Debates of Dec. 4th, 2023

Consideration of Government Business No. 31

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I appreciate the hon. member raising a point of order. It did get loud for a little bit. It seems to have calmed down now. I do want to remind members again that if they wish to have conversations, to please step out into the lobby. There is a lot of space everywhere else to be having those conversations. They should not be held while we are sitting here and the House is in session.

The hon. member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to the learned member from the Coquitlam area and the Port Moody area that we have an expression in the language that my parents spoke when they came here. In Italian, we say un grande abbraccio, which means “a big hug”. I see many members on the opposite aisle and I do consider many of them friends. I give them a big hug not on a policy basis but on a friendship basis.

When Canada's Building Trades Unions, LIUNA 183 or 506, or the carpenters' union, Local 27, or Carpenters' Regional Council and their members across the country are here working collaboratively with us on Bill C-50, moving it forward, ensuring that Canadians have the skills, we all know that there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces, labour market accords, ensuring that we are looking at sustainable jobs or jobs with good benefits and good pensions. These are good union jobs. We want them and we want to create more of them.

We know that in the energy sector, both renewable and non-renewable, whether hydroelectric power or small modular reactors or the natural gas sector in Alberta, all of the by-products that are produced from natural gas are so important.

This is what Bill C-50, for me, is about. It is about ensuring that, as we adopt new energy sources, whether they are used for electric vehicles or our electricity system, Canada remains a competitive beacon for its workers and that they have those skills.

I am based in Ontario. I grew up in British Columbia. I understand regional differences and differences in regional views on issues.

What is most important is that we allow for debate. It was so unfortunate that we could not invite witnesses. After I produced the scheduling motion or the programming motion at committee for Bill C-49, which we have not talked about and which is supported by the Atlantic provinces, and for Bill C-50, one or two of the members opposite went on to filibuster for 10 sessions.

We could have called witnesses. The ministers would have been scheduled. The official opposition's duty, because it is its job, is to ask tough questions. It is its job, its duty, to oppose, if it wishes to do so. The members did not even afford themselves that opportunity.

Tonight, we hear speeches about how there was only two hours. That is weak, to be blunt.

We are here to do a job. If one is in opposition, they should do that job and do it extremely well and hold the government to account. I encourage it.

At the same time, we are looking at legislation that all of the private sector unions across Canada signed on to and are supporting, as well as their workers, the hundreds of thousands of workers.

There are 800,000 workers in the energy sector here in Canada and that number is growing, in both renewable and non-renewable, and we want them. We are building new hydroelectric facilities, whether it is in Newfoundland and Labrador or other areas. We want that. We want investment.

At the same time, let us have a serious discussion on Bill C-50. We could have had that serious discussion at committee.

It was very frustrating, to put it bluntly, to have the filibuster. I have been here for eight years and I have many colleagues who have been here for many more years. We go to committee and we do our homework the night before. We do our readings. We want to see witnesses. We had witnesses fly in, ready to come to committee. They could not present. That was unfortunate.

I can go through the bill and read aspects of it and ask questions myself but the fundamental premise of us being here and being on those committees is to ask those tough questions, to ask why. I always want to ask why. I tell my kids to always ask why and to ask, “Can we do better?”

Can we improve as parliamentarians? Can we look at a piece of legislation that is better?

When I think of sustainable jobs, I think about transparency. I think about collaboration with unions and without unions, with workers, with Canadian workers working in certain fields, much like the 700 workers who worked at the pulp and paper mill in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, and then the pulp and paper mill closed. Much like across Canada, many pulp and paper mills have closed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up, but he will be able to continue in questions and comments if he wishes to add anything.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member put forward the scheduling motion at committee. The Conservatives put forward an amendment and a few subsequent subamendments. My main point is that when the Liberals and the NDP had the floor, not once did they bring up the substance of the subamendments or the amendment we had put forward, which would have been to get the bills to a place where we could go through them in proper order, the same order the House of Commons passed them to the committee in.

I am wondering why there was zero dialogue or zero effort from their side to try to get to a point where we could work on the bills in the order they came to the committee from the House of Commons.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have much respect for the hon. member. He always provides insight at committee meetings.

