Industry Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have one point of clarification on skills transfer.

Through you, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Fillmore, can you please clarify that a bit more? Is “skills transfer” upskilling, training? How would you define “skills transfer”?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It came up in testimony once or twice, but there was some backlash to the notion of retraining. The witness described to us that they felt it was demeaning in some way to workers who have valid skill sets and who don't want or need to be retrained but can repurpose those skills, so we should refer to that as “skills transfer”.

That's all that is. We're softening the language of the original drafting, which was “retraining”, to “skills transfer”.

Does that help?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

I'm sorry. I'm going to clarify this.

Through you, Mr. Chair, instead of “skills training”, we're replacing “training” with “transfer”. Would that be correct?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

That's right. It's the idea that a welder in the oil patch could be a great welder on a solar farm. They already know how to weld.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

My last question would be about “by supporting outcomes”. I agree with “increased employment”.

Was there any talk about increased training? Is there something around the training programs and/or school? I'm trying to think of school programs. I don't think there's a specific word you can put in there, but I love that we're looking at outcomes, so it's great that we have specifics to put in place of “supporting outcomes”.

I'm wondering if there's anything else with the skills transfer that we would put into wording that would essentially mean that we're seeing that outcome, besides just “increased employment”.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

My sense, as someone who's been involved in writing public policy for a very long time, is that we don't want to get too prescriptive in the legislation. Maybe we can leave room in the work that follows among the consultations to determine what the positive outcomes are, but we can give it some general framing and direction here, perhaps in the language that I've provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Fillmore, to be sure that everyone's on board, would you mind repeating one last time the change in language that you're proposing? By the same token, I would ask if you or someone on your team could send the subamendment by writing to the clerk.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Sure.

On the language, we would replace line 14 on page 2 with the following: “fostering job creation and skills transfer, as evidenced by increased employment in Prairie regions.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore. Is it the will of the committee to adopt this amendment to the amendment?

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Shall G‑5 as amended carry?

(Amendment as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

We are now on G‑6.

The floor is yours, Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I beg the forgiveness of committee members who may be getting tired of hearing me speak. This is a quick one, though. This is simply making a change that would improve the drafting of the bill.

This clause refers to building a zero-emissions green economy. What we really want to be building is a net-zero green economy. This is simply adding the word “net” before the words “zero emissions”.

To say it officially, in the English version, we would replace line 16 on page 2 with the following:

them to build a net-zero emissions green economy and

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore. I have a quick question. I think I know the answer, but I want to make sure before I vote on it.

Could you explain what you see as the difference between “net-zero emissions” and “zero-emissions”, which is the way it's written right now?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes, sure. There are lots of ways to get to net zero. There is only one way to get to zero.

To get to zero, you have to stop putting carbon in the atmosphere and stop burning fossil fuels. To get to net zero, you can have transfers, swaps and all kinds of things that still get you, effectively, to net zero, but still allow the very necessary combustion of fossil fuels and other emissions still necessary in industry.

That's a high-level description of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I think that's a worthwhile amendment.

Are there any other further comments?

Shall G‑6 carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That brings us to CPC‑5.

Over to you, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Chair, I think it's probably pretty self-evident. This is adding additional important industries in western Canada to the framework. They may have been overlooked a bit.

This would include include “natural gas, liquefied natural gas, oil drilling and pipeline transportation to ensure that more of Canada's world-leading environmentally and socially responsible oil and gas reaches foreign markets”, which we need to do to reduce carbon around the world.

That's the purpose of adding this to this consultation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you for explaining your amendment, Mr. Perkins, but I need to make you aware of a ruling by the chair.

Bill C-235 would enact the act respecting the building of a green economy in the Prairies. The purpose of the amendment is to prioritize projects in traditional energy industries “to replace higher-emission energy sources produced under lower human rights standards”.

As I mentioned earlier, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770 that “an amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The chair is of the opinion that the amendment would add a requirement to adhere to human rights standards in developing a framework for a green prairie economy, which amounts to a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill.

Accordingly, the amendment is out of order.

That brings us to PV‑1.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I can move it, because I don't think we have anyone from—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just a moment, Mr. Lemire. I need to clarify something.

I know it doesn't seem like it, but I'm new to this as well. This is my first clause-by-clause study.

I've just been told that, when it's a Green Party amendment, it's deemed to have been moved, so we can proceed to the debate.

If you have something to say, the floor is now yours, Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I will simply say that I support this amendment, and I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to comment on the first Green Party amendment, PV‑1?

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We will be opposing this amendment. I do like that nuclear energy has been included in the content section, line (c). We certainly look at net-zero emissions or zero emissions when we look at nuclear energy, especially CANDU, Canadian nuclear energy. It is probably one of the top reasons we can find net-zero emissions, especially when that's combined with a need for energy and power as a whole. When we look across the world, we see that CANDU continues to be the pillar for nuclear energy, not only with the technology that we've had for many decades but also with the new modular nuclear reactor technology that's being developed in Saskatchewan and in the Prairies specifically. Some of that technology is being developed in Ontario—which is, of course, fantastic—and in the Prairies, more importantly, because of the work in Saskatchewan and Saskatoon.

When we've studied this in the science and research committee—and we've had quite a few studies on nuclear technology—every expert talks about two things. Number one is the need for three times as much energy in our grid by 2030, and number two is that nuclear power is the only way that we're going to be able to achieve that with a sort of net emissions base. If we remove nuclear energy from that, every expert has testified that there's no real clean way to add power that goes to people's homes to power them and allows people to heat their homes during the winter, when it can be quite cold, I hear, in the Prairies.

Canada is looking at lowering emissions and providing that technology across the world, and I think our nuclear energy and nuclear modular reactors and our CANDU energy are some things that the European Union is looking at right now. From an innovation and industry perspective, it's also something that we can export, meaning it does increase jobs and GDP and the supportive outcomes.

However, I think the premise of this is very much.... It can be debated. Nuclear is absolutely a green technology because it does remove emissions. When we look across the world at nations like China that are burning coal in their power plants, we see that nuclear technology is the only answer to respond to massive amounts of energy need and to reduce emissions.

On that note, we will be opposing this amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

I have Mr. Kram, Mr. Masse, and then Mr. Perkins.