Bill C-1

An Act respecting the administration of oaths of office

[Chief Ouray Crowfoot, Siksika Nation]

[Witness spoke in Siksikai’powahsini]

[English]

I am Chief Ouray Crowfoot from the Siksika First Nation. I'd like to thank the chair and the committee members for providing the opportunity for Siksikaitsitapi, the Blackfoot nation, to speak regarding Bill C-61.

I'd like to thank Kiaayo'toka, Troy Knowlton, as well as Makiinima, Roy Fox, from the Blood Tribe.

We are three distinct nations, but we are one nation similar to the Iroquois Confederacy. As a matter of fact, just a month ago, the Blackfoot Confederacy and the Iroquois Confederacy made some alliances to work together because we have a lot of similarities in our proximity and our populations. We're large confederacies, and we have a lot of commonalities, but that's another story for another day.

The Blackfoot nation, Siksikaitsitapi, supports Bill C-61. This does not mean that we think the bill is perfect, as mentioned by Chief Knowlton. The minister has committed to making further amendments, which we will speak of today.

I want to start, though, by focusing on the critically important and long overdue historical rights recognition contained in Bill C-61. My cousin Sam Crowfoot and my great-great-great-grandfather was Isapo-muxika, Chief Crowfoot, one of the signatories to the Blackfoot treaty. He entered into the treaty with Canada in 1877. Water was clearly fundamental to that treaty.

Canada committed to support Siksika's transition to agriculture and other economic developments on our reserve lands. At that time, the Blackfeet, previous to the treaty, were a buffalo people. We were a nomadic people; we followed the lands. The buffalo all over the lands and our stories tie us to these waters. Our stories tie us to these lands, similar to what was mentioned by the Six Nations and their stories about the water and the lands.

After the treaty of 1877, the transition was that Canada was to create farms for the Blackfeet and other economic opportunities on those lands. Despite this, many times since 1877, we've been told we have no water rights and that the water on our lands and under our feet is not our water and that we have no rights to govern our water.

With Bill C-61, that comes to an end. It has taken over 147 years, but finally Canada is set to recognize our treaty rights to the water on, in and under our lands, and our inherent right to govern the water according to our traditional values. For this reason alone, Siksika supports Bill C-61 with respect to the right of every first nation to their own position on Bill C-61.

Having said that, I need to address the consultation process on the bill. We didn't think it was perfect. Even so, Canada started by asking for our understanding of our treaty water rights. For the first time ever, we had opportunities to review and comment on draft legislation. Although we had to fight hard, Canada responded with critically important changes to the bill. After two years of significant consultation, the recognition of our inherent right of self-government over water was broadened beyond just drinking water infrastructure to all aspects of water. The assurance of sufficient water supplies in clause 15 was also a direct response to the Blackfoot nations.

The committee needs to appreciate that every first nation has had some opportunity to consult on the bill. However, there are still serious issues with the bill. The legislation is supposed to end Canada's shameful legacy of neglect, underfunding and discrimination against first nations' access to safe drinking water, but it falls short. Canada commits to best efforts to ensure first nations have safe drinking water. In light of Canada's century of failure on safe drinking water, first nations must not be asked to accept and trust that Canada's best efforts will be effective.

Many first nations across the country share this concern with Bill C-61. A clear and simple amendment can help address this. In the preamble of the bill, Canada cites the UN resolution, confirming that safe drinking water is a human right. Canada needs to recognize that right in the body of the bill.

Siksikaitsitapi, the Blackfoot nations, are seeking an amendment to clause 3 that would read:

3(3) For greater certainty, it is recognized and affirmed that First Nation peoples have a human right to safe drinking water consistent with United Nations resolution 64/292 (2010) and that pursuant to this Act the human right to safe drinking water means that all First Nation members resident on First Nation lands have a right to drink water that poses no risks to human health or well-being.

When Canada started consultation on Bill C-61 in 2022, it told first nations across Canada that it would affirm and recognize our rights. At least a dozen AFN general assembly resolutions and many resolutions by the Alberta Assembly of Treaty Chiefs have consistently called on Canada to recognize that first nations have a human right to safe drinking water. It should be obvious that in legislation meant to ensure that first nations have safe drinking water, the primary right to be enshrined must be the first nations' right to safe drinking water.