Very simply, when amendments are provided to a main programming or scheduling motion, it would be great, once they are discussed, for them to come to a vote. At committee, there was no possibility of having the motion come to an up and down vote. That is the way democracy should work. Unfortunately, the official opposition decided to filibuster all of the meetings and basically, to be blunt, waste everyone's time.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to follow up on something the member just said about wasting time.

During the four hours I was at committee, some of the speaking going on was really unfortunate. I have been around a long time. I am in my fifth decade, so I know what it is like to be silenced around a table of men who want to have their way. I do not appreciate the way this is being handled. We have totally forgotten that women are involved in sustainable jobs and in the next economy. We know they were left behind the first time around.

I would like to hear from the member when we will hear from some women about what is happening in the economy these days.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member reminded me of something important. When I went to the industrial heartland, I met with an organization that I think many hon. members would know. It is called Women Building Futures. It is encouraging women, especially in Alberta, to enter the labour force in the energy sector and some sectors where women are under-represented.

I know it is doing phenomenal work, and I know it is supported by both the provincial and federal governments and locally. It was an organization that I met with when I was in Edmonton. That was pre-COVID. I hope to go back next year to the Alberta industrial heartland to see the exciting work being done in what I would call the traditional petrochemical sector, which is the chemical sector, with the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada and its member partners.

Again, there was an $11-billion investment by Dow. It will be great to see that investment, and it will be even better to see this company and the entities around there ensure that indigenous folks, women, racialized minorities and anybody who is under-represented get a chance to work in the energy sector. As the hon. member said earlier in his speech, Canadians benefit from the bountiful natural resources that Canada is blessed with.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, who sits on the natural resources committee, as I do, for his thoughts on this legislation. We did hear from many witnesses who attempted to come forward to share their testimony when we did our own study on sustainable jobs. Much of that was filibustered, as we are seeing again with the current study on Bill C-50.

I would like my colleague to take a moment to reflect on why this is so important. We heard a question asked of the minister today about why we have to take this step in the House to move forward. Having been part of the more than 25 hours of filibustering we have seen, I would like his thoughts and reflections on why we are at this point in the House to try to move forward with this very important legislation.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are here this evening because of the filibuster that was in place by the opposition for about 10 meetings.

We are moving toward a net-zero economy. That is several decades away, over three by my math. At the same time, we know that energy production, renewable and non-renewable, is very important for Canada. It is also very important for our economy as we move toward a net-zero economy. We need to ensure that Canadians have the skills, the human capital as we economists call it, to succeed in not only today's workforce but tomorrow's workforce.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, so far, the Conservatives have subjected the natural resources committee to a filibuster that has lasted six weeks, which is 11 meetings or 25 hours, and it is all to make sure that important labour legislation does not get studied, amended and returned to the House. It is unfortunate that we have to address this filibuster in the House today regarding 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.

I say the word “unfortunate” because, if it were not for the Conservative procedural games at the natural resources committee, there would be no need to disrupt the business of the House today. We are starting our third month of having to endure Conservative filibuster tactics, including a discussion on, seriously, how many haircuts I have had since we first tried to start studying Bill C-50. The answer is that it is coming up on three.

Constant interruptions and a refusal to adhere to the chair's rulings from Conservative MPs in the committee have been well documented for weeks. On November 1, after filibustering the natural resources committee for several hours on motions, amendments, points of order and questions of privilege, the Conservatives decided to challenge the chair, forcing an undebatable vote to occur. The committee then ruled on the speaking order and agreed that the MP for Timmins—James Bay had the floor to speak. It is simple.

The Conservatives then continued to showcase disrespectful behaviour and continued to insult the chair, making a mockery of the committee process. We have seen that mockery carry over to this chamber today with the Conservatives' trying to rehash issues that were settled by committee members following due process. We again saw it this evening when the member for Timmins—James Bay tried to make his intervention. It was a very unfortunate situation in this chamber.

Not only was this behaviour in committee disrespectful toward my colleague as chair, but it was also disrespectful toward the non-partisan staff trying to provide interpretation services, technical support and procedural advice for the committee. It is difficult for the non-partisan interpreters, when they are trying to ensure all Canadians can listen to the meeting in the official language of their choice, and all they hear is Conservative members talking over other committee members. It is genuinely a discouraging sight to see, and I expect better from my colleagues in the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives also refused to let the member for Timmins—James Bay speak in favour of the sustainable jobs legislation for several weeks and, as I mentioned, we have already experienced that this evening. That has continued in this chamber, which is very regrettable. The message was clear: If one was not a Conservative member of Parliament on the natural resources committee, one would not get the floor to speak, regardless of what the committee had agreed to.

