Debates of April 11th, 2024

Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the residents of Kelowna—Lake Country.

This unjust just transition bill is the NDP-Liberal coalition's attack on jobs and Canada's economy. This is important legislation that would drastically affect Canada's economy from coast to coast to coast, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak for my community and hard-working Canadians.

If the NDP-Liberal government truly cares about expanding the alternative energy sector, then it must realize the vast impact this bill would have on every Canadian when prices continue to rise and jobs disappear. It has provided no data, no details and no proof otherwise.

If this legislation passes, it would accelerate the shutdown of Canada's energy sector, which would result in the loss of 170,000 direct jobs and the displacement of up to 450,000 direct and indirect jobs. It would create a significant disruption to the manufacturing, agricultural, transportation, energy and construction sectors, affecting 2.7 million Canadian jobs. These numbers come right from a document from the Liberal government itself. The document also states that these jobs would be replaced by other jobs. However, there is no proof and no plan as to what they are or if they would have the same pay and benefits as people have now.

We know what the government wants, because the government wrote it down. This is an ideological attack on well-paying jobs. When a manufacturing company cannot buy plastic solvents, lubricants, waxes or other products needed because there is a lack of domestic product from Canada, it will have to import. We need to bring home the good jobs that are leaving the country.

Even before this just transition legislation, the government's actions have already caused mass job losses and billions of dollars of investment leaving Canada. We only have to look at the Supreme Court of Canada calling the anti-energy bill, Bill C-69, unconstitutional. How poorly the government thinks through its legislation.

This unjust bill is causing my community and people across the country to worry about whether their small business will close or whether they will have a paycheque and where it will come from. As such, how can the Liberal-NDP coalition say it cares about Canadians?

I remember, not long ago, when many families living in Kelowna—Lake Country had family members commuting to and from Fort Mac on flights. Both the flights and the jobs are gone. I spoke to a mom, who told me she reluctantly had to go back to work because her husband lost his well-paying job in a senior management position in a resource company. She said they reluctantly had to find child care, and she was not able to volunteer at her kids' school anymore, which broke her heart. Even with both of them working, they were making less than he had made in his one former position.

Leaving workers behind and ending responsible and clean Canadian energy jobs will not improve the world environment. It will only result in our allies buying more dirty oil from foreign dictators. Not only is the Liberal-NDP government supporting Canada having to buy energy from other countries, but it is also supporting countries and dictators that have poor environmental standards, concerning human rights issues and a lack of transparency standards. In 2020, Canada imported $11.5 billion worth of crude oil, with Saudi Arabia being the top country we imported from. The Liberal government keeps giving away our energy security. We need to bring it home.

This just transition bill is elitist, anti-energy, anti-worker, anti-private sector and anti-free market. It would cause widespread losses of good jobs, as outlined in a government document: 2.7 million jobs. We cannot afford a higher cost of living, especially because Canadians are already suffering under the Prime Minister's government. After eight years of the Liberal government, Canadians are realizing the Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

Alberta, Canada's largest energy province, has the fear that this just transition bill would dismantle the oil and gas industry. The office of Alberta's energy minister reported that it was not consulted on this. Germany, Japan and Greece all asked for Canada's LNG, yet the Prime Minister turned them down. He said there is no business case. This is absolutely not true.

Business 101 starts with having a need, and the U.S. knows this. In the last five years, it has become one of the largest exporters of LNG. Canada could be supplying our allies around the world rather than having to turn to other countries that do not have the strong environmental, worker rights or human rights standards we do.

Canadians need Canadian energy, and workers are ready to provide it; however, the Prime Minister will not let them. Canada's own energy security is at risk. Canada is at risk of energy poverty. What does the Prime Minister truly think will happen to Canada's economy when one of Canada's main exports is reduced substantially or no longer being exported?

