Debates of April 11th, 2024

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, in its initial version, the bill would have been a huge encroachment on Quebec’s jurisdictions.

The Bloc Québécois gave them the benefit of the doubt and thought it might have been a mistake. We therefore proposed amendments to make adjustments and achieve a certain level of asymmetry in the bill. However, we soon realized that it was not a mistake, because the Liberals blocked our proposals to make the bill more fair to Quebec.

Is this simply a prelude to the budget and a teaser of intrusive budgetary measures we are seeing?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would also add that while I am very proud of the fact that Quebec has such a low-emitting and predominantly hydroelectric economy, there are workers in other parts of this country, predominately in my province and the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, who worry about the future.

They worry about the future of an industry that is changing internationally. I would say to hon. members to not stand in the way of jobs and prosperity, because regardless of what we think in the House, the world of energy is changing. We need to grasp the opportunities that are there. There is nothing that any of us can say or do that will stand in its way. What will make a difference is the number of jobs and the prosperity that we create in an international phenomenon that is called net zero.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, my family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad’s family moved to Fort McMurray in the 1970s to make a better life for themselves, and shortly after moving to Fort McMurray, my grandfather got a job at a place called Syncrude, working to build the extraction plant in anticipation of first oil. My dad, Gord, proudly worked at Syncrude, securing Canada’s energy future, for 42 years. He started in 1978 right after graduation and right before first oil, and he stayed until his retirement. He had three careers within that time: first as a machinist, as a process operator, and, finally, he found his passion in operations integrity and safety.

I eventually followed in my dad’s footsteps. Through university, I took summer student jobs at Syncrude, learning about extraction, maintenance, health and safety, governance, oil sands and so much more. After university, I started working at North American Construction Group in the mining division within the health and safety department. It was such a wonderful experience. I was able to work on so many different job sites throughout the region, wearing steel-toed boots and having dirty fingernails. I absolutely loved my time there.

I had a first-hand opportunity to see how seriously this industry took health and safety, environmental responsibilities and to see the role it played in not only Fort McMurray's and Alberta's economy but also the Canadian economy. I had the opportunity to meet thousands of hard-working, wonderful people from all across Canada and the world who decided to come to my hometown, to make it their hometown, to work in the oil sands and to make a better life for their families.

My community and the industry that drives it have been a beacon of hope for so many people for so long. In the eighties and the nineties, thousands of Atlantic Canadians flocked to Fort McMurray after the coal mines were shut down in Cape Breton and after the fisheries collapsed. Thousands of people came. They became my friends, my family and my neighbours. They are some of the most amazing people. However, they came to Fort McMurray not by choice, but because some government thought it knew best.

Now, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, my community is struggling. Eco-radicals now sit around a cabinet table and advocate against Canada’s world-class energy industry at every turn. They have made no attempt to even hide their distaste for oil and gas. The Prime Minister has stated on three separate occasions now that there is no business case for Canadian LNG. That is shameful.

The anti-energy agenda of the government has been consistent and punishing over the last eight years: anti-energy messaging, delays, arbitrary and inconsistent regulatory conditions and, frankly, an outright veto of approved export pipelines. It has pushed forward with anti-energy legislation at every turn, including the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69. Despite universal provincial opposition, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Despite the fact that it did not have jurisdiction, it decided it was going to go ahead with it. Frankly, the part that really hurts with that bill, particularly, is the Liberal government knew that if the oil could not be moved and was landlocked, it could not be produced. That was its sneaky way of shutting down oil without shutting down oil.

Canada should and could be the world’s energy producer and supplier of choice and could be the place of energy security and self-sufficiency. Canada could be completely energy self-sufficient if government could get out of the way. However, ut time and time again, the Liberals continue to put ideology and partisanship above supporting our economy or even reality. They have failed to understand that these are hard-working people. These are our neighbours, our friends, and they work hard every single day.

