Debates of April 11th, 2024

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member was rising on a point of order; I have to allow the Bloc Québécois to ask a question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

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

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, under the previous government, the natural resources committee did a study called “The Cross-Canada Benefits of the Oil and Gas Industry”. We understood that this is not an either-or situation; it is both-and.

Of course, Conservatives support investments in green technology. We continue to support the oil and gas industry. It is going to be around, as my colleague said, for decades to come.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill would create an independent body with members from indigenous organizations, industry and labour, who would advise the government on moving toward the clean net-zero economy. That is sustainable. In her speech, the hon. member referenced the number of jobs; that would keep these jobs, support these families, engage with all the organizations on this advisory board and move forward in a responsible way.

The International Energy Agency has talked about the fact that, within the next decade, there will be a surging demand for electric vehicles and clean energy technologies. If Canada does not get on board with that, we will be left behind. I do not understand how the member could possibly believe that the Canadian economy should be left behind.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will address the first point about this body that would be creating a framework or making decisions. Ninety-three per cent of Canadian oil and gas jobs are small businesses with fewer than 100 employees. I mentioned that in my comments. Bill C-50 does not include or contemplate those businesses at all. I would ask the member to reconsider that.

The other thing I would point out to her about being left behind is that the NDP-Liberal coalition does not have an environmental plan. It has a tax plan. It continues to miss every target for reducing emissions, and that has been reported on by the environment commissioner. Under the government, which New Democrats support, Canada ranked 58th out of 63 countries in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If the member is really concerned about being left behind, she will stop supporting the current Liberal government.

Government Responses to Order Paper Questions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford respecting the government response to Order Paper Question No. 2340.

I wanted to acknowledge that, in this matter, the government has reviewed the response and the process used to produce the response in question. What was discovered is that there was an administrative error in the tasking of the response; this led to inaccurate information being provided to the member and to the House. I unreservedly apologize for that error.

The response was tasked to the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development when it should have been tasked across all departments and agencies.

In addition, it has come to light that this error extends to include Order Paper Question No. 2142.

The government will produce supplemental responses to these OPQs by tasking all government departments and agencies on an urgent basis to ensure that this question is responded to in a timely and accurate manner. In the course of our review, should it be determined that this could involve other OPQs, the government will include those as well.

Again, this is an unfortunate administrative error, but I can assure the member and the House that it was not the government's intention to provide inaccurate information with respect to this matter.

A compilation of supplemental responses to these questions will be produced on a priority basis.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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

Advance Disclosure of Budget Measures

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is not on the same point of order, but I am glad the government is making amends. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford submitted those questions in good faith, and I am glad we will be getting the information Canadians require. I thank the parliamentary secretary for doing the right thing, making amends and apologizing for the lack of information around subsidies going to Loblaws and some of the other grocery chains that have been guilty of food price gouging.

I am actually rising on another point of order, and that is the matter of privilege brought forward by the member for La Prairie concerning the convention of budgetary secrecy. The principle of budgetary secrecy is an important one, as leaks and premature disclosure sometimes have unintended and, in some cases, market-moving impacts.

Despite this, we know that governments of all stripes, both Conservative and Liberal, have been known to use selected and targeted pre-budget leaks to their advantage as a way to control the narrative leading up to the budget. They love to point fingers at each other, but they both do this. There is no doubt that this is done for their political advantage; otherwise, they would not do it.

While a number of Speaker's rulings have found no breach and, to date, no Speaker has wanted to put an end to this practice, the fact that it has been raised as a matter continuously for many years means that it merits review on the Speaker's behalf.

Let us not forget the time former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty decided to give a fiscal update not to the House of Commons but to a private audience of financial professionals. The House of Commons is the purview of elected members, who have been chosen by Canadians to represent them; however, he did not present the update here.

The Speaker of the House at the time was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who found in favour of the government. In his ruling, he cited as precedent a decision by Speaker Milliken, which was also made as a consequence of the Conservative finance minister's actions. The example at that time was the government's decision to release a report on the economic action plan at a media event in Saint John rather than here in Parliament.

The Speaker's ruling of October 5, 2009, included the following:

It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event].

Speaker Milliken was also asked to judge an incident where specific information about the main estimates was published in a newspaper article, as well as a blog and Twitter. On March 22, 2011, he ruled:

The member argued that the Speaker had ruled on a number of occasions that the House had an absolute right to expect the government to provide information, whether on a bill or on the estimates, to the House before it was disclosed elsewhere.

For him, it was a matter of being able to respond, as a member of Parliament, to enquiries in a meaningful and intelligent way.

In his response, the President of the Treasury Board admitted that the untimely release of the material in question was improper and not in keeping with past procedures and practices of this House. Furthermore, he committed to taking steps to prevent it from happening again. The minister went on to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 894, thus quite rightly pointing out that, in the past, similar matters, namely of budget secrecy, have been treated more as matters of parliamentary convention rather than matters of privilege.