The official opposition is supposed to show Canadians why they should be the government in waiting. The actions of the committee members and the childish games have clearly proven otherwise. If the Conservatives were serious about doing the job and critiquing government legislation as the official opposition, we could have had the minister come to the committee to speak to Bill C-50, as well as to Bill C-49, according to the motion that had been put forward.

Bill C-49 is a very important piece of legislation for our eastern colleagues, relating to offshore wind in Atlantic Canada. We could have heard witnesses from each party, assuming the Conservatives would not have filibustered that as well, which they have done in the past when labour, indigenous and environmental groups came to testify on other studies, including our sustainable jobs study.

I have received over 5,000 letters in my constituency office from Canadians in all provinces and territories who want to see the sustainable jobs legislation move forward. This legislation would give workers a seat at the table with respect to their economic future, through a committee. That is all.

The Conservatives are not interested in doing their jobs as committee members, either because they disagree with sustainable jobs or they want to cause chaos to make their leader happy. It could be both. How does this help workers, though? How does this help Canada move toward a sustainable economy? The answer is simple. It does not, and the Conservatives would love to keep it that way.

When the Leader of the Opposition claims that he is on the side of workers, let us remember what is happening right now in the House. We are currently moving a motion to break this filibuster and move forward with the sustainable jobs legislation, not to mention other disruptions of Bill C-58, the anti-scab legislation, but that is an intervention for another day.

It is laughable that the Conservatives pretend to care about studying Bill C-50 and Bill C-49. Rather than deal with any legislation that would help workers get ahead with an energy transition that is already happening, the Conservative MP for Provencher would rather talk about how great plastic straws are for McDonald's milkshakes and how much gas he used driving muscle cars in the 1970s. I am not joking. Members can check out the blues for the natural resources meeting on November 27. I find it convenient that, in his rant about plastic straws, he ignored the negative consequences single-use plastics have on our environment. He ignored how they kill wildlife, both on land and in oceans, as well as their impacts on human health.

The Conservative member then went on to talk about carbon not being that impactful, because “someone” pointed it out to him. Maybe he should listen to climate scientists when they say carbon is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. The world is now warming faster than it has at any point in recorded history. This leads to global warming and climate change. This is easily accessible information, but I guess Conservatives refuse to do their own research; they do not like facts that go against their infatuation with oil.

Sticking to the meeting from November 27 and the Conservatives' love for oil money, the Conservative member for Red Deer—Mountain View went on a lengthy rant, claiming that environmental groups demonize the oil and gas industry for money, not because they care about the environment. As someone who worked in national parks for decades, I find it insulting and absurd that the Conservatives would characterize Canadians who care about the environment as people looking only to make easy money.

After the member for Red Deer—Mountain View attacked environmentalists, he downplayed the importance of climate change and the actions the world took to protect the ozone layer. Former Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney would have a problem with that. The member also insinuated that taking less action on climate change results in less severe wildfire seasons, with no evidence to back up that absurd claim. The Conservatives would rather talk about the last ice age than discuss how Canada can create sustainable jobs for workers now and into the future.

There is one point the member for Red Deer—Mountain View made in committee that served as a good refresher for me. He brought up the Organization for the Security and in Europe Co-operation Parliamentary Assembly and an intervention I did there, where we discussed how to get Europe off Russian oil and gas. The Conservative member voted against my resolution on carbon pricing in transitioning from Russian hydrocarbons, as did Russia and its closest allies. I can see the Conservative Party is following his example by voting against the Ukraine free trade agreement, which the Ukraine government has asked us to pass.

This anti-Ukraine sentiment connects to another member from our committee, the member for Lakeland. Last June, five champagne-sipping Conservative MPs, including this member, travelled on a lavish trip to London, England, and dined on thousands of dollars' worth of oysters, steak and champagne. One of her Conservative colleagues had his expenses paid for by the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think tank that has said, “the stakes of the Russia-Ukraine war are not Ukraine's sovereignty, but the victory of NATO, the expansion of the U.S. ‘deep state’ [and] ‘wokeism’”.