Politicians in this chamber do not mince their words when it comes to speaking in disdain of this industry. In fact, the member for Timmins—James Bay even went so far as to table legislation to make it illegal to say anything supportive of the oil and gas industry, including true and verifiable facts, which would be punishable by massive fines and up to and including jail time. In fact, if his bill were to pass, saying something that is true and verifiable, such as that natural gas is cleaner burning than coal, would be illegal.

That is insane, yet the NDP-Liberal coalition continues pushing its agenda and continues pushing forward with this bill. I have not heard any members from the Liberals or the NDP denounce this insane bill, Bill C-50, because they probably support it, and that is why we are so fearful of everything the government does when it comes to energy.

I wish politicians could simply be honest about the outcomes of their policies, not wordsmithing, not negotiating, and not transition while calling it somehow “just”. We need to accept in this chamber and across the country that Canadian oil and gas jobs are sustainable jobs.

The Liberal just transition is a dangerous government-mandated plan to kill 170,000 Canadian jobs and risks the livelihood of 2.7 million Canadians.

This bill, Bill C-50, is a step, actually more like a leap, toward Soviet-style government-central planning. That is exactly what this is going toward. The NDP-Liberal government claims to value Canadian oil and gas, and yet it wants to increase exports. However, after eight years, it has interfered to kill four pipelines, two of which were specifically designed to export off the west and the east coasts.

Do not worry; hope is on the horizon. Conservatives are going to do everything we can to push back against this legislation. The real solution is electing the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, as our next Prime Minister.

Conservatives would make traditional energy and the development of fuels of the future more affordable and accessible to Canadians. Conservatives would fix what the Liberals broke and would keep westerners, and all provinces, in control of their natural resources. We would respect provincial jurisdiction.

We will respect provincial jurisdiction over natural resources and in all other cases. It is absolutely essential that provincial jurisdiction over natural resources be respected.

Conservatives would bring approvals up and would bring costs and timelines down to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency and to increase exports to the world. We need technology, not taxes. We need to support an industry that supports this country.

As I described earlier, to so many Canadians, Fort McMurray was, at one point in time, a beacon of hope, prosperity and a fresh start. To the world's leading oil producers, we are a tough competitor that refuses to lie down, but for far too many elected officials across this country, we are simply a cash cow they can abuse.

To the fringe eco-activists, we are unfortunately the enemy, but to me, Fort McMurray has been, and always will be, home. I was born and raised here, and Conservatives of every stripe, federal, provincial and municipal, have always had our backs. They understand that when Fort McMurray works, Alberta works, and when Alberta works, Canada works.

I will not back down from all the politicians in this chamber who seek to land-lock and firewall our oil sands. Pipelines and energy corridors are items of critical national importance and interest for the long-term viability not only of northeastern Alberta but also of Canada and the world. I urge every member of this chamber to vote against this disastrous bill, Bill C-50.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-50 would really open up the potential of Canada's clean energy agenda. Those who cannot see that are stifling progress in this country. That is what I heard in the speech by the hon. member. Maybe she will agree with the president of the Alberta Federation of Labour or with the president of the Business Council of Alberta, who said that in order to “shape our future and create jobs by providing the resources that the world needs”, we need to have the sustainable jobs act.

People in her province are supporting this proposed act. Many companies are already transitioning. They are giving their workers the skills they need, and I ask the member—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Centre is rising on a point of order.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know of the Business Council of Alberta, and I have questioned it on that very stat that the member and her colleagues have brought forward to this floor—

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

The hon. member is questioning a quote that was made. I have no possibility of determining if it is a true quote or not.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative member who just interrupted, did it knowing full well that it was a debate. He has interrupted the question. I would encourage you to dial the clock back and to allow the member to ask her question from the beginning again.

