Debates of Sept. 29th, 2023

Questions on the Order Paper

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, in all this debate about the sustainable jobs act, what I have not heard is an explanation from the Liberal-NDP government of a credible plan to replace over 25% of Canada's exports. Petroleum and petroleum products account for over $100 billion, over 25% of Canada's annual exports. These exports are absolutely necessary for the protection of the value of the Canada dollar.

If the sustainable jobs act achieves what it intends to achieve, it would cripple our exports and cripple the Canadian dollar, which would lead to a massive increase in inflation, which we are already dealing with. This massive increase in inflation would necessarily be countered by further radical interest rate hikes from the Bank of Canada. Therefore, can my hon. colleague explain the deep economic consequences of this policy that the government simply does not have a credible plan to deal with?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I touched on this in my remarks earlier, but the hon. member is exactly right, and that is exactly why Canadians can see countries around the world that are 40 years ahead of us on this agenda now rolling back all of those measures. They are doing the very things Conservatives here at home have been asking the current government to do to protect our citizens' cost of living, future opportunities, standard of living and jobs. We have been asking it to control and bring down the cost of living crisis that the government's anti-private-sector, anti-energy, anti-resource-development command-and-control policies have created.

The member touches on a thing that I really find the most important about this debate. It is that the NDP-Liberal government owes these answers to Canadians about how it is going to achieve the targets it set on these timelines. So far, it is causing all economic pain and no environmental gain. That is why Conservatives and Canadians are asking whether it is worth the cost. That is the government's job to answer.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that the member cares deeply for the oil and gas sector. She talks about it quite a bit, and I appreciate her prerogative on that. Even if one does not think there is a future in clean tech and that there is opportunity here, this still gives the opportunity to unlock the potential of new jobs in a clean sector. All one has to do is open their eyes and look around throughout the world. This industry is really in a growth stage right now. Even if one does not necessarily agree that it is the future, why would they not still take a very easy risk on betting that it will be a positive outcome for the Canadian economy?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, we do agree it is the future, which we have said multiple times. We just recognize that the reality that the oil and gas sector in Canada still remains the most abundant, available, affordable source of energy for most Canadians throughout this country and is also the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative energies. What the government wants to do is kill the very sector that leads to the innovation and technology.

The Liberals should answer more questions about how on earth they are going to meet their targets in 2035, when they cannot get critical minerals out of the ground, when they are holding back the ring of fire, when interties do not exist and when there is no grid capacity and no end-user distribution system for Canadians on the back end.

Conservatives are saying, “Answer the questions.” How is this going to get done? When, why and in what way will it get done? Who is paying for it? Then, maybe people could have confidence in their plan. However, we all know they are not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Repentigny.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the energy transition and a fair transition for workers and their families.

For a long time, we have been proposing to change Canada's energy trajectory to make it consistent with the country's commitments and to keep the global increase in temperature below 1.5°C. Those are commitments made by the government and the world. We are proposing to immediately stop the increase in production of fossil fuels and to gradually reduce our total oil and gas production by 2030, not increase it. We are proposing to redirect the money invested in fossil fuels, including generous Liberal subsidies, to developing renewable energy and clean technologies.

We stand in solidarity with workers in the energy sector. Right from the start of the whole Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, we were proposing to abandon the project and redirect those amounts to western Canada's energy transition by investing in solutions for workers and their families. We support collaborative efforts among all stakeholders affected by the transition, including businesses, workers, their representatives and the public. We have always known, recognized and affirmed that the energy transition is a challenge for the economic sectors affected, and that public authorities need to plan this transition for workplaces through engagement, training and other measures to support workers and their families.

In that respect, the Bloc Québécois supports the recommendations for a just transition law coming from environmental groups and labour organizations. They were wise enough to join forces in their demands in favour of this just transition, because they understood that the success of the energy transition and the fight against climate change would depend on the economic and social success of the companies, workers and communities that would be affected by the changes to come. In fact, I recall that at one of the UN conferences on the environment I attended, Antonio Guterres clearly stated that there will be no transition without workers. They are part of the solution. It is simply a question of solidarity. The Bloc Québécois has listened to environmental groups and labour organizations and will support their demands of and recommendations to the government.