The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is certainly not misguided in his expectation that members of the House, individually and collectively, must receive from the government particular types of information required for the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties before it is shared elsewhere.

However, in such instances when there is a transgression of this well-established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties.

Simply put, I agree with the member for La Prairie. These practices that we saw under the Conservatives and are now seeing under the Liberals have to change. This practice of disclosing all the budget information must change. We should align these budget practices more and more with House of Commons procedure and privilege.

I hope that my intervention will help the Chair make a ruling on the intervention of the member for La Prairie.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

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

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have been looking for my moment to also comment on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for La Prairie.

I think the Bloc Québécois member's argument was very strong. When he presented his question of privilege, I thought it was solid and clear.

I thought it was a violation of privilege to start seeing budgetary information shared in advance. In the last while, in digging into my own research, I have come to the view that it is less clear than that. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has also pointed this out, and we have heard this from a number of other presenters in this place, including the hon. Liberal House leader.

I agree with the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby that it is troubling to see that there is not a clear set of rules around protecting budgetary information from early leak. It appears to me now that, as much as I was convinced by the argument from the hon. member for La Prairie, we probably do not have a convincing argument for a point of privilege here. We do have a clear need for more work to be done, perhaps at PROC or elsewhere.

We have a very clear tradition. Over the years, people have faced criminal sanction for leaking budgetary information. However, now it appears we can differentiate between the kind of information that could be used in the sense of insider trading, to create a financial benefit for someone who leaked the information, and public policy, which the government can of course discuss in advance.

We have seen, more than one time, information released in an attempt to create some razzle-dazzle effect in advance of the budget. We are seeing more public relations material than we are seeing a budget. In the Harper years, I started calling it the “big, thick spring brochure” as opposed to a budget, because it very rarely actually had a budget in it. We could not compare this year's spending to last year's spending. We could not work through the work tables at the back of the budget department by department and compare what was happening.

That tradition of big fat brochures has been continuing without access to an actual budget. Canadians need to know that, and they need clarity around how much of this is now promotional materials, with governments explaining what they want to do. There is less and less rigour around whether the money has been spent, whether it can be tracked, whether it can be compared to previous years, and whether we are comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges.

In other words, my advice to the Speaker, for what it is worth, would be that this is not a point of privilege. However, there is an issue here of substance for which greater clarity would be helpful and to which I would urge the Minister of Finance to actually bring some rigour to the budgetary process and make sure that Canadians who pick up the budget can actually find, in the big fat spring brochure, an actual budget.

The House resumed consideration of 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see my hon. colleagues in this most honourable House.

As we continue the debate at report stage of Bill C-50, it is imperative to note that what we are seeing across the world is being driven by technology in response to the climate crisis, what is happening in our environment and the weather: droughts, floods and temperatures increasing, attributable, obviously, to man-made causes. It is an economic opportunity for all Canadians, for all provinces, from coast to coast, that is being seized today by companies here in Canada, whether Cameco, BHP or, in Ontario, with nuclear. There is just so much innovation happening.

We know right now that the lowest cost to generate electricity is actually through solar and wind. It is true. We also know that we need to be able to store the electricity that is generated, and we are getting there. In my years in the private sector, I was learning quite well about the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy. We are now adding a fourth dimension, which is storage. That is going to help us to decarbonize Canada and our electrical system. Bill C-50 is a part of this process, to ensure that the workers in Canada would have the tools, the skills and the resources to participate in this. It is an economic opportunity.

As we gather here today, it is crucial that we recognize the evolving nature of the global economy, driven, yes, by the need to address the climate crisis but also by the technological innovation that is occurring across the world. We can look at companies like Brookfield Asset Management, which was on the Hill this week. It has 33,000 megawatts of generating capacity, almost entirely renewable; it has solar, wind, hydro and nuclear being done right now. That capital is being deployed. As someone who loves the private sector, capital, wealth creation and all of that, I am excited by this. It ensures that we will have a profitable and successful future for our kids. The IEA estimated that in 2022, $2.4 trillion globally would need to be invested as we continue this.

We know that climate change and the actions required to fight it are fundamental economic opportunities for Canada's workforce. The world is rapidly moving toward a future powered by clean energy and sustainable technology. This global shift is not just about reducing emissions; it is also about unlocking new avenues for economic growth and job creation. Around the world, countries are seeking clean energy technologies and supplies to power their economies well into the coming decades. Canada is stepping up to support them. A great example is the work we have been doing with Romania to build Canadian CANDU reactors that will help them to both phase out coal, wean eastern European grids off Putin's energy, create jobs here in Canada and in eastern Europe. All of the financing will go back to Canadian companies, creating sustainable jobs here in Ontario.

Unfortunately, Conservatives let down Ukraine by opposing the free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. I think we need to note that the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament this week. We will always stand beside the Ukrainian deputies, the Ukrainian people and Ukraine as it fights for its sovereignty and its freedom.