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

I will not restart the question, but I will allow the hon. member to finish the question.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, just for the record, I would like to quote the president of the Business Council of Alberta and ask the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake if she supports the work they are doing when they say, “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”. Everyone in this world sees that there is an opportunity with the clean energy agenda, except the Conservatives, and they offer no alternatives, as the member has just indicated.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, actually, Alberta is the leader when it comes to clean energy in the country, and earlier in her question, before she was interrupted, the member was asking about, and quoting, the AFL president, who is ironically now running for Alberta's NDP, a party that has been very clear about its distaste and dislike of Alberta's oil sands and oil and gas industry. In fact, the Alberta NDP, when it was in government, created an oil sands task force where it appointed Tzeporah Berman, who called my hometown “Mordor”, so frankly, I am not going to take a single piece of advice, when it comes to supporting what the AFL is saying, from that side of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about clean energy in Alberta. I do not understand what she means, exactly, because that is not what it looks like when you see the oil flowing in Alberta. Also, it is clear to us, with this bill, that if the Conservatives were in power, there is no guarantee that they would immediately stop increasing fossil fuel production.

I would like my colleague to address these two issues.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will say it again. Alberta is a leader when it comes to clean energy here in Canada. We will continue to be a leader if we are allowed to, if the government stops meddling in our provincial affairs and lets us develop our natural resources, which are developed in a truly environmentally friendly way. We will do our best.

However, if the government encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, as suggested in this bill, we will continue to have problems.

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

Madam Speaker, the only thing that could possibly make a climate activist think this bill was worth more than the paper it was written on is the overreaction from the Conservative benches. Therefore, I would suggest to my Conservative friends that if they would just look at the bill and honestly say that they think it is a nothing burger, then that would also help our side, which wants to see real climate action. We would then ask why we do not go back to the report of the task force on coal sector workers, and bring in really meaningful measures, such as when a coal sector worker or fossil fuel worker is going to lose a job, to make sure they are supported so that they do not have a problem paying the mortgage on their houses and to make sure they get their pensions earlier, and all the principles that were adopted in the work that took place in 2018.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is part of the problem. Government should not be deciding which jobs should and should not exist. That should be left to a space where the economy and industry get to work collaboratively to do that, but this is part of the problem. When the Green Party is trying to say to trust it that this is a nothing burger, that raises huge red flags to me because we have heard very clearly that this is a problem.

One of the big problems with Bill C-50, on top of every other big problem in the bill, is the fact that we have not heard from a single witness at committee, because they would just say that they had already studied this, possibly, so they are not going to bring in any witnesses. As such, we do not even know what the eco-activists think, and we do not know what the industry thinks because they have not actually had an opportunity to come before committee. That becomes a serious problem. As the Liberal government has done, time and time again, it has shirked its responsibility and has stepped on provincial jurisdiction, which means that, when and if the bill gets challenged to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court justices will not have expert witness testimony to help figure out what the intent of the government was, costing taxpayers valuable money and doing nothing.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence (Northern Defence)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally rise in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-50, after eight months of dealing with the bill in committee. I can tell the House that I have never seen such antics being played out by any opposition party on any legislation in my entire life as I have with the Conservatives on the sustainable jobs act, a bill that would do so much to help transition workers in this country at a time when they need it.

One would think that the Conservatives want no Canadians to have opportunities, nor for this country to be a leader in clean energy at home and around the world. We have potential here that very few countries have, which is to be able to develop a clean energy transition and a country that is allowing itself to provide for sustainable jobs today and into the future.

The member opposite talked about the cod moratorium. I lived through the cod moratorium; in fact, I was an employment counsellor who worked with people displaced in the fishing industry. One of the major setbacks was that there was no transition in jobs at that time. There was no plan by the Government of Canada, Progressive Conservative government, to help the thousands of people, including the 20,000 families in my own province, who were affected by the moratorium. They were left to their own devices. They were left to figure out where the next job was going to come from, where the next field of training was going to come from, their next career, and how they were going to feed their families.

