Debates of Oct. 19th, 2023

Small Business

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through the heights of the pandemic, small businesses in my community, from Big Bliss yoga to Full Circle Foods, did all we asked of them. Now, during Small Business Week, they need more than a selfie. They need more time, before what they thought at first was a grant turns into another loan they will have to repay. The 18 days previously announced is not good enough.

If the government has $30 billion for a pipeline that is only going to accelerate our own extinction, will it not step up for small businesses when they need it the most?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business and to the Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, we understand the struggles that many small business owners had during the pandemic and that many continue to face. That is why we have offered additional flexibilities for small businesses to repay their CEBA loans. They include a full one-year extension on the term loan repayment deadline, more flexibility on refinancing and more time to access loan forgiveness, which is both a balanced and fiscally responsible approach.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for La Pointe‑de‑l'Île is rising on a point of order.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe that if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House recognize that, according to the 2021 census data, the proportion of Quebec residents whose mother tongue is French dropped from 77.1% in 2016 to 74.8% in 2021; the proportion of Quebec residents who primarily speak French at home dropped from 79% in 2016 to 77.5% in 2021; the proportion of francophones in Quebec, according the first official language spoken criterion, dropped from 83.7% in 2016 to 82.2% in 2021; the proportion of francophones in Canada, according to the first official language spoken indicator, dropped from 22.2% in 2016 to 21.4% in 2021; the proportion of Quebec residents who use French most often in the workplace went from 81.9% in 2011 to 79.7% in 2021. The decline of French in Quebec and Canada is real.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston on a point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the Liberal who said no was concerned about the accuracy of the statistics, but it sounds to me like those are accurate statistics. I wonder if the member could try again now that we are confident that they are.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for raising this point, but there was a unanimous consent request and a member clearly said no.

This reminds me of how important it is for all House leaders and whips to coordinate when a request for unanimous consent is made, to ensure that there is in fact unanimous consent. A number of Speakers have already ruled on the matter and offered members some sound advice, namely that when they say there is unanimous consent, they should make sure there really is unanimous consent, because it is important not to waste the House's time.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent motions are circulated among the political parties. However, the parties often neglect to say exactly what they intend to do with them. Naturally, we are entitled to present them in the hope that all the parties will proceed in good faith.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I concur with the sentiment behind that idea. It is very important for all of the parties to work together, behind the scenes, if possible, on unanimous consent requests.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable for the Thursday question. This being my first Thursday question as Speaker, I must say that I am eager to hear it.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit you are putting a little pressure on me to produce a Thursday question that lives up to this House's reputation.

During Oral Questions, there were a lot of questions about Bill C‑56 and comments by government ministers about the Conservative Party's decision to support or oppose it. They urged us to support it. I would note that the government has not put Bill C‑56 on the House's agenda since October 5. I actually have an excellent speech ready about my position on Bill C‑56.

I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government if a discussion of Bill C‑56 is planned for next week's House business so that I can finally deliver my speech.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I congratulate the member for Mégantic—L'Érable on meeting my expectations for my first Thursday question.

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.

I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.

Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At times the issue of decorum inside the chamber is raised, but I have also found that there has been quite a bit of noise outside of the chamber.

For example, as the government House leader was providing a response, clapping was taking place. There seems to be, at times, a constant level of noise. I just want to reinforce the importance of trying to keep it quiet outside of the chamber too.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for raising that issue. In fact, before the hon. member took his feet, I had actually signalled to the Sergeant-at-Arms to ask members outside to keep the conversation low.

Alleged Duplication of Private Member's Bill—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56.

Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading.

In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House.

Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger.

Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act.

It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time.

There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter.

I thank all members for their patience and attention.

Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair would also like to make a statement on the management of Private Members' Business. The consideration of legislative measures involves certain procedural issues of a constitutional nature that impose constraints that the Speaker and the members must address.

As a consequence, every time the order of precedence is replenished, the Chair reviews the bills added to draw the House's attention to those that appear, at first glance, to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. This enables members to rise in a timely manner to present their views on whether these bills require a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the addition of 15 new items to the order of precedence on Wednesday, September 20, two items concern the Chair.

First, Bill C-353, an act to provide for the imposition of restrictive measures against foreign hostage takers and those who practice arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations and to make related amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, standing in the name of the member for Thornhill.

Also: Bill C‑356, an act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other acts, standing in the name of the member for Carleton.

In the Chair's view, these bills may require a royal recommendation. Members who wish to make arguments regarding the need for bills C‑353 and C‑356 to be accompanied by a royal recommendation should do so as early as possible.