We think that just transition legislation should include the following. First, let us call a spade, a spade. This should simply be called the “just transition act”. Then, it should set explicit objectives and principles that are articulated around international commitments on climate, responsibilities to indigenous peoples and obligations with respect to an equitable transition in Canada. This legislation should adopt a collaborative approach that relies on a social dialogue based on equity that respects democratic dialogues already under way in the provinces and territories, especially in Quebec, and respects the democratic choices of that nation, the Quebec nation, and the rights and aspirations of indigenous peoples.

This legislation should set out measures for respecting Canada's objectives and principles when it comes to the just transition, including those related to the climate, indigenous peoples, the need to not leave anyone behind, and groups that deserve equity and suffer inequities related to the degradation of the environment. It is clear that there are people who more or less did not contribute to increasing greenhouse gas emissions whose environment is directly affected by this degradation. Again, I am thinking in particular about indigenous peoples. This legislation, the mandate and mission of organizations created by the government should not in any way exceed the legislative jurisdictions of the federal Parliament. These organizations have to make recommendations to the federal government in areas of federal jurisdiction that can be mobilized in favour of the transition.

This legislation should provide for regional or sectoral planning and reporting requirements along the lines of those established by the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act. This legislation should establish an adequate means of funding by setting up funding agreements with the provinces. Those agreements need to be based on real greenhouse gas reduction targets in order to finance the projects needed for the transition.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑50 is not about a just transition. In fact, the Liberal government does not even dare use the term, which really seems to frighten them. Bill C‑50 proposes creating committees that will make recommendations on workforce training to the minister who will be responsible for implementing the legislation. That is it.

Workforce training, while not the only aspect of the just transition, is certainly part of the discussion. It is a sphere of activity to must be taken into account in planning the transition. If we want to legislate workforce training, then we need to take into consideration the legislative jurisdictions of the different governments and take into consideration the official agreements that already exist between the Government of Canada and the provincial governments. Unfortunately, on this, the government still seems to have completely forgotten Quebec in its process of developing Bill C‑50. Its advisory body, its secretariat for supporting the implementation of the legislation, all of that already exists in Quebec. The federal government has never understood the labour landscape in Quebec.

They developed Bill C‑50 by ignoring the reality in Quebec, and this is not the first time. They developed it by ignoring our laws, our policies, our democratic choices and especially by ignoring agreements between Quebec and Ottawa related to workforce training.

Quebec has been voicing its demands on labour issues for decades now. During the 1990s, discussions between Quebec and Canada on this subject related primarily to repatriating the federal funding for vocational and technical training. It was about righting a certain wrong, specifically the federal government's financial disengagement, which had to be compensated for.

On June 22, 1995, the Quebec National Assembly passed the Act to Foster the Development of Manpower Training. With this legislation, Quebec demonstrated its leadership in workplace training. The Quebec reform laid the foundations for a new model based on partnerships that would make a major contribution to Quebec's economic development. This legislation led to the creation, in 1998, of the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, or CPMT, which is now celebrating its 25th anniversary. The CPMT was created in the wake of the repatriation of active employment measures from the federal government to the Quebec government. This is not new. We are talking about 1997 and 1998.

In 1997, the governments of Quebec and Canada signed the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement in Principle and the Canada-Quebec Labour Market Agreement Implementation. The Commission des partenaires du marché du travail was created a few months later.

What is the CPMT? It is a consensus-building body that helps develop the Quebec government's labour and employment policies and measures. To find innovative solutions and build consensus, the CPMT coordinates Quebec-wide consultation forums in order to resolve specific employment-related issues. The CPMT brings together employer and labour representatives from the education community, community organizations and economic and social departments.

In addition to the CPMT, which covers all of Quebec, there are regional councils of labour market partners. In fact, I sat on the Conseil régional des partenaires du marché du travail de la Montérégie. In addition, there are a number of sectoral committees, which bring together employers and unions in the various industries. It is important to understand that the CPMT and all its organizations are the only ones of their kind in Canada. That is a source of pride in Quebec. The creation of the CPMT and Emploi-Québec is a gesture of national affirmation for us. It is not just a blip on the radar.