I know the member for Lakeland has a significant Ukrainian population in her constituency. I wonder how she feels about her colleague accepting sponsored travel from an organization that shamelessly amplifies Russian propaganda or her committee colleague voting with the Russians because they are opposed to replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. I wonder how workers in her riding feel knowing that she would wine and dine with organizations that defend the interests of oil executives rather than their workers.

Canadians expect their politicians to have a plan to fight climate change and to do so while creating sustainable jobs. Canadians are not interested in Conservative politicians wanting to make pollution free again. They want to hear how their government plans to secure sustainable jobs in Canada for the current generation of workers, as well as future generations.

As the world shifts to renewable energy, workers in the fossil fuel sector need to have sustainable jobs waiting for them. This short-sightedness from the Conservatives is very unfortunate for Canadian workers, who deserve to be represented by politicians who will prepare Canada for the green economy. The Conservatives do not care about environmental sustainability, workers or the economy, and their actions in the last few months have proven that.

We are here today because the Conservatives sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources refuse to do their jobs and study legislation that benefits Canadian workers. They have continued to waste committee resources; ultimately, this is taxpayer money. We had hours of endless points of order, with Conservatives refusing to respect the Chair and unhinged, fictitious climate change rants.

The MP for Lakeland seems to have taken on the role of Internet influencer, with her focus being on social media rather than sustainable jobs. In her videos describing our side of the aisle, she frequently uses the term “socialism” as a blanket label for anything that could bring change, invoking Conservative-planted fear in Canadians. One can maybe call it a “Red scare.” How interesting it is, though, that her province's Conservative premier, whom she supports, recently suggested turning their electricity sector into a province-owned enterprise. In turn, I suppose that through her own perception of the world, I should now refer to her as “comrade” instead of “colleague.”

In all seriousness, Canadians do not elect their representatives so they can act like Internet trolls. They expect their representatives to do the hard work of studying legislation and doing so in an honourable manner. It is time to end this Conservative filibuster of sustainable jobs. I urge my Conservative colleagues to do right by the workers in this country by supporting the sustainable jobs legislation.

Once this is done, we can move on to Bill C-49, the legislation regarding offshore wind. Let us work together for our constituents and the workers across this beautiful country, where the environment and economy go hand in hand.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for those comments on this bill and why we are at the stage we are at today. We are here because the Conservatives on the committee are trying to make sure the government understands there is a whole bunch at play here. Number one is jobs. Number two is we are wasting our time here again and again.

That time is being wasted because the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this twice now in the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act where it sets the guidelines, but most recently in the Impact Assessment Act where it says very clearly what is provincial jurisdiction and what is federal jurisdiction.

Will he admit that he has to go back and get an actual judgment ahead of time, a pre-ruling, on whether this transcends federal jurisdiction to step into exclusively provincial jurisdiction at this point in time?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who I had the chance to serve with on the natural resources committee with at one point.

Again, on the idea of court rulings, we have heard many times about the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the Supreme Court challenge on Bill C-69 that it is not throwing out the entire thing as unconstitutional. I think our minister has spoken very clearly about how there are some precise measures that can be taken to deal with that.

I think our government is very aware of what is constitutional and I think the courts will find that it is good legislation. It has a leadership role for the federal government, while respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction in this realm.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was pausing a little and reflecting on what question I wanted to ask because I have so many.

I am sure people can empathize that it can be very frustrating sitting in the House of Commons when we are in a climate crisis. We are experiencing the impacts all around us. There are so many who are worried, and instead, we are witnessing so many political games being played.

In particular, we are watching the Conservatives filibustering and blocking in order to ensure that their rich CEO friends' pockets are lined in big oil and gas. It is evident that this, again, is what is at hand here with climate denialism and inaction.

To my colleague in the Liberal government, what does he feel is the number one thing that we need to do as parliamentarians to show future generations that we hear them and that we are truly taking action to address the climate crisis we are facing today?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for that very thoughtful question, which I expect from a fellow British Columbian who cares a lot about not only the environment, but workers.

One of the things we can do is show workers that they have a place in the economy right now. That is why Bill C-50 is so important. It is creating a place and a very clear future for Canadians to make sure that we have good-paying jobs going forward.