Canada Labour Code

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Conservatives are upset because I was going to reference the Winnipeg strike, actually, and there are pictures of the Winnipeg strike behind me, which actually capture the story even better than the words do. I want to talk about why the strike is so important. Maybe this is why the Conservatives are upset: They do not like it when the power of workers comes together to fight back and defend working people.

What happened in 1919, in the very same time in we find ourselves in right now, which is mid-May to late June, 30,000 workers, basically the entire workforce of Winnipeg, and in a lot of ways all of Manitoba at the time, came together and shut down the city and effectively shut down the province, fighting for fairness for workers. They were protesting the unfair work conditions, the poverty and specifically about issues like collective bargaining.

It is so poignant that I am here in Winnipeg at the Union Centre, having just spoken with representatives of the Manitoba Federation of Labour and its president, Kevin Rebeck, whom I want to thank for all of his hard work. I also want to thank the MFL for all of its hard work.

It is so poignant to be speaking to the bill today in this place, from this spot. I have to say what an honour it is that today our Bill C-58, which we fought for, would ban scabs once and for all at the federal level. It is a historic result of the hard work of New Democrats, and I have to say this would not have happened were it not for New Democrats' forcing the government to do it.

I also have to acknowledge that this would not have happened were it not for labour and for unions that have long led the charge for anti-scab legislation, and I want to thank them. I also have to acknowledge that it is an accomplishment we have achieved that we are debating this right now in the House and that the Manitoba NDP is also going to move forward with it. I want to salute and acknowledge that.

I have to say that it has been a long time coming. New Democrats have been fighting for decades for it to happen. In the past 15 years, New Democrats have tabled anti-scab legislation eight times. That is eight times that our unions, labour and New Democrats have fought for this. The last time it came up for a vote, in 2016, the Liberals and Conservatives teamed up to vote against it. The leader of the Conservatives voted against banning scabs eight times in the past, so it is clear whose side the Conservatives stand on. However, with the supporting guidance of our labour allies, union leaders and activists, we have finally secured this moment.

The legislation is about giving more power to workers. It is about giving power to workers so they can negotiate a fair deal and so we can ban scabs once and for all. Let us talk about what that means. Banning scabs is about giving more power to workers and less power to the big bosses and to CEOs. It is about ensuring that when a worker makes the difficult decision to go on strike, their job is not stolen by scabs. That is what this is about.

Banning scabs at the federal level is unprecedented. As with many things, Quebec was forward-thinking and already legislated this at the provincial level. This federal bill, which was negotiated by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, is inspired by the Quebec legislation, but goes even further.

Many Quebeckers working in federally regulated businesses will now have more power thanks to the NDP. It is not thanks to the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives or the Liberals, but thanks to the NDP. If our party had been in power, the bill would have been even better, but we were forced to work with the Liberals. Throughout these negotiations, the Liberals sided with the big union bosses. We sided with labour and I am proud of the work of my team.

This is an historic moment. Banning replacement workers will give more power to workers and less power to the CEOs. Workers will have more power to negotiate better salaries. During this inflationary period, that is what workers need.

This bill, Bill C-58, is about making sure that workers get the respect they deserve, which is needed now more than ever because we know times are tough. We know that workers are getting gouged by corporate greed, corporate greed at the grocery stores, corporate greed when it comes to corporate landlords jacking up rents and corporate greed in telcos that charge Canadians some of the highest fees in the world for their cellphones and for Internet services.

Workers are fighting back. We are seeing workers organizing across this country. We are seeing it recently in Starbucks and in Amazon. We are seeing it in the public and in the private sectors. Unions are on the front line of fighting inflation because that is what unions do; they fight for working people, and New Democrats do as well. This anti-scab legislation is one additional tool to protect workers from getting ripped off and exploited by big bosses.