The government is forcing Canada to rely on other countries for energy when we could be self-sufficient, surviving and thriving on our own resources as we find ways to support and expand alternative energy development to make Canada more resilient. We know the radical, career activist Liberal environment minister is all for the just transition. In a shocking move, the minister travelled to Beijing, where there is no carbon tax, to sit as the executive vice-chairman on a body established and controlled by Beijing's Communist Party. The minister should be focused on promoting Canada's energy sector, reducing red tape to ensure that Canada's clean energy, clean LNG, can help countries such as China, which are dependent on coal, to drastically reduce emissions.

At a time when we have had inflation at a 40-year high and continue to have high interest rates, families need the security of a well-paying job. Instead, the NDP-Liberal coalition is guaranteeing the destruction of a powerful paycheque. We are already in an economic crisis, a mental health crisis, an addiction crisis and a housing crisis. Food bank usage is at a record high, and families are struggling to keep food on the table. Like many Conservatives, I will not stand for the Liberals' true goal of shutting down the energy sector and getting to claim positive action from their destruction of Canadian livelihoods and Canada's economy.

Conservatives support the development of Canada's clean energy and support focusing on technological advances. This bill does not mention training or retraining workers for whatever hypothetical jobs the Liberals are alluding to after disrupting 2.7 million jobs. That number is not just about the number of jobs; it is about people and families.

As we are debating this just transition legislation, the Liberal MPs want Canadians not to worry and have them think everything will work out and be just fine, to just trust them on the 2.7 million jobs that will be lost or disrupted. However, Canadians have lost trust in the Liberals.

This is the same government that, through Environment and Climate Change Canada, is implementing single-use plastics prohibition regulations. An up-and-coming Canadian company out of Calgary, Leaf Environmental Products, produces biodegradable, compostable grocery bags. They are banned through the single-use plastics ban, even though they have no plastic in them. They just look like plastic. How ridiculous is that?

Clearly, the government's focus is to bring in legislation and policies that have a nice title but do not consider the ramifications. For the government's just transition plan, the labour minister said at the human resources committee, which I sit on, that he does not like the name “just transition”. This legislation has a new term. It is now called the “sustainable jobs act”, even though a government document states that there will be 2.7 million Canadian jobs affected, creating significant disruption in multiple industries. Today, in debate, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that it should be called the just transition act because globalist groups call it that, and that is what it is. Putting millions of people out of work while providing no information on the size and scale of the supposed new jobs, making Canada less energy secure, and creating red tape and bureaucratic inefficiencies are not things Canadians need right now. Canadians need hope.

We need to bring home powerful paycheques, investment and development.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative caucus has come up with this new regime of research called “AI”. That was well demonstrated at committee. They actually came up with 20,000-plus amendments to the legislation.

Could the member provide her thoughts on the Conservative Party using that new tool to filibuster good legislation that, ultimately, is going to have a positive impact for the people of Canada and our environment?

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of the amendments here that were proposed. With my limited time, I will list a few of them. The amendments proposed were to ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, ensure a strong export-orientated energy, avoid regulatory duplication and unnecessary delays, and achieve a fair and equitable net zero with a strong social consensus. Those are examples of some of the amendments, brought forth by Conservatives, that were voted down.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her remarks and the tone of her speech.

As I mentioned to one of her colleagues earlier today, we appreciate the tone—although we do reserve the right to disagree with the content. We appreciate the tone, especially since it strikes such a sharp contrast with what happened at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. It was a hapless circus until the wee hours of the morning. The Conservatives were shouting over each other on points of order, to the point where the votes that were taken happened without anyone really understanding what was being voted on. The interpreters' ears must have been hurting for an entire day. It was totally disrespectful.

I would like to know if her colleagues' tone in committee was acceptable to her. It is a stark contrast to what we saw from her today as she spoke to us in the House. She was an exemplary model of calm and composure. That should be the norm for debate in the House.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. There are a lot of people who are extremely concerned, so it is really important that we get it right. I can appreciate the work my colleagues did at the committee to bring forth recommendations that make sense. I read a number of them here today that absolutely make sense, and they unfortunately were not voted in favour of.