It is somewhat disappointing that no one in the federal government thought of this. In the opinion of the officials who presented Bill C‑50 to us, at no point in the process of drafting the bill did the government consider Quebec's specific situation, yet again. This unfortunately speaks volumes about the general mindset of this government, which has so little regard for the sovereignty of the Canadian provinces or for Quebec's distinctiveness that it forgets the agreements it has itself entered into as part of its government action.

That said, the government always has the opportunity to rectify this situation. We need to develop legislation that takes into account the agreements the federal government has signed with the provinces, especially Quebec, which has its own model of partnership and co-operation. The government must introduce an element of asymmetry into the bill to make it compatible with the Canada-Quebec agreements on workforce development. To do so, it must reach an agreement with the Quebec government. In addition, if money is earmarked to support the sustainable jobs action plan that the minister must produce by 2025 and every five years thereafter, Quebec must receive its fair share of that money and it must go through the Quebec government. That is how it is done in other areas.

If the government wants the Bloc Québécois's support in developing legislation that promotes the just transition, then it has to do its homework. In fact, I think that the government needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a bill that actually takes into account Quebec's laws and the existing agreements between the governments of Quebec and Canada. Some may be thinking, “Good luck with that”, but we have every hope that the minister will understand our concern.

I will give an example of a time when, for once in its history, the government understood. In the case of child care, the government understood that Quebec was a pioneer, and it even praised Quebec. The government understood that it must not take any action that would undermine Quebec's network of early child care centres. The government even publicly acknowledged that it was using Quebec's system as a model. I think that the government should do exactly the same thing when it comes to labour. We simply do not understand why the government does not realize that the same logic should apply when it comes to workforce training. That situation definitely needs to be rectified.

While it is going back to the drawing board, the government should also listen to environmental groups and unions, who have specific demands and who were expecting, as we were, a comprehensive just transition law that would be aligned with Canada's climate commitments, not just a law creating committees to talk about workforce training.

Finally, the Bloc Québécois has no choice but to criticize the Liberal government's calculated decision to abandon the concept of a “just transition”, even though the term did not originate here. I think we first started talking about it in the 1980s. The term is enshrined internationally in the Paris Agreement and the COP26 Just Transition Declaration, which Canada is part of. Why is the government afraid of those words?

We believe that the government's decision to use the term “sustainable jobs” and no longer refer to the just transition is in keeping with its approach to energy. If the energy transition does not take place, which is what is happening now, since the government is currently developing oil expansion, then there is no point in talking about a just transition. Jobs in the oil sands may be sustainable in the eyes of the federal government, given that it has basically ensured that they are here to stay by expanding oil projects. That move has even won the approval of the official opposition. Why are the Liberals and NDP afraid of the term “just transition”?

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of the Conservatives playing word games with the Prime Minister's name? Are they afraid of the Premier of Alberta, who said she would fight the idea of a just transition with all the tools available to the Alberta government? Is that what they are afraid of?

We believe that if the federal government wants to take action to support the provinces in planning the energy transition, it must engage in frank and respectful dialogue with all the provinces and propose legislation that reflects the quality of that dialogue.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. After yesterday, when we heard all the Conservatives stand up and say they were against fighting climate change, would she not agree that it is important to continue the fight on the federal side?

That is exactly what my bill aims to do, specifically take action on the federal side. Is it not important to think about workers and ensure sustainable jobs for the net-zero economy of the future?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech this morning and I asked her a question. She spoke about jobs in green technology, clean technology and renewable energy. The principles of a just transition must apply to all of these new jobs, and those principles include sustainable development, respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and the social safety net. We need to respect the principles of this transition.

However, another thing that is important is providing assistance in retraining workers in polluting industries, which should be in decline. This is mostly about them. At all of the conferences of the parties that I participated in and in all of the discussions that I have had with environmental organizations and unions, that was the big issue. Participants said that workers in fossil fuel industries should not have to bear all of the weight of the transition, but there needs to be a transition for that to be an issue.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that the member and I often debate from our opposing world views on the role and necessity of oil and natural gas for Canada and the globe long into the future, but I certainly appreciate her comments on respecting provincial jurisdiction. I know that we share that principle, but the NDP-Liberals think nothing of running roughshod over provincial governments with whom they disagree.