However, I want to acknowledge that this is not the only thing New Democrats have fought for, specifically for workers. We have forced the federal government to bring in two additional measures already. We have made it the law of the land in Canada that federally regulated workers will get 10 paid days of sick leave, which was never the law before, and we made that happen. We also forced the Liberal government to bring in a sustainable jobs act, which would ensure that workers have a seat at the table, by law, and that anytime we discuss the future of jobs in our country, we talk about training opportunities for workers that go through unions and that we create good union jobs with good wages as we look towards a net zero economy. That is what we established with the sustainable jobs act, which again, is something that Conservatives tried to fight against every step of the way.

Speaking of fighting every step of the way, I want to be very clear. When I say New Democrats made this happen, it is because we had to force the Liberals, we had to force the Prime Minister, to act. We know that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party voted against anti-scab legislation just a few years ago. Without unions and without the New Democrats, nothing happens; none of this happens. New Democrats had to force the Prime Minister to bring in this legislation after decades, and even after forcing the Liberals to bring it in, they missed the mark. We had to fight to strengthen the legislation for workers with amendments. Earlier this month, we amended the bill to speed up the implementation from 18 months to 12 months. Workers will be protected sooner because of that.

We also made sure that we closed loopholes to prevent any attempts of employers from skirting these laws. As well, we specifically made sure that workers will not be exploited by employers who try to use employees from another workplace, or use students or volunteers as scab workers. This is about ensuring that employees can strike for better wages without their bargaining rights being threatened. Big bosses will have to now show up in good faith to bargain at the bargaining table and to negotiate in a manner of good faith. However, imagine what we could have done if the out-of-touch Liberals were not in the way. Strong anti-scab legislation would already have been in place. Corporate greed and big bosses would be in check.

I also want to talk about the serious risk presented by the leader of the Conservatives. The leader of the Conservatives likes to cosplay that he is there for working people, but we all know that the leader of the Conservatives and the Conservative Party want to wage a war against unions, a war against workers, in direct contrast to what this bill, Bill C-58, is all about. The leader of the Conservative Party would bring back anti-union legislation, as he did when he was in cabinet with the Harper government. He would bring in laws to make it harder for workers to fight for better deals. In 2013, the leader of the Conservative party said, very boldly, “I am the first federal politician to make a dedicated push toward this goal”—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 101 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to the order adopted by the House on February 14, 2024, the committee is meeting in public to begin its study of Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to Corinne’s quest and the protection of children.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. Members using Zoom already know this, so I will not go through the process of how you use Zoom.

All our witnesses are appearing in person for the first panel.

I thank all the witnesses for being here with us today and welcome them.

From the Canadian Teachers’ Federation, we have Ms. Heidi Yetman, president, and Ms. Tesa Fiddler, member of the Advisory Committee on Indigenous Education.

From the Quebec Provincial Association of Teachers, we have Mr. Sébastien Joly, executive director.

Each witness will have five minutes to give their presentation. We will then move on to questions.

We'll begin with the Canadian Teachers' Federation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting back to order.

Welcome to meeting number 135 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference on Monday, March 18, 2024 and motions adopted on Monday, December 11, 2023, the committee is meeting to discuss Bill C‑59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023, and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the members.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbours' microphones are turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of interpreters, I'd like participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

All comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

All virtual witnesses for this meeting have been tested, and the clerk has said that everything is okay.

We have here today with us as an individual, Vivek Dehejia, associate professor of economics and philosophy at Carleton University. Also as an individual, we have Stephanie Woo Dearden, registered psychotherapist, who is with us via video conference. From Electricity Canada, we have vice-president of government relations, Michael Powell. Joining Mr. Powell is Derek Smith, vice-president, corporate tax, Emera Inc. That will be through video conference. From EverWind Fuels, we have Trent Vichie, chief executive officer.

On that, we will start with Mr. Dehejia for opening remarks, please.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, I'm giving my opening remarks now, but I'll answer questions later.

Good morning, everyone.

Dear committee members, thank you for having me this morning so we can look at Bill C‑319 together. It's a relatively simple but vital piece of legislation aimed at improving the financial situation of seniors during really tough economic times.