Beyond nuclear, the Minister of Energy recently signed a hydrogen accord with the vice-chancellor of Germany, in which Canada is unlocking the first direct hydrogen trade window into a major European market. Partnerships like this will support thousands of good jobs in Atlantic and eastern Canada to produce renewable hydrogen and ship it to Europe to displace Russian gas. Unfortunately, rabid climate denialism has made the federal Conservatives blind to this opportunity that the Progressive Conservative government of Nova Scotia is championing with us.

Beyond hydrogen, Canada built the Sustainable Critical Minerals Alliance with many global partners to export the Canadian minerals that are building blocks to clean energy technologies, supporting thousands of great jobs in every part of this country. In British Columbia, for example, the clean energy sector is booming, with investments in hydroelectric power, wind farms, and battery factories like E-One Moli. These investments are both creating sustainable jobs and reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, while positioning B.C. as a leader in the development of a low-carbon economy. Unfortunately, the party on the opposite side is opposed to all these investments and continues to attack the Government of British Columbia for its climate leadership.

Similarly, in Alberta, the shift towards hydrogen and other forms of clean energy is creating opportunities for workers in the oil and gas sector to use their skills to help build new plants. I visited the industrial heartland in Alberta a couple of years ago and saw the investments that are taking place, literally $10 billion or $20 billion of petrochemical and chemical investments, net-zero investments, are taking place. We are going to ensure that they get done. We actually partnered with the Government of Alberta and invested in these projects, and we will continue to do that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives and their UCP allies are holding back Alberta's full potential through their job-killing red tape on the renewables industry.

The Conservatives are holding back Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador by filibustering and delaying Bill C-49. Actually, I should take that back. Today at the natural resources committee, we finished Bill C-49 and have sent it back. Bill C-49 would build an offshore renewable industry in Atlantic Canada. Meanwhile in Ontario, investments in energy-efficient building retrofits are creating jobs for construction workers by reducing emissions and lowering energy bills for homeowners.

We know that in Bill C-50, the creation of a secretariat to coordinate action and the creation of a sustainable jobs partnership council would really bring industry, labour and indigenous organizations to the table, ensuring that workers have a place at the table.

We know that investments are being made in electric vehicle manufacturing plants and battery plants, not only for today but for decades. All the auto companies know that this transition is happening and that EV production will occur. It may not occur smoothly. It may not occur without some bumps along the way, but it is going to occur. They are all going that way, whether it is Stellantis, Volkswagen, Toyota or Honda. We see the exciting things happening in Oxford, and in St. Thomas with Volkswagen. I hope the member opposite who represents Oxford gets on board and supports that investment. It means tens of thousands of Canadians will be working, directly and indirectly, around this plant.

As we can see, there are so many new developments across growing clean industries at the moment. Canada is attracting billions of dollars of direct investment, and Canadian innovation is driving new opportunities. As we grow, we cannot allow a shortage of skills, training and tools to stop our workers from achieving their goals and reaching their full potential in building generational economic drivers. The sustainable jobs bill is fundamentally about supporting hard-working Canadian workers and their families in all 338 ridings that we represent, and ensuring that our and future governments will be accountable to deliver for these workers.

Clearly the Conservative opposition to the bill is founded either in opposition to workers or to accountability, or in being anti-union. Unfortunately I can confirm, based on their statements, that it is based on all of those scenarios. The legislation would ensure that workers have access to training programs, job opportunities and fair wages in the emerging low-carbon economy, as they rightfully should. Yet despite the clear benefits of the sustainable jobs bill, the opposition remains steadfast in its opposition. Its stance is not just completely divorced from reality but is also downright dangerous economically.

I love the 100,000 energy workers in this country who go to work every day. We are going to need them, and we are going to need the resources for years to come. However, we know that capital around the world is being placed in the renewable sector. We know that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear are here to stay. We need to continue displacing forms of higher GHG-emitting sources with lower GHG-emitting sources. We will continue to do that.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practices of the House, the vote of the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame on division No. 684 from Wednesday, April 10, should be changed from nay to yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member did rise yesterday and ask for the same thing. I was the one who refused consent. I am now giving consent for that vote change.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

There is not unanimous consent, as the hon. member did not receive unanimous consent from other members in the House.

The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding that what the Ukrainians need are NASAMS and ammunition, rather than a carbon tax, does the member opposite realize that the European EV market is taking a blood bath because nobody wants EVs, and that President Biden is rolling back his Soviet-style requirements for the sales of EVs? Is he aware of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

I have to give the hon. member a few seconds to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the adoption of electric vehicles will occur in the coming years as production ramps up across the world. It will happen. We know it is happening, and we know companies are investing literally tens of billions of dollars into plants and facilities. We also need to ensure that we have the infrastructure in place for that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, December 4, 2023, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on Motion No. 1.

The vote on this motion also applies to Motions Nos. 23, 24, 38 to 40, 47, 58, 76 to 78, 90, 95, 101, 106, 112, 154, 159, 171, 182 and 194.

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.