I thank all members for their attention.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and Seniors]

Mr. Speaker, before, I talked about the consultations that informed us, and part of the consultations helped us determine that we would come up with the interim sustainable jobs plan, which was released in February. It reflects what we heard from Canadians and includes 10 key initiatives within areas of federal responsibility.

One of those initiatives, which is also in this legislation, is setting up a sustainable jobs secretariat. Creating a secretariat like this is a proven international best practice that was repeatedly recommended to the government. Canada's secretariat would promote policy and program coherence across all the five-year sustainable job action plans that are mentioned in this act and in work related to issues such as skills development, the labour market, workplace rights, developing our economy and reducing emissions. It would ensure that the opinions of workers, industry, provinces and territories, indigenous and historically under-represented groups and others are considered in all work on sustainable jobs across different policies, programs and departments.

The secretariat would also help in preparing and tracking the progress on the action plans, coordinating federal-provincial work related to the plans and providing policy and administrative support to the sustainable jobs partnership council, another initiative from the interim plan.

This legislation commits to establishing the sustainable jobs partnership council, which would provide advice to the government on the best measures to include in the action plans. The partnership council would be made up of sustainable jobs experts and would engage directly with Canadian workers, including those from rural and remote communities. This would ensure that they have a voice in the process. They would also engage with labour groups, indigenous groups, industries, trade associations, employers and different levels of government.

The council members would draw from their personal experience and expertise and give input to us, so we could engage in a process to formulate advice about the concrete measures government could take to support workers, their communities and the low-carbon economy. The partnership council would publish annual reports that include advice for the government, which would also help inform the five-year plans. The interim sustainable jobs plan that was released earlier this year is very important. It is a model for these five-year plans, and I can assure everyone that we are taking great action.

There is a lot to discuss, and I look forward to debate about supporting workers through investments and the union training and innovation program, UTIP, which focuses on sustainable jobs and supports up to 20,000 new apprentices and journeypersons.

We are investing in workers, people and communities across this great country. We are going to get the job done.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak about this flawed bill once again.

The member spoke a fair bit about possible jobs, but nowhere in this bill does it talk about that. He talked about some of the issues and, in particular, one was transitioning. Transitioning from our current energy system is not merely a matter of flipping a switch, which is what the member and this legislation seem to indicate. We cannot just flip a switch to make this happen. We need to make certain that steps are taken.

The people who are doing that hard work and doing those hard jobs today, whether they are coal miners, pipefitters or involved in sequestration, are creating those jobs. These people would not be sitting at the table of this 15-member committee that the government would be forming.

Could the member comment on how we can assure these people are there, not somebody who was signed up to represent them?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this whole sustainable jobs action plan is about workers, as is the legislation before us. It is about engaging labour. It is having workers at the table with us, along with industry, indigenous groups and communities at all different levels.

I had an opportunity to travel across this great country last year and speak with a number of people. I spoke with Russ Shewchuk, vice-president of the IBEW in Saskatchewan. He stated, “Through this legislation, the Government is showing their commitment to protecting good-paying, highly skilled jobs.” That is just one example of many different labour groups that are supporting this legislation.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for giving me another opportunity to speak to Bill C‑50, which I gave a speech about a few days ago.

I would like to ask my Liberal colleague a question. How is it that this bill was drafted without taking into account the existing job training agreements between Ottawa and Quebec?

These agreements have been around for 25 years. How can the government come up with a bill without taking into account Quebec's reality?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were 18 months of consultations with a variety of levels of government, workers, industry representatives and indigenous groups. It was really critical, and it formed the legislation we have put forward here today.

I used to work for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities in Sault Ste. Marie, which is a provincial group. We were funded by the federal government through labour market agreements, which Quebec is funded through as well. I know they are critically important for the skills and training that are needed today.

This legislation is going to go further than that. It would provide a plethora of training and opportunities for the workers of today and tomorrow.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we just saw Danielle Smith chase $33 billion of clean energy investment out of Alberta for ideology. We have seen the Conservatives get up day after day to ridicule investments in the battery plants on Highway 401.

The member represents steelworkers. I represent miners. I do not know anybody who would chase investment away or ridicule a plan that would make sure the workers are at the table. I also do not know anybody who would think that, with what is happening in the United States with the Biden administration and the complete transformation of its economy, we could sit by the side of the road defending a 20th century industry for ideological reasons.

Why does the hon. member think the Conservatives are so dead set against getting our economy into a 21st century mode?