At the heart of the bill is a two-pronged approach to addressing seniors' needs. First, the bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to eliminate the age discrimination that currently exists in our system. This bill would increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 and older are entitled to by 10%. This will correct a glaring injustice, as, since 2022, only seniors aged 75 and over have been receiving the 10% increase, leaving a large portion of all pensioners in a precarious financial situation.

Second, the bill would raise the exemption for a person's earnings taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500 per year. This means that each recipient aged 65 and older will have an extra $1,500 in their pocket each year. That's significant financial support in an environment where prices are rising exponentially.

Recognizing that this is an urgent issue is crucial. More than 7.25 million Canadian seniors and 1.8 million Quebec seniors benefit from the old age security program. Given that more than 3.7 million Canadians are between the ages of 65 and 74, enhancing the old age security program is imperative. Support meant only for people aged 75 and over helps only 2.8 million people. It is missing the mark by helping a minority of seniors and abandoning the majority of them. We need to take action to support seniors, who have made an important contribution to our society.

The facts speak for themselves. We see seniors spending a disproportionate amount of their income on housing and food, expenses that have gone up significantly. In addition, an alarming number of seniors find themselves in situations where housing absorbs too much of their income, making their daily lives even more difficult.

It's also important to note that poverty among seniors is a worrisome reality. In 2020, 13% of seniors were living in poverty, a rate higher than that of all other age groups. It's our responsibility to ensure that seniors can live with dignity after dedicating their lives to the well-being of our society.

Finally, we must consider the financial cost of this bill. The proposed increase in benefits represents a significant investment, estimated at $16 billion over several years, but we must consider it an investment in our society and in the dignity of seniors.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I will say that Bill C‑319 is a crucial opportunity to correct injustices and support seniors in tough economic times. We can't turn our backs on those who have given so much to our society. Approving this bill signals that we value seniors and are committed to ensuring their well-being in the years to come.

This debate and this battle have been going on for a long time. Long before I entered politics, I knew seniors were in distress. Between 2007 and 2011, I worked as a staffer, and even then I noticed that many of the people in financial distress who came to the office were seniors. After that, I worked in community groups. We talked about abuse and poverty. The message I'm sending now with this bill is that we want to help the seniors who are struggling the most and will not give in to gloomy pessimism.

Seniors who are willing and able can also help address another problem we're facing: the labour shortage. As some of them reminded us, they want to contribute to society and stay in the labour market, but, under the current system, they're penalized if they do so.

My bill would really do two essential things. One, it would allow seniors who are willing and able to keep working, since there are lots of benefits to that, and, two, it would give seniors a little extra help from their old age security pension.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

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

Sure. Thanks, Chair.

You're right, I was getting a little bit off topic there.

I'll tell you, it's easy to be passionate about the billions of dollars in economic impact that my people have—the people I'm proud to represent. It's billions of dollars that they have, yet, unfortunately, the Liberals seem to disregard that. They would toss it away for some dream that certainly is more of a dream than any reality, especially when we could be supplying our partners like Ukraine with clean, green Canadian natural resources.

When it comes to Bill C-26 and its relevance here on the Bill C-33 conversation, we have this connection that exists. Why I went down the path of talking about how proud I am of Canada's energy industry is that it's not always recognized how closely connected physical infrastructure and the security associated with that are to the cyber elements of how that works.

I would provide a local example, Chair.

A pipeline company just opened up a new control centre in Hardisty. This example is very relevant to both the physical infrastructure that Bill C-33 represents and the reference that it has to cybersecurity, which is referenced in Bill C-26. There's this close connection that exists. We cannot dismiss that. It goes further when it comes to our rail systems. It's not out of the realm of possibility to see how there's that close connection that exists between the cyber and physical security side of things.

If we don't see Bill C-26 addressing those things appropriately, if it's not responsive to the economic needs, if it doesn't take into account the privacy concerns of Canadians, if it gives too much power to a few individuals in our nation's capital who may not be responsive, or if, likewise, when it comes to Bill C-33 there's not this appropriate delegation of authority that takes into account.... I often refer to the word “tension” or what could be referred to as the Aristotelian mean. We have to find that correct tension or that mean place where we have that balance. I'm fearful that we simply don't get it when it comes to Bill C-26 and some of the elements that we have discussed at length, although most of the clauses have in fact passed.