We know that the world is in a transition. We know the world is a changing place. The economy is changing and we want to make sure that no workers are left behind. It is by having conversations with business and labour that we can actually make sure that there is that bright future, and make sure that we balance economic and environmental interests. I think that both can be done in such a way that we create a winning situation for workers, for the economy and for the environment.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not quite understand why it is a jurisdictional issue. I mean, we are talking about workers and transitions, and the potential loss of jobs, yet EI is run by the federal government. Also, in the past, I believe the federal government worked with stakeholders to create human resource councils in different industry sectors.

Can the member clarify why some think this is a jurisdictional issue that has to be fought tooth and nail?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we have seen that the federal government can work very well with provinces and territories in a wide realm of areas to make a better country and a better economy, while also dealing with environmental challenges.

As my colleague said, there are many examples from employment insurance to jobs and skills training, to immigration and many other areas where we work very closely, and collaborate with the provinces and territories. This is yet another example of that. It is about working together to create a better Canada, the kind of Canada that I want to work in and want my kids to live in.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour tonight to rise and speak to this filibuster that these people are claiming it is at this point in time.

We have a number of motions that we have to address through committee processes—

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking about the bill in front of us at this point in time. I apologize if my colleague does not know that.

I have been speaking about this since it arose over a year ago—

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

This is a point of debate.

I just want to remind members to please be mindful of the language that they use and how they use it, so it does not disrupt the House.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will start over, if I may.

We are here tonight to debate exactly what we are trying to ram through the House of Commons, which is a bill the Liberals put on the table over a year ago. I have spoken to many groups in Calgary about what this legislation represents, and I have been speaking to it since it came because there are all kinds of problems with this legislation, many of which have been exacerbated by events that have transpired since it was put on the table over a year ago.

Effectively, what we are talking about is the federal government's engagement and accountability framework to guide the government's efforts over time. However, it is based on false narratives.

Before I move forward any further, I will let members know that I will be splitting my time tonight with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

There are a lot of expert opinions being invented to move the bill forward. We can seek expert opinion, pay for it and make sure it says what we want it to say, and this government is very good at that. We found lots of ways it is spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars making sure it gets the right opinions in the right place and puts the money in the right pockets.

This is a brazen attempt to unilaterally move into the traditionally provincial jurisdiction of labour, the labour that is being produced in the provinces of Canada. We can think about how provinces actually fund the post-secondary institutions to make sure that jobs in demand are there four, five or six years hence. This is the provinces' job. The bill before us would be another muddying of the water of who is responsible for the outcome of delivering labour in Canada for the jobs we need going forward. We have enough of this muddling in Canada right now, and more of it is not going to accomplish anything. It is going to lead to more stalemates in every province.

I am dead surprised at the Bloc Québécois not opposing the bill openly because it is a gross movement into provincial jurisdiction. It is its raison d'être here in the House of Commons to make sure that the federal government does not move into provincial jurisdiction, but I guess the Bloc's hatred for the oil and gas sector, which funds most of what happens in this country, makes its members overrule their raison d'être, which is making sure that provinces have their responsibilities and that the federal government stays in its lane.

The bill would advance funding for skill development towards sustainable jobs, but at this point, the federal government, through transfers, already gives $1.8 billion to the provinces to make sure that they develop those jobs. That is partially funded by the federal government, through Canadian taxpayers, who fund the federal government, and part of that comes back to the province of Alberta. For industry, it means a double effort because it is already working with provincial authorities to make sure that we have the labour going forward. Now we have to make sure that we have the federal government onside as well as the provincial government. Well, it is double the effort, double the work. We have to make sure that we make things streamlined and stop creating uncertainty for every business in Canada, for every industry in Canada, primarily our natural resource industries.

One of the key actions I really like in the bill, and we can read it in the preamble, of course, is that one of the jobs for the federal government is to identify what data is currently tracked across the federal government and other accessible sources. This is actually what the government is going to spend money doing: finding out what data it already has. Now, this is a ridiculous use of legislation.

The government wants to motivate investors with a thing called “sustainable finance”. Members know that I have a background in finance, and “sustainable finance” is an anachronism. There is only finance. There are only numbers. We cannot monkey around with numbers and make the equation different. It is fabrication of the highest order. We need to get past it and realize that, at the end, the math has to work for everybody.