Committee work is very important. It is where the hard work takes place. Sometimes committees take a lot longer, and sometimes we need to make sure that the voices from our communities are heard. It is really important that committees do the hard work. That committee did sit, and I know the members from the Conservative Party were—

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

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Windsor West.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, when the free trade agreement was signed, Canada's auto sector went from number two in the world to basically 10th or 12th at different points in time. The U.S. has moved forward with the Inflation Reduction Act, through which it is investing billions of dollars over multiple years in battery and electric energy efficiencies for its auto sector.

My concern is with the Conservatives cancelling the projects we have, such as those at the Stellantis project in Windsor, at the Volkswagen plant and others. What is their plan for the auto sector in responding to the United States? They are clearly looking at trying to recapture even more of auto assembly manufacturing for the future, and we need a response to that. What is the Conservative plan? I ask because we are going to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, in Canada we have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the resource sector. One example is in forestry. Canada has not had a softwood lumber agreement since 2015. We have lost a lot of forestry workers.

We are talking about people transitioning into other jobs, and I am listening to the Liberal representatives talk about that. In my riding, a mill closed and was trying to “transition” people into different jobs. I was talking to mill workers who were saying that mill work was what they wanted to do. It is where their love is, and they do not want to be training for another job. We have to hear those voices when we are talking—

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

We have other voices to hear.

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that, in the process of passing legislation, we have consistently seen a certain behaviour pattern from the official opposition. That behaviour is dictated by the leader of the Conservative Party. It really is a destructive force. The Conservatives try to, as much as possible, make the House of Commons a dysfunctional place. We see that.

The member just finished saying how a lot of hard work is done at the committee stage. For this particular legislation, and I asked the member about this in a question, there were 20,000-plus amendments to an 11-page bill.

That is not Conservative hard work at play. That is artificial intelligence, AI, being utilized as a weapon of destruction, if I can put it that way, to try to prevent legislation from passing.

I do not quite understand why the Conservative Party does not recognize that climate change is real. At the end of the day, on the legislation the Conservatives are trying to prevent from passing, they should be talking a little more to Gen Z and Gen X. These are the types of jobs that are going to be there in the future.

Members can take a look at what the legislation actually does. What is wrong with forming a council that would provide advice on policy for the government and, ultimately, a five-year action plan? This is such an important issue. It is about transitioning and being able to see those jobs of the future, in multiples of hundreds of thousands. What is wrong with ensuring that there would be a secretariat there to coordinate?

The Conservative Party will pop in to say something, whether here or in committee. Conservatives will filibuster. They will do whatever they can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting.

I invite members to think of Bill C-49. Bill C-49 was the Atlantic accord legislation. The committee just finished it earlier this afternoon, maybe half an hour ago, or however long it was. Do members know how many days and weeks ago we passed this in the House, and how we had to drag the Conservative Party to get the bill out of second reading? The Conservative Party opposed the legislation. Conservatives oppose it because, at the end of the day, they want to be able to prevent legislation, good, sound legislation, so they come up with all sorts of excuses.

Bill C-49, from my perspective, is a prosperity piece of legislation that would help Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as the province of Nova Scotia. It is mirror legislation for those provinces, which are waiting for Ottawa to ultimately pass this bill so they can get on board with moving forward on renewable energy. It seems this is something that the Conservative Party just does not understand. Conservatives want to be stuck in the past and not recognize the future opportunities for hundreds of thousands of jobs in the renewable energy sector.

It is not just Liberals who are saying this. Bill C-49, which they opposed, involves two premiers, and one of them is a Progressive Conservative premier. I will highlight the fact that I put the word “progressive” ahead of the word “conservative” because, as Brian Mulroney, former prime minister, said, the current Conservative Party has amputated any sense of being progressive from its name.

Former prime minister Joe Clark has said that he never left the Conservative Party, but that the Conservative Party had left him because it had gone so far to the right. Kim Campbell's remarks reinforced what Joe Clark said, and more.