There's been a change in who is in charge of the public safety file. I won't get into the host of criticisms that have been levelled by Conservatives against the ministers of public safety. They seem to come and go at an alarming rate.

I would, however, like to read from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association when it comes to some of the concerns surrounding Bill C-26. Then I will be happy to cede the floor to my colleagues, who I know have a tremendous amount to add to this conversation as well.

Although this letter is dated September 28, 2022, there's particular relevance to what we're discussing here today. It's written to the former minister and the leaders of the opposition parties, including Ms. May as the parliamentary leader of the Green Party. I think she's now co-leader of the Green Party.

It is titled, “Joint Letter of Concern regarding Bill C-26”, and I'll read it directly into the record, Mr. Chair:

Dear Minister,

We, the undersigned organizations, are writing to express our serious concerns regarding Bill C-26: An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.

In your press release announcing this legislation, you were quoted as stating “In the 21st century, cyber security is national security.” We agree, and we share your goal of helping both the public and private sector better protect themselves against cyber attacks.

Isn't this very agreeable up until this point?

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association goes on to say:

However, in its current form, Bill C-26 is deeply problematic and needs fixing.

I would note—because the stickers on my iPad triggered certain members of this committee, I won't show you—that it's actually bolded. Those previous words are bolded because the CCLA wanted to make sure they were emphasized in the context of this conversation.

It says:

As drafted, it risks undermining our privacy rights, and the principles of accountable governance and judicial due process which are the fabric of Canadian democracy. The legislation needs to be substantively amended to ensure it delivers effective cybersecurity protections while safeguarding these essential democratic principles.

As you know, Bill C-26 grants the government sweeping new powers over vast swathes of the Canadian economy. We believe these powers need to be strictly delimited and accompanied by meaningful safeguards and reporting requirements to ensure Canadians can hold their government and security agencies to account.

Next, this is in bold again, Mr. Chair, and I reference that because it's obvious that the CCLA wanted to ensure that this was emphasized:

Put simply, with great power must come great accountability.

With a view to improving this legislation, we share with you the following specific areas of concern:

Opens the door to new surveillance obligations: Bill C-26 empowers the government to secretly order telecom providers “to do anything or refrain from doing anything.” This opens the door to imposing surveillance obligations on private companies, and to other risks such as weakened encryption standards—something the public has long rejected as inconsistent with our privacy rights.

Termination of essential services: Under Bill C-26, the government can bar a person or company from being able to receive specific services, and bar any company from offering these services to others, by secret government order. This opens the door to Canadian companies or individuals being cut off from essential services without explanation. Bill C-26 fails to set out any explicit regime, such as an independent regulator with robust powers, for dealing with the collateral impacts of government Security Orders.

It goes on to mention that it:

Undermines privacy: Bill C-26 empowers the government to collect broad categories of information from designated operators, within any time and subject to any conditions. This may enable the government to obtain identifiable and de-identified personal information and subsequently distribute it to domestic, and perhaps foreign, organizations.

I would just note, Chair, that when it comes to the de-identified side of things, that's often an excuse that gets used. I know from my role on the ethics committee that we had a study that was undertaken when it was learned that the government had purchased a huge amount of data on movements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although it was claimed to be de-identified, there were massive question marks associated with the amount of data the government received. I know that there was an overwhelming amount of concern that I certainly heard.

A number of people reached out to us when they did not hear back from Liberal members of the committee who didn't echo some of the concerns about how much information was being gathered: things like people knowing that the government could determine when people were going to the grocery store and liquor stores and other things. Certainly, in a free and democratic society, there were concerns about it. It was unclear. Canadians are pretty trusting, but they want to be respected. I talk about that tension or that Aristotelian mean that needs to be found, and I fear that this government has pulled that tension totally out of whack.

However, I digress. I will get back to what the CCLA has to say.