The government maintains it would allow us to collaborate and lead on the world stage, which is a joke. The federal government does not collaborate with any of the provinces. At this point, it is doling out cheques to its favourite friends, but it does not lead on the world stage. As a matter of fact, many people in the world are looking at Canada's diminishing role in the world and wondering what has happened. What has happened to Canada after eight years of this government is detestable on the world stage. We have got to get better outcomes and better recognition in the world about how we can contribute to the solutions that the world needs at this point.

There is an issue of accountability as well; we know the government is not good with accountability. We have to find a way to become more accountable, and that means staying in our lane. Where are we having an impact, and what do we have to do to make sure we get results for the country going forward? The legislation says it would guide a cohesive approach to climate energy security. I do not think the government even knows what it is talking about with regard to energy security. I think it has been making it up as far as its solutions for the climate, because it continues to fail with every goal it ever sets.

I am going to get into this whole notion of the definition of a “sustainable job”. Let us say that a sustainable job in this legislation would remain evergreen in order to evolve over time through consultation with key partners and the public. Liberals do not even know what they are aiming for. It is the most aimless legislation available, and yet they want to continue to move into provincial jurisdiction to basically muddy the waters in getting results. The input on this is that federal efforts must respect provincial jurisdiction, and none of this does so. I beseech my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to recognize that, because they are about to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Industry talks about access to safe, reliable and affordable energy as the most important thing for Canada. Countries without safe, reliable and secure energy are effectively going down the rabbit hole of non-existence in the world. They are looking for solutions, and Canada provides them. We have to get ahead of this and make sure we understand where the world is and where Canada is. Frankly, when one talks to the Canadian public about this bill, people ask what a sustainable job and a just transition are.

Is a just transition like what happened in the coal industry in Alberta? Let us go over those numbers, because they are illustrative. They indicate that the government spent $185 million, accomplishing almost nothing. It set up its own commission and its own just transition for Canadian coal workers in communities in 2018. An 11-person panel of experts got $185 million in funding through to 2025. So far, $52 million has been spent, $27 million of that in my province of Alberta, but that included $18 million to build a road far from any of the coal plants. It was just a slush fund, and the government seems pretty good at building slush funds.

A case in point is Hanna, Alberta, where there was a coal plant. Hanna's unemployment rate went from 4% in 2011 to 10% in 2021, for the highest unemployment in Alberta. It is worse when we think about the workers there. What happens to them when everyone in the whole town loses their job? The houses become worth much less. The average house price in 2016 was about $177,000 in a rural town in Alberta. In 2022, the same house was worth $65,000. What is the number one type of savings a family has? It is their home. When their home value goes down by over $100,000, almost two-thirds, they recognize that is value they will take a long time to get back. It also means there is no tax loss selling there, because it does not get any tax relief in that respect. It is something we have to make sure we have our eyes on. We should not replicate the same disaster the government had with the coal industry.

Is there any indication that the federal government has competence in this realm? No, there is not. It does not know this at all. It is trying to invent it by saying it wants a certain jurisdiction now, because it wants its thumb on the scale about where it gets to see jobs in Canada going forward. It is not enough to continue to spill money out of their jeans in certain sectors that it thinks are going to be more important. It is really the government putting its thumb on the scale to try to determine where the jobs should be in Canada. Those jobs are not anywhere without private sector investment. We are a disaster, as far as the world goes, because we have to continue to spend government money. Private sector investment not happening in this country, because of the uncertainty created by the government, and this bill would add to that uncertainty.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to constituents about Parliament, they often focus on question period. They say that it is so chaotic that they lose faith in the system. I reassure them by saying that the real work in this place often gets done in committee; that is where amendments are proposed, and so on. However, I substituted for one meeting at committee, and it was an absolute circus. I would have expected to see even those who oppose the legislation propose amendments that could then be debated, but I did not see that.

Could the hon. member tell us why the opposition was not doing its job, in terms of submitting substantive amendments to try to get its point across?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member across the way. I was a member of his committee once. He was a really good Chair of that committee, one of the best Chairs on the Liberal side of the House that I have had to work with.

Let me say that when there are rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada in the midst of legislation that more or less says that, no matter what, the legislation moving forward is going to face a Supreme Court challenge, it is time to revisit the legislation, bring it back and rewrite it so it is actually pertinent and might go somewhere.

At this point in time, we are going to spin our wheels in the House of Commons, going through legislation which is likely going to be overturned. That is the point we are trying to make here: get back to work where we are actually accomplishing something for Canadians.