We just cannot trust the Conservative Party when it comes to the important issues of jobs, our environment and being there for Canadians in a very real way. We want an economy that works for everyone and a sense of fairness. We want Gen Z and Gen X to be engaged in a very proactive way. By voting against this legislation, members are not thinking of future generations of workers. The Conservative Party is turning its back on green jobs, and its members are demonstrating that by voting against this legislation and voting against Bill C-49. These are opportunities for us to grow.

Members can take a look at the legislation itself and ask why the Conservative Party of Canada would oppose it. It would create a sustainable jobs partnership council, which is, in essence, what the legislation is primarily there for. The minister would have an advisory group that would help set policy and be there to do some research and support Canadians, all so we would be in a better position to capitalize on renewable energy jobs. What is wrong with that? Why would the Conservatives feel so compelled to not only vote against the legislation, but also propose 20,000 amendments at the committee stage?

When I asked that question, a member said, “Well, I had a few of those amendments”. Let us look at the amendments, which the member actually knew a few of. I can guarantee members that there is not one Conservative who knows all 20,000-plus amendments because the Conservative Party did not come up with them. Rather, it was computerized artificial intelligence that ultimately produced that number of amendments so that the Conservative Party of Canada, in its official opposition role, could prevent this legislation from passing. Why is that? It is because it does not want workers, community members or indigenous communities to be engaged in providing ideas on how we can produce government policy. Why not?

This is not just about these two pieces of legislation. We can take a look at some of the budgetary measures we have to support renewable jobs. I think one of the largest and most significant announcements that was made was on the Volkswagen plant. We are talking about thousands of direct jobs, and even more indirect jobs. It is not just going to be for one area for the country, as a plant of this magnitude is going to require all sorts of materials.

Whether it is legislative measures or budgetary measures, members of the Conservative Party of Canada continues to stand up and want to filibuster to prevent good, sound policy. This is done at a substantial cost, which is the cost of future renewable energy jobs and the substantial cost to our environment. I say shame on them for not recognizing that. At the end of the day, they are there not to oppose and prevent things from passing, but to take policy positions for the betterment of Canadians. I am still waiting to see evidence of that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I made this point earlier to the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, and I just want to reiterate it.

Not to be insulting or disparaging to my Liberal friends but, really and truly, the only thing that encouraged people to support the previous environmental assessment legislation that was brought forward as Bill C-69 was that the Premier of Alberta said it was the anti-pipeline act. I could not vote for it, because it just as easily could have been the pro-pipeline act. It was a pile of discretion untethered from federal jurisdiction, which is why the Supreme Court, in its reference case, said that part of the bill that was the designated project list was unconstitutional. It was not that the federal government did too much for climate or too much for the environment. It did so little, but it was aided by over-reaction from Conservative benches.

I want to plead with my colleague, let us be honest about this bill. It sets up a secretariat that says it might talk about doing something for sustainable jobs. It does not actually help workers. It does not do what was promised in numerous Liberal political platforms. I lament that. If we oversell on each side of the House, the citizens of Canada are left disappointed and without a climate plan.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the leader of the Green Party. Having said that, I disagree with her conclusions.

At the end of the day, when this legislation passes and is ultimately put into place, it would assist the government, whatever political stripe it might be, to be in a better position to not only transition but to generate and create opportunities in a coordinated fashion for future renewable energy jobs. There is absolutely no denying that.

When the consultations are done and there is an effective advisory committee that would bring the evidence to the minister, the minister would be better able to make the decisions that would ultimately provide the types of policy necessary to have a positive impact. When we think of the environment, we need to take a look at it with a 30,000-foot, holistic approach, incorporating legislation such as this, the net-zero legislation, budgetary measures and other policy statements regarding single-use plastics or trees. There are all sorts of initiatives.

If we look at what we have been able to put together, it speaks volumes in terms of future jobs, a future healthier environment and a stronger leadership role for Canada to play in the world in dealing with the climate crisis that we have.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope the member will listen very closely to the question. He is great at political spin.