I know I sound like a broken record, but I represent nine indigenous communities in Lakeland, and the truth is that the oil and gas sector and mining are the biggest private sector employers of indigenous Canadians, with wages that are double the national average. There is a concern about setting realistic timelines and allowing those jobs to continue while the private sector continues to be the biggest investor in clean tech and alternative renewable energies. Does she share that concern?

In addition, could the member tell us how the more than $7 million in GDP and the 438 businesses in oil and gas in Quebec will be replaced?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development just finished a study proposed by the Conservatives on clean technologies. During this study, witnesses told us that it is primarily SMEs that create jobs in clean technologies. It is not really the oil companies.

The oil companies use smoke and mirrors when they talk about their carbon capture and storage technology, which is fake news, a fake technique that is not even effective. Maybe it will be effective 10 or 12 years from now. The oil companies are billionaires. I maintain that the Conservatives are primarily pawns of these oil companies, which have billions of dollars but just want to offload the fight against climate change onto the consumer.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we need a just transition that brings workers along. Something I have offered to put forward is a guaranteed livable basic income, which could certainly be paid for if we stopped funding big oil and instead put that money into funding people. I am wondering if the hon. member agrees that we need to start supporting people.

I have said very often that I do not think people love oil and gas, but I think they love feeding their families and paying for their houses, and they like to eat. We need a just transition that brings workers along. I know that climate activists are calling for a guaranteed livable basic income as one way to assist workers in transitioning. Does she agree with that proposal?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying in my speech, fossil fuel workers should not have to carry all the weight of the energy transition themselves. Yes, we are thinking about the workers.

UN Secretary-General Guterres said that the energy transition will not be possible if we do not think about the workers, if they are not on board with us. Even in Alberta, there is an organization called Beyond Oil and Gas, which represents workers from that sector who want an energy transition.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Repentigny, for the quality of her substantive speech, as well as for the quality of her answers. When the Conservative member did not like my colleague's answer, she heckled her throughout. However, my colleague maintained her focus and answered frankly. I take my hat off to her.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Gabriel Ste‑Marie]

Madam Speaker, there she goes again.

The part of my colleague's speech that really stood out to me was when she said how little Ottawa understands the ecosystem of Quebec's labour market and workforce and how they operate. Can she share some more examples of that?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his intervention.

We are studying Bill C‑50 today, but I want to go back to when the Harper government tabled its 2013 budget. The important bit in the 2013 budget was the Canada job grant. That was the centrepiece. Quebec was opposed to it. I remember that, at the time, people in the Conservative government said that we should go and see what was happening in Scandinavia. It was Ms. Maltais, a PQ MNA, who told the government that it did not need to cross the Atlantic, that all it had to do was look at what was happening in Quebec. It was after that that the agreements were respected.

This is not the first time the government has had no sense of what is happening in Quebec. Quebec is a leader in many fields, and we are proud of it. As I said in my speech, Quebec leads the way in terms of day care, employment and, I would add, the environment.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to sincerely congratulate my colleague from Repentigny on the quality of her speech, as well as her ability to remain focused. During part of her speech, she had to put up with three annoying members behind her who would not stop talking. I just wanted to say that I admire how she remained focused on her message.

I am always surprised that this Liberal government, which claims to be a strong advocate for the environment and active in the fight against climate change, continues to support and invest massively in oil companies.

How does my colleague break down and understand the Liberal government's approach to climate change? Does that approach, by any chance, reflect the fact that they are trying to have it both ways, from an electoral perspective? What other reason could they have for continuing to support the oil industry when the planet is falling apart?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Repentigny has just a little over a minute to respond.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have just one minute, but it would take me hours to explain everything that is wrong with the government's approach to fighting climate change.

The former Liberal environment minister, Mrs. McKenna, said that Canada could not be part of such a bad movie. That is not nothing. She said that it did not make sense for Canada to rank second in the world when it comes to expanding oil production.