It goes on to say that there are “No guardrails to constrain abuse”.

Bill C-26 lacks mandatory proportionality, privacy, or equity assessments, or other guardrails, to constrain abuse of the new powers it grants the government — powers accompanied by steep fines or even imprisonment for non-compliance. These orders apply both to telecommunications companies, and to a wide range of other federally-regulated companies and agencies designated under the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act.... Prosecutions can be launched in respect of alleged violations of Security Orders which happened up to three years in the past.

I would just note that in a late show that I was a part of yesterday—and I know that my colleague was actually there, too—I was shocked that the parliamentary secretary from Winnipeg North talked in support of a policy that actually sent farmers to prison. Now, I wouldn't want to go off topic here, so I won't get into the conversation around the Wheat Board, but my goodness, how concerning is it that the government would support policies that threw farmers into prison for wanting to sell their grain without the government controlling it? It is unbelievable that that's the point that these Liberals would go to, and that they still support it even after it was very clear that Canadians and farmers wanted the ability to sell their grain without the government controlling them. Truly it was an unbelievable level of control, which was specifically targeted at the west. It's quite something to have heard, and I'm sure my colleague here would agree with me that it was unbelievable to hear that be brought up in conversation in the House of Commons yesterday, that they would prefer to throw farmers in prison than to have a legitimate conversation around the impacts of, in that case, the carbon tax.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think we're now six meetings into my attempt to have the floor so that I can carry out my basic function as a parliamentarian, which is to participate in legislation, legislation that was voted on in the House and passed to our committee, and so, it's a priority for our committee to address the motion.

Being that we've had so much monkey business, people might forget what we were actually discussing. I'm going to read the motion and then explain why we need to address these.

The motion that was brought by the Liberal government for debate by the parties was:

That given 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, and Bill C-49, An Act to amend the Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule:

a) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on Bill C-50, on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday November 8, 2023;

I will stop there. November 8 has passed because of the monkey business that was going on with the Conservatives. The minister who could've come and explained his position was not given that opportunity and I, as an opposition member, was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the minister.

b) That the minister and officials be invited to appear before the committee on C-49 on a date to be determined by the Chair but no later than Wednesday, December 6, 2023;

We haven't crossed that date yet, but it's moving up on us.

c) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-50 by 12 pm on Friday November 3, 2023—

—which we have done as New Democrats—

—and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

d) That members submit their lists of suggested witnesses concerning Bill C-49 by 12 pm on Friday November 10, 2023 and that the Chair, clerk and analysts create witness panels which reflect the representation of the parties on the committee, and, once complete, that the Chair begin scheduling those meetings;

e) That the Chair seek additional meeting times and that meetings be scheduled, if resources available, for up to three hours each;

f) That the Chair issue press releases for C-50 and C-49 inviting written submissions from the public and establishing a deadline for those submissions;

g) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-50 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-50 is scheduled;

h) That the Committee hold at least four meetings with witnesses on C-49 before clause-by-clause consideration for C-49 is scheduled; and

i) That the Chair set deadlines for the submission of proposed amendments for C-50 and C-49 in advance of the beginning of their respective clause-by-clause considerations, but no sooner than after the completion of the respective witness meetings for each, and that the Members of the Committee, as well as Members who are not part of a caucus represented on the Committee, submit to the Clerk all of their proposed amendments to C-50 and C-49 no later than 5 pm on the respective days established by the Chair, in both official languages, and that these be distributed to Members.

That's what we set out to discuss, I believe, six meetings ago.

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

Exactly. He's going to get a chance to learn today how important Canada's energy future is to our generation, to his generation and to the generation that is going to follow after his and how our country is going to work.

It's an important opportunity for us to discuss the division of powers in this country as well, because Bill C-69, as the Supreme Court of Canada clearly ruled, has trampled all over that. That is why there is a priority and a precedence on our side to see that we deal with Bill C-49 first, because it directly quotes and references Bill C-69 no less than 33 times.

It is causing some grief for members on the other side that we keep talking about Bill C-69, but, because they are so incredibly linked together, we continue to hammer home this point. We want to make sure that people understand that, in order for us to properly get the best result for Canadians, we are going to start with Bill C-49, which means that we have to deal with Bill C-69 and, as the amendment that was moved states at the very end in point 2—it's a very simple line that we have at the bottom—we complete consideration of Bill C-49.

What that is doing is ordering Bill C-49 to be first. Deal with Bill C-69, as part of it ties in with Bill C-49, but we are going to complete deliberation on Bill C-49 and, at that point, at the end of the amendment, point number 3 would then be the a), b), c), d), e), f), g), h) and i) that was part of the original motion. It includes the original wording and lettering of the original motion, but it includes direction to have an order prioritizing Bill C-49 in advance. It's a very substantive amendment, and I really appreciate the wording that we have in it here, which we came up with to make sure that it was compliant and in order.

It might be worth going over that one more time. At the start of the motion, point 1 is going to be that first we undertake the study on Bill C-69. It references in the opening dialogue about the need to do Bill C-49. We're already establishing that those two bills are going to be part of the motion.

We're going to say that we first undertake the following study on Bill C-69:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.”, then 2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

That's effectively—if I'm allowed to use the term—killing two birds with one stone here, because, when we deal with Bill C-49, we have to deal with Bill C-69. We have to start with BIll C-69 to make sure that Bill C-49 is compliant with that law that is now in place. It has been largely unconstitutional since its implementation, which the government was warned about back then and continues to be warned about now.

This is why we want to prioritize the order of the bills that we have here in this amendment.

There are a few parts to Mr. Sorbara's motion that are still going to have to be addressed and dealt with, possibly in a subamendment.

Before we get to that, Mr. Chair, I think we need to really discuss the impacts that this will have if we don't deal with Bill C-69.

I have read a little bit about Saskatchewan and their response to the reference case and the importance of that. I'll just remind members that at no point in history has a government ignored a reference case. They've always acted upon it and prioritized it. Let's take Saskatchewan as an example. We hear a lot about the government doing consultations and how they've been very engaging with people. Well, only about 15% of Saskatchewanians have heard of the just transition. I would suspect that if the other 85% knew what was happening and what was going on, people would have a lot of concerns.

In particular, as we have seen and heard, the government's initial attempt at a just transition of coal workers substantively and spectacularly failed. I'll get to that in a bit. People have seen their energy prices already go up. That has already happened. At this point, the shuttering of our coal plants has not fully happened just yet, but we have seen energy prices increase as the government has implemented very strong anti-energy development legislation.

Take the cost of the carbon tax alone, for example, on energy production in Saskatchewan. I've heard workers at the coal station talk about how the carbon tax might put them out of a job far in advance of 2030. This is because of the excessive costs that will be associated with producing power as the power plant is phased out and winds down. That escalating cost gets thrown on top, onto the Crown corporation SaskPower.

Then you have the case of Swift Current, where I live. They buy the power from SaskPower. In a sense, you have a doubling of costs and regulation here that is causing this issue of affordability of energy for folks. We've heard the government's own regulations speak to the fact that the people who will be disproportionately impacted are seniors living on a fixed income and single mothers. That was right in the government's own regulations, and yet they are plowing ahead with this legislation that is problematic and causing massive cost overruns for people.

In fact, we just heard on Friday that the government is going to put a pause on the carbon tax in one area of the country because of the issue of cost, but yet we've constantly been told that people receive more than they pay, so therefore it shouldn't be a problem. Well, clearly it is. This is why people are concerned with Bill C-50, Bill C-49 and Bill C-69. This is why getting to Bill C-69 first will be of the utmost importance to people.