This bill talks about creating a framework that would leave upwards of 10,000 of my constituents without work. I want him to hear that again, up to 10,000 of my constituents both directly and indirectly depend on our world-class energy sector of oil and gas. There is a growing renewable sector, but we cannot be ignorant of the fact that oil and gas can and will play a significant role in the global economy for decades to come.

I want the member to answer this. What would he say to the close to 10,000 constituents who could see job losses or pay cuts because of a radical environmental agenda that refuses to inject an element of realism into the global energy conversation? What would he say to those 10,000 of my constituents that he wants to put out of work?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that they should not listen to Conservative facts because they are most often misleading. Following that, I would remind the member and others that if they want to talk about job numbers, it took 10 years for Stephen Harper to create just about a million jobs. In eight years, the Liberals have created over two million jobs.

At the end of the day, we have taken budgetary and legislative measures that would ensure there is a higher sense of fairness for Canadians, whether they are generation Z, the middle class as a whole or those who are aspiring to become a part of the middle class. We understand the needs of generation Z and generation X, and we are going to be there with—

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Peterborough—Kawartha, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Emergency Preparedness.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, while it is a privilege to stand in this place and participate in debates, it has become commonplace that we have to deal with bills put forward by the Liberal government that are typically ideologically driven, deeply flawed and divisive in nature.

Yesterday evening the government changed today's agenda and advised the House that we would be debating Bill C-50, dubbed “the Canadian sustainable jobs act”, at report stage today. For those watching, this means that the bill was tabled in the House and then debated at second reading, where it passed and was referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources to be studied and amended, if necessary. It was necessary. More than 200 amendments were put forward.

First, the Liberals understood that their just transition bill needed to be rebranded so they renamed it, a rose by any other name.

This so-called sustainable jobs plan is just a renamed version of the Liberals' just transition plan, a plan mandated by the government to shut down the most productive sector of Canada's economy and a plan that Canadians opposed. It is just the latest attack, in a long line of attacks, on Canada's energy sector. For years, the government and its anti-energy policies and agenda have been driving investment away from Canada in both traditional and alternative energy.

Let us look at some facts. Canada's largest export sector is oil and gas extraction: 18.3%, or $116.8 billion, in 2021. The energy sector provides 10% of Canada’s GDP and pays over $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government every year. In 2021 alone, the energy sector generated $48 billion in taxes and royalties to all levels of government. Of all private sector investment in clean technology, 75% comes from the oil and gas sector. Of Canadian-owned energy companies, 92.9% have fewer than 100 employees, and nearly two-thirds of those have fewer than five. As well, 2.7 million jobs across the energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation and agriculture sectors, for an estimated average of $219 billion in average annual salaries, will face “significant labour market disruptions.”

If the bill passes, it would have a devastating effect on energy sector workers. It is beyond the pale that the government continues to introduce legislation that is divisive and disproportionally impacts certain regions. In my province of Saskatchewan alone, the bill would directly impact over 10,000 jobs and indirectly impact over 130,000 jobs. At a time when Canadians are struggling to put food on their tables, the government is threatening their livelihoods.

The cross-Canada benefits of the oil and gas industry should not be overlooked, and the impact on Canadian workers will be devastating. Staggering job losses were outlined in a memo for the Minister of Natural Resources on their just transition plan: 292,000 jobs in agriculture; 202,000 jobs in the energy sector; 193,000 jobs in manufacturing; 1,400,000 jobs in building; and 642,000 jobs in transportation. This is a grand total of 2,729,000 Canadian jobs, or 13.5% of Canada’s employment.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, life has never been so difficult for Canadians. His inflationary spending and ideologically driven taxes have created a broken economy, where businesses cannot survive and Canadians cannot find jobs. In its recently published labour force survey, Statistics Canada reported that Canada lost 2,200 jobs in March, as Canada's unemployment rate grew to 6.1% and as more Canadians competed for fewer jobs. At a time of high inflation and a cost-of-living crisis, there is no relief from this NDP-Liberal coalition for struggling Canadians, and this is proof of that. There are just more ideologically driven, half-baked ideas to make Canadians poorer.