What I find really too bad is that when government ministers open their mouths all I hear are speeches from oil companies.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. It is a debate that, certainly in respect of the larger issue of climate change, is the most important of our time. We are being called on to try to navigate what is an increasingly challenging, dangerous and expensive climate crisis. This summer was just the latest and most extreme example so far of what failure to take climate change seriously looks like.

I grew up in a house where climate change was an important theme. At one time it was called global warming. NDP MPs were the first to raise the issue of global warming in the House of Commons as far back as the 1980s. This is a debate that many of us in Canada have been wanting to have for a long time. We have been debating climate change in various ways over the last decade or more.

However, I do not think that the quality of the debate has risen to the occasion. That is not to say that particular people in the context of that debate have not done a good job of presenting the kinds of ideas that I think we need in order to be able to adequately tackle the climate, but I think if we take a step back and look at the debate as a whole, it has not served us well. We are not where we need to be.

These are not my words, but I think they are helpful to kind of get a sense of some of the pitfalls in the climate debate. I have heard others say that those pitfalls are encapsulated by the three Ds: denial, delay and despair. There is still no shortage of denial, even in the House of Commons, respecting the real threats that the climate poses to life on planet Earth, and, if things do not get that dire, real threats that are posed to the economy.

This year, we saw some of the worst examples so far of that. It seems to me that, for a number of years now, we have been in the unfortunate position of having to say that we have seen some of the worst examples. If the folks who study these things for a living are to be believed, and I think they should be, we are in for more bad weather events and other things that will have a cost not only in human life, property damage and all the rest but also to the very economy that proponents of denial often say they want to save.

Today's bill is not perfect by any stretch, but it is an important part of putting infrastructure in place to be able to deal with the economic impacts of climate change, and to try to put workers at the centre of that.

Often we will hear from opponents of legislation like this that it is all about shutting down the oil and gas industry, and that it is going to hurt workers and the economy. I want to take a moment to speak to that criticism. I do not think that is true, frankly. There is a lot of the pain that workers in the oil and gas industry have been experiencing. We have seen moments of international pricing of fossil fuels falling.

I remember an important debate early on in the 42nd Parliament, around 2016 or 2017, not long after I was first elected, when the international price of western crude plummeted. It had some very real impacts for workers in Alberta and for workers in the oil and gas sector across the country. That was painful for them and painful for us to watch, and merited a response that was centred on workers and how to support workers at that time.

I want to just take a moment to say that the interests of the oil and gas industry and the interests of oil and gas workers are sometimes aligned, but not always. In fact, over the last couple of years, what we have seen is an increase in extraction. If we listen to Conservatives in particular, that can get lost in the noise. It sounds as if oil and gas companies are being told to shut down and cut production. That is actually not true. There are certainly some of us who think that unlimited and unbridled growth in extraction is a recipe to worsen the climate crisis.

There is a reasonable debate to be had about what an appropriate amount of extraction every year could look like and what would be sustainable, but that is not the debate that we hear from Conservatives.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen a decrease in employment in oil and gas, which is why I think a lot of people who work in oil and gas feel that the sector is in trouble, but if we look at the corporate readouts, the fact is that they are extracting more oil and gas than ever and making more money than ever.

Part of the way that they are doing that is by having very close political allies that they have worked for a long time to capture. This has even reached the point that Suncor recently held off on announcing 1,500 layoffs that it was making in a year where it had just almost doubled its previous year's profits.

In 2022, Suncor made $2.74 billion in profit. Despite having one of their most profitable years ever, almost double the profits from 2021, which itself was a year of record profit, it decided to lay off 1,500 people.

It did not just do that when it suited them. It did it when it suited its political allies in Alberta. It waited until after the Alberta election to announce those layoffs.

It was not that long ago that a story surfaced about Conservative MPs who, on the dime of a right-wing Hungarian think tank and an anti-carbon tax lobby in Canada, flew to the U.K. and were treated to lavish dinners, including $600 of champagne and expensive meals, because they are part of a political and economic club that benefits from the profit-making of the oil and gas industry, which I say, again, does not always mean something that directly benefits workers.

We see a decline in employment even as we see an increase in production and profit in the oil and gas sector. Therefore, I think Canadians should be suspicious of the denial argument, because there is a lot of money in the oil and gas sector and a lot of people who benefit from that.

What New Democrats are concerned to see is that workers in Alberta and across the country continue to have gainful employment, good union jobs, where they can be assured of good workplace safety and health standards when they go to work. They should be able to go to their shift in the morning, come back at the end of the day and be paid well for the work they perform.

The economy is not static. The fact of the matter is that whether Canada seriously recognizes the threat that climate change represents to the planet and to our economy or not, our international allies and economic competitors are recognizing that.

As some in the House will know, I sit on the finance committee. We have heard from a number of people in the private sector who are talking about the incredible economic opportunities that decarbonization represents. There are opportunities in renewable energy and the emerging and growing electric vehicle market.

That is where the puck is going. I would say, of the oil and gas industry, particularly in Alberta, obviously the private sector has played a huge role in that. Obviously a lot of people in the private sector made a lot of money, and obviously a lot of Canadian workers have benefited, over the decades, from that, in terms of stable and well-paying employment. However, that industry was created with some very deliberate public policy and some very large investments.

That is the kind of foresight that a person like Peter Lougheed exhibited. If we took that same wisdom and apply it to today, what it entails is government once again looking at the public policy agenda and putting into place favourable conditions for those markets of the future.

This is not to say that the oil and gas industry is going to disappear overnight. In fact, we have a government right now that is pumping over $30 billion into a pipeline exactly because it does not believe the oil and gas industry is disappearing overnight.

I think that was a poor use of public funds. I think the opportunity cost of investing over $30 billion in a pipeline instead of investing it in the new energy economy will ultimately not serve Canadians well. We could have created a lot of employment and helped position Canada far more competitively in the new energy economy had we spent those public dollars in that economy instead of on a pipeline.

We have a government that is very invested in fossil fuels. It does not matter what the government does for the fossil fuel industry, including saying no to the NDP's calls for an excess profit tax on the oil and gas industry. We have an official opposition that cannot get the Liberals to do that here, although it is something some Conservative governments elsewhere have been willing to agree to.

The fossil fuel industry is alive and well in Canada. It is doing very well for itself. More and more, it is not passing that success on to workers, because the industry is finding ways to do more of that work with fewer workers. We are seeing that the oil and gas industry, including the companies and the shareholders, does not have the same loyalty to the workers that workers have shown to the industry.

New Democrats want to build an industry and have governments and public policy that are there for those workers as those companies find ways of moving, and even as they make money. In time, as the world economy shifts to a lower-carbon future, we need to make sure those workers are not left behind but that they are players with skills that are valued, and that people, not just in Canada but across the world, want to hire them for those skills in order to build out that new energy economy.

The path of denial really gets us nowhere. For too long, Canada, under the Liberals, has been on a path of delay. What does that look like? That looks like big investments in a pipeline, tens of billions of public dollars that, had we started spending five or six years ago, Canada would be in a much more competitive position in relation to our peers in terms of generating good union jobs in the emerging sectors.

I hear Conservatives often complaining about the fact that Canada's productivity growth has not kept up with that of our competitors. Business investment in Canada has been stagnant for a long time now. It is not because corporations have not had access to capital. In fact, many Canadian companies have large capital reserves, and they have seen the corporate tax rate go from 28% or 29% in the year 2000 to just 15% now. While that corporate tax rate was being reduced, the argument being made for it, among others, was that this tax reduction would allow Canadian companies to invest back into the Canadian economy. That is not what they have been doing with the money.

The new energy economy provides an opportunity, in at least two ways, to raise the level of business investment and the level of productivity. It is an opportunity for governments to make investments, for sure. We are starting to see some of that. Thankfully, the Biden administration in the U.S. provided real leadership on that. It was not until it provided that leadership that we saw the Liberals here really get going in a meaningful way on investments in the new energy economy. I think we are late to the table, and that is going to create challenges for Canada.

There is also a lot of private capital that wants to invest in renewables, and Canada has a lot going for it. We need to do it in the right way with indigenous people, instead of railroading them and railroading their rights to land and resources. I think Canada has a lot of offer in terms of natural resources, but we also have amazing workers with some awesome skills who can compete on the international stage. That would be a reason why international investors want to come here, and they do want to come here. However, they want certainty, and that is part of having predictability. We have seen a Conservative government, like the government in Alberta, win an election and then completely throw out plans for meaningful investment in renewables.