In Saskatchewan the working population is 598,000 people, give or take. There were over 43,000 construction jobs, 32,000 manufacturing jobs, and 25,800 agricultural jobs. In forestry, mining and gas there were 19,700 jobs, in utilities about 8,500, in wholesale and retail trade 98,000, and in transportation and warehousing about 30,000 jobs. The potential just transition job impacts are 10,432 direct jobs and 131,500 indirect jobs. A lot of that can be attributed and traced back to the ripple effect of Bill C-69.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

Of course, right before we broke, I suggested through you, or directly to my colleague, that I would be happy to work with him on it. However, since you want that crystal clarity from me, we would suggest this amendment:

1. First undertake the following study on Bill C-69: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study of the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling that Bill C-69, An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, is unconstitutional; for the purposes of this study, the committee: (a) hold at least 5 meetings, (b) invite the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to appear for one hour each, (c) report its findings and recommendations to the House and, (d) pursuant to Standing Order 109, request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”

That would go after the opening paragraph of my colleague's motion, ending with “have both been referred to committee, that the committee initiate its consideration of both C-50 and C-49 with the following schedule”. It would then say “(a)” with what I just outlined, and the next one would be:

2. Complete its consideration of Bill C-49.

After that, it would be 3, and thereafter it could flow.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Berrigan, I'll turn again to you and the CFA.

How important is a tool such as Bill C-275 in helping to ensure the biosecurity and the protection of our food supply on Canadian farms? How important is it to see this go through third reading and royal assent? We're close, but we're not there yet.

How important a tool is this?

Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives across the way talk about listening. I appreciate the comments the member has put forward, but I want to focus on giving a comment that she can respond to.

When we look at the support for this legislation, Premier Andrew Furey has said, “Newfoundland and Labrador is perfectly positioned in a green energy transition. Part of that transition requires offshore wind so our province can become a world leader in green hydrogen. We continue to support the Government of Canada on Bill C-49 and urge other federal parties to do the same.”

We can talk about one province affected by this, and in fact, all of Atlantic Canada. There is a very powerful message here. If one supports the Atlantic region and potential economic and opportunities in the future, why would the Conservatives not support legislation of this nature?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are now, members, at amendment CPC-9.

I do have a chair's ruling.

MP Lawrence, I have a ruling here I have to read. Bill C-47 amends several acts, including the Excise Act, 2001, to add inflationary adjustment clauses. The amendment seeks to establish new amounts of fines for alcohol offences in relation to sections 73, 74 and 90 of the act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, states on page 770:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, this addition is a new concept that is beyond the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading; therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Charles Vincent]

I'll try again to get a more defined answer from that standpoint.

There are multiple tools that are used in these investment periods. You mentioned the strategic innovation fund. The government negotiates with companies around the strategic innovation fund in those situations. The Investment Canada Act and the process around the Investment Canada Act is separate and apart from that, because some strategic innovation fund investments are relevant and fall within the Investment Canada Act purview, and others are not.

With respect to Bill C-34, those are the pieces we're.... You mentioned intellectual property. I think that's an important element.

With respect to intellectual property, there are a couple of provisions that I think are particularly important, because we've heard from various stakeholders about the risk associated with intellectual property and the degree to which we may invest in those areas and the degree to which we are able to control those.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

With that, committee members, I will adjourn the meeting until Friday, when we'll resume the clause-by-clause review of Bill C-35. Thank you for your participation this afternoon.

To the departmental staff, thank you for coming and for answering the questions that were directed to you by committee members.

Thank you all. The meeting is adjourned.

[Pierre Leblanc]

Thank you very much for the questions.

I think they will make RDSPs more accessible for an important group of people. If you look at RDSPs for adults who are eligible for the disability tax credit, typically the individual is the holder of the plan; but, in some cases where the individual, because of their disability where their ability to enter into an RDSP contract isn't out, the question is who can be the plan holder. Absent this measure, because property comes under provincial law, it would require guardianship. Guardianship is something that can be a time-intensive process. It can also reduce the individual's autonomy in important ways.

This measure was first introduced in 2012 and has been extended a couple of times. What Bill C‑47 proposes to do is to extend it one more time. It allows in those cases what's called a “qualifying family member” to be the plan holder. The measure does two things. First, the qualifying plan holder measure would expire at the end of 2023. The bill proposes to extend those three years, until the end of 2026. The second thing it does is that, currently under the current provision, it's either parents or a spouse who can be a qualifying family member, and this proposes to add siblings. It proposes to add brothers and sisters to the list. Those are the two main changes.