Is that what the Conservatives are saying, that we should just let it happen in Canada, let everyone just figure this out and fend for themselves? I do not support that concept, because I have lived through it already once in my life. Let me tell the House this: In the absence of a transition plan for employment opportunities for workers in this country, many will fall through the cracks.

As for every labour union that came before the committee over the course of those months, as the member for Timmins—James Bay said best today, there were representatives of at least six unions who sat before us in the committee, where Conservative members did not allow them to present or speak, nor for the committee to question them.

Conservative members used every possible tactic they could, including bringing in 20,000 amendments to the bill, an 11-page bill, most of it containing standard clauses. The 20,000 amendments were generated not by the intelligence of Canadians but by AI, from a robotic system. That will tell us how connected they are to Canadians who are asking for the legislation and the transition to sustainable jobs.

The Conservatives know it well. They did not even take the time to actually do the research themselves to come up with amendments that would help strengthen the legislation, the opportunity for Canadians and the opportunities for workers. No, they pushed a few buttons on a computer and generated 20,000 amendments so they could stall the bill altogether at the committee stage. That will give us the level of intellect, interest and responsibility that they take—

[An hon member]

Oh, oh!

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

We do not question the intellect or other qualities of members in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, my apologies, but it is really hard to explain why any political party of the House of Commons today that is elected to represent people would choose to go to a robotic system to generate amendments to important legislation that would govern hundreds of thousands of people in this country, rather than actually do the heavy lifting themselves to meet with people, to actually sit down in a thoughtful way to write amendments that would strengthen the legislation and ensure that Canadians have jobs into the future.

That was not the only thing. The Conservatives also used every opportunity they possible could to stall debate with amendments they were bringing forward. The amendments were not substantial in any way but were to do only thing: hold up the real debate of legislation and disallow many unionized organizations in this country from having the opportunity to sit before committee and give their testimony, answer questions and give their insight into what the legislation would mean.

When workers are transitioning in any industry, whether it is the fishery, oil and gas, manufacturing or technology industry, there has to be a focus for how that transition would work for it to be successful. There have to be real people, not robots, at the table, who would determine what that looks like going forward: how people would be trained, whether programs are available, and how they could find and secure new job opportunities that would pay them well and sustain their family.

We did not see any of that at our committee from the Conservatives, by the way. In fact, all we saw from them were the attempts to bring in robot-generated amendments to bill. To me, that is not a responsible way to deal with the lives of Canadians. I am sorry, but I just do not see how it would do anything to help people in Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, British Columbia or any of the territories.

It is like phantom policy; that is what they were doing. They were bringing in phantom policies and trying to say they were doing something substantial. All we hear about is what they are going to cut or, the word they like to use, “axe”. They talk about axing taxes. They do not like to talk publicly about the other things they would like to axe, but we see it as they stand to vote against policies in the House of Commons every single day. Policies designed to serve Canadians in times of financial needs, programs like the Canada child benefit, dental, pharmacy and disability benefits and raises for the Canadian Armed Forces members, are all things the Conservatives have voted against. It is no wonder that the Conservatives are not supportive of workers' transitioning in the energy sector in Canada.

When technology came in, when we got computers, we did not get rid of every secretary in every office. They learned how to use the technology. They learned how to grow into the modern-day expectations of the workforce. It is also like when we launch drones in cyberwarfare. The soldiers being trained to use the drones are not the same soldiers being trained for on-the-ground combat. There is a level of transition in every single sector, every single career opportunity that arises, whether it is in the mining sector, the oil and gas sector or the technology sector. There will always be advancements and changes.

Why would someone be against working with Canadian workers to ensure that they have secure employment into the future? It makes absolutely zero sense and has zero logic to me. In fact, all I have seen from the Conservatives on the bill before us has been the fact that they are looking at phantom policies that would do absolutely nothing for workers, and they have been voting down all of the important concepts that would protect workers in the energy sector in Canada.

