaker, obviously, when farmers go through droughts or climate change events, it is serious. Unfortunately, they are going through this too often.
The good news, although it is unfortunate, is that whether provincial or federal assessors, they are getting too used to assessing climate change events through the AgriRecovery programs. As my hon. colleague would know, with respect to AgriRecovery, when a request is made, the province will send a letter to the federal government asking for an assessment. The province and the federal government will do the assessment together and assess whether it fits into the framework.
The hon. member knows that there are business risk management programs. Farmers already have access to that through the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership program. I know he knows that. Whether farmers go through a climate change event, have a bad year or have a bad crop, whatever the reason for it, they already have access to the business risk management program.
After that, when the risk gets higher, if it is shared among other farmers, then the province gets access to the AgriRecovery framework. As I explained, the province would write a letter to the federal government requesting an assessment that they would do jointly as to whether it does respect the framework they have assigned.
For instance, I know the hon. member would know about the B.C. floods a few years ago. Many farmers went through hardships. I know many dairy farmers did. I was in the Fraser Valley, which was flooded, where farmers were growing fruits and vegetables. Some were raising livestock, which unfortunately had to be killed because of the major floods that happened. With respect to public safety, the province and the federal government worked together, and then AgriRecovery kicked in to ensure that the other losses that were not covered by the regular programs would have covered the existent losses that farmers were not eligible for through existing programs.
I can assure the member that, whether it is with respect to the B.C. floods or the hurricane in P.E.I. and Nova Scotia, the timeline will be respected. I know that when farmers are facing a crisis, it can never be fast enough. It is the same thing with insurance; when we are facing a crisis, it can never be fast enough. However, I assure you that the federal government and the B.C. government take to heart the fact that farmers are facing a crisis and will be there with good news to tell B.C. farmers in the northern part of the province. Farmers will be happy with the results.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind members that when comments are made, they are addressed through the Chair. It was just a small comment the member made.
The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the three dairy farmers who had to sell their farms are going to be happy with the results. I do not think the many beef farmers who had to sell off their herds are going to be happy with the results.
I will tell members a couple of characteristics of a government that takes a crisis seriously. First of all, when a member of Parliament writes to a minister, they write back. Second, when the provincial government and the farmers of the region come to the federal government and say there is a crisis, it does not take three months to make something happen. It is October, and we still do not have help. Farmers do not have feed. They have sold off their animals, and we are losing a significant amount of our regional food security because the government, 4,000 kilometres away, is dragging its feet.
What is his message? I want to know what the parliamentary secretary's message is to the farmers in my region who have lost their family farms. Tell me.
Mr. Speaker, I know where the hon. member comes from, and I know he is doing a good job of representing his constituents and his farmers.
As I have said before, no response is fast enough when someone is going through a crisis. However, I can assure the hon. member that the B.C. government and the federal government are working hand in hand to respond as quickly as possible to farmers in order to ensure that they get the proper response. I can assure the hon. member's farmers, as they have gone through the B.C. floods in 2021, that they will be compensated with the program, through AgriRecovery. We will respond in due time. All I am asking for is patience for a few more days. I know they will get a proper response in a short few days.
[Translation]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer