Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2024

Environment and Sustainable Development

[An hon. member]

That's awkward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It is a bit awkward, but it is true.

Madam Speaker, the story continues, “If the leader invents a new slogan, 'we know we'll have to use it'”. Remember, these are Conservatives who are saying this. Allow me to express some freedom on their behalf. “If you repeat the slogans, you get rewarded”, according to the story. That is where we get the gold star thing. We all know how many times they stand up to repeat the same slogans, the bumper sticker slogans. They get a gold star for that. If they talk to the member for Kingston and the Islands, for example, they get a star taken away from them. That is the way it is.

The real tragedy is, and we are talking about the leader of the Conservative Party and what Conservatives are saying about their own leader, which is, “He's the one who decides everything. His main adviser is himself.... The people around him are only there to realize the leader's vision.”

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

I need to interrupt the hon. member.

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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly being entertained by the member's theatrics, and he is very good, but he is completely off topic. I wonder if the Speaker could steer him back around.

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

That is a matter of debate and opinion.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I just want to make sure the member for Provencher received approval from his leader before raising that point of order.

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

The member knows that is definitely not a point of order.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member for Kingston and the Islands is one of the 24 who signed the letter.

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

The hon. member knows that is not a point of order. I am not going to entertain more points of order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we can see how sensitive Conservatives are on the issue, but it is true. If they would like, they could come on over, and I could share the story with them, but they would lose a gold star. Otherwise, they could just do a Google search. It was in the national media just last week. Having said that, I do not want to get too carried away with the degree to which the leader of the official opposition likes to dominate, in a very real and tangible sense, within his Conservative caucus.

At this point in time, I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The motion is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find interesting that the parliamentary secretary seems to be fantasizing about the fact that Conservatives actually like their leader, while that is certainly not the case for many within the Liberal Party and its leader, the current Prime Minister.

Quite recently, it was reported that the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek had some issue with the recent proposed tax trick. Since the parliamentary secretary spent so much time in his speech talking about control, I would ask if, first of all, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek is okay, because we certainly have not seen him since he shared some criticism about the Liberal government over the proposed $250 giveaway. He tweeted, “It's incomprehensible to me that our government can create an affordability package that leaves out some of our most vulnerable in society. On Sat evening I advised the govt that I cannot support an affordability package that does not include support for seniors & people with disabilities.”

It certainly seems that, when it comes to control, it is the Prime Minister who does not have it. He certainly does not the support of his own caucus, and maybe it is time for an election so Canadians can pick who actually runs the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure we are ready for a little dictator yet.

Let me read a quote from the same story: “Seventeen Conservative MPs who pleaded with the government to ensure that cities in their ridings received their share of a federal housing fund were publicly rebuffed by the leader's office.” It goes on to say, “If you stray too far from the message, you get told pretty quickly”. I am sure members opposite know there are individuals within the leader's office watching what they are doing, and saying, “If you are not holding the line, you are in trouble.” That is what the leader of the Conservative Party—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Terrebonne.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the debate back to the report we are considering. I think it is funny that the committee's main witness was Mr. Noseworthy, the assistant deputy minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. Coincidentally, he appeared before our committee just last week. He was the one sitting in on all the Sustainable Development Technology Canada board meetings. He was their representative. He was the government's eyes and ears. This gentleman was right there at the table with the board. He did not witness just one, or five, or 20 conflicts of interest. No, 90 conflicts of interest came up on his watch, and yet he said nothing and did nothing. When will the government start cleaning up its departments?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what we should be concerned about are the tactics being used by the Conservative Party in trying to take control of standing committees by passing motions in the House that dictate the type of agenda they should have. It is a very serious issue. It is a good example of the way the leader of the Conservative Party likes to have absolute and total control of everything that takes place in Parliament, whether on the floor of the House of Commons or in standing committees. More and more concurrence reports are being sent back to committee, with the Conservatives saying what they want the standing committee to vote on. Then they look for other opposition parties to come onside and say they cannot necessarily disagree, so they send it back to the standing committee.

Whatever happened to the ability of standing committees to determine what they would like to study and not have report after report sent back to them because the leader of the Conservative Party has a self-interested political agenda?

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member's speech was kind of all over the place, but at the heart of it, we are supposed to be debating technological solutions to the climate crisis. One of the favourite solutions the Conservatives and Liberals like to put forward is carbon capture, utilization and storage, CCUS, despite the fact that long-term data from the United States and statements from the IPCC say this does not work and is the most inefficient, expensive way to tackle the climate crisis. The government still considers it a climate-friendly solution and proposes billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies that make billions of dollars in profits and should be paying for these solutions themselves.

I am wondering how the member can defend that policy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are interim and long-term solutions that need to be brought to play, and this is one of them. At the end of the day, my concern, as I responded to the Bloc's question, is that we do not fall prey to what the leader of the Conservative Party wants us to do, which is, I would suggest, to disrespect the potential that our standing committees have by, not once or twice but on numerous occasions, trying to dictate what they should be saying by trying to amplify an issue in the House and then sending it back to committee.

All of us, minus a number of Conservatives, I would suggest, are concerned about the environment. A lot of us would love to be able to talk about it, but I would also like to deal with the government's legislative agenda, private members' bills and so forth. Those are critically important. Many important issues are not being debated because of the filibuster by the Conservatives.

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

Madam Speaker, I took in with great interest the article the member read from the CBC, in particular when he quoted what Conservatives had to say about how they are subject to always echoing the leader's comments and slogans. It makes a lot of sense because when we are in the chamber, we hear those slogans over and over again. Now we learn that when Conservatives go to caucus meetings on Wednesday, they are celebrated. Those who have done it the most are recognized and probably paraded around the room for everyone to acknowledge.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give his thoughts on how disturbing it is to see so many people blindly follow one individual.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is fairly accurate, except maybe a little exaggerated in terms of parading around the room. However, he is right on; they are actually rewarded. They come into the chamber, they have about a dozen slogans and bumper stickers, they have their favourite four, and we see them. No matter what is being debated, they will say the slogans because they have someone in the back room, that person in the background, with one, two, three stars, oh, four stars. If they talk to us, then minus a star. They are actually evaluated in terms of their performance inside the chamber and, sadly, outside the chamber. They have to be good for the leader.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member was talking about being held back and people having influence. However, the government and the Prime Minister actually put a gag order on every Liberal MP in the House, and that is what he should be absolutely shocked about. On the net-zero accelerator, for $8 billion of taxpayers' money that was supposed to be spent on reducing emissions, they put a gag order on every MP in the House. The Prime Minister did that. Why?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would question that. I have had the opportunity to speak inside the House on several occasions. I can tell members that, with the possible exception of a point of order where I have to read a detailed thing, I have never been provided speeches. I am not told, “Here, go read this in the chamber.” These are my thoughts and they are generated through my experience and observations of opposition members and listening to what others have to say.

We very much have an open concept in our caucus, unlike the Conservatives, apparently, which is very much a closed thing. Everyone is obligated to follow the leader, literally follow the leader, and if they do not do that, they are in a lot of trouble. I say that maybe with a little bit of sarcasm, but it is not just me saying it; Conservative MPs are also saying it and that is really what really takes the cake.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. I should note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière.

I will take a completely different angle from this morning's discussion, but I will stick to the report. I will be examining it from the labour point of view, which is not surprising since I was once a union president. I will be talking about Quebec, naturally. Again, I do not think that will come as a surprise to anyone.

Let us talk about employment. When the committee report discusses switching from one technology to another, it talks about a just transition. This phrase is recognized the world over, except here in Canada. The legislation that was passed in the spring is called the “Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act”. However, the internationally recognized phrase is “just transition”, so that is what we should really be focusing on. What is a just transition? It is a concept rooted in social justice, the idea being that the transition needs to be just to ensure that workers affected by the necessary shift away from oil and gas will not have to bear the full brunt of this transition. They must receive all the help they need to train for new jobs in other sectors.

The report has this to say:

Information provided by NRCan indicated that there were approximately 210,000 direct jobs in the clean tech sector in Canada in 2020, and that these jobs paid an average of $80,834, which was higher than the Canadian economy-wide average annual salary of $68,678...

This shows that the sustainable employment sector is not insignificant.

...however, women in the clean tech sector in 2020 earned 82% of what men earned.

There is still work to be done.

By comparison, there were 178,500 jobs in the oil and gas sector in that year.... In order for Canadian workers to take full advantage of clean technology opportunities, and to ensure there are enough skilled workers available to implement clean technologies, witnesses from a variety of sectors emphasized the need for technical training and applied research through colleges and polytechnics.

For example, Daniel Breton, one of the witnesses we heard from in committee, reminded us that:

We need to make that transition for workers who work in industries in decline to come and work in the electric mobility sector....

With respect to that topic in particular, the conclusion of the report states:

[Particular emphasis should be placed on the] need for support in the later phases of technology development: demonstration, early adoption, and commercialization. Better support during these later phases should help promising innovations bridge the gap between research and development and market success. It was made clear that Canadian clean tech growth stands to benefit the economy and workers through the creation of well-paying skilled jobs, including some to which workers in declining industries could transition.

They need support. Let us talk about our neighbour to the south. When asked about the Trump administration's intentions with regard to developing the clean technology sector, executives from Quebec's renewable energy sector stated that the economic spinoffs that the clean energy sector generates for the U.S. economy are far too significant for Trump to risk jeopardizing them. According to the head of Boralex, the Trump administration would be at risk of losing factories, jobs, and tax and export revenues if it scraps the Inflation Reduction Act. As a result, Trump's election is unlikely to impede the growth of the clean energy sector, so we should not let ourselves get too carried away.

However, I must emphasize that the people who are affected must also have a say in decisions that will have a bearing on their future. In Quebec, social licence is key, and the Alliance de l'énergie de l'Est is an example of this. Two of the alliance's new projects, totalling nearly 500 megawatts, were approved by Hydro-Québec in late January. The alliance represents 209 communities from the Montmagny RCM to the Magdalen Islands. It emphasizes social licence and maximizing economic spinoffs. As for Quebec jobs, the Commission des partenaires du marché du travail, a board of labour market partners that was created over 20 years ago, prioritizes balance and worker participation. There are committees in every region that help identify needs. There are committees where employers, worker representatives and organizations in this field collaborate with the Quebec departments of labour and education. Is this not a fine example?

We need skilled workers, yes, but training them is Quebec's role. This brings me to recommendation 16: “That the Government of Canada collaborate with provinces and territories to invest more in skills training, including skills upgrading and requalification programs”. We have certain reservations about this recommendation, namely whether it can be implemented while respecting jurisdictional boundaries and the cutting-edge initiatives Quebec has already rolled out.

Let us consider a non-Quebec example. One tangible risk for investment in the clean energy sector is Alberta's moratorium on renewable energy. From Canada's standpoint, Alberta's seven-month moratorium on renewable energy projects and the dozens of projects that have been cancelled as a result have discouraged investors in this sector. While Alberta is hitting the brakes on clean energy development, other provinces are forging ahead and developing their renewable energy production capabilities. In Quebec, clean technology development is already well under way. To help Quebec decarbonize, Hydro‑Québec is counting on renewable energy sources to deliver more energy capacity. It plans to add 10,000 megawatts of new wind capacity to its grid by 2035.

As for coordination among different levels of government and recommendation 8, which reads, “That the Government of Canada coordinate energy retrofit programs with provincial programs to facilitate access to Canadians”, Quebec introduced a number of energy efficiency programs years ago, including EcoPerformance, Roulez vert, Technoclimat and Éconologis. In terms of collaboration, there is no problem. Quebec has proven that it is open to coordinating its provincial programs with federal ones, such as the Quebec government's Rénoclimat program and Ottawa's Canada Greener Homes Loan program, both of which deal with energy efficiency retrofits.

In conclusion, in the fight against climate change, we must not put all of our eggs in one basket. Technology is not a magic pill that will solve all our problems. It is just one of several tools that we must use to protect our health and the health of the environment.

[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 really liked everything I heard. There were a lot of good ideas. I agree that technology alone will not solve all our climate change problems. The Conservative Party here in the House has no plan for fighting climate change. Could my colleague suggest a few ideas about how to convince the Conservatives that this is important for our economy, our country and our children?

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my speech, I did try to convince the Conservative Party and the official opposition by providing figures on employment and pay. They are not even my figures, they are the ones that were given to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development during a study proposed by the Conservative Party itself. I hope that, instead of seeing green technologies as something that is good only for a few people, the Conservatives will see that they are good for everyone. It is a good employment sector that is growing, and we need to prioritize it for the sake of our health and the health of the environment, as I said in my conclusion.