Industry Committee on Nov. 17th, 2022

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

I certainly see the viewpoint that you're expressing. However, I do believe this bill would require the minister to conduct a consultation process for companies, projects or initiatives that are already covered by other laws at other levels, thus ensuring that there is a duplication of effort. The intent of this amendment is to avoid that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

Does anyone else wish to comment on CPC‑3?

I gather that there is no.... There doesn't seem to be agreement among the parties on this amendment, so I will probably have this amendment go to a vote. However, if you just bear with me for one minute, we'll just wait.

Mr. Kram has something to add while we're waiting. Go ahead, Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

While we're waiting. I think one of the challenges that the sponsor of this bill has encountered from the beginning is to strike the right balance between being inclusive and not being redundant. I think that this amendment helps to strike that balance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I appreciate your timely intervention, Mr. Kram.

I want to make sure everyone is on the same page. Since there doesn't seem to be consensus on CPC‑3 given Mr. Erskine‑Smith's comment, I think we should proceed with a recorded division.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That brings us to CPC‑4.

I'm looking for a mover.

Go ahead, Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will move the motion. Would you like some explanation of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's entirely up to you.

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

I don't mind doing that.

I think there is a big need to include what's happening right now in the Prairies in terms of what we feel is significant for economic development and jobs at the moment. Obviously, when we talk about “green”, we're not talking about eliminating these jobs and these industries; we're talking about greening these jobs and these industries. When we talk about “traditional energy” in the Prairies, we are talking about Canadian oil. We're talking about natural gas. One of the big parts of this was also adding in the line “to prevent carbon leakage”.

When we talk about certain technologies—obviously, we've heard from other witnesses, and we want to continue to speak about it—that's carbon capture. That's including making sure that we're retrofitting and fitting our piping so that it's, obviously, greener. We're talking about the industries that are employing roughly over 585,000 workers in Canada. In the Prairies, that is significantly where 80% or more of those industries are.

We think it's very important. Including this line in this bill is something we're very adamant about. It does talk about the significance of those industries, but also, of course, this is a green bill, and it talks about that. It has to include those industries and how we're also greening those industries there significantly, first because of the jobs that are there and their importance to the Prairies and to Canada, and second because of the need to work with those industries, have consultations and make sure that we're building that very important part of Canada.

That's why we included this, and we want to make sure it is a big part of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you for explaining your amendment, Mr. Williams, 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 foster “job creation in traditional energy industries in the Prairies”, rather than fostering a zero-emissions economy through retraining.

According to page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, “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 job creation in traditional energy industries is contrary to the principle of the bill.

Accordingly, the amendment is out of order.

If there are no other comments, we will move to the next amendment we have, which is G-4.

I see Mr. Fillmore on G-4.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair.

Because the contents of G-4 are contained in the contents of G-5, we will not move G-4. We are happy to move on to G-5.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. G-4 hasn't been moved, from what I gather, so we're now on to G-5.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I'll speak to that, if it suits the Chair.

This amendment is talking about the notion of economic growth, skills transfer and that kind of thing, so what we would like to do here is replace line 14 on page 2 with the following:

(b) fostering job creation and economic prosperity, as evidenced by supporting outcomes, in regions

We came to this because we heard in testimony some push-back on the notion of retraining, so we landed instead on economic prosperity. If members want, we could include the term “skills transfer”, because that phrase was discussed in testimony in a positive way, as opposed to “retraining”, but we'll start with the way it's written now. That is “fostering job creation and economic prosperity, as evidenced by supporting outcomes, in regions”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

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

I just have a comment about the French version of G‑5. Where it says “de manière à permettre aux ré-”, going by the English, I think it should say “régions”, instead of “ré-”. I think it's just a typo.

[Marie-Hélène Sauvé, Committee Researcher]

I'd like to clarify something, if I may. The amendment seeks to amend lines 14 and 15 on page 2 of the French version of the bill. Line 15 ends with “ré-”. The wording being proposed in the amendment simply reflects the end of the line as currently worded in the French version of the bill.

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

Thank you, Ms. Sauvé.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Over to you, Mr. Kram.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Fillmore, through the chair, I was a bit curious about the phrase “as evidenced by supporting outcomes”. Outcomes of what? Is it of job creation and fostering economic prosperity, or of greening the Prairie economy?

If you could clarify the intent of that clause, I would appreciate it.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

If I may, we heard testimony that said it would be great if there were some kind of nod in the act to metrics and the fact that we want to measure something and observe something that's changing with some positive outcomes.

This was the attempt in that phrasing. That's what's meant by “as evidenced by supporting outcomes, in regions”.

If we wanted to change some wording there to make it a little clearer, that would be great. I think if we were to change it to, for example, “fostering job creation and skills transfer, as evidenced by supporting outcomes, in regions”, that would probably clarify what “supporting outcomes” are. “Job creation” and “skills transfer” are clearly talking about jobs.

If folks have suggestions, I think we're open to improving this language.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

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

Mr. Fillmore, I'm still a little confused, but not about what you thought might clarify it a little more. I don't know what you mean by “supporting outcomes”. Is that proof of success on some specific metric? I don't understand the phrase.

My second question is.... This about the Prairies, but we use the word “regions” in the amendment. Is this contemplating something broader than the Prairies?

Those are two questions I have. I still don't understand “supporting outcomes”. I get “fostering job creation” and the economic transfer of success of training or retraining, or whatever you're getting at. Are you trying to say that it has to be done in such a way that we can prove there are results? Is that what you're trying to get at—and what are “regions”?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I'll take another crack at it.

Let's clear up the “regions” aspect first. I believe that the author of the bill recognizes that the Prairies are a vast place and there are multiple regions. I think we can clarify that by saying “Prairies regions” or “the Prairies”, even. “Prairie regions” might be the right term.

Coming back to the notion of metrics, I think it would clarify matters if we swapped the phrase “economic prosperity” for “skills transfer”. I think the intention of the drafter here was about jobs, so we could say “fostering job creation and skills transfer, as evidenced by increased employment”.

I think anything like that would work well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Monsieur Fillmore, what is the exact wording you're proposing?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It's “fostering job creation and skills transfer, as evidenced by increased employment in Prairie regions.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I see some form of consensus with this subamendment.