Conservatives like to talk a lot about how governments signal to the international community and the effects that can have on the economy. When we have a Conservative government like that run one way and then the day after, tear up major plans for investment in renewables, that says to the international investment community that it cannot put its money in Canada because it does not know what will happen when the political winds change.

In fact, in this case, it was not even a change of government. It was a government that got past the election test and figured that if it does this all now, four years from now when we have another election, maybe people will have forgotten about it. It completely changed course. How does that help Canada tell a credible story to international investors that want certainty and predictability on this front? Canada has been delaying for too long.

We are finally seeing some action from the government, but it is reactive and is in response to the Biden administration in the U.S. making the kinds of generational investments that ought to be made in the new energy economy in order to ensure that the United States has a serious foot in the door in that economy. Canada has to get with the program, but there is more than one way to participate in the new energy economy.

What New Democrats do not want to see is what we are starting to see in oil and gas, where workers are not at the centre of this. They get talked about but do not have a seat at the table, and at the end of day, if wealthy investors and shareholders are able to make extra money by screwing workers, they will do it. We are seeing it in the oil and gas sector. It is not the way we want the renewable sector to be set up.

The sustainable jobs act, which is a product of some of what we forced the Liberals to agree to in the confidence and supply agreement, is an attempt to start building infrastructure so that when we push past the denial and delay, we do not end up with the third “d”, which is despair, and people feeling that after all this, as we build the foundational infrastructure of a new energy economy, there is no real room for workers there and that workers are being pushed into new industries with lower standards for pay and working conditions. The only way to prevent that is to put workers right at the table.

That is not just a defensive manoeuvre for workers to be able to advocate for the wages and working conditions they properly ought to have. It is also an opportunity for Canadians, for public policy-makers and investors to have the wisdom of people who know how to do these jobs at the table. They will then be able to evaluate various specific proposals about building particular things and can ask if they make sense, if they are going to work out and what the challenges involved with them are, and not just the engineering challenges, because there are engineers for that. It will mean having people who are familiar with what it means to commute from Nova Scotia to Alberta to work on a project.

To be able to weigh in on how to get the human resources we need in order to build this new low-carbon infrastructure is a really important part of the story, and I believe that having workers at the table is not just good for workers but good for the projects to help us understand how to staff those projects, particularly in a tight labour market. Although I think this is true generally, they need to know how to do it in way that is genuinely attractive to the kinds of workers who have the talent, skills, education and training that we need in order to make these projects a success.

I talked a bit about what I think is a terrible mistake in Alberta to turn away from building up the renewable energy economy. I think it is a decision that goes against the enterprising spirit of Peter Lougheed back in the 1970s to set up an industry that would serve his province well for decades to come. The clean energy sector's GDP forecast, economists believe, is that it is set to grow by 58% by 2030. They are projecting only 9% growth in fossil fuels. If we want to go where the jobs are and the money is and if we want to take Canada's economy to the places it needs to go to remain competitive and continue providing good livelihoods for Canadian workers, that means investing in the clean energy sector and creating a policy environment that works for the clean energy sector and for workers.

In the United States, we have seen the private sector announce more than $110 billion in new clean energy manufacturing since the Inflation Reduction Act was put into place. That is an incredible amount of investment, and that means an incredible amount of work for American workers. We do not want Canadians to get left out of those opportunities. It does not make sense for Canadians to be left out of those opportunities if the concern is about workers and the future of families. As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre said very wisely earlier, it is not that Canadian workers love the oil and gas sector. What they love is good employment. What they love are fair wages. What they love is to be able to put food on their tables and afford a home.

In the future, going forward, there are going to be a lot of opportunities to do exactly that: put food on the table, afford a good home and have some financial security in clean energy jobs or in what I call the new energy economy. It is a lower-carbon economy—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member will be able to add more during questions and comments. We will not be able to get through all the questions and comments, but we will do the best we can.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Natural Resources has the floor.