John Barlow

[The Economy, February 23rd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on a question I asked the Minister of Natural Resources.

What we are looking for here is some clarity on the framework of our energy and resource sector to hopefully reinvigorate confidence in our resource sector. We are really looking for our Minister of Natural Resources to step up.

Reports are predicting 185,000 job losses in the energy sector in 2016, with 125,000 in Alberta alone. We are well on our way to that statistic, with 22,000 full-time jobs lost in Alberta in January alone.

Alberta's unemployment rate has reached 7.4%. It is the first time since 1988 that it has been higher than the Canadian average. Predictions show that Alberta's unemployment rate will exceed 8% by the end of 2016. Certainly this is something that is very troubling to Albertans.

The Liberal government seems to have trivialized the importance of the natural resource sector, even though it makes up 20% of Canada's GDP and adds more than $160 billion to our economy on an annual basis. This is certainly not something to trivialize when we look at the job losses in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and across Atlantic Canada.

We heard today from the Prime Minister, as well as from the Minister of Finance, about an influx of $250 million for Alberta. I find that trivial. Albertans do not want a handout. They want to go work, as I am sure most Canadians do. It is quite clear that this is simply a way of appeasing Albertans with their own tax dollars, which is not something we want.

What Albertans are asking from the current Liberal government and the Minister of Natural Resources is a commitment to projects like energy east, commitments that will instill confidence and new enthusiasm in the resource sector, which will help not only Albertans but Canadians across the country.

We have spoken a great deal about what energy east will mean to Alberta, but what I was trying to highlight for the minister is how important this is not only to Alberta but to Canadians. For example, let us look at the hundreds in New Brunswick who have been laid off in Sussex due to the closure of the potash mine. If we were to proceed with energy east, a lot of those unemployed people in New Brunswick would be able to find jobs in the energy sector. That is just one opportunity we would have with energy east.

Instead, the Liberal government has told investors that it would rather support foreign oil imports than support Canadian workers and employers. It believes that the environmental record of Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Russia are better options than Canada's regulatory regime.

Energy east can replace the need to import foreign crude into Quebec and Atlantic Canada with a secure source of Canadian oil. Currently, 630,000 barrels of oil are imported into Quebec and Atlantic Canada each and every day from places like the Middle East and west Africa, places not exactly world renowned for their environmental stewardship.

The minister recently announced interim regulations and indicated that more may be coming, which simply increases uncertainty, instability, and ambiguity in the sector. We are looking for more clarity from the Minister of Natural Resources on the approval process for critical infrastructure, like pipelines, and on whether the current Liberal government will be introducing a carbon tax.

What steps is the minister going to take to create stability and predictability and to encourage investment in Canada's energy sector and show that this is a good place to do business?

Also, if energy east passes the muster of the National Energy Board, if it passes the regulatory regime of the National Energy Board, will the government and the Minister of Natural Resources support energy east?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked briefly in his fantastic speech about how things have changed significantly, and we have heard from our Liberal colleagues across the floor.

This was a campaign promise, something they promised Canadians in the election, that they would pull out the CF-18s. I would argue that things have changed drastically since October 19, with the attacks in Paris and by Boko Haram.

How does my colleague feel that the changes on the global scene make the decision to pull out our CF-18s the wrong decision?

[Labour, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to know that if I were a Liberal member of Parliament I would have no voice, because, apparently, a private member's bill is illegitimate with the current government.

Only a few months ago, each and every one of us in the House was elected by secret ballot, a hallmark of a Canadian democracy. However, the first piece of legislation brought forward by the jobs minister is robbing union members of their democratic right to a secret ballot. Ninety per cent of union members polled support a secret ballot.

Why is the secret ballot good enough to elect members of Parliament, but not good enough—

[Labour, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, piece by piece, the Liberal government is dismantling democracy in Canada. The first piece of legislation brought forward by the jobs minister is a bill to gut accountability and transparency for unions. The Liberal MPs have been arguing in the House that a secret ballot is somehow undemocratic and burdensome red tape.

I would like the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to please explain to the House why she believes a secret ballot is undemocratic.

[Employment, February 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, provinces like Alberta have been hit hard by job losses and, as we have heard today, they are not going to get much help from the Liberal government.

There is absolutely no plan to get Canadians back to work. There is absolutely no support for energy east. What Albertans are asking this Liberal government for is a commitment to energy east, a commitment to improve employment insurance to ensure that Albertans who have lost their jobs can take care of their families and keep their homes.

In our biggest time of need, will the government stand up, support Albertans, and help them get back to work, instead of just saying, “Hey, hang in there”?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I found a couple of things the member said interesting. He had time to thank union leaders, but I did not hear him thank any union members in his riding. It might also be important to speak to them before he supports Bill C-4.

We heard a lot from the member's Liberal colleagues today that for some reason a private member's bill is illegitimate, that it does not really mean anything, that if it does not come from a minister or if it is not a government bill then it really has no weight. I am curious. As a backbencher and a new member of Parliament himself, does he agree with the statement that you have no voice and you will likely not have a private member's bill because your party does not believe in them?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased the member explained a lot of why the Liberals put forward Bill C-4. He clarified a lot of the confusion.

He was pretty clear that accountability and transparency was great as long as it was easy. However, as soon as it was a burden on the CRA or the unions, then there would be pull-back on that. This explains a lot about the Liberals' platform moving forward in the last 100 days.

My colleague talked about how this would help move the economy forward, if we eliminated transparency and accountability, secret ballots, and those kinds of things. Does the member feel that eliminating the democratic process of secret ballots is somehow going to help unions and the government move the economy forward?

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, exactly. This is an opportunity for members of Parliament, no matter where they sit in this House, to speak.

I do not think it should just be ministers who should have an opportunity to bring forward bills. The whole idea is that we are speaking for our residents, our constituents. We have that voice, and we should be able to exercise it.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if he is saying that a secret ballot is bad. A secret ballot is a cornerstone of our democracy, a hallmark. If we look at any level of government, municipal, provincial, or federal, they are elected by secret ballot.

Why would this be the one time that we say it is good for everything else in the Canadian political landscape except for unions, that that is the one spot where we should not allow them to have a secret ballot because for some reason that is undemocratic?

I would like that member to explain to me how he finds secret ballots for unions to be undemocratic.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question.

First, if he had actually listened to anything that was going on today, or maybe last Friday, my comments were that the first piece of legislation brought forward by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour was this bill, which guts accountability and transparency of unions.

I did not say anything about the government. We can get into a discussion about how great it has been in that first 100 days, but we would be here for a long time.

Let us talk about the back door. Is it deplorable to ensure that the members of Parliament have an opportunity to speak their mind, to speak to the issues of their constituents? It was very clear how the party across the aisle felt about that when we brought forward a motion to support energy east: all four of the Liberal Alberta MPs voted against that. That shows on this side of the House that we empower our MPs to speak their minds, but on that side, not so much.