Instead of capitalizing on Canada’s greatest strength, our natural resources, the government seems intent to smother the oil and gas industry, ensuring it dies a slow death. The destruction of the oil and gas sector will cause significant damage to the economy. Despite the damage caused by the government over the last eight years, the oil and gas sector remains the largest private sector investor in Canada. This will lead to energy poverty for Canadians. As we will continue to need oil and gas for many years to come, we will need to import oil and gas from dictatorships around the world to meet the demands in Canada, driving up prices for Canadians.

We have watched as other countries have attempted to switch to solar or wind-based energy economies prematurely and have had to go back to importing oil, gas and coal because they shut down their other sources of energy when making the switch. The top-down plans of shutting down one of the largest, if not the largest, sectors of the Canadian economy will be a disaster for Canadians and will drive up the cost of everything, compounding the difficulties Canadians already face.

This bill, much like the carbon tax, is misguided. The government’s stated goal is to reduce emissions in Canada, which it asserts will reduce the number of extreme weather events. However, much like the bubble the government lives in here in Ottawa, ignorant of the struggles that Canadians across the country are facing due to its disastrous policies, it also believes that Canada operates in a bubble. It thinks that all we must do is reduce our emissions and the wildfires would disappear; there would be no more floods or any other adverse weather events. This kind of small thinking is why the government continues to put forward short-sighted and ham-fisted legislation that does more damage than good.

Canada can play a primary role on the world stage helping other countries to lower emissions, whether it be through providing new technology or Canadian oil and gas that is produced with fewer emissions and more ethically. Instead of trying to tax Canadians into submission, the government should be capitalizing on our unique circumstances, with our plentiful natural resources and state-of-the-art technology.

While the bill is foolhardy, it is not surprising that it is coming out of the most anti-energy government Canada has ever had. The Liberals are intent on suppressing the natural resources of Canada, one of our greatest strengths, and forcing Canadians out of the energy sector. The government would rather funnel billions of dollars to dictators to fund their authoritarian regimes than employ Canadians in a major sector of our economy with good-paying jobs that will boost the prosperity of our country and help all Canadians. It should be utilizing the brilliance of Canadians and their ingenuity.

Canadians deserve a government that understands the value of the natural resources that Canada has been blessed with and how to utilize them to increase the prosperity of our country and benefit all Canadians. Conservatives know that environmental stewardship must be addressed with realistic, concrete and effective measures. We believe in transformation, not transition; technology, not taxes; led by the private sector, not government. Conservatives will bring home affordable, accessible traditional and alternative energy, accelerate approvals and put Canadian resources, innovation and workers first to ensure Canadian energy security and self-sufficiency.

I, together with my colleagues, cannot support a bill that will put hundreds of thousands of Canadians out of work in the midst of a cost of living crisis the government has created. Canadians can be assured that the next Conservative government will support our energy sector and its workers, who do so much for the Canadian economy.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I am going to bring it back to the points made by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I really feel that there is a significant overreaction. We heard previously, for example, from the member for Kelowna—Lake Country that 2.7 million jobs would be lost. We heard from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot that it would be 10,000 in his specific riding. We heard from the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost. Which is it?

In addition, where is it in this legislation? I see an introduction of guiding principles, creating a sustainable jobs partnership council, publishing action plans, creating a secretariat and then designating responsible and specific ministers. Where exactly are the job losses going to come from?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, certainly my hon. colleague understands math. When we say there will be 10,000 jobs lost in a riding or 100,000 jobs lost in a province, that can translate to almost two million or more across the country.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I take significant offence to the idea that I do not understand math. I take that as a comment on my intelligence, which you previously ruled on.

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

Members are not to make comments such as that. I cannot comment on answers given to questions, but they should not comment on people's abilities.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I have the government's own internal briefing document that outlines—

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

We are not going to debate the issue. It is done. It is taken care of.

[An hon. member]

I am asking for unanimous consent to table the document.

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

Is there consent?