I live in Newfoundland and Labrador, which is one of the largest areas of oil production and mining production in this country. I can tell the House that producers are transitioning already, with more energy-efficient equipment, by changing out different technologies within their operations, by training workers to use the new technology they are installing to able to become experts in it so they can transfer their skills across a multitude of industry and resource development sectors. Of course Conservatives do not see any of this as being important for Canadians, and that is wrong.

The bill before us would show real accountability and engagement to support Canadians in a low-carbon economy and to seize the opportunities they have available to them. That is the important piece in the legislation. If members support workers in this country, support the unions that represent them and support the resource development sectors, then they will support the legislation.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, is the member not concerned about, or has she not been able to see, the government's internal memo during the discussions and consultations on the concept of the just transition? However, they are not on Bill C-50, because of course no Canadian will be heard on that.

Is she not concerned about the fact the government's own internal memo said that the result of Bill C-50 and the just transition would be the immediate elimination of 170,000 oil and gas jobs and the disruption of the livelihoods of 2.7 million other Canadians in energy, agriculture, manufacturing, construction and transportation? She is saying to me that is not what it would do, but the government's own internal memo says it would. The Liberals know that already. Is she not concerned about that?

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador should be deeply concerned, since it is the province where oil and gas contributes the most to provincial GDP. Atlantic Canadians and Albertans sure are proud of having built each other's provinces together for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, what I do know is that Canadian jobs are going to transition whether we bring in the legislation or not, because that is the way the world is. Bringing forward the legislation would allow more stability and security for the workers. That is what the member is missing.

If we go back to the cod moratorium, the Conservative government of the day did not bring in a transition plan, and thousands of families were left without a way to put food on the table or a job to go to. We are not going to gamble on this in the oil and gas industry; we are going to have a firm energy transition so workers will have those jobs and the skills they need to do the work.

What I can tell the member is that the new transition to a greener economy, whether it is transitioning in mining, oil and gas, or whatever sector, would be creating new, high-paying jobs, and the member knows that.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a bit sad when we debate bills that are in any way related to the fight against climate change. We are always witnessing some sort of battle between the Conservatives and the Liberals to see who does the least to fight climate change in this country. It makes absolutely no sense.

I can hear my colleague bragging a bit about her government and how well things are going. However, Canada is the worst country in the G20 when it comes to average greenhouse gas emissions per capita. The Liberals have been in power for eight years. We are the only country in the G20 whose greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the Paris Agreement. I did say that they have increased. We are not even talking about stabilizing them. Canada ranks second in the G20 for public investment in fossil fuels. In short, Canada is a disaster for the environment.

Is my colleague not a little ashamed of the speech she made here today?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the government's record and what we have done. I am very proud of the fact that we have done more to reduce carbon in this country than anyone else. We have invested more in a clean energy transition. We are looking out for workers while we do that. We have invested more in infrastructure to support clean energy in Canada, and we will continue to do that.

For the record, I want to say to the member opposite that many companies, industries and communities have signed on to the environmental plan and are looking for continued investments to ensure that we have a cleaner environment, a greener economy and more opportunity for Canada in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, of course, we know this is a small step. It is not the biggest step, but it is a good step in the right direction. The United States has made quite big strides, especially in clean tech. Biden's IRA has created about 170,000 jobs in clean tech, yet in the Canadian clean-tech sector, investment tax credits that have been promised for quite some time have still not been delivered.

The credits will be a step in continuing the work we need to do to support jobs in this new industry, as well as the sustainable jobs that we are talking about today. When will the hon. member's government deliver on the promise of those clean-tech investment tax credits?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that, before we came into government, there was not even a line item in terms of investment in clean tech. We created that as a government. It is the focus of our economy.

We can see companies such as Braya fuels converting their refinery to renewable diesel, while companies in Nova Scotia and Quebec are doing so much work around clean energy and transitioning to produce other renewables. In Ontario, we can see massive investments in the entirety of the electric vehicle value chain. We are seeing investments in—